Three Types of Institutional Innovations Show How to Represent Future Generations in Political Decision-Making Today
By Michael Rose
The choices we make in politics today, whether regarding biodiversity loss, climate change, or social security systems, hold significant repercussions for the well-being of future (i.e., yet unborn) generations. The fact that future generations have no voice today may contribute to the governance failures prevalent in these realms and others. From a democratic perspective, the interests of all affected by political decisions should be considered in their formulation. Moreover, the guiding principle of sustainable development asks us to consider the needs of future generations alongside those of the present. But how could we give a voice to people who do not yet exist?
The German Bundestag hosts the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Sustainable Development, a member of the Network of Institutions for Future Generations (Photo: Robert Diam).
Several democracies have responded to this challenge by establishing specialized institutions. For instance, in 1993, the Finnish Parliament formed the Committee for the Future. Shortly thereafter, in 1995, Canada established the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development. Both institutions remain active today. From 2001 to 2005, the Israeli Knesset had a Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations. Following suit, in 2008, the Hungarian Parliament introduced an Ombudsman for Future Generations, although this position was later downgraded by the Orbán Government in 2012. Notably, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales stands out as a prominent example of how democracies evolve their institutional frameworks to consider future generations today.
Twenty-five institutions in 17 democracies
In my article “Institutional Proxy Representatives of Future Generations: A Comparative Analysis of Types and Design Features”, I formulated the notion of institutional proxy representation of future generations to provide a theoretical foundation for these institutional advancements. Furthermore, I applied this concept to build a comprehensive inventory of empirical instances of institutional proxy representation across democracies worldwide. Through this analysis, I identified 25 institutions for future generations – or “proxies” – in 17 democracies.
The proxies are grouped into three types, based on the rationale of selecting their members: The expertise-driven independent guardian (type I), the political or administrative advisory or coordination body (type II), and the sustainability stakeholder council or commission (type III). For each proxy (and proxy type), I assessed how it is designed, and how this translates into its formal capacity to influence political decision-making.
Three types
Type I proxies – the independent guardians – typically comprise experts who are not part of government or parliament. This allows them to consider the needs of future generations from a professional point of view with minimal political interference. These proxies often have robust legal foundations and wield specific political instruments usually not found in other proxy types, such, legal rights of action, a suspensive veto, ombudsperson functions, legislative proposals, and auditing, including independent investigation rights. Type I includes all the strongest, but also some of the weakest proxies examined in this study. The strongest ones can not only voice the interests of future generations, but can also make sure they are heard by parliament or government. However, the survival rate of type I proxies is rather low.
Type II proxies – the political or administrative advisory or coordination bodies – are, to a certain extent, the counter-model to type I. They are not independent, but internal parts of the political system, comprising either Members of Parliament or members of the governmental departments. Operating on a predominantly weak legal footing, they provide internal advisory, coordination, and sometimes monitoring services to enhance political decision-making from within, with a view toward benefitting future generations. They only have limited political instruments at their disposal and can access only few stages of the policy cycle, which makes them heavily reliant on good working relationships with other parts of parliament and government.
Type III proxies – the sustainability stakeholder councils or committees – are designated parts of the sustainability governance architecture of their host countries. Embracing the principles of functional representation and participation, members are appointed from different sectors of society to broaden societal outreach, provide general advice and specific policy recommendations to the government, and oftentimes monitor and review sustainability-related developments. While they lack particularly strong or weak formal capacities to influence political decision-making, they show the highest survival rate among the three types, possibly attributable to their integration across multiple sectors.
Design features
I assessed each proxy to determine the legal basis upon which it was established, the political instruments it was granted, and the branches of government and stages of the policy cycle it could engage with through these instruments. This figure shows the distribution of political instruments across proxies and types. Proxies were created with these instruments to allow them to monitor and influence political decision-making and reach out to society. To learn more about proxies’ access to branches of government and phases of the policy cycle, as well as their legal bases and total formal capacity to influence political decision-making, please scroll through the slideshow.
Political instruments | Access to stages of the policy cycle | Access to branches of government | Legal basis | Total formal capacity to influence political decision-making
A multifaceted landscape of institutionalized voices of future generations
In general, the diverse and dynamic array of proxies, although relatively small in number, provides manifold examples of institutional innovations illustrating how the interests of future generations can be considered in political decision-making. However, while some of these proxies can act as watchdogs with teeth when ignored, many seem to represent rather cosmetic than far-reaching reforms of the democratic decision-making process. Therefore, it is important not to place excessive expectations on these proxies in terms of effecting significant policy changes to the benefit of future generations. For more detailed and inspirational results, download the full study here.
Reference Rose, Michael (2024): Institutional Proxy Representatives of Future Generations: A Comparative Analysis of Types and Design Features, in: Politics and Governance 12, Art. 7746 (21 pages). DOI: 10.17645/pag.7745
As researchers, we frequently find ourselves delving deeply into the body of scientific literature in an effort to find the answers to the questions we have. Recently, I conducted a case survey, which is a kind of meta-analysis that synthesizes qualitative case narratives in published literature. During this process, coping with missing data became both a challenging and insightful journey, which led me to take a strategic approach.
