
Yesterday was the kick-off for the Freeman Centre “Show and Tell’ event series. The topic of the discussion was 'How do we Impact the World Out There With Our Research', trying to reflect in the fact that both SPRU and CENTRIM have a clear agenda of influencing decision-makers, whether they are on the policy or business arenas. We would like to thank everyone who attended. We really enjoyed the discussions, as well as the nice wine and food. It seems that the business lounge works very well as a space for conversation around the small tables, and the structure we have decided to adopt (dividing people in small discussion groups including researchers from both CENTRIM and SPRU who at the end of the session reported with conclusions and interesting ideas they had come up with) worked quite well, although it was a shame we had to wrap up just when things seemed to get going.
In any case, we think that the event worked as a catalyst for what we hope will be fruitful future collaborations, and friendship. It is up to everyone who participated to follow up on those discussions that had to be interrupted at 6.30, and get more people to come to the next one!
If you have any ideas regarding ways in which we could improve on the format, please drop us an e-mail at j.mateos-garcia@brighton.ac.uk or b.candemir@sussex.ac.uk, leave a comment below or just pop by our desks and have a chat about it.
We have, in true '2.0 fashion' started a flickr account to document the events graphically. For some more photos come here

Regarding what went on
David Francis (CENTRIM) kicked off the event reflecting the value of academic research for the business world from his own experience working in Harrods. He briefly described some success stories of intervention in a diversity of sectors, emphasising some key factors which should inform the design of research and strategies for the dissemination of results if we are to make a difference in ‘the real world’. According to him, it is necessary to co-develop the research, from its inception, with the users, and try to create outputs which are both relevant and accessible.
Andy Stirling (SPRU) began his brief presentation by highlighting the differences between the research being carried out in the Freeman Centre, which is problem-based, interdisciplinary, focusing on plural engagements and normatively diversity., and that which is found in many other institutions much more concerned with the development of theoretical frameworks inside a particular disciplinary 'silo'. He emphasised the need to get both 'medium' and 'message' right in order to impact the world, but also cautioned us about possible unintended outcomes. He also mentioned the danger of over-indulging the ‘user’. Furthermore, he presented briefly some possible strategies that we can adopt in order to create practical outcomes, such as the 'Trojan Horse' (introducing concepts in the discussion which will eventually lead users to think of issues usually neglected the debate). Understanding the micro-dynamics inside the organisations we are interacting with is also very important, as the development of the Multi-Criteria Methodology illustrates.

After these presentations people broke up into smaller groups where, around the tables, with wine and snacks, the key questions raised by the presentations, and their linkages to participants' experiences and aspirations where discussed.
After half an hour or so, we asked a member from every group to summarise key points and interesting ideas that had come up from the discussion.
- Ben Martin was the speaker for the first group. He stated that our research has large direct impacts rarely, and that when this happens, it is often in an accidental way. Research influences the world indirectly through 'knowledge creep'- in order to accomplish this it is necessary to understand the wider context of our research, identify 'enemies' and 'allies', be willing to repeat the message as many times as possible (go on 'missionary mode'), be opportunistic and simplify to reach a broader audience. The group also thought that our event question was too linear; a serious ‘crime’ within the Centre.
- The second group reflected on the public understanding of social science, and asked what sort of world we want to impact. The need to be aware of the 'cycles of research' and be willing to jump into an occasion when it is identified was also mentioned.
- The conclusions of the third group were presented by David Francis. According to him, they had been talking about the meaning of the truth and issues of academic integrity. It was agreed that research has values of objectivity which should not be compromised in order to influence the world, least we turn from academic informants into our users' puppets. It is important to be willing to tell our users messages they will not be necessarily happy to hear, but also to do this with respect. We shouldn’t necessarily think that we are more intelligent or on higher moral grounds than the people who run corporations and government bodies.
- The fourth group mentioned the importance of balancing rigour and 'sexy-ness'. It is useful in some cases to come up with a brand that encapsulates the research we are carrying out in order to make communication easier. Another key question that emerged here had to do with the doubts that some Dphil students have regarding the real-world relevance of their research. Some people mentioned that some times they feel like 'bricks in a wall'. The need to consider the level and area of impact was also presented as an important issue: perhaps it is more important to influence your neighbour than a policy-maker?
Juan & Basak
2 comments:
Interesting text. You have a nice blog. Keep it up!
文章是唯一不死的東西,時間飛逝,文字記述的心情就是一種傳承!............................................................
Post a Comment