Research–Practice–Collaborations in International Sustainable Development and Knowledge Production: Reflections from a Political-Economic Perspective

Abstract

The cooperation between researchers and practitioners during the different stages of the research process is promoted as it can be of benefit to both society and research supporting processes of ‘transformation’. While acknowledging the important potential of research–practice–collaborations (RPCs), this paper reflects on RPCs from a political-economic perspective to also address potential unintended adverse effects on knowledge generation due to divergent interests, incomplete information or the unequal distribution of resources. Asymmetries between actors may induce distorted and biased knowledge and even help produce or exacerbate existing inequalities. Potential merits and limitations of RPCs, therefore, need to be gauged. Taking RPCs seriously requires paying attention to these possible tensions—both in general and with respect to international development research, in particular: On the one hand, there are attempts to contribute to societal change and ethical concerns of equity at the heart of international development research, and on the other hand, there is the relative risk of encountering asymmetries more likely.

Collaboration in a ‘North–South’ Context: The Role of Power Relations and the Various Context-Based Conditions

“…During the activities and the discourses among the scientific project participants (all having a social science background) in course of the KNOTs project regarding the aims, activities, and especially the collaboration with the non-academic actors, conflicts emerged which demonstrated the different understandings of science and knowledge which resulted in pre-framings of the topics influencing throughout the implementation, the various collaborative activities, and outcomes. Also, the perception of the quality of research, as discussed by Bender (2022), is closely related to this point.…”

Exploring the evaluation of inter- and transdisciplinary research proposals: Lessons from Dutch research funding reform

“…These barriers might not only lead to gaps in the perspectives included in review committees, but can also lead to risks of so-called 'elite capture' by larger or more wealthy parties gaining a disproportionate amount of control over the direction or flow of research funding (e.g. Bender, 2022). Moreover, if we also consider insights from work on transdisciplinary decision making in general, we know that even when more practical barriers for participation are overcome, the actual role and input of certain actors may subsequently also be impacted through different relations of power or epistemological and ontological positions (e.g.…”

Research–Practice–Collaborations in Engineering

“…1 Accordingly, this commentary takes an interdisciplinary perspective on RPC. Starting from an engineering perspective, in particular from the perspective of product development as an engineering sub-discipline, we apply arguments developed from a political economy perspective to engineering research and development (R&D) as presented by Bender (2022).…”

“…In her article, Bender (2022) addresses the opportunities and challenges that arise from the joint research process of actors from the academic and non-academic sectors. In her article, Bender (2022) discusses three reasons why and in what ways research outcomes from Research-Practice-Cooperations (RPCs) can improve the quality of research: Relevance, Credibility, and Ligimitacy.…”

“…In her article, Bender (2022) addresses the opportunities and challenges that arise from the joint research process of actors from the academic and non-academic sectors. In her article, Bender (2022) discusses three reasons why and in what ways research outcomes from Research-Practice-Cooperations (RPCs) can improve the quality of research: Relevance, Credibility, and Ligimitacy. In addition to the benefits of RPCs in terms of research quality, it also addresses the difficulties of implementing RPCs: multiple and divergent interests among those involved in the research process, and asymmetries in terms of information and resources.…”