1. Legitimate assemblies: is collaborative research the ‘pathway to impact’? Susan Molyneux-Hodgson Sociological Studies University of Sheffield

2. Speaking knowledge to power Does anyone think they are listened to? Many ‘policy makers’ are social scientists; with little understanding of science, but even less of its critique Is collaborative /research work a way forward to address the issues different constituencies see? Two funded projects with team members drawn from diverse epistemic communities

3. Theorising epistemic communities In sociology of science, scientific communities have been understood as: –a normative unit (Merton) –thought collectives / thought styles (Fleck) –a paradigmatic (consensual) unit (Kuhn) –a transactional unit (Hagstrom, Bourdieu, Latour and Woolgar) –communities of promise/hope (Brown, Martin) Scientists work together, they are part of a collective They work within communities that share (to some degree) a language, theories, technologies, methods,...

4. Theorising epistemic communities epistemic cultures are ‘those amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms- bonded through affinity, necessity, and historical coincidence - which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know. Epistemic cultures are cultures that create and warrant knowledge, and the premier knowledge institution throughout the world is, still, science (Knorr- Cetina 1999:1)

5. Working together: Rationales Policy imperative, ‘real-world’ problems (both projects) Issues of relevance to the 'environment and society' moniker cannot be addressed fully by a reliance on either environmental science or social science. (WES) The goal of the sustainable communities’ agenda is to maximise the social, economic and environmental benefits of urban development … We need innovation to create multifunctional solutions, and the evidence through which stakeholders can judge and differentiate these solutions. (URSULA)

6. Working together: Membership.. established researchers in the fields of environmental science (including ecologists, hydrologists and statisticians) and social science (including sociologists and planners) alongside younger researchers and PhD students from the contributing groups. (WES) The University of Sheffield is one of the strongest research universities in the UK …Two outside academics will fill gaps in the Sheffield portfolio. (URSULA)

7. Working together: Meeting points The 'change of scale' embedded in the (WFD) initiative yields a set of themes around which both social and environmental scientists can establish a dialogue... enable established researchers to disseminate existing research to new audiences and to facilitate the development of a new research agenda.. a means to explore ways to do inter-disciplinary research, engaging with theoretical, conceptual and methodological concerns (WES) The entire research team will be co-located to maximise efficiency and interdisciplinarity. The initial and final phases involve the whole team in developing common language and goals and delivering results. All the activities will be integrated through a common systems modelling framework, 3D-visualisation and a GIS based data handling facility. (URSULA)

8. Working together: Approaches What and where do we need to study in order to investigate environment-society relations? Which fields of practice require further theoretical and conceptual development to advance research in the area? How can the methodological implications raised by the above, be addressed? (WES) URSULA will develop and test evidence-based and integrated innovations to satisfy the sustainable living agenda of urban river corridors. … integrate soft and hard engineering … achieve optimal performance.. evaluate benefits of interventions

9. Metaphors of ‘mixing’

10. Key messages A single rationale (need for evidence-based policy; need for multi/inter-disciplinary work to solve a ‘problem’) does not imply a singular way forward The bringing together of existing epistemic communities is not the same everywhere The intents of meeting are multiple There is a need for explicit epistemic pluralism To get ‘ipa’ into policy is not (merely) a technical problem (how to do it) but is a political one (reframing the terms of the debate; a culture change) So, what politics?