Close collaboration with all stakeholders in society is a prerequisite if science aims to address major societal challenges. But then, universities should open their doors and make critical choices, argues Eefje Cuppen, director of the Rathenau Institute.

Hidden among the high-rise buildings near Laan van NOI station, the Rathenau Institute is based in a nondescript office. ‘Not exactly the most inspiring ambience,’ Eefje Cuppen admits with a chuckle. Fortunately, close by are the allotments where she can get the occasional breath of fresh air in the lush greenery, and she also spends one day a week among the students at the Leiden University campus in the centre of the Hague. 

photo: Michelle Muus

It is precisely this alternation between different environments and people that Cuppen finds so invaluable and refreshing – not just for herself, but also for addressing the huge challenges we are faced with, such as climate adaptation, pressure on the healthcare system, and the energy transition. 

As director of the Rathenau Institute and professor at Leiden University, she examines how participation by citizens and other stakeholders can contribute in democratising science, technology and innovation to find solutions that benefit society as a whole. 

Power

These challenging societal issues demand drastic changes, the transition from an old system to a new one, Cuppen explains. “The old system involves vested interests and power politics. It is therefore crucial to be mindful about the status and power dynamism among those you bring to the table: who sets the agenda, who is heard, whose opinion matters most? So, it’s also about power.” 
 
Thus, it is vital to be aware of what is at stake in terms of uncertainties, interests and values, especially when dealing with complex societal issues where different parties have different, at times conflicting, interests. 

“To make the most of those diverse perspectives, you need a good design and methodology. But then, as scientists, due to the way we are trained, we tend to have our own implicit biases and assumptions. Stepping out of our comfort zone, we need to discard these to be perceptive to what matters to people. Otherwise, how can we connect with society if we don’t have a dialogue with society?” 

She fears that the academic world is not yet ready for this much-needed collaboration with society. “Actually, the term ‘transdisciplinary research’ itself is a misnomer. It gives the impression of a researcher who thinks: how can other people participate in my research? Transdisciplinarity and societal issues are all about connecting with society, but we have lost that connection, and now we feel the pinch.” 

photo: Michelle Muus

Not the core 

Transdisciplinary research is still rare and tends to happen outside the line organisation, Cuppen observes. “To put it bluntly: there are a few programmes on the fringes of the primary process, with people on part-time contracts financed from temporary funding, and lots of nice posters and flyers to showcase. But it is not really the core.” 

As a result, long-term studies are hard to get off the ground. “Even if you have an enthusiastic team with really good initiatives, who enjoy working together. I have often witnessed this in my work with methodologies for participatory dialogue. For example, the methodology was not used properly, or it was a one-off project that was not followed up or embedded.” 

She thinks this is due to a short-term approach. “Collaboration with other parties calls for a long-term commitment. It takes time to get to know one another, find a common language, build trust and learn how to work together. You have to be realistic about your expectations and the requirements to fulfill these expectations.” 

Systems change 

Transdisciplinary research is also complicated by the current funding model for science, which rewards competition and rivalry. “As a researcher, I was trained to always chase money, that is the incentive. But if you want to collaborate with other parties to find solutions that help society, it doesn’t work. Having disciplinary silos with separate budgets is not helpful either. I have seen cases where faculties had to pay each other when jointly hosting curricula. That’s ridiculous.” 

As per Cuppen, universities have to make hard choices if they wish to come up with solutions to complex societal issues together with other parties. “Partnering in a local or regional knowledge ecosystem leads to a different strategy then aiming to be a globally top-ranked institution. I am not saying one is better than the other, but I don’t see universities making those choices right now. I do hope they will consider this.” 

She also hopes that universities will step up the pace. “It is disappointing that we have not yet made more progress with transdisciplinary research. It was already a topic 25 years ago, when I started as a student. It seems to me that certain discussions are just repeated. At the same time, I also observe that it has become much more embedded in the standard practices of science and research. But I did hope and expect it to move faster. A flight forward would help.” 

photo: Michelle Muus

She thinks that the challenges for science are enormous yet also present an opportunity. “The funding cuts propel science to revisit its purpose, affiliation and priorities. Many of the choices made in the past feel as if they were carved in stone. It takes curiosity and courage to have an open mind to different perspectives and reasonings.” 

For Cuppen, it’s a matter of taking action and persevering. “Having a network and the prerogative of building on previous collaborations is a real advantage. Instead of being told so, people may need to experience it in order to truly appreciate or understand.”