With an aim of understanding how well water governance systems function in addressing various water-related issues, my goal was very clear: to compile data from empirical studies in our sample. I was using cases that we identified systematically at the beginning of our project. These cases were from one of the two problem contexts (in our paper termed problématiques), namely “groundwater exploitation in agriculture” and “surface water pollution”. While in our previous studies, we had clustered cases into five problématiques, I selected the mentioned two problématiques, as they combined a large share of cases and represented diverse natures of problem contexts.
My initial plan was straightforward: to extract data for each case from the original articles in our sample. However, it did not go as planned, and I ran into a problem that all researchers face: incomplete data. Only 12% of cases (10 out of 86 cases) provided complete data. Before addressing the missing data, with careful consideration, I strategically chose 20 cases for each problématiques—40 being the minimum number necessary for QCA in our study—selecting those with the most complete data. Considering the amount of time and resources needed to complete the missing data, this stage was necessary. I then looked into other innovative ways to filling these gaps.
(1) Tapping into expert insight: the first strategy
My first idea was to get in touch with the main authors of the articles, considering their knowledge of the case. This approach was successful in some cases, so I gathered data for another 10 out of 40 cases (33% of the missing information). Authors shared their expert knowledge through surveys, helping with the missing information. Yet, some authors did not respond at all, and with articles published decades ago, authors often struggled to recall details about the cases. Additionally, one of the cases for which we received an author survey still had one missing piece of information.
(2) The hunt for alternative sources: grey or academic literature
As a response to the situation, I delved into the literature, both grey and academic, searching for alternative sources to to fill the remaining missing information. The goal was to identify further publications on the given cases that could help with the missing data. I included either literature published within +/- 5 years of the original article’s publishing date or publications that studied governance within the timeframe of the original article. Although this step required a close look, it was often successful in finding the information I was looking for. As a result, I was able to fill in 69% of the missing information (completing information for 16 cases).
(3) The third strategy: replacement cases
However, all these steps still left some cases with missing data. As a last step, I took a pragmatic approach—replacing those remaining 5 cases with still incomplete data with others from our sample that shared the same problématique and contained more complete data compared to the cases in the whole sample. After replacing the cases, I filled in the missing information for these new cases using the alternative sources.
In conclusion…
Working with the missing information in a case survey demands flexibility, creativity, and perseverance. Although reaching out to authors, looking into alternative sources, and using replacement cases aren’t guaranteed solutions, they are effective ways to get around the problems caused by gaps in the data. During this process, I have come to appreciate research’s dynamic nature, where adaptability is just as important as the data itself. Of course, the important thing is that we are transparent with it. Even though handling missing data might be challenging and difficult at times, we should remember that each missing piece presents an opportunity to improve our problem-solving abilities.
We (Michael Rose, Jens Newig and Sina Leipold) welcome contributions to a planned Special Issue in the journal Environmental Policy and Governance.
Environmental governance research has generated a vast body of knowledge in recent years, reflecting the immense challenges associated with governing the various sustainability issue confronting humanity. However, scholars are increasingly raising concerns about whether the growing number of publications on environmental governance truly contributes to the urgently needed scientific progress (Newig and Rose 2020). Do the numerous individual scholarly contributions create a cumulative and reliable body of research capable of guiding policy and practice (Pauliuk 2020)?
While there are different perspectives on the drivers of scientific progress, it is widely acknowledged that the cumulation of knowledge plays a significant role (Campbell 2019; Elman et al. 2020; Pauliuk 2020; Park et al. 2023). Google Scholar, the world’s largest academic research engine, alludes to this fact by referencing Isaac Newton’s quote about “standing on the shoulders of giants”. However, in our field, we often find ourselves talking past each other, resulting in fragemented knowledge, rather than building upon the work of our colleagues. It is crucial to acknowledge that the process of cumulating knowledge on a specific research topic is not merely about adding new papers to the stock. Instead, it “occurs when new findings are integrated with existing knowledge to create a more comprehensive understanding of the subject” (Newig et al. 2023: 3).
To be more precise, “knowledge may cumulate on both empirical findings and theory, by
adding to existing research in the sense of confirming findings and/or widening their spatial, temporal or topical applicability;
challenging existing research in the sense of falsifying or rejecting prior research based on new findings (thus raising questions about either quality or replicability); and
refining existing research, by specifying scope conditions, causal mechanisms, amending sets of variables, or generating new hypotheses” (Newig et al. 2023: 3, see also Mahoney 2003, Cairney 2013, and Newig & Rose 2020).
The production of cumulative knowledge is by no means a matter of course. Social sciences and sustainability sciences as well as environmental governance research, which is informed by both, have been criticized to insufficiently cumulate knowledge. Suggestions have been made on how to mitigate this problem for the sake of scientific progress as well as improved relevance for policy and society (Elman et al. 2020; Newig & Rose 2020; Pauliuk 2020). While environmental governance research, in general, benefits from its disciplinary, methodological and epistemic diversity, this also poses challenges to knowledge cumulation. The field seems to lack a shared account of clearly defined and widely used frameworks, theories, concepts, methods and quality criteria, which encourages idiosyncratic or even isolated research activities. This may (unwittingly) produce old wine in new bottles instead of scientifically robust answers to pressing questions (Newig & Rose 2020).
