Reconciling impact and participation: Reflections on collaborating with specialist organisations for PhD research

Abstract

Recent debates within Geography have discussed the benefits of collaborating with non‐academic partners in research (e.g. Campbell & Vanderhoven, 2016, Knowledge that matters: Realising the potential of Co‐production. Manchester, UK: N8 Research Partnership; Holt et al., 2019, Area, 51, 390). We discuss these debates in relation to two key concepts in Geography: Impact and Participation. In this article, we critically reflect on our own experiences as PhD researchers conducting collaborative research projects, discussing the outcomes, challenges and ‘expectations gaps’ of collaboration with non‐academic partners (Flinders et al., 2016, Evidence & Policy, 12, 261, p. 269). Our contribution lies in our reflections on collaboratively producing knowledge through being embedded in non‐academic expert organisations. Much of the debate in Geography has focused on collaboration with marginalised groups or vulnerable communities (e.g. Holt et al., 2019, 2019, Area, 51, 390), and we add to these debates with the experiences of collaborating with two expert organisations: a specialist climate journalism organisation (Carbon Brief); and a government organisation (Met Office). First, we discuss the varying forms of impact that were produced through conducting our research collaboratively, not only through improving the quality of our academic outputs through ‘ontological transformation’ (Barry et al., 2008, Economy and Society, 37, 20, p. 20), but also ‘real‐world’, actionable impacts for the collaborative partners. We relate both these experiences to ideas of impact which go beyond the REF Impact Agenda, specifically finding important the concept of ‘impact‐in‐process’ (Marzi, 2022, Area). Second, we discuss the ethical complexities and power dynamics involved with embedding a researcher in an expert organisation. We highlight the need for broader conceptions of ethnical research, drawing particularly from Campbell and Vanderhoven's ‘ethical state of mind’ (2016, p. 30). In sum, we argue that although PhD research which is produced collaboratively with expert organisations can produce practical benefits to both researcher and partner, there are important discussions around power dynamics and ethics which can prevent PhD research done in this way from fully realising the transformational potential of collaboration.

Negotiating structural barriers to environmental collaborations in doctoral programmes

“…It shows how these structural barriers can contribute to educational inequalities and the uneven distribution of voice in environmental scholarship. In doing so, it builds on previous discussion in this space, pertaining to collaborative doctoral research (Darby, 2017;Demeritt & Lees, 2005;Hayes & Manktelow, 2023) and broader debates on the participatory turn and the impact agenda, by reflecting on how doctoral candidates must negotiate a form of neoliberal policy incoherence whereby (overly)ambitious environmental collaborations are promoted using funding mechanisms, but undermined, in practice, by inadequate resourcing, university assessment practice, precarity and a perception that peer-review publishing is pivotal to career progression. In response, the authors call for urgent structural reforms of the provisioning of doctoral programmes in the UK HE as a means to support a deeper engagement with the ideals and objectives of learning to conduct environmental research collaboratively.…”

“…Despite these ideals, authors have drawn attention to different dilemmas concerning the enactment of collaborative ideals and practices in Geographic doctoral research programmes. For example, the integration of ‘knowledge transfer’ as a priority in a UK studentship programme (Demeritt & Lees, 2005), evaluating the impact agenda and the neoliberal university using insights from radical participatory methodologies (Darby, 2017; Pusey, 2017), and how encounters with different collaborating organisations can result in significant practical, ethical and epistemological ‘dilemmas’ and uneven power relations that inexperienced doctoral researchers must negotiate (Fisher, 2011; Hayes & Manktelow, 2023; Macmillan & Scott, 2003). This commentary seeks to add to this body of work by tracing how structural barriers in the neoliberal HE sector impact socio‐ecological collaborative research at different stages of doctoral studies.…”

“…In this commentary, the authors aim to contribute to this deeper conversation by discussing how the evaluation of doctoral research through awarding criteria, resourcing and assessment can shape environmental collaborations in ways that limit the inclusion of non‐academic voices and exacerbate educational inequality. Whilst previous research has reflected on the experiences of geography doctoral students in working collaboratively (Fisher, 2011; Hayes & Manktelow, 2023; Marzi, 2022; Pain, 2014), there has been less explicit reflection on the structural barriers they encounter whilst undertaking collaborations in environmental scholarship. As upcoming and emerging scholars, the experiences of doctoral students in environmental geography will shape the future directions of the field, and it is thus essential for those involved in designing or supervising environmental doctoral programmes to have an interest in the experiences of doctoral students.…”