Collaborative Inquiry in the Digital Age

Globalisation is the birthing point of collaborative inquiry. The growth of the internet, the end of the Cold War and the evolution of identity politics have all played their part in this development (Hylland Eriksen, 2007, 3). As the world appears to have grown smaller, the need and opportunity for science researchers and communicators to come together to solve global issues has heightened.

“Knowledge can no longer be generated, accredited or communicated only in scientific, corporate and university-based settings [...] There is a need, more pressing than ever, to engage all human beings, without exception, in the application and co-generation of knowledge.” (Jacques & Buckles, 2008).

This draws into question the ways in which science researchers and communicators are utilising globalisation and digital developments to push boundaries. First to clarify why I am drawing upon globalisation when talking about collaborative inquiry. I define that collaborative inquiry is groups coming together to solve an issue, and in its rawest form, concepts around globalisation have enabled this. For example, researchers working in the UK can now easily collaborate with partners globally through initiatives such as the Newton Fund (2019).

So how are science researchers and communicators embracing collaborative inquiry? As highlighted above, there are research programmes that cross the geographical boundaries, which once used to be an issue. Now thanks to technological and political developments researchers in each country, through the use of the internet and specific research funding lines, are able to work together with relative ease.

One specific project which embodies this, is the Natural Environment Research Council’s (NERC) Peruvian Glacial Retreat (2019) research programme, which pairs NERC UK researchers with Peruvian researchers from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica, Perú (CONCYTEC). The UK and Peru is over 9,000km apart with a 5 hour time difference, in the past such collaboration would never be possible with such ease. Yet it is the cultural differences, knowledge and experiences that both sides bring to the table that enable effective collaboration to investigate the impact of glacial retreat. Tacke (2011) states: “A wide range of different perspectives can help to find better solutions to a problem, [..] you can gain access to many thoughts, ideas and opinions that you would miss otherwise”.

Looking at the same research project, there is a clear pathway to see how science communicators have embraced collaborative inquiry. Tacke (2011) notes the importance of innovative communication methods; “new and more intensive structures of communication have to be created to support a wide-ranging transfer of ideas between science and public”.

Trans.MISSION II project (Hay Festival 2019) focuses on the NERC Peruvian Glacial Retreat (2019) research programme. This project shows how NERC and Hay Festival are working in a multidisciplinary way to communicate science to new international audiences. This innovative methodology embraces the idea of working not only with those outside of the science research field but also outside the UK. I again argue this journey in science communication shows the clear benefits and practical application of collaborative inquiry in the science research landscape.

Although I have talked about a working example of science researchers and communicators working with collaborative inquiry thanks to digital and political innovations, I am also aware there are a number of barriers which exist. These not only can be applied to members of the public but exist in research circles also. Hesmondhalgh summaries them eloquently:

“1) Digital Divides: inequalities in access, skills and activity 2) Control of circulation and concentration of attention 3) Commercialisation, surveillance and ‘free labour’” (2013)

When looking at the history of research and science communication, I believe that we are still in a developmental phase which will see growth of methods to overcome the barriers highlighted by Hesmondhalgh, through collaborative inquiry. I feel the ever increasing development of technology is to thank for this as in some ways it helps to reduce the size of the world in which we are working. As stated by Bartling, S, and Friesike, S. “Collaborative forms of research, [...] the wide range of online research tools, and the emergence of Open Access journals all bear witness to [...] ‘the dawn of a new era’”(2014). I agree, that in 2019 we will now only see an increase in collaboration crossing boundaries and barriers we face.

Bibliography

Bartling, S, and Friesike, S. (2014) Opening Science The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. 1st Ed. Retrieved from: https://link-springer-com.salford.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-00026-8.pdf

Hay Festival (2019) Trans.MISSION II - Peru. Retrieved from: https://www.hayfestival.com/sustainability/transmission-ii/peru

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013) The Cultural Industries. 3rd Edition. London: Sage Publications

Hylland Erikson, T (2007) The Key Concepts. Globalization. Oxford: Berg.

Jacques, C., and Buckles, D.(2008) SAS2 : A Guide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social Engagement. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Natural Environment Research Council (2019) Peruvian Glacial Retreat. Retrieved from: ttps://nerc.ukri.org/research/funded/programmes/peruvian-glacial/

Newton Fund (2019). Newton Fund. Retrieved from: https://www.newtonfund.ac.uk/

Tacke, O. Bastiaens, TJ. Baumöl, U and Krämer, B. (2011). Open Science 2.0: How Research and Education Can Benefit from Open Innovation and Web 2.0. In On Collective Intelligence (pp.37-48). Berlin: Springer-Verlag