Suchergebnisse

Aiming at fostering the transition towards a sustainable knowledge-based Bioeconomy (SKBBE), the German Federal Government funds joint and single research projects in predefined socially desirable fields as, for instance, in the Bioeconomy. To analyse whether this policy intervention actually fosters cooperation and knowledge transfer as intended, researchers have to evaluate the network structure of the resulting R&D network on a regular basis. Using both descriptive statistics and social network analysis, I investigate how the publicly funded R&D network in the German Bioeconomy has developed over the last 30 years and how this development can be assessed from a knowledge diffusion point of view. This study shows that the R&D network in the German Bioeconomy has grown tremendously over time and thereby completely changed its initial structure. While from a traditional perspective the development of the network characteristics in isolation seems harmful to knowledge diffusion, taking into account the reasons for these changes shows a different picture. However, this might only hold for the diffusion of mere techno-economic knowledge. It is questionable whether the artificially generated network structure also is favourable for the diffusion of other types of knowledge, e.g. dedicated knowledge necessary for the transformation towards an SKBBE.

Aiming at fostering the transition towards a sustainable knowledge-based Bioeconomy (SKBBE), the German Federal Government funds joint and single research projects in predefined socially desirable fields as, for instance, in the Bioeconomy. To analyse whether this policy intervention actually fosters cooperation and knowledge transfer as intended, researchers have to evaluate the network structure of the resulting R&D network on a regular basis. Using both descriptive statistics and social network analysis, I investigate how the publicly funded R&D network in the German Bioeconomy has developed over the last 30 years and how this development can be assessed from a knowledge diffusion point of view. This study shows that the R&D network in the German Bioeconomy has grown tremendously over time and thereby completely changed its initial structure. While from a traditional perspective the development of the network characteristics in isolation seems harmful to knowledge diffusion, taking into account the reasons for these changes shows a different picture. However, this might only hold for the diffusion of mere techno-economic knowledge. It is questionable whether the artificially generated network structure also is favourable for the diffusion of other types of knowledge, e.g. dedicated knowledge necessary for the transformation towards an SKBBE.

AbstractTransformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers' practical knowledge 'in situ'. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around 'how to' as well as 'what is the right thing to do'. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.