CSO-Academic Research Partnerships: Experiences of the CREPE

project

Les Levidow and Sue Oreszczyn Open University

Origins of ‘co-operative research’

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) seek more active involvement in defining research agendas, rather than simply receiving the results.

CSOs often carry out research, even if not formally recognised as such.

For a long time, research organisations have involved CSOs in research, esp. in agri + health.

Although those categories imply fixed roles, the distinction between researcher and non-researcher can be fluid.

Framework Programme 7, Science in Society programme

Cooperative research = a ‘form of research process, which involves both researchers and non-researchers in close cooperative engagement’ (Stirling, 2006).

2006 call for projects building research capacity of CSOs

2007 call for Cooperative Research projects involving CSOs……..

‘Cooperative Research on Environmental Problems in Europe’ (CRÊPE)

CSOs and academics carried out research together.  Thematic focus: environmental issues of agricultural practices and innovations, in the context of EU policy for a Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE).  

Objectives:

To facilitate co-operation between academic researchers and CSOs, to enhance CSOs’ capacities to participate in research, to help them to network successfully, and to promote mutual learning.

To design and analyse the methods used for co-operative research, as a basis to inform future efforts.

To analyse how diverse accounts of sustainability arise in agri-production systems.

To relate research more closely to societal needs, as a means

to inform policy debate and research priorities for Europe as a ‘Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy’.

To suggest alternative solutions related to different understandings of societal problems, agri-environmental issues and sustainable development.

Studies led mainly by CSO partners: Agrofuel production in Europe and global South Community-supported agriculture in ItalyWater scarcity and virtual export from Spain Local agri-food networks and environmental effects CSOs’ interventions into agri-environmental research agendas European Research Area priorities for sustainable agricultureInnovation narratives in EU-funded agricultural research

Plus a study on:Cooperative research relations in the project Aims: To facilitate self-reflection on processes in the overall project and in the partners’ own studies. To inform and benefit other efforts at cooperative research

Research questions:In developing co-operative research in the CRÊPE project, what are the various methods, practices, pathways and relationships? What obstacles and difficulties are encountered? What efforts are taken to overcome them?

CREPE provided spaces enabling CSO roles

CSOs shaped the initial design of the studies that they would lead.

Joint funding strengthened CSOs’ capacity to participate in research activities, e.g. by enabling more staff time or new posts to be funded for research activities.

Partners’ meetings had interactive exercises, highlighting the need to clarify: relations between researchers and non-researchers, especially because a CSO may play both these roles; a common understanding of what we mean by cooperative research in its diverse forms; and how CR relates to similar concepts.

Reflecting on experience

In addition to reflections in the partners’ meetings:

All partners agreed kept a diary on their activities and conversations around cooperative research processes.

These diaries were guided by questions which developed during the project.

Critical Moments Exercise was carried out towards the end of the project.

Workshops

Each CSO held a workshop, involving CSOs in particular.

Two project-level workshops

• Brussels: ‘What Knowledge for Sustainable Agriculture?

What Bio-Economy for Europe?’

• London: ‘Research with CSOs for sustainable development:

reflecting on experience’ ‘

CSOs’ organisational cultures Studies varied in ways expressing the organisational

culture and strategic perspectives of CSO partners. Agrofuels: Adopting this pejorative term for biofuels, TNI

involved CSOs and social movements which had an affinity with its critical perspectives.

Water scarcity in Spain: Two CSO partners together built networks including all relevant stakeholders, aiming to clarify current practices and future options for improvement of water usage.

Local food networks: As agricultural extension agents, FRCIVAM had already worked with academics in order to research the practical issues of farmers in short food-supply chains; its extra study for CREPE was designed and used to influence policies of local authorities.

Policy relevance: sustainable agriculture

Partners were encouraged to identify policy assumptions and to question them.

Project meetings developed a transversal perspective on sustainable agriculture, especially its divergent accounts – within and across the topics under study.

These accounts became more explicit in the various studies, as a basis to criticise dominant policies and to counterpose alternatives.

Techno-fixes: critical perspectives

In some topics (e.g. biofuels, water scarcity), EU policy advocates technological solutions to use natural resources more efficiently, to enhance environmental sustainability.

In our studies, these solutions were critically analysed as techno-fixes which perpetuate the current causes of unsustainability.

This transversal analysis linked our studies. This was presented at the Brussels workshop and has

resonated with shifts towards agroecological approaches in DG Research.

Strengthening and developing networks

For CSOs, the project was a way to extend and strengthen their networks.

Two studies required a major re-design, esp. in order to engage wider networks of CSOs.

Relationships formed through the workshops were particularly important.

By working with academics, the CSOs were able to link with the wider academic community and relevant concepts.

Partners have spanned boundaries between different communities of practice, e.g. between peasants and scientists, thus playing a knowledge-mediator role.

Good practice (vs ‘best’) Our experience in CREPE highlights the diversity of research

practices and diverse roles.

Indicates features of good practice, but not ‘best practice’, especially given different organisational cultures.

CR concept enables us to make more explicit practices already being carried out and so to focus on how they may be improved in that particular context.

It highlighted the need for greater flexibility (than in conventional research) to accommodate the difficulties that CSOs face, especially to take account of:

• heavy demands on people’s time and resources

• events beyond partners’ control;

• staff changes, resulting in changes in expertise

Mutual learning

Partners started with a diversity of experience in this type of research.

We discussed methods and experiences with each other.

All partners learned from each other: how to do research in a team; how to relate to non-specialists; how to develop small-scale independent projects; how to engage with practice-based research.

“The experience has been very enriching so far and I must say that I was very positively surprised by the good results of the cooperation among partners at different levels and intensities.” (TNI, agrofuels)

“The opportunity to work with formal research helped us achieve a social and thus political recognition that could not have been reached without this support” (FRCIVAM, agro-food networks)

Partners valued the experience

Reports available at www.crepeweb.net

Workshop on ‘Research with CSOs for sustainable development: reflecting on experience ’ http://crepeweb.net/?page_id=383

By January 2011 the website will include reports of

all the studies and overall final report. In particular: Oreszczyn, S., Levidow, L. and Hinchliffe, S. (2010)

Cooperative research processes in CREPE, WP8

report of CREPE project.