- Email: [email protected]
National Future Earth platforms as boundary organizations contributing to solutions-oriented global change research
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect National Future Earth platforms as boundary organizations contributing to solutions-oriented global change research Tanja Suni1, Sirkku Juhola2,3, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki4, Jukka Ka¨yhko¨5, Katriina Soini4 and Markku Kulmala1
Increasing international commitment is emerging to harness research to contribute to solving grand societal challenges related to global change. Examples include global research programmes like Future Earth and concerted efforts in the form of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. During the last decade and a half, diverse concepts and design principles have also been developed for solutions-oriented sustainability research. However, a number of challenges have emerged related to this new kind of transdisciplinary research. We argue that these challenges, related to, for example, research culture and stakeholder engagement, suitable funding, necessary interaction and communication skills for the researchers and end-users of research, and reward systems, could be addressed in a systematic way by new types of boundary organizations, and that Future Earth has potential to develop its national platforms into such organizations. We propose that these platforms, typically operating under research councils and science academies, have just the right mandate to take on important roles as mediators and facilitators for solutions-oriented global change research. They can create the necessary long-term relationships between academia and society, bring attention to capacity-building needs, and break old disciplinary research structures by promoting a new research culture where stakeholders and scientists find each other around relevant research questions. On a science–policy level, they can bring funders, policymakers, and scientists together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change. Successful examples of such Future Earth platforms and activities already exist in Europe. Future Earth is in a position to spearhead the transformation of research culture from local to global level. Addresses 1 Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland 3 Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, Finland 4 Helsinki University Center for Environment, HENVI, University of Helsinki, Finland 5 Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Finland
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68 This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue, part I Edited by Eduardo S Brondizio, Rik Leemans and William D Solecki
Received 15 June 2016; Revised 02 November 2016; Accepted 17 November 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.011 1877-3435/# 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction Humanity will be facing grand challenges in the future. Archetypes of these challenges include acceleration of climate change, erosion of biodiversity coupled with societies’ increasing need for food, fresh water and energy supply. Large-scale scientific assessments have synthesised knowledge with regard to ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA), climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) and biodiversity (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, IPBES). Simultaneously, a renewed commitment in the form of the new sustainable development goals [1] has emerged to promote sustainability. Thus, the discussion of sustainability in the Anthropocene [2] has never been more pertinent. Significant changes are also underway regarding how global change-related research is organized. The new global initiative, Future Earth, has brought together a large part of the existing global change research community and is gradually becoming operational.
Corresponding author: Juhola, Sirkku ([email protected])
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
64 Open issue, part I
Global change research6 carries connotations of transdisciplinarity7 and societal relevance with the aim of bringing the two together in a comprehensive process. However, many research communities are not yet familiar with how to engage stakeholders in research and with the sound methodologies for such research. In this review, we explore a range of challenges and success factors for boundary organizations advancing global change research and offer lessons learned on how such research can be co-designed and co-produced in an interactive process with researchers, knowledge users, and other stakeholders. We further supplement the literature with a small number of interviews with key stakeholders within existing national organizations.8 Ultimately, we propose that the national platforms forming under Future Earth are well suited for advancing such work.
