Louise Sheridan – STRINGS

Event summary: Speakers, panellists and guests come together to explore steering STI for SDGs at STRINGS’ UN STI Forum side event

Louise Sheridan — Thu, 13 May 2021 17:17:38 +0000

Key messages

The STRINGS projects’ unprecedented mapping of how different areas of STI relate to SDGs has highlighted the potential misalignments between countries’ research priorities and SDG challenges.
The mapping and characterisation of published research also highlighted the stark inequalities between where the research capabilities are built and where they are most needed.
During the side event, it was argued that funders, donors and international organisations should seek to steer research priorities to address this. Recommendations based on experiences in Brazil, Germany and South Africa were discussed.
Measures that were discussed include: consulting with a wider range of stakeholders and reflecting the views of different communities across different contexts; improving the assessment of research’s (unequal) impact on societies; and introducing new forms of global governance to better analyse R&D allocations and STI strategies.
STRINGS will publish a full report and recommendations from its research later this year You can receive regular updates on the project’s research and findings by joining the STRINGS mailing list.

Event summary

The STRINGS project’s side event at the UN STI Forum 2021 explored how policymakers, funders and international organisations can harness the power of science, technology and innovation (STI) for the Sustainable Development Goals.

Delivering the opening remarks, Dr Pedro Conceição, Director of the Human Development Report Office at the United Nations Development Programme, discussed the challenges and opportunities for advancement human development in the context of the Anthropocene, informed by the Human Development Report 2020. Pedro highlighted three roles for STI in achieving the SDGs: an instrumental role, helping to address concrete challenges like the Covid-19 pandemic; an enabling role, helping to understand the impact of new technologies and the relationships between economic, social and natural systems; and a constitutive role, helping to navigate the predicaments and challenges posed by the SDGs.

Prof Susan Cozzens, Professor Emerita in the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, gave a compelling keynote speech setting out the context within which efforts to align STI with SDGs take place. Susan highlighted vast inequalities, calling on those present to remember the very real way in which this affects lives, and setting out the need to rethink the relationship between our social, economic and political institutions, and the use of our human capacity to know.

Dr Tommaso Ciarli and Prof Joanna Chataway then presented findings and recommendations from STRINGS’ research. They highlighted the frequent misalignments which can hinder efforts to tackle SDG challenges at a global and national level and put forward a series of policy provocations. They called on STI funders and policymakers to consider questions like: Is enough resource going to SDG relevant STI? and Do we need a more systematic approach to gathering evidence about the relationship between research funding, innovation and development? Finally, they outlined STRINGS’ plans to publish an interactive online tool which researchers and policymakers will be able to use to contribute to interpreting STI’s potential contribution to the SDGs.

Following a short break, Prof Andy Stirling was joined by three prestigious panellists to discuss practical steps for steering STI to SDGs. Each of the speakers gave short remarks before engaging in an interactive discussion and Q&A.

Dr Glenda Kruss, Executive Head of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, focussed on how to build capabilities for aligning STI to the SDGs. Glenda argued that we need greater participation at the local level by people who will be beneficiaries and users. She outlined CeSTII’s work to understand the interactive capabilities which formal knowledge producers and informal actors in local settings need to facilitate this kind of interaction and how these can be supported by research institutions, for example through engagement mechanisms like local science shops and community advisory boards.

In her remarks, Prof Elisa P. Reis, Vice-President of the International Science Council (ISC), considered how and where to start in this challenge. Elisa acknowledged the disparity in research resources between high-and low-income countries and that we must not forget that, even in low-income countries, objective research issues are not prioritised because the issues the international science system attributes importance to, do not align with the needs of poorer groups. Elisa argued that we must set research priorities globally, and channel material and human resources accordingly.

Dr Falk Schmidt, Scientific Head of the Coordination Office at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, shared insights from Germany’s Science Platform Sustainability 2030. The platform is a central hub where scientists and partners from politics, the economy and civil society can jointly reflect on pressing sustainability policy issues. Falk detailed the two-way exchange the platform facilitates. In one direction, by informing and supporting the development of sustainability policies. In the other, by steering and influencing research policy.

In the discussion that followed, speakers, panellists and guests exchanged views on how to navigate questions of power, privilege, creating capabilities, community engagement, availability of data and measuring impact.

Prof Sir Geoff Mulgan closed by talking about possibilities for new global governance to better align STI to the SDGs. Geoff pointed out the long history of opaque decision making in STI and set out four interlocking possibilities for addressing this: a global STI observatory, organised constellations of STI funders, pooled global budgets and convening and summits. Geoff noted that this is the beginning of a conversation rather than the end; we must continue this discussion to develop a global governance infrastructure that ensures STI focusses on the issues that really matter.

To meet the Sustainable Development Goals, we must transform innovation

Louise Sheridan — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:52:49 +0000

Dr Saurabh Arora and Prof Andy Stirling

In 1925, Mahatma Gandhi famously included ‘science without humanity’ and ‘knowledge without character’, alongside ‘politics without principle’ and ‘commerce without morality’ in listing Seven Social Sins. Today, we can see these social sins of Modernity as central to unsustainability, ranging from climate disruptions and toxic wastes, to rampant inequality and poverty.

The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are arguably the most comprehensive modern attempt to tackle unsustainability challenges. Yet it remains to be seen if they can deliver the ambitious transformations in science, technology, politics and commerce needed to avoid reproducing Gandhi’s compellingly diagnosed syndromes – and so achieve genuine sustainability.

While the “development, transfer and dissemination” of relevant sciences, technologies and innovations (STIs) is central to the UN’s 2030 Agenda for transforming our world, the need to transform incumbent structures governing the development of modern science and technology is left largely out of the picture. Meanwhile, transformative social and political innovations are also neglected.

