Paper short abstract:

This paper examines the cooperation based on mutual-trust, between small and marginal farmers and financiers in banana plantation ventures of Daranggiri. The farmers usually repay the loan once they accrue profit post-production, followed by remaining amount shared in-between as an established norm.

Paper long abstract:

Located at Goalpara district of Assam, India and inhabited mostly by the plain tribes of Rabha, Koch and Garo, this paper attempts at capturing how kinsmen, relatives and village-fellows act as ‘financiers’ to the banana cultivators of Daranggiri, fostering an informal collaboration and pragmatic growth. “This system works best unlike bank-loans, because there is no paper-work required, and all of us could equally prosper”, says a small-scale producer, which certainly over time has enhanced their entrepreneurial skills, productivity and purchasing power. The growth of the site entails its team-effort to ensure a stable market via the ‘middlemen’, who buy their produce at bulk and transport them to the nearby regions. Apart from native-grown varieties of Cheni- Champa, Malbhog, Jahaji; extensive research on hybrid/improved varieties are also carried out by government institutions such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, and as experimentation, G9 tissue-cultured banana plantlets were distributed to the farming community a few years back, to verify its adaptability, growth and market-demand. Today Daranggiri has turned out as a banana epicentre and the reputation it held for its ‘retail banana market’, which is one of Asia’s largest and biggest (The Hindu, 2016) shines, out of years of joint-collaborative effort of research-production-marketing-transportation network. The objective of this paper is to understand this external linkage of overlapping units alongside unravelling how the internal collaboration between actors/financiers/middlemen works. A possible outcome is expected at locating the role of ‘networking’ and potential for collaboration among different actors and institutions in banana fruit production.

Paper short abstract:

The paper deals with multiplicity and disruption of scientific collaboration in the Arctic region in times of urgency (1) during the Cold War (2) during Russian-Ukrainian military conflict through the lens of science diplomacy and STS, with a focus on the co-production of science and geopolitics.

Paper long abstract:

This presentation discusses the dynamics of scientific collaboration between different stakeholders in the Arctic region through the lens of STS and science diplomacy. Particular focus is placed on scientific encounters and interchanges between Russia and the West during the Cold War, and on the present-day challenges and limitations as a result of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent scientific sanctions on joint work with Russian institutions and scholars. I will explore trans-epistemic assemblages made of human and non-human beings which have been assembled, reassembled and disassembled within Arctic research in turbulent times of climatic urgency and military conflicts. I highlight that the Arctic Council faces uncertain socio-technical imaginaries, particularly regarding climate change knowledge production, mediation and circulation within and beyond the region across the borders. I further develop the concept of science and geopolitics as ‘co-produced’ and analyse how consideration of previous joint research activities and initiatives might shed light on what can be achieved under the present circumstances to restore trust between various actors and transform the Arctic into a more sustainable space in 2024.

This contribution is a traditional paper entangled with a dialogue session centred on the following questions: (1) to collaborate or not to collaborate in the Arctic region in the current geopolitical climate? (2) in which particular ways would non-collaboration be transformative? (3) which lessons from the past could be learnt to transform today's non-collaborative practices?

Paper short abstract:

I present my work on power dynamics in decision-making at the micro-level of African-European research collaborations. How do ‘acts of power’ in collaborative practises and spaces show who decides, how, and why this matters for transformative collaborative science?

Paper long abstract:

Despite calls from scientists for inter-, trans-, and post-disciplinary science collaborations that can foster solutions for our shared sustainability challenges, ‘global science’ remains a stage of unequal resource distribution. Research shows such imbalances in academia, such as the disparity of scientific recognition and contribution between countries in Africa and Europe, including in joint collaborations. This privilege of certain actors above others has implications for the epistemic diversity scientists call for, towards transformative science. Whilst macro-level challenges – related to research funding, authorship and mobility – are well documented, little remains empirically understood about how research collaborations are practiced at the micro-level, and how imbalances play out in collaborative spaces amongst academic actors.