At the same time, while we argue that we need more knowledge cumulation, we would also like to accommodate perspectives that critically engage with this claim, discussing dangers of a possibly hegemonic approach to knowledge cumulation, and the implications of strong knowledge cumulation for marginalised discourses, scholarly communities and forms of knowledge, as well as creativity, innovation, and out-of-the-box thinking.
For the planned special issue, we welcome empirical, theoretical, methodological and critical contributions that explicitly reflect on and advance the debate on knowledge cumulation in environmental governance research (EGR). All contributions need to clearly relate to environmental policy and governance as outlined in the aims and scope of the journal (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/17569338). Possible topics may include, but are not limited to:
Critical reflections on the epistemological foundations, opportunities and limitations of knowledge cumulation in EGR, as well as the possible disadvantages and risks associated with it;
Methodological and empirical accounts of assessing cumulability and cumulation of knowledge in EGR papers, communities and particular research questions;
(Applications of) Methods, procedures and standards that can advance knowledge cumulation in EGR, such as meta-analysis, systematic reviews, narrational knowledge integration, archetype analysis, Bayesian inference, modelling, AI applications, comprehensive assessments, and Open Science;
Challenges and opportunities of knowledge integration and knowledge cumulation in interdisciplinary research;
Challenges and opportunities of knowledge cumulation in transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, invloving experiential, practical, and indigenous knowledge;
“Best practice” examples of knowledge cumulation regarding particular EGR research questions that also offer methodological reflections on the extent to which knowledge cumulation was achieved;
Conceptual or empirical work exploring the relationshiop between knowledge cumulation and novelty (‘disruptiveness’).
Please submit your abstract (approx. 400 words) for a full paper (7,000-10,000 words, incl. references) or critical comment (3,000-4,000 words) until 15 August10 September 2023 to michael.rose@leuphana.de. Please make sure that your contribution to the debate on knowledge cumulation and the field of environmental governance research becomes clearly visible throughout your manuscript.
Further timeline (updated):
1 October 2023 preliminary acceptance or rejection as well as feedback on abstracts
31 December 2023 submission of full papers and start of the reviewing period
15 March 2024 first preliminary decision by guest editors and start of first round of revisions
15 April 2024 submission of revised papers (1st round)
15 May 2024 second preliminary decision by guest editors and start of the second round of revisions
15 June 2024 submission of revised papers (2nd round)
30 June 2024 final guest-editorial decision, followed by approval or suggestions for revisions by journal editors
Summer 2024 First View (online) publication of the Special Issue as a whole
2024 print publication of the Special Issue.
Cited literature
Cairney, P. (2013) ‘Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: How Do We Combine the Insights of Multiple Theories in Public Policy Studies?’ Policy Studies Journal 41: 1-21.
Campbell, C. (2019) Has Sociology Progressed? Reflections of an Accidental Academic (Cham: Palgrave Pivot).
Abbott, A. (2006) ‘Reconceptualizing Knowledge Accumulation in Sociology.’ The American Sociologist 37 (2): 57-66.
Elman, C., J. Gerring and J. Mahoney, eds. (2020) The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, J. (2004) ‘Knowledge Accumulation in Comparative Historical Research: The Case of Democracy and Authoritarianism.’ Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131-174.
Newig, J. and M. Rose (2020) ‘Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy and planning research: towards a research reform agenda.’ Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22 (5): 667-81, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1767551.
Newig, J., M. Rose, Z. Aksoy, S. Beaudoin, T. Bolognesi, O. Fritsch, D. Hegger, B. Hofmann, N. W. Jager, E. Kellner, S. Leipold, Å. Persson, H. Runhaar and R. Webb (2023) ‘To Assess Progress in the Social Sciences, We Should Study Knowledge Cumulation, not Disruptiveness’. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4445549 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4445549
Park, M., E. Leahey and R.J. Funk (2023) ‘Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time.’ Nature 613 (7942): 138-44.
Pauliuk, S. (2020) ‘Making sustainability science a cumulative effort.’ Nature Sustainability 3: 2-4.
Governance systems are facing challenges to foster land-use strategies that support climate protection, social well-being and biodiversity conservation. The new EU-funded project “PLUS Change” involves 23 partner organizations across the European Union to provide robust evidence on and improve land-use decision-making for addressing climate change and biodiversity conservation. PLUS Change is co-ordinated by the Czech Globe research institute (see here for their introduction to the project). Using a transdisciplinary research approach, the project consortium is working with 11 planning authorities and regional development agencies in twelve case regions to firmly ground our research in the realities of different geographical, historical, cultural and political contexts and hence to produce policy-relevant knowledge on governing land-use towards sustainability.
To do so, the project will (1) bridge across biodiversity and climate, recognising them as problems that share many of the same underlying drivers, and must be solved together; (2) bridge between individual behaviour changes of citizens and broader systems-wide changes in decision-making and policy at levels from local to national to EU; and (3) bridge between different areas of expertise to create a truly transdisciplinary project that includes social sciences, land use modelers and practitioners of land use planning.