The UN promotes the following STIs as relevant for the SDGs: modern energy generation and distribution infrastructures; pharmaceutical innovations; agricultural and marine technologies for environmental monitoring; and information and communication technologies for bridging the “digital divide” (SDG 10). STIs such as these, are argued to enable “gender equality” (SDG 5), “quality education” (SDG 4), “climate resilience” (SDG 13), “sustainable industrialisation” (SDG 12) and the overall acceleration of “human progress” through economic growth (SDG 8).

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals

But what if dominant modern pathways of STI development, transfer and dissemination, across energy, agriculture, ICT, mining, transportation and manufacturing (of toxics), are widely mismatched with the majority of SDG priorities? Clearly, if dominant STI pathways were actually well-aligned with the SDGs, the UN’s list of “immense challenges” might not have included poverty, climate change, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and rising inequality.

In any given area of activity (viewed across many countries), it is repeatedly the case that just one (or two) STI pathway(s) can typically be observed to dominate. For example, in transport the dominant STI pathway may be seen as comprising privately owned fossil-fuelled automobiles, manufacturing firms, infrastructure of roads and fuelling stations, and regulations for speed and pollution control. In information-communication, the dominant pathway is constituted by silicon microchip-based computing (also in smartphones and tablets), fibre-optic and copper cabling, a network of servers running with the world wide web, tech corporations, regulations and international conventions for managing electronic waste, and government attempts to filter content (communicated over the internet).

For sustainability, it is crucial to transform each dominant STI pathway from within. For example, through innovation and regulation for ‘cleaner production’, aimed at reducing the pathway’s negative impacts on societies and the environment. Equally crucial for sustainability, however, are deeper transformations to recognise and promote a diversity of STI pathways.

A diversity of pathways

Promotion of individual STIs as solutions to complex societal challenges is fraught with dangers of a techno-fix approach to the SDGs. To avoid such an approach, individual STIs may be approached as embedded within wider social, ecological and technical pathways. This characterises innovations as socio-ecological processes rather than outputs.

The idea of STIs as pathways (rather than artefacts) allows researchers to map the dynamism and diversity inherent to STIs and the wider social and ecological developments in which they are embedded. Crucially, it involves understanding innovation systems in their broadest and most holistic sense – including science and technology, but also deeply co-evolving institutional, cultural and ecological change.

This short animation from the ESRC STEPS Centre introduces the idea of pathways to sustainability.

Pathways emphasise that what matters in any given area of activity is not just the general pace of advance, or the costs and benefits associated with specific STIs, but also the particular direction of change.

For example, in food production systems, dominant existing directions focus on modern technological innovations like ‘precision agriculture’ using artificial intelligence and data analytics, genetically modified seeds, insect growth regulators to stop the development of cuticles or exoskeletons in ‘pests’, and micro-organisms as fertilisers. Alternative directions may be based on agroecological techniques such as mulching, rainwater harvesting, and farm-saving seed varieties that are adapted to local soil and climatic conditions and potentially resilient to disruptions such as droughts and floods.

Contrasting STI pathways thus represent multiple possible directions for ‘progress’ in addressing any specific problem or goal. Central to each pathway are particular problem framings. So, while the dominant agricultural pathway may frame problems as narrowly technical (e.g., focused on making synthetic fertilisers more sustainable or more productive), agroecological pathways are often oriented by framings of problems as complex tangles of social and environmental issues (e.g., groundwater depletion and associated vulnerability of smallholder livelihoods).

A pathway becomes dominant or incumbent by aligning framings, shaping policies, accumulating knowledges, growing investments, controlling resources, layering technologies, homogenising standards, and structuring hierarchies. As these dynamics unfold, the overall process of pathway-building can become self-reinforcing.

Consider STI pathways to address conflicts around overfishing, as mapped in the Lake Victoria region (a case study in our STRINGS project). One STI pathway may be structured around community-based monitoring of overfishing, with supporting policies to protect and promote local fishers’ livelihoods and networking activities. This pathway thus foregrounds small fishers who are often marginalised in policy circles. It has the potential to reduce poverty and inequality while caring for life under water.

An alternative pathway may rely on modern monitoring and surveillance techniques, deployed particularly by governments to keep industrial trawlers from fishing beyond their quotas and to eliminate the so-called bycatch. This pathway may be aligned with policies to promote economic growth through industrialisation of fishing (often for export markets). It may also be buttressed by economic policy framings of employment generation in an industrialised fishing sector.

Thus, to address any socio-ecological issue – as defined in any given SDG or one of its targets – diverse STI pathways are available or possible.

It is crucial to note, however, that an ‘STI pathway’ is a concept that should not be equated to some actually existing reality. Depending on how the idea is used by different researchers – with the help of specific research methods and analytical techniques and grounding assumptions – a plurality of equally reasonable perspectives can be developed on the ‘same’ pathway.

A plurality of perspectives

There can never be a single, self-evident – let alone definitive – mapping of any pathway. This is so irrespective of the quality of existing data and no matter how much time, energy or skill is devoted to analysis. Contrasting perspectives will always emphasise particular aspects of reality as salient, whilst downplaying others. Highlighting any specific process or relation among the multitude that are relevant will sadly always relatively marginalise others.

For example, consider the work of smallholders and civil society organisations conserving and developing ‘traditional’ stress-tolerant varieties of rice studied in another STRINGS case study, supporting more resilient and equitable food provision in Odisha, India. Depending on the methods used, plural perspectives can be revealed on this pathway.

