Supporting collaborative research – easier said than done!
by Kirsty Nortje
Research Officer
“The ACDI is a cross-university initiative at UCT that supports collaborative research and training in climate change and development.” One of my responsibilities as a Research Officer at the ACDI is to fill the role of co-ordinator of a collaborative interdisciplinary project, the Climate Knowledge Network (CKN). The CKN was birthed in 2012, with an original group of 23 members, comprising academics across various departments at UCT, those working in both local and provincial government, and various civil society and industry representatives. The group’s initial focus was on exploring climate change issues within the Bergrivier Local Municipality, situated in the greater West Coast District in the Western Cape.
Literature abounds on differences between, and defining features of, inter- and transdisciplinary research, but this is not the focus of this blog post. Rather, the aim is to examine the experiences of the CKN in light of a paper by Lang et al. (2012) entitled “Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice principles and challenges”. The concept of the ‘ideal- typical transdisciplinary research process’ within sustainability science is explored, outlining a conceptual model that separates the transdisciplinary process into three phases: Collaboratively framing the problem and building a collaborative research team (Phase A); co-producing solution-oriented and transferable knowledge through collaborative research (Phase B); and (re-)integrating and applying the produced knowledge in both scientific and societal practice (Phase C)(p. 27). Our network ticks almost all of the boxes in Phase A. We have identified and described a real world problem, common area of focus and enquiry (broadly we aim to focus on the challenges associated with climate change within and around the Bergrivier Municipality) , and built a collaborative research team (a collection of researchers and practitioners from different disciplines interested in – actually passionate about – working together in an interdisciplinary manner). Lang et al. list a number of challenges related to the various phases of collaborative transdisciplinary research, one of which really resonated with me. As the network coordinator, the vast majority of my time is spent scheduling group activities: reading groups, seminars, steering committee meetings, network meetings, student research planning meetings, to name but a few. Surely it’s a simple task? A mundane one, not worthy of a whole blog post? I would have initially thought so, but after three attempts at scheduling one reading group, and some preparatory reading for said group, I feel it is necessary to take a closer look, to consider if there might be more to what would appear to be a relatively simple task.
Upon reflection, the scheduling challenge is actually twofold. On the one hand it presents itself as a simple logistical and practical problem. People are busy, they have full diaries, countless meetings, and other mandatory engagements, possibly part of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) affecting performance appraisals. As the number of group members increases (taking into consideration that in our network there are those who work outside the greater Cape Town area, in or near the Bergrivier Municipality), the more difficult it becomes to find a date, time and place that suits everyone. It’s that simple. On some occasions it’s easier; on others it takes countless doodle polls, emails, and calls to get everyone together in one room. To be honest, at times it is completely draining, frustrating and seemingly impossible.
So, on the one hand, it is a simple logistical practical problem – busy people, too few hours in a day. On the other hand it seems that there is something more going on than just a full diary: it is a question of prioritisation, and what influences the way people divide their precious time.
As a member of the network, what makes this group a priority for you? What makes all the investment of time and effort worth it? It is a game of give-and-take. As an academic, is there potential to publish papers, supervise students, and partake in activities that have tangible, measurable benefits for the respective research units, departments and University? As a practitioner, will involvement in this network result in improved policy planning and assist with the implementation of various projects and programmes on the ground? Are you as a civil society member seeing tangible benefits in your local community? If the answer to these questions is yes, even if only to a certain degree, then it makes sense for you as an individual to continue to be actively involved in the group. While there are other benefits to being part of the group aside from those listed above, for example the potential for a researcher to develop the skills necessary to work in an interdisciplinary environment, and the potential for personal development through relationship and network building, it seems from my limited experience that in many cases these benefits are secondary. This is not to say that these additional benefits aren’t valued – rather, it is likely that they can become secondary in relation to more ‘tangible’ benefits, such as a published research paper or graduated PhD student. It makes a CKN meeting the one that can be shifted if a more pressing issue arises, as I have experienced.
In my case, and in the case of others who have been able to build group involvement into their job descriptions and KPIs (having their contract time paid for), it is easier to prioritise the various activities of the group.
For many group members, however, outputs justify the investment of time and energy. For any output to become a reality you need good ground work, a strong foundation, a solid ‘Phase A’. For our network, Phase A was a long, carefully facilitated process and we now find ourselves in, and trying to navigate, Phase B: co-creating solution orientated and transferrable knowledge through actual collaborative research, after which we will hopefully move into Phase C. We are moving into a less formally facilitated space, where the onus is on the group members themselves to engage and run with the various activity threads. Therefore, the group members are to ensure that the outputs and products which Lang et al. speak about in Phase C become a reality. These are the same outputs or products which I would argue are to be pushed up each network member’s priority list. We are moving into a contested space, as the respective ‘groupings’ are all justifiably placing demands on the outcomes and outputs of the group. There needs to be a balance between moving forward slowly in order to preserve the trust and a strong sense of cohesion in the group that has been established, whilst at the same time not moving too slowly that the goal posts seem so far away, members lose heart and the whole thing slips right off the bottom of the priority list.
So, as I send my 20th email, suggesting a 3rd possible date for any given network meeting, I take heart that we as a network move forward, into what in some ways are unchartered waters; experiences and literature abound for us to draw on and learn from. What excites me most is that our group and its journey are unique – with each gain, obstacle navigated, conflict or tension resolved, and output produced we are able to inform a growing community of practice and body of literature that speaks to processes that have potential to tackle complex, real-world – even ‘wicked’ – sustainability problems.
Photograph: Bradley Rink