ALBERT

Description: In this article we argue that the notion of control poses a critical conceptual and historical connection between scientific and political power. While many meanings of control originate in the sciences, concepts of experimentation, care, and learning currently translate into increasingly decentralized governance concepts, be it through market-logics or surveillance technologies. That is, epistemic and social control is co-constituted. Collaborative research plays a transformative but paradoxical role in this interplay: Science and Technology Studies scholars have leveraged powerful critiques against techno-scientific control and have shaped practical modes of transdisciplinary research. However, the critique of techno-scientific control is increasingly mixed up with post-truth controversies, and the appeal to inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration has been appropriated by neoliberal science policy. The historical conundrum culminates in a practical dilemma: Collaborative researchers seek to overcome the very regimes of techno-scientific control that the sciences are bound to co-produce. Can they shift the control regimes that they are part of? Collaborative research requires a critical and pragmatic standpoint with regard to both the methods of politics and the politics of methodology. This special issue seeks to come to terms with the inherent contradictions of collaborative research and make useful proposals with regard to its political potential.

Description: Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.