The scientific partners in PLUS Change will work on land-use modelling, produce a planning toolkit and test participatory methods in the case regions.
Our research group will use meta-analytical tools to synthesize evidence on how governance and policy impact sustainable land-use change. We aim to identify what governance approaches and interventions (evidence-based? participatory? collaborative? scale-adapted? etc.) have worked in what contexts to achieve a more sustainable land-use. Building on these results, in-depth empirical research (interviews, document analysis) will be conducted in 12 local practice cases in various countries across Europe. We will develop a rich understanding of the historical development of land use, contentious land use issues and conflicts, and the role of policy, tenure and governance arrangements in shaping land use change.
By Johanna Coenen, Gabi Sonderegger, Jens Newig, Patrick Meyfroidt, Edward Challies, Simon L. Bager, Louise M. Busck-Lumholt, Esteve Corbera, Cecilie Friis, Anna Frohn Pedersen, Perrine C.S.J. Laroche, Claudia Parra Paitan, Siyu Qin, Nicolas Roux, Julie G. Zaehringer
In today’s interconnected world, local sustainability issues such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, agri-chemical pollution and food insecurity are increasingly shaped by global commodity flows and the actions of distant actors. The demand for commodities such as soy, palm oil, cocoa, rubber and meat can have adverse social and environmental consequences in the production regions that are often geographically distant from the consumption sites. Such sustainability challenges often transcend traditional political boundaries, posing difficulties in designing governance institutions that adequately fit their scale. Where governance institutions fail to align with the scale of the problems they are meant to address, we encounter issues referred to as “problems of fit”, “mismatches”, or “misfits”. The governance of global commodity flows is particularly beset with such problems of fit.
In our recent article, published in Ecology and Society, we explore the spatial dimension of governance fit concerning global commodity flows. In doing so, we synthesize some key findings of the COUPLED project. We shed light on two key types of governance mismatches: boundary and resolution mismatches (Table 1).
Table 1. Boundary and resolution mismatches in the governance of telecoupled social-ecological systems.
Boundary mismatch
Resolution mismatch
Definition
Governance institutions neglect social-ecological problems that transcend established administrative or jurisdictional boundaries
Governance institutions have too coarse a spatial resolution than is suitable to address the social-ecological problems at hand
Underlying problem
Lack of governance extent
Lack of governance precision
Mechanism
Spillover
Leakage
Panacea trap
Description
Governance institutions do not govern a social-ecological problem that expands beyond their administrative or jurisdictional boundaries
Governance institutions address a social-ecological problem but create leakage(s), i.e., counterproductive effects outside the targeted area or domain of the intervention
Governance institutions are not specific enough to be effectively implemented and enforced
We present empirical examples of the different types of mismatches from both public and private governance perspectives in this publication. We also graphically illustrate the different mismatches. For example, Figure 1 displays boundary mismatches.
Figure 1. Boundary mismatches. Governance institutions neglect social-ecological problems that transcend established jurisdictional boundaries due to spillovers (A) or leakages (B).
Furthermore, we examine three approaches to address mismatches, namely due diligence laws and policies, landscape and jurisdictional approaches to supply chain governance, and environmental provisions in trade agreements. We show that any attempt to resolve boundary or resolution mismatches comes with the risk of creating new mismatches. We find that no single governance approach can address all mismatches, emphasizing the need for the alignment of multiple governance approaches to effectively govern global commodity flows.
In this blog post I reflect on some lessons learned of writing a manuscript with 14 co-authors, submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper aims to synthesize the results of an interdisciplinary research project, involving 15 individual PhD projects based at 8 different European universities. Here I share my experiences of leading such a collaborative endeavour. This blogpost is targeted at any (potential) lead author, but it can also be insightful to co-authors because it highlights common challenges when working and writing in teams.
Challenge 1: Assume leadership.
Most obviously, the lead author is expected to assume leadership. However, it is not always clear what this means in practices.
Tip 1.1. Choose an author management strategy.
As a first step, you should decide which author management strategy you wish to use. Do you follow the approach of the “lone wolf”, “dynamic duo”, “board of directors”, “roundtable” or “organized chaos” (see Appendix below)? Jointly reflecting on different modes of collaboration in interdisciplinary research teams can help to clarify roles and responsibilities, secure firm commitments from co-authors and prevent that co-authors hold onto preconceived expectations about the lead authors’ role. Even though it may be desirable to create a leadership collective as it can help to cultivate a particularly caring and inclusive academic culture, individual leadership is still the predominant modus operandi in scientific collaborations. Note that the authorship management strategy can change in the course of the writing process.
Tip 1.2. Discuss concrete proposals rather than open questions.
If you ask 14 authors how to approach or resolve a given issue, you may receive 14 different answers. If these answers are not compatible with one another, you can be left with more questions than answers. Rather than posing open questions, it can be more efficient to discuss concrete suggestions and ideas with co-authors. For example, I found it useful to always prepare a few presentation slides with the main ideas and remaining questions before meetings. Even if your ideas seem very preliminary, they provide a basis for discussion and help you steer the process.