Challenges of solution-oriented sustainability research The last decade has witnessed increasing call for the policy relevance of the science produced [3] and the emergence of altogether new fields of science to support this development. Transdisciplinary research7 has increased rapidly but its methodologies and opportunities for solution-oriented sustainability are still relatively poorly understood outside of sustainability science and other related fields [4]. Knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary methodologies between the research communities of sustainability science and global change research has been limited as information has not been easily accessible [5]. 6 By global change, we mean changes in the societies and the environment occurring and interacting on local, regional, and global scales. Changes take place, for example, in global trade, climate, employment, food–water–energy nexus, technology, cultures and lifestyles, industry, demography, and politics. 7 By transdisciplinarity, we refer to research crossing disciplinary boundaries and conducted in collaboration with academic and nonacademic operators with the aim of solving societally relevant sustainability problems. According to Pohl [33] transdisciplinarity may refer to (1) transcending and integrating disciplinary paradigms in order to address socially relevant issues; (2) including non-academic actors (i.e. participatory research and co-production of knowledge); (3) searching for a unity of knowledge by reorganizing the academic knowledge and by developing a general perspective beyond all disciplines. 8 We supplement the review of articles with seven interviews of national boundary organizations that are relevant to the issues posed in this review. The interviews were conducted in 2015 and included the following organizations. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed with thematic content analysis. The themes were related to the role of boundary organizations and their role nationally.1. Living with Environmental change (LWEC): network of 20 UK public-sector funders and users of environmental research.2. The Finnish Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities Working Group at the Prime Minister’s Office.3. ProClim, Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change.4. Finnish Expert Panel on Sustainable Development, Sitra.5. BiodivERsA, Horizon2020 ERA-NET CO-FUND network of funders on biodiversity and ecosystem services.6. CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS).7. Swedish Secretariat for Environmental Earth System Sciences (SSEESS).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
In the literature, a variety of methodological and epistemological concepts and design principles have been developed for solutions-oriented and use-inspired sustainability research projects [5–11]. These studies have also considered the necessary competencies for researchers [12], explored the different ways to define effectiveness of science–policy interfaces [13], and taken strides towards a framework for capturing the societal effects of participatory research [14,15]. The challenges related to transdisciplinary research attempts outlined in literature are related to both individual researchers and their skills and to institutional/organizational factors. In terms of the former, sustainability science has evolved from mostly descriptive-analytical towards transformative research that aims at producing knowledge for actionable solutions [5,16,17,18]. This type of solutions-oriented transformative research introduces new types of roles for the researchers [19]: reflective scientists, knowledge brokers, change agents, process-facilitators and self-reflexives. Scientists have not traditionally held these roles and this means they have to require new skills and new kind of practical and interpersonal expertise not only from researchers but also from the non-academic stakeholders to interact with both academic and non-academic stakeholders [20]. Also, institutional factors inhibit the advance of transdisciplinary research. The narrow financial resource base does not provide for the additional costs incurred by inter-disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, and educational programmes to support the necessary skills for individual researchers are lacking. Many scientists interested in transdisciplinary research face a risk of losing in academic merit or career opportunities in the absence of innovative institutional support structures, incentives, and reward systems [5,7,10,11,15,17,21].
Science–policy boundary organizations as a solution Boundary organizations have emerged as a potential solution to facilitate the science–policy gap and to support the facilitation of scientific knowledge into action. Boundary organizations are defined as institutionalized arrangements that link science and policy [22]. There are a number of boundary organizations that act in the field of environmental and sustainability research and policy, following different types of arrangements regarding their purpose (convergent vs. divergent) and primacy (science vs. policy) [23]. In general, these organizations typically involve participants from different social worlds (e.g. policy and science), but often also professionals who serve a mediating role. According to Guston [22], participants on either side of the boundary determine the success of a boundary organization. They expect the boundary organization to www.sciencedirect.com
Contributions of national platforms to Future Earth Suni et al. 65
provide them with necessary resources, whether material (e.g. shared space for meeting) or immaterial (e.g. knowledge, skills). Besides engagement of disparate groups, the boundary organizations encourage social learning and participatory processes, provide opportunities for dissimilar groups to work together, provide translation between groups, help focus the work on issues of relevance to either party; and help each group understand the strengths and needs of the other players [24]. By doing so, boundary organizations contribute to the co-production of the knowledge, while also being part of the process themselves [25].
the one more likely to yield processes where policies are developed as a result [26].
The role of boundary organizations in promoting transdisciplinary can be diverse. Transdisciplinary work takes time and requires building of trust and learning to understand different viewpoints and time scales for action. This calls for new skills from the scientists and collaborating stakeholders — the ability to be reflective and responsive. Boundary organizations can spar and train both the individual producers and the users of the research in these new skills in the early stages of a collaborative (codesigned and co-produced) research project. Boundary organizations can also train scientists to communicate their research, as well as train stakeholders to understand the complexity of sustainability questions.
Motivation is a key issue in transdisciplinary work [27]. For scientists, a strong motivation is to be able to influence and solve real-world problems with key stakeholders. Working with a boundary organization can be considered as an incentive because it enables researchers more easily to reach the right societal actors to work with. Our interviews further emphasized that national-level boundary organizations are necessary as proactive, independent mediators between science and society incentivizing scientists and stakeholders by the opportunity to address real-world problems. They can help to build trust and respect, as well as enhance mutual and joint learning between the scientists and stakeholders.
