Advertisement

Engaged Excellence in Development Studies

  • Katy Oswald
  • Melissa Leach
  • John Gaventa
Chapter
Part of the EADI Global Development Series book series (EADI)

Abstract

The chapter explores the ‘engaged excellence’ approach developed by the Institute of Development Studies. It combines high-quality, conceptually and empirically innovative research, with deep extensive engagement with local and global actors through our practices, partners and students. Four pillars contributing to engaged excellence high-quality research are identified: co-constructing knowledge; mobilising impact-orientated evidence, and building enduring partnerships, emphasising their mutual interdependence. The arguments supporting the concept of engaged excellence are epistemological, pragmatic, and normative. In each section, these arguments are outlined, acknowledging that an approach to research that embraces excellence and engagement means that trade-offs need to be made, and ethical and practical challenges navigated. It is shown that the approach has the potential to create more robust and influential research across Development Studies, and helps ensure its dual commitments to scholarly excellence and societal relevance.

References

  1. Apgar, M., Mustonen, T., Lovera, S., & Lovera, M. (2016). Moving Beyond Co-construction of Knowledge to Enable Self-Determination. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 55–72.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardsley, C., (2017). The Pursuit of Impact Through Evidence: The Value of Social Science for Development, a Funder’s Perspective. In J. Georgolakis, M. Jessani, R. Oronje, B. Ramalingam (Eds.), The Social Realities of Knowledge for Development. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/12852/Social_Realities_of_Knowledge_for_Development_FullIssue.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=186. Accessed 8 August 2017.
  3. Benequista, N. (2011). Blurring the Boundaries: Citizen Action Across States and Societies. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Cash, D. W., et al. (2003). Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development. PNAS, 100(14), 8086–8091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caxaj, C. S. (2015). Indigenous Storytelling and Participatory Action Research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbridge, S. (2007). The (Im)Possibility of Development Studies. Economy and Society, 36(2), 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701264869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornell, S., et al. (2013). Opening Up Knowledge Systems for Better Responses to Global Environmental Change. Environmental Science and Policy, 28, 60–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating Usable Science: Opportunities and Constrainsts for Climate Knowledge Use and Their Implications for Science Policy. Global Environmental Change, 21, 680–689.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha2010.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan, et al. (2016). Engaged Excellence or Excellent Engagement? Collaborating Critically to Amplify the Voices of Male Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 37–54.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ely, A., & Marin, A. (2017). Learning About ‘Engaged Excellence’ Across a Transformative Knowledge Network. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 73–86.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.200.
  11. Fazey, I., et al. (2014). Evaluating Knowledge Exchange in Interdisciplinary and Multi-Stakeholder Research. Global Environmental Change, 25, 204–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaventa, J., & Bivens, F. (2014). Co-constructing Democratic Knowledge for Social Justice: Lessons from an International Research Collaboration. In J. Shefner, H. F. Dahms, R. E. Jones, & A. Jalata (Eds.), Social Justice and the University: Globalisation, Human Rights and the Future of Democracy (pp. 149–174). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glover, R., & Silka, L. (2013). Choice, Power and Perspective the Neglected Question of Who Initiates Engaged Campus-Community Partnerships. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 6, 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harding, S. (1995). Strong Objectivity: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese, 104(3), 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding, S. G. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffman, A. J. (2016). Reflections: Academia’s Emerging Crisis of Relevance and Consequent Role of the Engaged Scholar. Journal of Change Management, 16(2), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howes, M., & Chambers, R. (2016). Originally (1979) IDS Bulletin 10(2). IDS Bulletin 47(6), 119–130.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.203.
  19. Hutchins, K., et al. (2013). Strengthening Knowledge Co-production Capacity: Examining Interest in Community-University Partnerships. Sustainability, 5(9), 3744–3770.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su5093744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The Idiom of Co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Coproduction of Science and Social Order (pp. 13–45). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kajner, T., et al. (2011). Balancing Head and Heart: The Importance of Relational Accountability in Community-University Partnerships. Innovative Higher Education, 37(4), 257–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9206-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeley, J., & Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S., Susan, A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences, Revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 97–128). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Mason, K. (2015). Participatory Action Research: Coproduction, Governance and Care. Geography Compass, 9(9), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mauser, W., et al. (2013). Transdisciplinary Global Change Research: The Co-creation of Knowledge for Sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing ‘Productive Interactions’ to Identify Social Impacts: An Example from the Social Sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 219–226.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X12941371876706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nielson, R. (2016). Action Research as an Ethics Praxis Method. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 419–428.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2482-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oosterhoff, P., & Shepherd, K. (2016). Affective Engagement: Teaching Young Kenyans About Safe and Healthy Sex. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 87–100.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.201.
  30. Oswald, K., Gaventa, J., & Leach, M. (2016). Introduction: Interrogating Engaged Excellence in Research. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.19088/11968-2016.196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pietrykowski, B. (2015). Participatory Economic Research: Benefits and Challenges of Incorporating Participatory Research into Social Economics. Review of Social Economy, 73(3), 242–262.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2015.1044841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pittore, K., teLintelo, P. J. H., Georgalakis, J., & Mikindo, T. (2016). Choosing Between Research Rigour or Support for Advocacy Movements, a False Dichotomy? IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 101–118.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rice, J. L., et al. (2015). Knowing Climate Change, Embodying Climate Praxis: Experiential Knowledge in Southern Appalachia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 15(2), 253–262.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.985628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosendahl, J., et al. (2015). Scientists’ Situated Knowledge: Strong Objectivity in Transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santos, B. S., et al. (2008). Introduction: Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference. In B. S. Santos (Ed.), Another Knowledge Is Possible Beyond Northern Epistemologies. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. Strier, R. (2011). The Construction of Community University Partnerships: Entangled Perspectives. Higher Education, 62(1), 81–97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9367-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tandon, R., Singh, W., Clover, D., & Hall, B. (2016). Knowledge Democracy and Excellence in Engagement. IDS Bulletin, 47(6), 19–36.  https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2016.197.
  38. Turnhout, E., et al. (2013). New Roles of Science in Society: Different Repertoires of Knowledge Brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 354–365.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visvanathan, S. (2005). Knowledge, Justice and Democracy. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement (pp. 83–95). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  40. Wagaman, M. A., & Sanchez, I. (2015). Looking Through the Magnifying Glass: A Duoethnographic Approach to Understanding the Value and Process of Participatory Action Research with LGBYQ Youth. Qualitative Social Work, 22, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325015595855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wehrens, R. (2014). Beyond Two Communities from Research Utilization and Knowledge Translation to Coproduction? Public Health, 128(6), 545–551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, G. (2013). Researching with Impact in the Global South? Impact-Evaluation Practices and Reproduction of ‘Development Knowledge’. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katy Oswald
    • 1
  • Melissa Leach
    • 1
  • John Gaventa
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Development StudiesUniversity of SussexSussexUK

Personalised recommendations