Tip 1.3. Be prepared to make (final) decisions and communicate your decision-making authority with your co-authors.
Sometimes you find yourself in a deadlock where two different co-authors make contrary suggestions. For example, co-author A wishes to start the introduction with the core concept, whereas co-author B suggests to start with an elaboration of the real-world problem. Accommodating both suggestions may not be feasible. Acknowledge that you, as a lead author, are not able to accommodate all co-authors’ views and suggestions to the same extent and that you are entitled and expected to make decisions. Several senior researchers in our team encouraged me to assume this decision-making authority. Their affirmation of my lead role was certainly important for leading the process with more confidence.
Tip 1.4. Discuss the envisioned audience of the paper.
In interdisciplinary team of authors, who usually target slightly different audiences, it is important to discuss the target audience of the joint paper (and potential journal for submission) in order to align everyone’s expectations.
Tip 1.5. Make sure that you always feel a clear sense of ownership of the paper.
Even though a co-authored paper presents joint work, it is important that you always feel responsible for both the success and failure of the study. As much as I felt that this piece of work was “our paper”, I considered it to be “my paper” because I not only provided the main intellectual input, but also made sure that I could fully identify with every single argument that was developed. There is the risk that co-authors change the storyline of the paper according to their individual research interests and expertise, which you need to recognize, potentially discuss and carefully adapt to ensure that the paper speaks with one voice despite many different perspectives that informed the writing.
Challenge 2: Determine co-authorship
Tip 2.1. Reflect on the criteria for authorship.
Writing collaborative papers in the realm of larger research projects poses the question who becomes a co-author. It may be desirable to write a paper with all researchers who are involved in the research project because a presumably strong and long list of authors may raise the scientific credibility of the study and demonstrate the interdisciplinarity and inclusiveness of the research project. However, the more authors are involved, the more challenging it gets to ensure that all authors make a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the study, which is a widely used criterion for authorship (see e.g. guidelines for safeguarding good research practices by the German Research Foundation or the commonly used ICMJE guidelines). For our research project, for example, all members of the project were invited to two synthesis workshops (as further discussed below). While we offered everyone the possibility to become a co-author, we clarified that the mere participation in the workshop was not sufficient to qualify for co-authorship. Co-authors were expected to contribute towards developing, drafting and revising the manuscript; and asked to give final approval before journal submission. Discussing the criteria for authorship early on can help to prevent issues around ghost, guest, orphan or forged authorship.
Tip 2.2. Consider using an authorship agreement.
When you start collaborating, it is important to clarify some fundamental questions: What inputs and how much commitment do you expect from co-authors? How much guidance and instructions do you provide to co-authors? How much time are co-authors expected to attribute to this joint work? Especially as a junior researcher it can be uncomfortable to discuss this topic with senior researchers as there are power differentials. If you wish to formalize your modes of collaboration, you can use an authorship agreement (see example).
Tip 2.3. Keep track of the individual contributions.
Even if you decide not to fill an authorship agreement from the beginning of your collaboration, it is useful to record the individual contributions transparently. For example, set up a shared document with bullet points or a table, similar to the example of the authorship agreement provided above, and keep track of the individual contributions.
Tip 2.4.: Develop a strategy how to harmonize different writing styles.
If several people write the final manuscript, you need to find ways how to harmonize different writing styles. In our case, co-authors sent me bullet points or text snippets that I adapted and incorporated into the full manuscript. Other approaches to the writing process are of course possible. In any case, it is useful to briefly discuss your approach with the team.
Challenge 3: Manage time.
Tip 3.1. Develop a time schedule and discuss it with the team.
Collaborative paper projects usually take several months or even years. Thus, it is important to identify particular tasks and keep track of the progress made. For example, you can use a Gantt chart to maintain an overview. Add milestones and deadlines and consider when your co-authors are on holidays or not available due to other commitments like conferences or fieldwork.
Tip 3.2. Schedule regular meetings/jour fixes.
It may be difficult to find time for meetings with all authors or a smaller group of authors. Therefore, it is useful to plan regular meetings from the beginning. For example, schedule bi-weekly or monthly meetings for the expected duration of the collaboration. Even if some meetings may seem superfluous because not much progress has been made, briefly discussing any difficulties and the status quo of the paper can be useful to overcome a deadlock and ensures that co-authors remain committed to the joint study. Additional ad-hoc meetings can be scheduled if needed.
Tip 3.3. Always communicate the next steps.
Most, if not all, co-authors work on other projects and tasks next to your joint work. Thus, it is highly important to communicate whether you expect any inputs, and if so, from whom and when. You will more likely receive useful inputs from co-authors if you design small work packages, provide clear instructions and indicate tentative internal deadlines.
Challenge 4: Organize a workshop.
Organizing a workshop can help to create a shared vision of the paper. For our joint paper, we organized two workshops – one online and one in person – which helped to recognize diverging perspectives, develop new ideas, set the focus, and create a sense of shared responsibility for the progress of the study.