Rice farming in India. Photo by Deepak Kumar on Unsplash.

Using ethnographic methods of detailed conversations and participation in seed growing and sharing, the mapping produced of this pathway may highlight the work of a particular assemblage of actors and materials. The skills and knowledges for selecting plants for picking seeds, and subsequent cleaning and drying techniques can be shown to be distributed in this assemblage.

A contrasting perspective on the ‘same’ pathway may be produced using semi-structured interviews with ‘key informants’ and document analysis. Here, a network of seed-saving farmers and civil society organisations may be brought to the fore. Actors in this network try to attract resources to support the growing and distribution of seeds; test ‘traditional’ seeds to detect vitamin or iron content for acceptance in policy and academic communities; and promote seed kits using onsite demonstrations to farmers.

Beyond the community of researchers mapping STI pathways, other actors can also provide plural perspectives on any given pathway. So, smallholders involved in developing ‘traditional’ stress-tolerant varieties can highlight the challenges they face in conserving and developing ‘traditional’ seeds in resource-constrained environments. Smallholders will also typically appraise the effectiveness of their pathway using different criteria than those used by actors such as agricultural scientists.

This is of course a reflection of the ever-present truth that there is no phenomenon, entity or process so self-evidently or concretely ‘real’ (and this includes an ‘STI pathway’), that the ways in which it is constituted (by people, policies, knowledges and materials) cannot be framed differently under contrasting perspectives.

It is therefore all the more essential and pragmatic to recognise that this is also true for appraisals of contrasting STI pathways in any particular setting – and how they might be held to ‘align’ or ‘misalign’ with the many values and objectives embraced in the SDGs.

Mappings of misalignments

Plural perspectives on alignments and misalignments between STIs and SDGs is one key strand in STRINGS. To this end, at ‘global’ and ‘national’ levels, in select fields, the project searches for relevant material in available databases of scientific publications and patents by means of a keyword-based scientometric approach.

This approach entails the use of data-mining techniques on a wide range of documents, to identify a set of ‘keywords’ that are closely associated with the SDGs. The keywords are then used to search through Web of Science (WoS) publications in 4013 research areas. WoS publications are clustered into research areas using citation relations between them.

Using these ‘content mapping’ techniques, we are producing visualisations of how different ‘global’ and ‘national’ STI pathways relate to the SDGs under particular framings. Of course, the framings of pathways, and of values and priorities as embodied in the SDGs, elicited will be those that happen to be most evident in the data.

Therefore, in order to be similarly systematic about the expert communities associated with producing this data, we are also undertaking a large-scale Delphi survey. This involves a structured response from a large number of experts, from across as many dimensions of relevance as possible.

The aim of the Delphi survey is to gain as clear a picture as possible of the plurality of views in different practitioner communities, on the sustainability potentials of contrasting STI pathways, and on the ways in which these relate to contrastingly prioritised visions of the SDGs.

In this way, the scientometric approach and the Delphi survey offer ways to explore diversities of STI contexts and pluralities of perspectives on these contexts.

Of course, both scientometric approach and Delphi interactions will contribute to the plurality of frames in focus by adding their own methodological contingencies. So, the picture given in any resulting map will not be any more comprehensive or definitive than is the qualitative mapping of STI pathways in the fishing and farming case studies discussed above.

Opening up debates

This coupling of qualitative and quantitative approaches aims at ‘opening up’ a plurality of maps of STI pathways in each setting. This plurality can help to address some of the questions around focus and context, which might otherwise arise around the framing of analysis itself.

Again, the point is not to claim a definitively complete or final picture, but to prompt more refined questions and so help stimulate and inform more rigorous, robust and accountable policy debates about the directions taken in STI for sustainability.

In STRINGS, then, we hope to produce insights which can help resist existing powerful pressures that close down social choice around one (or two) dominant STI pathway(s) in an area of activity. We are attempting to produce such insights in a number of independent but partly mutually reinforcing ways.

First, we are producing evidence on alignments and misalignments between STI pathways and the SDGs.

Second, we are attempting to illuminate a diversity of pathways to help address particular SDG challenges – extending attention beyond the pathways typically driven by the loudest voices and most powerful interests.

Third, we are aiming to foreground the plurality of perspectives that may be found – even within expert communities – on each pathway as well as on the SDGs under which they can be appraised.

	Content mapping	Delphi	Case studies
Misalignment	Although not complete or definitive, the maps illuminate a variety of ways in which research can be seen to be misaligned with SDGs	Many elicited perspectives hold patterns of research and innovation to be misaligned with the SDGs in different ways	Each case study shows specific ways in which the STI activities in focus are mismatched with the relevant SDGs
Diversity	Across several instances, the maps show the existence of more than one research or innovation pathway towards a given SDG	Across contrasting expert perspectives (and sometimes even within a particular perspective), it often emerges that more than one STI pathway will pursue any given SDG	Each case study has identified, in some detail, a diversity of STI pathways towards the relevant SDGs
Plurality	Each possible mapping of STI onto SDGs depends, for the clarity of the picture produced, on a variety of parameters and assumptions. Even if these change only slightly (to reflect a contrasting view), details of the map typically vary	For each SDG and each broadly associated STI pathway, the Delphi survey shows there are a number a contrasting perspectives on the pros and cons of each path, and the relative merits of different pathways for addressing the SDG	In each case study, it is clear that a variety of contrasting perspectives exist on prioritisation of relevant SDGs, as well as on the comparative pros and cons of contrasting associated STI pathways

Table 1. Multiple methods for plural insights in STRINGS

By foregrounding diversity, plurality and misalignments, we hope to open up richer and more substantive policy debates in relation to the SDGs, both within and around existing STI governance institutions worldwide, and in wider political discourse more generally.

