Dear colleagues,
I would like to draw your attention to the call for abstract for the Eu-SPRI
conference 2025 (Dortmund, 11-13 June), which is open until January 31st: Call
for Papers - EU-SPRI 2025
Please consider submitting your abstract to topic 28 "Coping with multiple
accountability commitments within transdisciplinary research, policy, and
funding" organised by Sophie van der Does from Radboud University, and me.
Topic 28 - EU-SPRI 2025
We are looking forward to interdisciplinary, qualitative or mixed-methods
approaches and perspectives on questions of accountability in and around
transdisciplinary research. Further information can be found under the link
above or in the abstract below.
Please don't hesitate to get in touch with any questions. We are looking
forward to seeing many of you in Dortmund!
All the best
Anne-Sophie Schaltegger
Doctoral Student | Cultural Studies of Science & Technology Group -
Transdisciplinarity Lab | D-USYS - ETH Zurich, Switzerland |
www.csts.ethz.ch
Transdisciplinary research is increasingly seen as a promising approach to
solving complex societal challenges (OECD, 2020, Felt, 2016). The expectation
is that transdisciplinary research will "address socially relevant issues in a
comprehensive and non-reductionist way" (Pohl, 2011; 618), and is able to
"enable new insight and research initiatives" (Ewel, 2001). By integrating a
diverse set of stakeholders and their knowledge and experiences in the
research process, transdisciplinary research is expected to produce knowledge
that is not only scientifically sound but also 'socially robust' (Maasen,
2006; Lang et al 2012).
The growing interest in transdisciplinary research is partly thanks to the
rise of transformative and mission-driven innovation policies, which emphasize
the need for user involvement, anticipation and social experimentation in
innovation (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). These policies could be seen as part
of a 'growing patchwork' (Irwin, 2006) of institutional innovations in science
governance. Despite these developments, innovation policies are often
perceived by scientists and stakeholders as a linear enterprise. In this
linear model of knowledge production, knowledge creation starts with
governments generously funding basic research, which then leads to
applications, eventually culminating in societal benefits (Macnaghten, 2022).
In particular, the idea that basic research should be performed without
looking at societal impact, still influences scientists and stakeholders
alike, by creating an artificial distinction between basic and applied
research (van Drooge & Spaapen, 2022).
These circumstances place a double imperative on transdisciplinary research in
practice and evaluation (Huutoniemi, 2016; OECD, 2020; Schaltegger &
Vienni-Baptista, under review). By expecting transdisciplinary research to
produce scientific evidence next to resulting in 'socially robust' knowledge
and societal impact, researchers, policy makers and funders alike need to
align societal relevance with scientific excellence (Arnold, 2021;
Bandola-Gill, 2019; Schikowitz, 2017). Consequently, these dual commitments
also need to be negotiated in evaluation of transdisciplinary research
(Derrick & Samuel 2016, Smit & Hessels, 2021).
As a result, a precarious balance between multiple-and often
competing-criteria or accountability demands needs to be maintained in
transdisciplinary settings, both in its practice and its governance (Wehrens
et al., 2013). On the one hand, transdisciplinary research is taken to
increase public scientific accountability by increasing public participation
in problem framing and research (Maasen & Lieven, 2006). On the other hand,
transdisciplinarity is held accountable to produce excellent and
scientifically sound knowledge, an aspect that is still largely measured from
a disciplinary perspective (Henze, 2021; Lyall, 2022). Researchers navigating
these multiple expectations and accountabilities can be caught in
contradicting commitments that hinder them in reaping the full potential
transdisciplinary research bears for societal impact and innovation (Jahn et
al., 2012; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022). However, as transdisciplinary
research is dependent on its institutional frame, these accountabilities
extend beyond the researchers themselves to encompass the surrounding,
governing institutions as well (Lyall, 2022).
Based on these observations, this track will welcome contributions that
explore the following topics:
* The multiple (and contradicting) forms of accountabilities actors face in
conducting, participating in, organizing, governing, funding and evaluating
transdisciplinary research.
* Possibilities for further development of STI policy to account for these
multiple accountabilities involved in transdisciplinary research, to increase
its potential to produce societal impact.
* Theoretical, conceptual or methodological contributions to further the field
of research around the outlined topic.
EASST's Eurograd mailing list -- eurograd-easst.net@lists.easst.net
Archive: https://lists.easst.net/hyperkitty/list/eurograd-easst.net@lists.easst.net/
Edit your delivery settings there using Account dropdown, Mailman settings.
Website: https://easst.net/easst_eurograd/
Meet us on Mastodon: https://assemblag.es/@easst
Or X: https://twitter.com/STSeasst
view formatted text
