Advertisement

Challenges of Cross-Border Collaboration: Knowledge Networks for Innovation and Sustainability in the Global South

  • Cecilia Hidalgo
  • Claudia E. Natenzon
Chapter
Part of the Greening of Industry Networks Studies book series (GINS, volume 3)

Abstract

Despite many efforts to describe and characterize collaborative research on complex problems, conditions for success are not yet rigorously grounded on actual cases (Podestá et~al. Environmental Science & Policy, 26, 40–48, 2012). To compensate this lack of empirical work on specific cases, the chapter describes insights gained during a study of collaboration in three international (US-Argentina) climate variability research projects where the authors were co-investigators. Conclusions arisen which illustrate the relevance of connectivity that foster or impede collaborative production of high-quality, useable knowledge, should be an essential component of projects involving scientists, practitioners and stakeholders. Mostly as they include participants with different nationalities and backgrounds who must collectively define a new set of shared principles, concepts and aims. Monitoring and reflection must also implicate institutions (planning and funding agencies, universities, research institutes, GOs and NGOs, etc.) which are currently rehearsing their first steps in such a complex type of collaboration. The chapter present observations from various stages of the projects and extract lessons that will contribute both to design “best practices” and metrics of success in different collaborative settings and to expose some underlying assumptions about how collaboration processes occur, one of the goals of this special volume.

Keywords

Cross-border Collaboration North–south Climate variability Knowledge networks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems grants 0410348 and 0709681, by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) grant CRN-3035 and by the University of Buenos Aires through UBACyT grants F184 and F392. We are grateful to Guillermo Podesta (Univ. of Miami) who has discussed and worked with us many of the present issues.