By building a new evidence base at the local, national and global levels, we hope to demonstrate a way to challenge the entrenched interests and expedient rhetorics that are presently slowing progress towards the SDGs.

Alongside the multiple goals of sustainability, after all, it has always been clear that process is inseparable from outcomes. With egalitarian commitment, participatory practice and emancipatory struggle for so long featuring as central to transformations towards sustainability, we trust that the more rigorous, transparent and creative kinds of questioning that may emerge from our mixed-method and interdisciplinary work can help invigorate more democratic global, national and local politics of innovation for socioecological sustainability.

Without enabling this kind of democratic politics for the steering of STI pathways, we fear the SDGs may not be met by 2030. Only by producing diverse and plural ‘knowledge with character’ can we hope to steer pathways to transform modern societies away from the ‘social sins’ identified by Gandhi.

STRINGS launches global survey on science, technology and innovation for the SDGs

Louise Sheridan — Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:30:48 +0000

STRINGS has launched a global survey to gather different views on how science, technology and innovation (STI) can support the delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and we want to hear from you.

Billions of dollars are spent every year on STI but our understanding of how that investment supports the SDGs is limited. The survey is part of our work to improve this understanding and provide decision makers with evidence and tools to align STI with the SDGs to create a better, fairer and more sustainable world.

What does the survey involve?

In the survey we ask you to tell us which areas of STI you believe have the most potential to help achieve the SDGs. We ask you to focus on the SDGs you are most familiar with, and the survey will tailor itself to reflect your expertise.

How will it help to achieve a more sustainable world?

By taking part, you will be:

Building a picture of which STI should be prioritised in the next 10 years to achieve the SDGs
Making sure that different experiences, areas of expertise, disciplines and contexts are included in debates on what is funded and how, including yours!

Our findings will be shared with some of the world’s primary funders of science and innovation, international organisations, development agencies and foundations. Taking part in this survey is an opportunity for you to share your views with them.

More information about how your responses will be used and how the survey works are available at the link below. The survey is open until 31 May 2021.

Help spread the word

We are keen to receive responses from a wide range of people; please share the link widely among your contacts.

If you have any questions about the survey or our research, please contact us at strings@sussex.ac.uk.

TAKE THE SURVEY

Knowledge integration for societal challenges: from interdisciplinarity to research portfolio analysis

Louise Sheridan — Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:58:11 +0000

Dr Ismael Ràfols

This post was originally published on Leiden Madtrics, the official blog of STRINGS partner the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University.

For research to address societal challenges, indicators of average degree of ‘interdisciplinarity’ are not relevant. Instead, we propose a portfolio approach to analyze knowledge integration as a systemic process; in particular, the directions, diversity and synergies of research trajectories.

‘Convergence’ as knowledge integration for grappling with societal challenges

Last October the US National Academies held a workshop (available here) to gather views on how to better measure and assess the implications of interdisciplinarity, or convergence, for research and innovation. The use of the term convergence as a synonym of interdisciplinarity followed from two previous reports by the National Academies (2014 and 2019). These reports understood convergence as the ‘integration of knowledge and ways of thinking to tackle complex challenges and achieve new and innovative solutions that could not otherwise be obtained.’ (A discourse that echoes European discourse on interdisciplinarity for grand challenges and missions.)

In this blog, I will summarise the argument I put forward in the workshop: that for mapping progress towards this goal (that is: the successful knowledge integration for addressing a given societal challenge), we should conduct multidimensional portfolio analyses on the types of knowledge to be integrated rather than produce synthetic indicators of interdisciplinarity.

For two main reasons. First, since knowledge integration for societal challenges is a systemic and dynamic process, we need broad and plural perspectives and therefore we should use a battery of analytical tools, as developed for example in research portfolio analysis, rather than a narrow focus on interdisciplinarity. The second reason is that while interdisciplinarity is one (but not the only) of the relevant concepts in knowledge integration, the concept of interdisciplinarity is too ambiguous, diverse and contextual to be captured by traditional indicators, as discussed in a previous blog.

Fostering plural innovation pathways in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity

It has long been argued that addressing societal challenges, such as climate change or COVID-19, benefits from the combination of disparate types of knowledge. Societal challenges are ‘wicked’ problems, in the sense that the framings of both the problems and the solutions are complex, disputed and uncertain.

Under these conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty, research contributions are likely to come from combinations of diverse types of knowledge (or ways of knowing). This is: diversity within projects is needed. However, diversity across projects is also necessary. Since we do not know or even agree in advance on what types of expertise are appropriate to tackle a given problem, it is also important to have a plurality of research trajectories. Take the example of malaria: in spite of decades of efforts to develop drugs or vaccines, the most successful strategies so far have been fighting mosquitoes that transmit it, in particular with insecticide-treated bed nets.

Therefore, rather than just aiming at fostering a ‘melting pot’ of disciplines, research systems should also produce a high number of disparate research trajectories – knowing that only some of them will ever be technically successful.

Moreover, different research and innovation pathways are not equally desirable from a public value perspective – directionality matters. Some solutions are more socially preferable than others depending on their effects on public goods such as equity or environmental sustainability. Which means that public investment, while keeping a diverse portfolio of research strategies, should favour those which are perceived as more socially robust and relatively underfunded by the private sector.

In summary, policy for science and technology (S&T) convergence should aim at fostering systemic diversity, rather than interdisciplinarity in every single project or program, but it should also take into account the preferred research directions in particular contexts or societies.