I address these matters in my ethnographic study of six international research collaborations that focus on sustainability, with researchers based in seven countries across Africa and five in Europe. I identify key moments of decision-making, or ‘acts of power’, during my fieldwork, and analyse how decisions are negotiated, and opened (or closed) for discussion. This analysis enables me to highlight key challenges and patterns related to power in these collaborations, and bring into discussion how power is exercised by collaborators as well as implications for knowledge production.

This conference is itself a space of far-reaching international scientific exchange in STS and the social sciences, and thus a fitting moment to reflect about this topic of power in research culture. In doing so, we may encourage transformative collaborations in our own fields and spaces.

Paper short abstract:

Multilevel boundaries stifle interprofessional collaboration. Actors create boundary organizations to bridge social worlds and enable collaboration. However, these initiatives organized at professional and organizational levels face hindrances from national-level boundaries.

Paper long abstract:

Fragmented care delivery, driven by specialization and liberalization, is increasingly prevalent in Western countries. Especially for individuals with ‘complex care needs’ facing difficulties on multiple facets of life, service delivery takes place within an institutionally layered context. Diverse actors from numerous organizations with distinct values, interests, and epistemic cultures are involved. To traverse the different social worlds of these actor groups and enable collaboration, professionals engage in boundary work. Previous studies on boundary work focus on specific professional or organizational levels. This study, however, explores the layered and interconnected nature of boundaries and the boundary work frontline professionals conduct to enable interprofessional collaboration.

We used the service delivery for people with ‘misunderstood behaviour’ in the Netherlands as a case study. This constructed group, involving the support from professionals of both the care, safety, and social domain, is an example of people with complex care needs par excellence. We conducted 67 interviews with frontline professionals from 40 organizations such as public health services, municipalities, police, mental health organizations and housing cooperatives.

Frontline professionals employ three types of boundary work, with cross-sector boundary organizations aiding in bridging epistemic cultures and social worlds. However, professionals were limited in their boundary work by national-level boundaries. Continuity in collaboration necessitates ongoing boundary work at multiple levels. As such, boundary organizations in the form of cross-level learning networks, emerge as a sustainable infrastructure to transform collaborations. The impact of national-level boundaries on interprofessional collaboration is underexplored in the literature; our contribution is recognizing this layered complexity.

Paper short abstract:

The presentation examines the role of imaginaries of collaboration and how they facilitate, hinder, and shape collaborative action. Drawing from two ethnographic case studies, we present how researchers make sense of the research centers’ proposed imaginaries to work interdisciplinarily.

Paper long abstract:

The presentation examines the role of imaginaries of collaboration and how they facilitate, hinder, and shape collaborative action. Borrowing the notion of practice-bound imaginaries (Hyysalo, 2006), we seek to denote those imaginaries bound to the specific practice of interdisciplinary collaboration. Imaginaries of collaboration are thought to guide and provide meaning to collaboration; they are understood as concrete sets of expectations, tools, ways of doing, and imagining. The focus of the talk is on unraveling how imaginaries of collaboration come into being and how they are enacted. Specifically, we are interested in how taken-for-granted ideas typically associated with collaboration, such as “crossing boundaries,” "shared goals," and "equality," are represented in such imaginaries.

Drawing from two ethnographic case studies at the interdisciplinary research centers "Science of Intelligence" and "Digital Life Norway," we observe how researchers make sense of the centers’ proposed imaginaries to work interdisciplinarily. Both centers invested in shaping specific imaginaries of collaboration, providing expectations, visions, and tools. However, the imaginaries of collaboration animating collaboration successfully over time were unlike the centers' vision, characterized by non-linear, hybrid, and organic ideas. Our analysis unfolds the process of enacting these imaginaries.

These empirical findings prompt a broader reflection on the concept of collaboration, offering instructive insights for approaching collaborative endeavors differently: Do collaborations require convergence, shared understanding, and goals? Or can we imagine collaborations to work despite the differences and conflicts they may produce?