Tip 4.1. Communicate the agenda and aims of the workshop in advance.
First, all co-authors should be informed about the agenda and aims of the workshop – either a few days before the workshop or at the beginning. By clearly formulating the goals and desired outputs, you increase the chances of yielding actionable and substantial results.
Tip 4.2. Let others be the note-taker, facilitator and rapporteur during the workshop.
Organizing a workshop and preparing the materials can be time-consuming and intellectually-demanding. Although you may organize the workshop collaboratively, it will require time and energy to decide on the content and program of the workshop. Additionally, you may be overwhelmed by the co-authors’ feedback and inputs you receive during the workshop. Thus, it can be useful to ask other participants to help with taking notes, facilitating the discussion or acting as a rapporteur at the end of the workshop. If you do not assume all these roles yourself, you can better focus on the content-related ideas and challenging questions that will arise during the workshop.
Tip 4.3. Not only discuss the content of the paper, but also the work process.
At our workshops, we focused mainly on the content of the paper, trying to find the common denominator and advancing the main argument. However, it would have been beneficial if we had also discussed the work process. Exchanging about the co-authors’ expectations, commitments, roles and responsibilities can help clarifying the expected work flow and workload. Discussing our experiences from other collaborative studies with interdisciplinary author teams could have contributed to learning from best practices.
Challenge 5: Handle feedback
Tip 5.1.: Give clear instructions on what feedback to expect.
When a full paper draft is ready, co-authors will be involved in revising and editing the manuscript. If you give clear instructions on what feedback you expect, you will receive more targeted suggestions for improvements. For example, ask your co-authors for concrete edits (using track changes) rather than general comments on the text. Additionally, you can set the focus of the internal revisions. For instance, in the final rounds of revisions I indicated that we do not need additional illustrative examples or explanations because we already reached the word count. Rather, I asked the co-authors to focus on revising and modifying the existing text in order to avoid that co-authors add too many additional arguments and examples that we could not accommodate in the manuscript.
Tip 5.2. Learn to dismiss co-authors’ suggestions.
My co-authors’ comments and suggestions for improvements were excellent. However, it was not feasible to integrate all the feedback of our interdisciplinary research team for two main reasons. First, the word count is limited. Second, the paper needs to have a common thread and cannot do justice to all perspectives. Thus, we had to disregard some aspects. It was important to communicate from the beginning that the paper cannot accommodate all perspectives equally. I had to learn to dismiss some suggestions for change, despite highly appreciating co-authors’ inputs and valuing diverse perspectives. At the beginning, I felt obliged to incorporate all suggestions for improvements, but I learned over time that dismissing some suggestions was occasionally necessary and justified in order to keep the work manageable.
In sum…
It has been an extremely enriching experience of leading this work and I very much appreciated the opportunity, privilege and challenge of assuming this task. Of course, not all steps were easy, but I would not want to miss this experience – irrespective of the outcome of the pending review process of our paper. Not only the trustful, respectful and supportive relationships within the team, but also the co-authors’ positive feedback and affirmation of our work offset moments of insecurity and frustration. Good leadership benefits vastly from good teamwork to which all co-authors can contribute. Most importantly, take care of yourself and others during the joint project because you can only sustain your work in the long-term if you respect your own limits, and openly and carefully engage with the divergent needs, expectations and interests of others.
Acknowledgement: I thank Jens Newig for his useful comments and edits of the draft of this blog post.
“The lead author manages the manuscript tasks, does much of the work on parts of the manuscript, but engages coauthors for for feedback and brainstorming once materials have been prepared, and is open to revising and altering the approach taken. […] Because the lead author is taking on more of the individual tasks, the group size should be smaller, and the authorship table should be used heavily to maintain appropriate coauthor contributions.” (p. 9)
Dynamic duo
“Two clearly defined co-leads manage the manuscript tasks equally and are listed as co-leads in the manuscript author list. […] The same issues of engagement with and feedback from the rest of the coauthors that were raised for the lone wolf approach apply here. This strategy has advantages such as of having two people to keep momentum going on a manuscript when busy periods hit, having individuals who can learn from each other by working together on all aspects of a manuscript closely, and taking advantage of different strengths of individuals.” (p. 9)
Board of directors
“A small group (3–5) of coauthors, including the lead author, manage the manuscript tasks by dividing up tasks, and working closely together on the vision for the manuscript. This group interacts frequently to develop the manuscript, tasks are delegated among group members, and then the group engages with other coauthors for feedback and is open to revising based on that feedback. This strategy shares many of the advantages of the dynamic duo, but may be better for collaborations that would benefit from a larger or more diverse leadership group.” (p. 9)
Round table
“A group of coauthors that follow a flat or distributed leadership model in which all authors jointly participate in managing the manuscript tasks, in particular related to major decision-making. The role of the first author in this case is to coordinate and keep track of all of the different efforts and monitor the timeline for completion of tasks. This management strategy may be the most unusual for science teams, but can be effective with the right manuscript. For example, manuscripts that have several large tasks that can be completed individually may benefit from this strategy.” (p. 9)
Organized chaos
“In this management strategy, the lead author(s) manages the manuscript tasks, but the overall structure to the workflow differs significantly from the first four strategies. The strategy is best suited for manuscripts that include everyone on the project (and sometimes more) as coauthors, often for less common manuscript types, such as data papers or project synthesis papers. Because there are many more tasks than a traditional manuscript, it is often more efficient for the lead author to delegate and coordinate tasks independently rather than collaboratively.” (pp. 9-10)
Oliver, S. K., Fergus, C. E., Skaff, N. K., Wagner, T., Tan, P. N., Cheruvelil, K. S., & Soranno, P. A. (2018). Strategies for effective collaborative manuscript development in interdisciplinary science teams. Ecosphere, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2206
By Johanna Coenen, Jens Newig, Patrick Meyfroidt, Simon Bager and Edward Challies
In the past months, we have tried to solve a case of plagiarism, but without success. The process has brought the sobering revelation that plagiarism is deliberately ignored in a high-ranking journal like the Journal of Cleaner Production, which is published by Elsevier.