Figure 1. Comparison of the focus of rice research in India and the US (2000-2012). Red areas indicate areas of high density of publications. From Ciarli and Rafols (2019).

From ‘measuring’ interdisciplinarity to multi-level mapping of knowledge integration

Measurement approaches to convergence should reflect this turn towards a systemic perspective on knowledge integration for societal challenges.

This shift in the conceptualisation of S&T indicators from individual to systemic properties is similar to the shift in biology towards ecological approaches. The forest should not be measured by the average size of its trees or the timber it yields (scalars), but by the distribution (vectors) of all types of species and how they interact (matrices). Because the wealth, in sustainable terms, that can be derived from the forest comes from this diversity: water resources, herbs and mushrooms that unexpectedly yield nutritional or pharmacological benefits, spaces for leisure and well-being, etcetera.

Similarly, the ‘solutions’ to societal challenges will not emanate from 1,000 labs with the same combination of disciplines, but from labs of various epistemic combinations and social embeddings. Therefore, our measurement should not focus on an average degree of interdisciplinarity. Instead, it should focus on mapping the directions and diversity of research approaches. To do this, we need to shift towards statistical descriptions of the vectors and distributions of research trajectories over knowledge landscapes. A framing in terms of research portfolios can help conduct this type of analyses.

Portfolio analysis: exploring directions, diversity and synergies

In a nutshell, the key idea is that for a given societal issue, the contribution of research should be explored by mapping the relevant types of knowledge over a research landscape (e.g. see obesity). The portfolio or repertoire of a given laboratory, university or territory, can then be visualised by projecting (overlaying) their activities of this research landscape, as illustrated in the figure above for ‘rice research’ (or avian flu).

First, this portfolio provides us with information on the main directions that the research on a given topic is taking – which is pointing to the type of solutions envisaged for a grand challenge. For example, in the example in the figure above on rice, if the focus is related to genomics, mainstream research investments can be expected to deliver via Genetically Modified seeds (the case of the US). But if the focus is in fertilizers and yields (the case of India), the main goal is to increase productivity.

Second, the portfolio can tell us about the diversity of research efforts, i.e. whether investments are heavily concentrated in a few areas, or distributed across a variety of fields. In the face of uncertainty and contested views on preferred innovation pathways (e.g. in renewable energies), one would expect a variety of pathways to be supported. This way the bets are hedged against unexpected scientific results or social reactions to certain approaches. Indicators of interdisciplinarity provide a view of the epistemic diversity in specific projects, labs or centres. This is a valuable but only a partial perspective of the research landscape.

Third, by analysing the interrelations between innovation areas, a portfolio approach helps think about the synergies or lack thereof across research pathways. For example, in a portfolio of energy technologies, solar cells and small wind turbines have positive synergies as they both fit with distributed electricity infrastructure, while they have negative synergy with nuclear energy which needs centralisation. Understanding these positive or negative relations is important in balancing portfolios.

From ‘atomistic’ to systemic and dynamic descriptions

In summary, since social contributions are multifaceted, the analysis of research for societal challenges needs to adopt systemic perspectives, and thus take multidimensional forms. Research portfolio analysis offers a battery of tools, among other possibilities of exploring systemic properties of a research landscape. While interdisciplinary research is paramount in certain points, it is not required across the whole landscape. Therefore, rather than indicators of aggregates or averages, we need rich description of knowledge landscapes including the directions, diversity and synergies of research trajectories.

STRINGS newsletter: winter 2020

Louise Sheridan — Tue, 05 Jan 2021 09:42:51 +0000

The winter 2020 edition of the STRINGS newsletter is out now, including:

Spotlight on our mapping work
An update on our Chagas case study
Webinar recording – How do evidence-based models contribute to the SDGs?
Latest blogs
Recent publications and reading recommendations from the STRINGS team.

Read the newsletter and join our mailing list to have future editions sent straight to your inbox.

Book review: Inclusive Innovation: Evidence and Options in Rural India

Louise Sheridan — Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:19:51 +0000

Dr Rasheed Sulaiman V, Director of the Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP) and STRINGS partner, reviews Inclusive Innovation: Evidence and Options in Rural India by Rajeswari S Raina and Keshab Das (eds). Read the full review.

UNDP launches Human Development Report 2020, The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene

Louise Sheridan — Wed, 16 Dec 2020 15:10:29 +0000

STRINGS partner the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has launched the 30th anniversary edition of the Human Development Report (HDR), The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene.

Thirty years ago, UNDP created a new way to conceive and measure progress. Instead of using growth in GDP as the sole measure of development, they ranked the world’s countries by their human development: by whether people in each country have the freedom and opportunity to live the lives they value.

The 2020 HDR doubles down on the belief that people’s agency and empowerment can bring about the action we need if we are to live in balance with the planet in a fairer world. It shows that we are at an unprecedented moment in history, in which human activity has become a dominant force shaping the planet. These impacts interact with existing inequalities, threatening significant development reversals. Nothing short of a great transformation – in how we live, work and cooperate – is needed to change the path we are on. The Report explores how to jumpstart that transformation.

Explore the Report.

Spotlight on STRINGS’ mapping work

Louise Sheridan — Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:46:29 +0000

Based on work by STRINGS partner CWTS, we have developed a tool to explore the extent to which research communities (i.e. different areas of research) relate, or not, to SDGs.

Since May, we have worked hard to define the set of search terms we use to identify academic papers that relate to the SDGs. Differently from most exercises like this (such as SIRIS, Dimensions, Elsevier, Aurora Universities, and Bergen), we assess the allocation of publications across research communities that, as a whole, may be working on SDG related topics. This approach acknowledges that what may be contributing to the SDGs is a combination of research outputs, rather than a single paper.

