Honest broker – Integration and Implementation Insights

Eight ways research institutes enable interdisciplinary research

November 25, 2021November 16, 2021

By Paul Bolger

author_paul-bolger — Paul Bolger (biography)

One of the most substantial structural changes and investments to support interdisciplinarity within universities has been the widespread establishment of research institutes. Many have made the pursuit of interdisciplinary collaboration a central goal in their research mission. Biancani and colleagues (2014) have likened research institutes to a semi-formal organisation occupying a plane between the formal university and informal research teams. Membership of the semi-formal organisation is voluntary and researchers and groups can flexibly come together for short or long periods and depart when no longer needed.

How do these entities establish collaborative communities, and create the conditions necessary for effective interdisciplinary research?

Trust at the science-policy interface

July 27, 2021

By Chris Cvitanovic and Rebecca Shellock

authors_christopher-cvitanovic_rebecca-shellock — 1. Chris Cvitanovic (biography)
2. Rebecca Shellock (biography)

How important is trust at the science-policy interface? How can you build trust when working with decision-makers? And how can trust be repaired after a break-down?

How important is trust when working at the science-policy interface?

Trust is important at 3 levels:

Trust in individuals (eg., an individual researcher and an individual policy-maker), which is important for providing space for open dialogue;
Trust in the research organisation, which focuses on organisational legitimacy and credibility, and acting in a way that is free of bias;
Trust in the process by which knowledge is generated and exchanged.

When are scientists neutral experts or strategic policy makers?

March 2, 2021June 5, 2018

By Karin Ingold

What roles can science and scientific experts adopt in policymaking? One way of examining this is through the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). This framework highlights that policymaking and the negotiations regarding a political issue—such as reform of the health system, or the introduction of an energy tax on fossil fuels—is dominated by advocacy coalitions in opposition. Advocacy coalitions are groups of actors sharing the same opinion about how a policy should be designed and implemented. Each coalition has its own beliefs and ideologies and each wants to see its preferences translated into policies.

Is it legitimate for transdisciplinary research to set out to change society?

November 9, 2021March 15, 2018

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.

Advocate or Honest Broker?

November 30, 2022November 22, 2016

By Gabriele Bammer

To mark the first anniversary of the Integration and Implementation Insights blog, we launch an occasional series of “synthesis blog posts” drawing insights across blog posts on related topics.

What is our social obligation as researchers to see our findings implemented? And how should we do it? When is it appropriate to advocate loudly to drive change? When should we focus on informing decision makers, stepping back ourselves from direct action? How can we know that our research is ‘good enough’ to act on and not compromised by our own values, interests, cognitive biases and blind spots?

Should water scientists be advocates?

August 24, 2022April 14, 2016

By Patricia Gober

Efforts to improve the use of models to support policy and practice on water resources issues have increased awareness of the role of advocacy and public engagement in the modeling process. Hydrologists have much to learn from the recent experience of climate scientists who have discovered that scientific knowledge is not independent of the political context in which it is used but rather is co-produced by scientists and society.

Despite a strong consensus among climate scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” approximately one-third of the USA’s population still does not believe that global temperatures have risen over the past 100 years and does not trust the things that scientists say about the environment.

Should researchers be honest brokers or advocates?

May 25, 2022April 5, 2016

By John Callewaert

When to advocate and when to be an honest broker is a question that deserves serious attention by those working on collaborative and engaged research initiatives. In my role as the Integrated Assessment director at the University of Michigan’s Graham Sustainability Institute I facilitate a wide array of collaborative research efforts. For most of our initiatives we strive to work within an honest broker frame. Following the work of Pielke (2007), the honest broker engages in decision-making by clarifying and sometimes expanding the scope of choice to decision-makers. Our recent analysis of options for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan^[1] (fracking) and outlining sustainability goals for our Ann Arbor campus^[2] are two examples which involved teams of faculty, students, practitioners and decision-makers.

The honest broker approach was particularly important for the project on fracking given the polarized views that can sometimes be associated with this topic.