IntSci Moderators: Topic 4 summary
Evaluating success in integrated research initiatives (Sun 12 Mar - Tue 14 Mar)
The final topic of the IntSci E-conference provided an opportunity to reflect on where the conversation over the previous ten days had got to and how things could be moved forward from here. Three final questions prompted participants to look for ways of identifying success in integrated science, and encouraged continuing opportunities for learning across different projects.
Question 11. How mainstream is this type of joint inquiry?
Question 12. How are people tracking the success of integrated research initiatives?
Question 13. What frameworks are being used for cross case study analysis?
Integrating Integrators, Asymmetry, what makes Good IntSci, and who can get a job in this?
Even at this final stage of the Integrated Science for Sustainability E-conference it has been pleasing to see, not only a continuation of conversations amongst participants but new subscribers coming in and making their first postings.
A number of participants have offered further references and materials [Ashwani Wasishth ** evaluation and classification of collaborative planning; Wendy Gregory **the SDRN report on building capacity for interdisciplinary sustainable development research; Dan’s alternative tools for group thinking; and Sophie Nguyen Khoa’s work on adaptive participatory, integrated assessment; amongst others.]
Asymmetry
Susan Aragon stimulated a lively discussion thread around the asymmetries of power arrangements in participatory projects, with her example of working on bringing together scientists, technicians and farmers in highland Peru. The challenges of asymmetry and the importance of this issue were enlarged upon by a number of other contributors [Polly Erickson, Ceclia Ferreyra, Val Brown, Elery Hamilton-Smith]. Will Allen commented that inequalities can extend to the initial capacity to engage in the process and sought input from other participants on examples of where integrated participatory processes had been set up with a primary goal of building capacity rather than addressing a more mechanistic endpoint. In her response to this Ceclia Ferreyra described a Watershed Partnership programme in Ontario, Canada with “the dual purpose of improving water quality/quantity and improving the capacity of member organizations, building alliances and better understanding among them”. She noted, however, that only the first goal had been operationalized with concrete targets, and later evaluation revealed the need to similarly operationalize the collaborative management. Stephen Healy adds to this discussion a comment on the need not to squander such capacity as already exists.
Good IntSci
A number of participants offered further contributions on what makes, or how to action, a good Integrated Science for Sustainability initiative . Melanie Cox offered for further discussion an outline of stages, steps and critical thinking. Phillip Henshaw, Stephen Healy and Ken Zimmerman had a debate around the relative importance of keeping the system in question in view of the participants in the integrative initiative. Bob Dick used their apparently contradicting views as a neat illustration of the difficulties faced in facilitating discussion where there are not only multiple but multidimensional realities * seeing how easy or how difficult it is for us within the E-conference to “walk our own talk”.
A number of participants offered views on criteria for assessing good integrated science. Cecilia Ferreyra pointed out that indicators of success are not always agreed upon by everyone [echoed by Ken Zimmerman] and need to be negotiated (and renegotiated) by the participants. Andrew Pleasant observed that developing indicators of success in interdisciplinary programmes was often problematic and appeared to be “where the disciplinary perspectives are quite entrenched”. Polly Erickson noted that at the time of the project indicators of success might be a good framework and dialogue where all participants contributed and were heard, but lasting impacts were much harder to determine as “often integrated science results in a much greater amount of complexity, so impact and success are even harder to measure”.
Integrating Integrators and who are the integrators?
Early in Topic 4 Val Brown posed the challenge “who integrates the integrators?” Val neatly summarized and linked the diverse offerings from participants and made a plea for considering “how our perspectives fit together to construct a collective epistemology”. Will Allen picked up on this theme calling for sharing reflections and lessons across programmes. The IntSci moderators also offer an ongoing discussion forum option coming out of this E-conference as a way to continue links and build some capacity for sharing cross case experience [More on this in the concluding statements].
As a final discussion thread in Topic 4 Jonathan Long wonders whether institutions internationally are promoting interdisciplinarity or integrative science through the appointment of interdisciplinary specialists, or the establishment of roles or networks to support it. Margaret Kilvington adds from her own experience the view that as yet the awareness and understanding of the need to employ people with the skills to develop and support integrative processes is not great. Finally Will Allen questions our perception of where the responsibility for integration rests, arguing ultimately in an echo of comments made by Luis Gutierrez in the first days of the conference for a clarity of roles, including that of an integrator or “guardian of the process” alongside researchers who’s principal change in practice is to learn to recognize with some humility their place in the overall system.
best regards
Margaret Kilvington, Will Allen & Chrys Horn
IntSci Conference Managers
E-mail us: IntSci-owner@learningforsustainability.net
IntSci website:
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/IntSci_info.asp