We contacted the Editors of JCLP and asked them to review this issue. After sending several reminders, we received a response in October, saying: “Our similarity check report shows that only 1% of similarity rate for these two articles. Therefore, we do not think there is possible plagiarism for the JCLP paper. However, there is indeed inappropriate citation, we will contact the authors and make a correction accordingly” [E-mail October 21, 2021].
Yet, the journal editors took no actions. We sent a reminder e-mail and received the following response in December: “After our editorial team’s internal discussion, we do not think there is any potential plagiarism regarding the article […]. “Although the JCLP article clearly uses the EPG paragraph (order and references), the JCLP paper is not using “their ideas or results,””.” [E-mail from December 10, 2021]
Indeed, a similarity rate of 1% seems very little. However, our text has only partly been copied literally, and partly been paraphrased, which is more difficult to detect with a plagiarism software than longer passages of literal copying. The problem is that the entire paragraph is organized around exactly the same references, in the same order, to make the same points (and still takes over parts verbatim). In other words, what is plagiarized here is only partly the specific words; it is the intellectual content that is expressed in organizing these thoughts and in identifying, compiling, organizing and synthesizing these references. Any reader will acknowledge that it is entirely impossible that independently, these authors came up with exactly the same list of works compiled in the same order to make the same points. It is thus indisputable that these authors drew inspiration from our paper without citation.
Elsevier’s policies explicitly recognize that even paraphrasing is a form of plagiarism: “Copying may take place without reproducing the exact words used in the original work, i.e. without literal or substantial copying. This type of copying is known as paraphrasing, and it can be the most difficult type of plagiarism to detect (…)”.1
We responded to the Editors of JCLP by seriously questioning their position and inaction. We requested that the authors should add an appropriate citation to our article, such as “This paragraph is drawn from Coenen et al. (2021)” or similar. We never requested a retraction of the article, but merely an Erratum to simply acknowledge our work from which these authors drew. However, we did not receive a response.
As a next step, we contacted the authors, presented them this comparison and asked them to issue an Erratum in order to include an appropriate citation. The authors apologized, announced that they would cite us in their next publication (we note that this announcement has, in our view, no relevance to the matter in question here), but did not take any actions in the present case.
As a last step, we sent a complaint to Elsevier. We presented our case, asked them to review the issue and pointed to what in our view is an irresponsible journal editorship at JCLP. The case was forwarded to the editorial manager of JCLP. Then, we received a response from the JCLP editorial team, saying that “Upon a second check, the editorial team still don’t find real plagia-rism issue even according to the strictest ethical standard.”. They went on and explained: “To illustrate the editors’ point of view, the editorial team have checked your EPG paper. We also could find the same issues in it, which recorded 25% similarity. Being strict, even if you cite the source, you cannot use the same text.” [E-mail from February 28, 2022]. They added a hardly readable compilation of screenshots which shows text segments with a high degree of similarity with our article. This plagiarism assessment revealed similarities between our EPG article and short phrases of sources that we cite, the entry of the very same paper on ResearchGate (which explains the high degree of similarity), and even another sentence that the authors of the aforementioned plagiarized text segment have seemingly taken from our article.
We suddenly found ourselves in the position of needing to defend our own article. Any scientific article is based on previous literature and rephrases existing studies to some extent. Thus, finding some degree of similarity is neither surprising, nor problematic when appropriate citation is used. The mentions of similarity/plagiarism that the JCLP editorial team identified on our article in EPG are single sentences that directly cite the paper to which they refer. As the compilation shows, several works pick the same point from specific papers, and use the formulation of the original authors to remain as true as possible to their originally-intended meaning. With adequate citation that just follows this sentence, this is not plagiarism.
On top of this, the JCLP editorial team accused us of “a substantial amount of self-plagiarism” [E-mail from February 28, 2022], which is clearly unjustified, as the texts they identified do not refer to different works, but simply the upload of the same paper on ResearchGate and our own blog post discussing it.
