Integration and Implementation Insights
A global, comprehensive, living toolkit improving research, education and impact on complex real-world problems
This i2Insights contribution has been retracted.
For an excellent framework on evaluation criteria for transdisciplinary research, see:
Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R. and Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and Assessing Research Quality in a Transdisciplinary Context. Research Evaluation, 25, 1–17. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv025
with an updated and refined version available at: Transdisciplinary-Research-Quality-Assessment-Framework-2.0.pdf.
By Lisa Andrews, Stefania Munaretto, Heleen Mees and Peter Driessen.
What are the challenges in engaging different actors and integrating knowledge across disciplines? What does it mean to do this work ‘well’? What brings about successful engagement, boundary crossing and knowledge integration to enable impact? More specifically, how can transdisciplinary research project actors collaborate to produce outputs and foster societal impact?
The following framework identifies 12 boundary work activities to support transdisciplinary research project actors to collaborate, co-create and integrate knowledge that leads to societal impact across project phases. Here, impact is defined as the desired long-term societal, economic and/or environmental changes agreed upon by the involved transdisciplinary actors based on the problem and scientific knowledge gaps they aim to address, with impact resulting from a chain of events to which the transdisciplinary project has entirely or in part contributed.
By Gabriele Bammer
How can researchers ensure that stakeholder contributions ― whether through consultation, involvement or collaboration ― are properly valued? What steps can researchers take to make stakeholder participation as effective as possible? How can damaging pitfalls be avoided?
Researchers can make the stakeholder engagement process maximally effective by paying attention to the following three aspects:
By Brian Belcher, Rachel Claus, Rachel Davel, Stephanie Jones and Daniela Pinto
What are the characteristics of high-quality transdisciplinary research? As research approaches increasingly cross disciplinary bounds and engage stakeholders in the research process to more effectively address complex problems, traditional academic research assessment criteria are insufficient and may even constrain transdisciplinary research development and use. There is a need for appropriate principles and criteria to guide transdisciplinary research practice and evaluation.
In response to this need, Belcher et al. (2016) developed the Transdisciplinary Research Quality Assessment Framework based on a systematic review of literature that discussed the definition and measurement of research quality for inter- and trans- disciplinary research. Through applied testing in case study evaluations, we have revised and refined the framework to improve its utility.
Principles and Criteria
The tool provides guiding principles and corresponding criteria for transdisciplinary research design and implementation. Four principles comprise the Quality Assessment Framework:
By Louise Shaxson
What sort of research culture underpins effective research impact on policy and practice change?
As part of a research program on inclusive economic growth in low-income countries, we commissioned four case studies to help understand how researchers had engaged with policymakers and practitioners and what happened as a result. We were particularly interested to understand whether specific types of knowledge activity (simply providing the information, translating knowledge, brokering it within the policy environment, or facilitating innovative approaches to engagement) led to different types of impact.
We found no clear links between the type of knowledge activity and type of impact.
By Antonietta Di Giulio and Rico Defila
An unspoken and unchallenged assumption underpinning much discourse about transdisciplinary research is that it must change society.
The assumption goes beyond whether research should contribute to change, or whether research impacts developments in society, or whether research should investigate societal problems and provide solutions, or anything similar – it is that research should actively and intentionally be transformative. This generally goes hand-in-hand with a deep conviction that researchers are entitled to actually change society according to what they believe to be right. For many this conviction allows researchers to impose their interventions and solutions on other societal actors by, if necessary, being manipulative.
By Bev J. Holmes
The co-production or co-creation of research is not new – action based research traditions can lay claim to a long history, but are those of us involved in co-production doing enough to understand what it means?
In their work on public involvement, Antoine Boivin and colleagues (2014) note there is such widespread support for the rhetoric of co-production that we may dismiss (I would add not even acknowledge) the tensions that arise when professionals and lay people work together. Co-production in health research is similar. We need to work harder to say what we mean, mean what we say, and learn as we go.
By Jo Luetjens
In the world of public policy, it is interesting to consider how and why particular policy ideas catch on. What is it that makes some ideas succeed and others fail? By examining the role of policy entrepreneurs we may come closer to an answer. In making policy change happen, what – and who – are policy entrepreneurs? Why are they important? What strategies do they use to effect change? And finally, what are the attributes of a successful policy entrepreneur?
The what
Policy entrepreneurs are energetic people who work with others in and around policymaking venues to promote significant policy change.
By Abby Haynes on behalf of CIPHER (Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research)
When external providers deliver a complex program in an organisation, it is crucial that someone from that organisation—a liaison person—gives ‘insider’ advice and acts as a link between their organisation and the program providers. What are the characteristics to look for in filling that role? And how can liaison people best be supported?
Here we describe what we learnt about the pivotal role of liaison people during the implementation of SPIRIT (Supporting health with Research: an Intervention Trial). SPIRIT was a novel multi-component trial designed to increase individual and organisational capacity to use research in policymaking. Six Sydney-based health policy organisations took part – each nominating a member of their staff to coordinate the implementation of SPIRIT in their organisation. These liaison people turned out to be far more than administrators – they had a profound impact not only on how the program was implemented, but on perceptions, engagement and participation across their organisations.
We provide nine tips for identifying and supporting liaison people.
By Jon Warren and Kayleigh Garthwaite
In 1967 Howard Becker posed the question – to academics – “Whose side are we on?”.
Becker was discussing the question during the time of civil rights, the Vietnam war and widespread social change in the US. He sparked a debate about objectivity and value neutrality which had long featured as part of the social sciences’ methodological foundations and which has implications beyond the social sciences for all academics.
What relevance do these ideas have now, in an era when academics and their research are becoming increasingly commodified? Academics are increasingly pressured by their own institutions and fellow professionals to gain more funding, publish more papers and make more impact. Questions of social justice and professional integrity are at risk of being swamped by these forces allied to unscrupulous careerism.
We argue that the question now is not only who academics serve but also who we write for.