Focussing on research communities allows us to compare our list of terms with those previously published, such as SIRIS. While this has enabled us to improve our list, it is important to acknowledge that whatever machine driven method is used, the identification of research related to the SDGs depends on subjective views about what is relevant to address the SDGs.

We are currently exploring the main communities, countries, organisations, disciplines and topics that relate to the SDGs, as well as the synergies between SDGs and the relationship between investment in science, technology and innovation (STI) and progress on SDG targets. We are also creating a taxonomy to categorise STI and research communities in relation to the SDGs and exploring future trajectories of emerging STI.

Beyond this analysis, we aim to open up a tool which will enable users to contribute their own understanding of which research communities are more likely to be related to SDGs.

Where have academic and policy discussions on science, research, technology and innovation for the SDGs focused?

Louise Sheridan — Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:01:02 +0000

Dr Hugo Confraria and Agustina Colonna

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) acknowledge that science, research, technology and innovation (STI) are vital drivers of the global transformation towards a better and more sustainable future for all.

However, the impact of STI investments and policies on the SDGs is complex, often intangible and full of synergies and trade-offs.

As part of STRINGS’ work to better understand these complex relationships, we set out to analyse the main findings from publications (both scientific papers and grey literature) that examine the relationship between STI and the SDGs. This blog summarises the themes emerging from this literature review, and the implications for efforts to better align STI with the SDGs.

After developing a search methodology and selecting the most relevant literature produced between January 2014 and September 2020, we grouped the publications in four broad, related themes:

Misalignment between STI investments and the SDGs.
Approaches to shaping STI towards the SDGs.
Synergies and trade-offs between SDGs.
Monitoring of the success of STI for the SDGs.

Misalignment between STI investments and the SDGs

Publications in the first theme consider the reasons for the potential misalignments between STI investments and the SDGs.

One issue highlighted is the uneven distribution of STI activities across countries, which biases the focus of STI endeavours to thematic areas and societal problems unrelated to the problems of the worldwide majority^1–4. For example, high-income countries perform most of their medical research on diseases (e.g. cancer) that are not the ones with a higher global disease burden (e.g. infectious diseases).

Another factor mentioned is that societal priorities differ substantially with economic status within countries. For example, according to a survey sent to 34 African countries⁵, hunger (SDG 2), health (SDG 3), water and sanitation (SDG 6), access to energy (SDG 7), and infrastructure (SDG 9) matter more to the poor. In contrast, the wealthiest respondents were more likely to cite jobs and economic growth (SDG 8) peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) as priorities.

Since, in most countries, STI priorities emerge from complex interactions between policymakers, funders, researchers and innovators, each with their incentives and institutionalised practices, it is possible that in many cases STI prioritisation is not well aligned with the needs of the poorest.

Another important factor identified is that some forms of contemporary STI also contribute to environmental degradation, disruption of livelihoods and exacerbate inequalities⁶. UNDP (2018), for example, argue that at least nine SDGs could clearly be negatively impacted by advances in automation and artificial intelligence, primarily through the direct and indirect consequence of increased unemployment but also through threats in emergent sectors like the “gig” and “on-demand” economies.

Approaches to shaping STI towards the SDGs

The second theme identifies various approaches that can be taken to shaping STI towards the SDGs. They include:

Directionality of STI policies towards the SDGs. This may take the form of challenge or mission-oriented approaches, or other incentives for directing STI activities towards the SDGs.^6,8–10
Plans, roadmaps or integrated assessments of STI investments and policy which are agreed by public, private and civil society actors.^11–17 For example, identifying technology gaps or creating research and development roadmaps.
Promoting inclusive and grass-roots innovation policies that consider the specific situations and needs of poor people, women and vulnerable groups to achieve more equitable, sustainable and inclusive development.^6,18
Strengthening national systems of innovation in developing countries (e.g. improving infrastructure, lowering barriers to technology deployment and diffusion, building STI literacy and capabilities, strengthening the science-policy interface) and fostering well-functioning institutions (e.g. strengthening political stability, educating workforces, strengthening the science-policy interface) in order to reinforce the economic, environmental, social and cultural resilience within societies that will contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.^1,18–21
Using the SDGs as an opportunity for developing countries to “leapfrog” to sustainable frontier technologies²². For example, some people in developing countries that have had no electricity until now are bypassing fossil fuels by adopting solar electricity and leaping directly to the stage of renewables. By doing this, they are not only contributing to the realisation of SDG 7, but also developing capabilities and skills in a set of technologies that will be critical in the future.
Finally, another framework looks at the transformations/transitions^23–25 required in the wider economy to achieve the SDGs by 2030 (e.g. where technology ownership and control lies, its existing orientation and focus, etc.).

Synergies and trade-offs between SDGs

The third theme relates to the synergies and trade-offs between SDGs. It is argued that studying the interaction between SDGs is essential for the efficient design of public policies, since an integrated approach can save resources and reduce costs by exploiting the positive interlinkages (“synergies”) and minimising the negative ones (“trade-offs”)^26–33.

The literature has applied various methodologies to study the linkages between SDGs, although most analysis assesses these interactions at the target level. On the empirical side, many authors have used time series of SDG indicators to correlate progress between them^34–36.

Other approaches have relied on expert opinion, theoretical models or a review of the literature to identify essential interlinkages^37–41. Additionally, text mining approaches have proven to be a successful methodology used in the literature to assess synergies and trade-offs^42,43. For instance, Le Blanc (2015) finds that from 107 targets, 60 explicitly refer to at least one other goal than the one to which they belong. This aspect of the SDGs is frequently mentioned as an improvement on the Millennium Development Goals, which did not form such an integrated system⁴⁴.

Overall, there is an agreement on the fact that positive interactions between SDG targets outweigh the negative ones^36–38,45, however, there is also consensus that the interactions between SDGs are greatly context-dependent. Namely, that the relationships between different SDG targets can depend on the geographical locations, governance context, number and types of people affected, and its time frame^27,37,46.

For example, increasing fishing activity in a certain region can lead to a reduction of hunger and improved livelihoods in the short-term. With time, however, fish stocks may be at risk of becoming overused with the same effort leading to less and less yield unless sustainable management practices are put in place. The context-dependencies listed previously often make it difficult to draw generalisable conclusions about interactions that may ultimately depend on locally specific factors³⁸.

Monitoring the success of STI for the SDGs

The inherent complexity of all 17 SDGs and the variety of pathways by which different areas of STI can contribute to the achievement of specific targets makes it very difficult to rigorously evaluate progress and impact^15,47,48. Yet, the existence of indicators aligned with the SDGs targets and rules for the collection of standardised data open an important opportunity for the monitoring and control of the relations between STI and the SDGs^49–51.

An important issue relating to SDG indicators is that many national statistical systems have faced severe challenges in tracking progress, which requires an unprecedented amount of data and statistics at all levels⁵².

An analysis of the indicators in the Global SDG Indicators Database⁵³ reveals that for four of the 17 goals, less than half of the 194 countries or areas have internationally comparable data. Even countries with available data have only a small number of observations over time, making it difficult for policymakers to monitor progress and identify trends.

Therefore, increased investments in national data and statistical systems and the mobilisation of additional international and domestic resources are needed to maintain adequate coverage of all population groups, as well as to guarantee the internal consistency, comparability and overall quality of data produced to advance implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

This is especially relevant in lower-income contexts, where these actions and investments should be complemented by an operational/technical assistance budget dedicated to monitoring and evaluating policy. It is argued that, in these contexts, enhancing capacities related to monitoring and accountability seems to be essential to set up policies that contribute to achieving the SDGs ^13,54,55.

Finally, on a positive note, it has been argued that advances in technology and the proliferation of data are providing new opportunities for monitoring and tracking the progress of the SDGs. A promising avenue is the data produced through citizen science, which can complement and ultimately improve the SDG reporting process^56,57. In this vein, Fritz et al. (2019), demonstrate the value of using data from citizen science for the SDGs, and provide concrete examples of how such data are currently being adopted and potential areas for future contributions. For example, volunteers in the Philippines are collecting household census data on poverty, nutrition, health, education, housing and disaster risk reduction, which are used by the Philippine Statistics Authority to enhance their statistics on 32 SDG indicators.

Conclusion

In summary, this literature review found many publications proposing approaches to helping shape STI investments and policies towards the SDGs. Yet, we found that less effort has been made in trying to understand what works and how to evaluate the efficacy of such approaches.

This gap is one of the things we are working on in STRINGS. By developing methodologies that help track misalignments between STI and the SDGs at the global level (for example, using bibliometric and SDG indicator data) and by analysing how policies are working, or not, to achieve the SDGs in our case studies in East Africa, India and Latin America, we are seeking to address this important question.