What started out as a genuine attempt to correct an omission has become an eye-opening and worrying experience about research ethics and publishing practices. The apparent reluctancy to take actions against plagiarism undermines the credibility of the journal and, most importantly, its scientific integrity. We are unfortunately not the only researchers who report about editors’ deliberate ignorance of plagiarism. David A. Sanders highlighted in a related blogpost: “By not taking firm action on articles that contain plagiarized text, editors are encouraging misconduct”.2 We hope that publicizing our case contributes towards raising awareness about violations of good research practices and responsible journal management.
We are proud and happy to announce the launch of ParticipationCaseScout: a new web-based tool to explore and analyse a database of public environmental decision processes, with a focus on participatory and collaborative governance in Western democratic states (project ‘EDGE’).
With the goal of integrating and cumulating fragmented case-based knowledge, ‘EDGE’ has produced a database of 305 coded cases of public environmental governance, mainly to test the relationship between different forms of participatory and collaborative decision-making and environmental outcomes (for results, see e.g. Jager et al. 2020 and Newig et al. 2019). Funded by the European Research Council (ERC), ‘EDGE’ was led by Jens Newig, with Ed Challies, Nicolas Jager and Elisa Kochskämper as collaborators. The map below shows all locations of ‘EDGE’ cases.
To facilitate knowledge transfer, we developed the idea for ParticipationCaseScout in two undergraduate research seminars at Leuphana University Lüneburg in 2019 and 2020. When students were conducting expert interviews, they learned that professionals in public administration and consulting would appreciate a web-based tool that allows them to browse case studies in settings similar to their own work.
After two years of work, ParticipationCaseScout (available in English and German) not only serves to browse, explore and compare existing case studies (with many options for searching and filtering). It also allows to calculate governance-related ‘success’ factors for achieving desired environmental or social outcomes via specifically tailored regression analyses.
We are grateful to our many collaborators: our student assistants, Marlene Rimmert, Anita Vollmer, Inga Melchior and Lana Wesemann; the participants of the two undergraduate seminars; the many experts in public administration and consulting who commented on earlier versions of ParticipationCaseScout and to Mathias Jesussek from DataTab for technical implementation of the interactive tool.
We hope that ParticipationCaseScout will inspire practitioners in the evidence-informed design of participatory decision-making processes, and provide researchers an easy access to a cumulative knowledge base for further comparative inquiry – qualitative and quantitative.
For an Innovative Session on 9 September 2021 at the upcoming Earth System Governance Conference (Bratislava / vitual, 7-10 September), we are looking for junior and senior scholars who would like to give short inputs of 5-7 minutes on different aspects of knowledge cumulation in earth system governance research. Inputs may cover topics such as
epistemic prerequisites and limits of knowledge cumulation;
methods of knowledge cumulation;
experiences and best practice examples of knowledge cumulation;
policy makers’ perspectives on knowledge cumulation as evidence production;
open science for knowledge cumulation;
forward-looking perspectives of how to improve knowledge cumulation.
The virtual innovative session will take place on September 9 from 10.30 to 12.00 Central European Time. If you are interested to contribute a short presentation, please send us your abstract (around 250 words) by July 25 (e-mail to newig@uni.leuphana.de and rose@uni.leuphana.de). We will inform you about acceptance in early August.
The innovative session seeks to bring together researchers from the ESG community – and the wider field of environmental governance – who share a common interest in the debate on knowledge cumulation, its prospects, opportunities, current diagnoses, limits and pitfalls, as well as in building institutions that facilitate a more “cumulative research culture” without compromising epistemic diversity.
While this session is linked to an emerging ESG Task Force on Knowledge Cumulation, everyone is invited to participate regardless of your interest in taking part in the Taskforce. (The Taskforce will be launched at the ESG Conference on September 10, at 1.30 p.m. – virtual. Please et us know if you would like to join, independently of the Innovative Session.)
More details on the Innovative Session can be found in this document.
We look forward to receiving interesting proposals!
Communicating our research results to fellow scientists, but also policy makers, practitioners, journalists and the general public, is a core task in science. It is particularly important if we aim to facilitate evidence-based decision-making and aspire to have a real-world impact with our research.
Visualizations play a powerful role in science communication. They help to attract attention, summarize data and make information easily accessible (see also this blog post and recent publication about telecoupling visualizations). Animated and interactive visuals in particular can be highly appealing and effective means for communicating results via websites, blog posts, social media posts and conference presentations. Yet, many scientists seem to lack the time and/or technical capacities to generate appealing visuals that speak to their target audience.
In recent years, a range of visualizations tools has been developed that aim to facilitate the transformation of data into attractive visuals. Often, they are simple to use and do not require sophisticated data visualization skills. In the table below, we present a selection of such visualization tools, which may help us to translate our research results into beautiful visuals.
To use ArcGIS StoryMaps, you need full access to the Essential Apps Bundle by purchasing an ArcGIS Creator or GIS Professional user type.Many universities and organizations are already using ArcGIS, so you may be able to get access to ArcGIS via the organization or university you work for.
Clickhereto find an example of a network graph which shows the interlinkages between climate initiatives and the Sustainable Development Goals (created with kumu.io).
This post first appeared at coupled-itn.eu on April 21, 2021.
SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE 