Reconciling impact and participation: Reflections on collaborating with specialist organisations for PhD research

Abstract

AbstractRecent debates within Geography have discussed the benefits of collaborating with non‐academic partners in research (e.g. Campbell & Vanderhoven, 2016, Knowledge that matters: Realising the potential of Co‐production. Manchester, UK: N8 Research Partnership; Holt et al., 2019, Area, 51, 390). We discuss these debates in relation to two key concepts in Geography: Impact and Participation. In this article, we critically reflect on our own experiences as PhD researchers conducting collaborative research projects, discussing the outcomes, challenges and ‘expectations gaps’ of collaboration with non‐academic partners (Flinders et al., 2016, Evidence & Policy, 12, 261, p. 269). Our contribution lies in our reflections on collaboratively producing knowledge through being embedded in non‐academic expert organisations. Much of the debate in Geography has focused on collaboration with marginalised groups or vulnerable communities (e.g. Holt et al., 2019, 2019, Area, 51, 390), and we add to these debates with the experiences of collaborating with two expert organisations: a specialist climate journalism organisation (Carbon Brief); and a government organisation (Met Office). First, we discuss the varying forms of impact that were produced through conducting our research collaboratively, not only through improving the quality of our academic outputs through ‘ontological transformation’ (Barry et al., 2008, Economy and Society, 37, 20, p. 20), but also ‘real‐world’, actionable impacts for the collaborative partners. We relate both these experiences to ideas of impact which go beyond the REF Impact Agenda, specifically finding important the concept of ‘impact‐in‐process’ (Marzi, 2022, Area). Second, we discuss the ethical complexities and power dynamics involved with embedding a researcher in an expert organisation. We highlight the need for broader conceptions of ethnical research, drawing particularly from Campbell and Vanderhoven's ‘ethical state of mind’ (2016, p. 30). In sum, we argue that although PhD research which is produced collaboratively with expert organisations can produce practical benefits to both researcher and partner, there are important discussions around power dynamics and ethics which can prevent PhD research done in this way from fully realising the transformational potential of collaboration.