Reconfiguring research relevance – steps towards salvaging the radical potential of the co-productive turn in searching for sustainable solutions

The editorial discusses the impacts of the global pandemic to human agency, through the authors self-reflection of academic work during the past two years accompanied two philosophical perspectives. First, we return to Chris Philo’s (2017) conception of ‘less-than-human geographies’, and secondly, to Helmuth Plessner’s (2019) conception of the sociality of human embodiment. What these perspectives have helped us to see is that people, including academic communities, need embodied encounters to fully experience ourselves and others as humans – humans whose exceptionality is not about superiority over non-human nature but eccentricity that offers us possibilities to avoid inhumanity. In conclusion we note the value of embodied encounters as a constitutive aspec of humane social life, particularly in the current times of war in Europe.

Section: Content Of the Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

less-than-human academia

Kallio

Häkli

Riding³

2022

“…Can we still rescue research co-production, partnerships and policy-relevance from such fate? Far from being despondent, these questions, as Refstie (2021) shows, are urgent. The discussion she offers addressing them is precious in its courage and nuance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The violent politics of seemingly 'technical' EU project bureaucracies have been examined in detail in fields such as development, humanitarian aid and migration governance (for a recent example, see Welfens & Bonjour 2022, on the EU Trust Fund for Africa). While academics have been less keen on turning the gaze upon their own sector, Refstie's (2021) piece highlights that such critical soul searching is sorely needed. This is particularly true in conditions, such as the ones examined in her study, where we are required to engage in fast, policy-relevant research, co-produced with non-academic partners, competing for funding through schemes that are far from those traditionally supporting essential, 'blue-sky' scientific research (if there was ever such a thing, that is).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Project management and research governance – towards a critical agenda beyond neoliberalization? – commentary to Refstie

Pascucci¹

2023

In this contribution to the debate that followed the publication of Hilde Refstie’s timely and cogent Reconfiguring research relevance, I propose to take a closer look at the funding structures that bind academia and other institutional and private sector actors into networks of collaboration and research co-production often experienced as dysfunctional. In particular, I focus on competitive funding bids that distribute financial and labour resources by awarding short-term ‘projects’, with particular reference to European Union (EU) projects. Drawing on my current research work on the ‘project economy’, co-led with Nadine Hassouneh and funded by the KONE Foundation at Tampere University, I make two initial suggestions that expand on some of the points raised so far in the discussion hosted by Fennia. First, project-based research funding is a more politicized and coercive tool than we tend to think. Second, project management and project-based work, and the associated patterns of (gendered and racialized) precarization and even abuse, have a longer and more ingrained history than what we commonly identify as the ‘neoliberalization’ of academia. By way of conclusion, I highlight how scrutinizing the funding architectures that enable and constrain our work help us to explore the relation between research and policy, beyond the limits of critical categories such as ‘neoliberalism’.

“…Eveliina Lyytinen (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6592-6280), Migration Institute of Finland, Turku, Finland. E-mail: eveliina.lyytinen@migrationinstitute.fi In this reflections article, I elaborate on the concise but quite difficult question that Hilde Refstie (2022) posed in her keynote speech at 2021's Geography Days: "what doing our part means in a progressive world of fast policymaking". I reflect on this from the perspective of forced-migration studies, the field of research in which I and Dr Refstie are engaged.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the ‘dual imperative’ of forced-migration studies – commentary to Refstie

Lyytinen¹

2022

From the perspective of forced-migration studies, the reflections article elaborates on the question Hilde Refstie posed in her keynote speech at Geography Days in 2021 – “what doing our part means in a progressive world of fast policymaking”. Discussing the nature of forced‑migration studies as a both policy-relevant and policy-critical field, then deliberating the issue of what ‘action’ may look like in action-oriented refugee research, this presentation of self-critical reflection on these issues is grounded in the Academy-of-Finland-funded research project Action-oriented Research on Asylum Seekers’ Deportability (ARADE, 2018–2022). The author concludes that, while research should be conducted in solidarity with refugees and those collaborating with them, such as activists, scholars must maintain reflexive criticism considering which actions and approaches are suitable and desired in particular contexts. There are no simple solutions for designing and implementing action‑oriented research for and with refugees.