References

  1. Boix Mansilla, V. (2006). Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical exploration. Research Evaluation, 15, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier. An empirical exploration of ‘symptoms of quality’. In G. Origgi & C. Heintz (Eds.), Rethinking interdisciplinarity. C.N.R.S., Project Society of Information, Online seminar, Available at http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity
  3. Boix Mansilla, V., Feller, I., & Gardner, H. (2006). Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Research Evaluation, 15, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandi, M. C. (2006). La historia del brain drain. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society, 3(7), 65–85.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, G. D. (1999). The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Science, 32, 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carew, A. L., & Wickson, F. (2010). The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42, 1146–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carney, S., Whitmarsh, L., Nicholson-Cole, S.A., Shackley, S. (2009). A dynamic typology of stakeholder engagement within climate change research. Tyndall Centre Working Papers, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Manchester.Google Scholar
  8. Carullo, J.C. y Vacarezza, L. (1997). El incentivo a la investigación universitaria como instrumento de promoción y gestión de la I+D. REDES. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia, IV(10). octubre, Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  9. Caruso, D., & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: Sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity. A new mechanism for knowledge production and re-integration in the age of information. A Hybrid Vigor White Paper. The Hybrid Vigor Institute. Digital version: http://www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2001.04.30.pdf, 29 p.
  10. Celis, A., & Forni, P. (2007). De los satélites geoestacionarios y las boyas oceánicas a los productores pampeanos: la red de generación y diseminación de información climática potencialmente útil para la actividad agropecuaria en la región pampeana (Argentina). Primer Congreso Argentino de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. IEC-UNQ/ CEJB-UNSAM, Bernal, 6 de Julio.Google Scholar
  11. Cerf, M. (2011). Is participatory research a scientific practice? Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35, 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21, 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedberg, E., & Musselin, C. (1996). La noción de sistema universitario y sus implicaciones para el estudio de las universidades. Universidad Futura, 7(20–21), 50–64. México: UAM.Google Scholar
  16. Funtowicz, S., & Hidalgo, C. (2008). Ciencia y política con la gente en tiempos de incertidumbre, conflicto de intereses e indeterminación. In J. A. López Cerezo & F. J. Gómez González (Eds.), Apropiación social de la ciencia. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
  17. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (2000). La ciencia posnormal. Ciencia con la gente. Barcelona: Icaria (c. 1993).Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., et~al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: Science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Harfi, M. (2006). Movilidad de doctores: tendencias y temas en debate. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society, 3(7), 87–104.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, F., Lyon, F., & Clarke, S. (2009). Doing interdisciplinarity: Motivation and collaboration in research for sustainable agriculture in the UK. Area, 41, 374–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heintz, C., & Origgi, G. (2003). Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Emergent issues. In C. Heintz & G. Origgi (Eds.), Rethinking interdisciplinarity. C.N.R.S. project Society of Information, Online seminar, Available from www.interdisciplines.org
  22. Hidalgo, C. (2005). Lo local y lo global en las prácticas científicas: diversidad etnográfica en peligro. In V. Hernández, C. Hidalgo & A. Stagnaro (comps.), Etnografías globalizadas (pp. 179–194). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.Google Scholar
  23. Hidalgo, C., Natenzon, C. E., & Podestá, G. (2007). Interdisciplina: construcción de conocimiento en un proyecto internacional sobre variabilidad climática y agricultura. Revista Ibero Americana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 9(3), 53–68.Google Scholar
  24. Hidalgo, C. (2008). Luces y sombras en el proceso de consolidación de una red de conocimiento. Las universidades frente a las demandas sociales y productivas. Capacidades de los grupos de docencia e investigación en la producción y circulación del conocimiento. Riquelme, G. (editora) Buenos Aires, Miño y Dávila. Tomo I: 463–471.Google Scholar
  25. Hidalgo, C., Natenzon, C.E., & Agunin, A.G. (2010). Producción de conocimiento en redes interdisciplinarias con inclusión de actores sociales: estudio de caso. Revista Pueblos y Fronteras digital. Programa de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias sobre Mesoamérica y el Sureste, Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
  26. Hidalgo, C., Natenzon, C. E., & Podestá, G. P. (2011). From enthusiasm to pragmatism: Shifting perspectives of success in interdisciplinary research. Interciencia, 36, 113–120.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33, 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khadria, B. (2006). Migración de indios altamente capacitados: estudios de casos de profesionales en tecnologías de la información. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society [online], 3(7), 181–201.Google Scholar
  30. Kogan, M., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (2001). Transforming Higher Education. A compartive study. London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Lemos, M. C., & Morehouse, B. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change Part A, 15, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luchilo, L. (2006). Movilidad de estudiantes universitarios e internacionalización de la educación superior. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society, 3(7), 105–133.Google Scholar
  33. Luna, M., & Velasco, J. L. (2006). Redes de Conocimiento: principios de coordinación y mecanismos de integración. In M. Albornoz & C. Alfaraz (Eds.), Redes de Conocimiento. Construcción, dinámica y gestión (pp. 17–40). Buenos Aires: RICYD/CYTED/UNESCO.Google Scholar
  34. Podestá, G. P., Natenzon, C. E., Hidalgo, C., & Toranzo, F. R. (2012). Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of stakeholders: A case study of a collaborative project on climate variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the argentine pampas. Environmental Science & Policy, 26, 40–48. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43, 618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Riquelme, G. (2008). Las universidades frente a las demandas sociales y productivas. Capacidades de los grupos de docencia e investigación en la producción y circulación del conocimiento. Buenos Aires: Miño y Dávila.Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, J. (2008). Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures, 40, 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schaaper, M., & Wyckoff, A. (2006). Movilidad del personal altamente calificado: Un panorama internacional. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society [online], 3(7), 135–179.Google Scholar
  39. Schuster, F. G. (2005). Las comunidades científicas ante las transformaciones globalizadotas de las décadas de 1980 y 1990 en Latinoamérica. In V. Hernández, C. Hidalgo & A. Stagnaro (comps.), Etnografías globalizadas (pp. 171–178). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.Google Scholar
  40. Stainforth, D. A., et~al. (2007). Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 365(1857), 2145–2161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Todt, O. (2006). La gobernanza tecnocientífica en la Unión Europea. Review of Iberoamerica Ciencia Technological Society, 3(7), 21–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias SocialesSede ArgentinaBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations