Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
resources with a multi-disciplinary character, and how academic institutions maintain
a leading role in most cases.
Most projects commenced in the last quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011
and have mixed teams of researchers and practitioners (mostly representatives of
NGOs). Stakeholders are also involved, with varying levels of engagement. Stake-
holders in this case primarily concern civic groups and their representatives (NGOs),
while private and governmental sectors appear to be absent (thus far).
In most cases, internal working modalities and communication have developed,
although this often took more time to develop and manage than initially expected.
This holds true especially for bridging the traditional divide between academics and
civic partners. It appears that in some cases expectations differ between project part-
ners, especially with regard to working and research modalities and prioritisation of
activities. This may be due to the fact that non-research institutes are not familiar with
the way research-funded projects should be run, and research institutes 'naturally'
tend to take the lead. This has led to different opinions with regard to the priori-
ties in the implementation of the three sub-objectives (at an 'equal level'). Partly as a
response to this, the initiative has been taken up by the programme to define a set of
indicators for each sub-objective, with a set of targets and compulsory contributions
for each indicator to be achieved by each project. This may help to avoid unjustified
bias or priorities in the project implementation, and realise synergy between the three
sub-objectives.
Capacity development activities are being carried out in all projects. In most cases,
these are still directed at the development of research capacity, for example involving
Master students, and focussed on the project teams. Capacity development with and
among stakeholders is less common, but some promising examples that could be shared
more broadly have emerged. The general attitude is that capacity building can only
take place once research results have emerged and insights can be shared.
In many projects, the rather traditional and linear research approach remains pre-
dominant. This approach is characterised by the following steps: (i) analysis of the
problem, (ii) formulation of research questions and sub-projects, (iii) undertaking the
research projects, (iv) analysis of the results, and (v) communicating and disseminat-
ing the results. In this model (covering 4-5 years), stakeholders are mostly engaged
in order to provide information, and in the last phase are informed about the results
(and requested for feed-back) with the expectation that it influences policy and prac-
tice. The initial expectation within CoCooN, however, was that more circular and
iterative forms of research approaches would emerge. This may be true for two of the
seven projects, where we observe a quick first loop based on a review of existing and
easily accessible knowledge, communication and some initial uptake. In one case, the
review of existing knowledge is upfront and has led to a number of publications and
considerable policy advice within one year. In the other cases, communication and
policy involvement are upfront, and this has led to various presentations, round tables
and visuals, and initial influences on policy-makers. These are indeed new forms of
undertaking research. Following this first loop of 'research', we would now expect
these projects to start a subsequent loop based on an adjusted demand articulation
and new research findings.
Aggregating existing knowledge has a prominent place in most projects. It has,
however, only been effectively used in one case, as was expected, and resulted in
Search WWH ::
Custom Search