References

United Nations. Science, technology and innovation for the post-2015 development agenda: Report of the Secretary-General. (2014).
Walsh, P. P., Murphy, E. & Horan, D. The role of science, technology and innovation in the UN 2030 agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 154, 119957 (2020).
United Nations. The future is now – Science for achieving sustainable development. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 213, (2019).
Yegros-Yegros, A., van de Klippe, W., Abad-Garcia, M. F. & Rafols, I. Exploring why global health needs are unmet by research efforts: the potential influences of geography, industry and publication incentives. Heal. Res. Policy Syst. 18, 47 (2020).
Coulibaly, B. M., Silwé, K. S. & Logan, C. Taking stock Citizen priorities and assessments three years into the SDGs. 0–34 (2018).
UNCTAD. New Innovation Approaches To Support the Implementation of. (2017).
UNDP. Development 4.0: Opportunities and Challenges for Accelerating Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals in Asia and the Pacific. (2018).
Giovannini, E., Niestroy, I., Nilsson, M., Roure, F. & Spanos, M. The Role of Science , Technology and Innovation Policies to Foster the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Report of the Expert Group “Follow-up to Rio+20, notably the SDGs”. (2015). doi:10.2777/245398
Mazzucato, M. Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. (2018). doi:10.2777/36546
UNCTAD. Effectively harnessing science, technology, and innovation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. 06339, (2018).
Miedzinski, M., Mazzucato, M. & Ekins, P. A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy roadmapping for the SDGs : The case of plastic-free oceans. (2019).
IATT. Guidebook for the Preparation of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) for SDGs Roadmaps. (2020). doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
IAP Workgroup. Improving Scientific Input to Global Policymaking: with a focus on the UN SustainableDevelopment Goals. (2019).
IATT. Science, Technology and Innovation for SDGs Roadmaps. Technol. Facil. Mech. 1, 8–57 (2018).
United Nations. Science, technology and innovation for sustainable development. 00233, (2016).
Allen, C., Metternicht, G. & Wiedmann, T. Prioritising SDG targets: assessing baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 14, 421–438 (2019).
United Nations Economic and Social Council. Strategic foresight for the post-2015 development agenda. E/CN.16/20, 1–19 (2015).
United Nations. Indigenous and Local Knowledge(s) and Science(s) for Sustainable Development. (2016).
United Nations. Perspectives of Scientists on Technology and The SDGs. in Global Sustainable Development Report 2016 2030, 41–60 (2016).
IAP. Harnessing Science , Engineering and Medicine ( SEM ) to Address Africa ’ s Challenges : (2019).
Leal Filho, W. et al. Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25, 131–142 (2018).
United Nations. World Economic and Social Survey 2018: Frontier technologies for sustainable development. E/2018/50, (2018).
Sachs, J. D. et al. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 805–814 (2019).
Schot, J. & Steinmueller, W. E. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47, 1554–1567 (2018).
TWI2050 – The World in 2050. Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2018). doi:10.22022/TNT/07-2018.15347
Alcamo, J., Grundy, C. & Scharlemann, J. Interactions among the sustainable development goals, and why they are important. (2018).
Scharlemann, J. P. . et al. Global Goals Mapping: The Environment-Human Landscape. A Contrib. Towar. NERC, Rockefeller Found. ESRC Initiat. Towar. a Sustain. Earth Environ. Syst. UN Glob. Goals 150 (2016).
Allen, C., Metternicht, G. & Wiedmann, T. Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a review of evidence from countries. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1453–1467 (2018).
Elder, M., Bengtsson, M. & Akenji, L. An optimistic analysis of the means of implementation for sustainable development goals: Thinking about goals as means. Sustain. 8, (2016).
ICG. A guide to SDG interactions: From science to implementation. (2017).
Donoghue, D. & Khan, A. Achieving the SDGs and ‘leaving no one behind’. (2019).
Kumar, P., Ahmed, F., Singh, R. K. & Sinha, P. Determination of hierarchical relationships among sustainable development goals using interpretive structural modeling. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 20, 2119–2137 (2018).
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. The sustainable development goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Econ. E-Journal 11, (2017).
Sebestyén, V., Bulla, M., Rédey, Á. & Abonyi, J. Data-driven multilayer complex networks of sustainable development goals. Data Br. 25, 104049 (2019).
Fonseca, L. M., Domingues, P. & Dima, A. M. Mapping the Sustainable Development Goals Relationships. 1–15 (2020).
Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W. & Kropp, J. P. A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal ( SDG ) Interactions. Earth’s Futur. 1169–1179 (2017). doi:10.1002/eft2.266
Nilsson, M. et al. Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci. 13, 1489–1503 (2018).
McCollum, D. L. et al. Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages. Environmental Research Letters 13, (2018).
Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 10–15 (2018).
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D. & Visback, M. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322 (2016).
Moyer, J. D. & Bohl, D. K. Alternative pathways to human development: Assessing trade-offs and synergies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures 105, 199–210 (2019).
Blanc, D. Le. Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. 1, (2015).
Dörgő, G., Honti, G. & Abonyi, J. Automated analysis of the interactions between sustainable development goals extracted from models and texts of sustainability science. Chem. Eng. Trans. 70, 781–786 (2018).
Fukuda-Parr, S. From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gend. Dev. 24, 43–52 (2016).
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. Sustainable development goal indicators: Analyzing trade-offs and complementarities. World Dev. 122, 295–305 (2019).
Breuer, A., Janetschek, H. & Malerba, D. Translating Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interdependencies into Policy Advice. Sustainability 11, 2092 (2019).
Cervantes, M. & Hong, S. J. STI policies for delivering on the sustainable development goals. in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to technological and societal disruption (ed. OECD) (OECD Publishing, 2018). doi:10.1787/fe9c243a-es
Adenle, A. A., Chertow, M. R., Moors, E. H. M. & Pannell, D. J. Science, Technology, and Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals. Science, Technology, and Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals (Oxford University Press, 2020). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190949501.001.0001
Gusmão Caiado, R. G., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O. L. G., Luiz de Mattos Nascimento, D. & Ávila, L. V. A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1276–1288 (2018).
Reyers, B., Stafford-Smith, M., Erb, K. H., Scholes, R. J. & Selomane, O. Essential Variables help to focus Sustainable Development Goals monitoring. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27, 97–105 (2017).
Salvia, A. L., Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L. & Griebeler, J. S. Assessing research trends related to Sustainable Development Goals: local and global issues. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 841–849 (2019).
ISSC. Review of Targets for the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective. (2015).
United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. (2020).
Namubiru-Mwaura, E. & Marincola, E. Africa Beyond 2030: Leveraging knowledge and innovation to secure Sustainable Development Goals. (2018).
Schmalzbauer, B. S. et al. The Contribution of Science in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. German Committee Future Earth (German Committee Future Earth, 2016).
Fritz, S. et al. Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 922–930 (2019).
Quinlivan, L., Chapman, D. & Sullivan, T. Validating citizen science monitoring of ambient water quality for the United Nations sustainable development goals. Sci. Total Environ. 134255 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134255

Watch STRINGS webinar: How do evidence-based models contribute to the SDGs?

Louise Sheridan — Mon, 16 Nov 2020 17:22:50 +0000

Prof Joanna Chataway talks to Prof Geoff Mulgan CBE and Dr Erica Thompson about the complexities of modelling and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in the first of the STRINGS webinar series.

Different types of models are often used to guide complex policy action. But they are also often criticised as misleading and inaccurate, and lacking needed nuance and judgement.

How should models be used by policymakers, particularly those concerned with using science, technology and innovation to help achieve the SDGs? What are some of the pitfalls associated using modelling expertise? How can they be avoided?

Panellists:

Prof Geoff Mulgan CBE, UCL
Dr Erica Thompson, LSE
Prof Joanna Chataway, STRINGS co-investigator, UCL

More webinars relating to STRINGS’ key discussions and findings will be announced soon. Join our mailing list to receive webinar invites and STRINGS news.