When attempting to engage the broader global change research community in solutions-oriented work, several examples already exist of boundary organizations that support the attempts to bring together scientists and stakeholders for varying purposes and by varying means. Examples include national expert panels for different sustainability issues such as climate change, global change, economics, bioeconomy, and sustainable development; groups and organizations of funders, such as ERANETs and the Belmont forum; long-term development projects working on sustainable development such as CCAFS, SIDA, and national platforms for international research programmes, such as Future Earth.
In practical terms, boundary organizations could act as hubs of information on the theory and practice of transdisciplinary research. On a science–policy level, boundary organizations can bring the right people together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change in research culture: funding, educational programmes, reward systems, and career paths. However, as an institutional challenge, this requires enough personnel, time, and financial resources and an institutional setting that provides a sufficient mandate for the boundary organization to operate and liaise with academic institutions such as funders, universities, research institutes, and research councils on the one hand and with government, industry, citizens, and media on the other.
So far, research on transdisciplinary practice from Sweden and Switzerland shows that researchers have approached transdisciplinarity in different ways, either by starting from the perceived interests of the intended audience or by engaging them in a process of co-production with the help of boundary organizations. The latter approach is
In order to understand what role national-level boundary organizations can play in global change research, it is necessary to review the types of challenges that researchers have faced and what kinds of solutions have emerged. Our interviews with seven boundary organizations (Table 1) revealed similar findings as the literature review above. At the individual level, various factors enhance transdisciplinary research.
It is also important to note that working on all these arenas is critical in order to incorporate transformative, solutionsoriented research on sustainability in decision-making and innovation in society more broadly. Boundary organizations can speed up the process where scientific
Table 1 Interview questions in brief. 1. Co-design of research with societal stakeholders. Have you promoted research co-design in your research initiatives and how have you succeeded in it? Please identify the best examples and evaluate what have been the reasons for their success. 2. Science policy. If we want to promote solutions-oriented global change research, how should we organize the national and international research community and funding structures? 3. Boundary organizations. What kind of bodies are needed to promote research to support sustainable development? How do you see the role of boundary organizations, that is, scientific panels and other bodies linking science and society in promoting sustainable development? What has been the role of boundary organizations in the successful research initiatives? What would be the optimal structure for a boundary organization? 4. Future Earth. How could Future Earth best support phenomenon-based global change research?
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
66 Open issue, part I
Table 2 Examples of national Future Earth — related platforms acting at the science–society interface Parent organization Future Earth Finland Council of Finnish Academies
Funder
Structure
Council of Finnish Academies, University of Helsinki, private environmental research foundation
Steering committee of 10: natural & social sciences & government, industry, think tank stakeholders Secretariat: 2 paid staff, 1 voluntary Main tasks Providing interaction platforms for scientists and societal stakeholders for mutual learning and research co-design and coproduction Facilitating science–policy discussion on societally influential research and its support options Capacity building for researchers and stakeholders Linking national researchers and stakeholders to international Future Earth activities: core projects and Knowledge Action Networks ProClim–Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change Steering committee of 11: natural and social Swiss Academy of Sciences State Secretariat for Education, Research (SCNAT) and Innovation (SERI), other governmental sciences and government stakeholders institutions, foundations, also economy or Secretariat: part-time staff equivalent to 4 fullother organizations. time positions Main tasks Acting as an interface for communication between science, public administration, politics, economy and the public. Publishing reports, factsheets, publication series and statements on current state of knowledge around global change issues. Audience: the public, science, practice and media. Organizes networking and discussion events for stakeholders, scientists, journalists and the public. Regular parliamentary meetings. Round tables and workshops involving researchers and practitioners regarding current issues News/Publications and Events calendar, an overview of national and international news, publications and events concerning global change issues. Research InfoSystem: information about scientists, research programmes, research institutes, research related organizations and commitees as well as publications by and projects of Swiss scientists. Future Earth Romania Romanian Academy Romanian Academy Membership of 14: natural and social sciences and government stakeholders Secretariat: 2 part-time researchers Main tasks Organization of scientific events in collaboration with different academic institutions/universities, as well as the organization of a yearly meeting of the members of the National Committee Facilitating connections and discussions with national and local area decision makers and stakeholders, in general, according to particular topics on environmental change research. Regular meetings and international summer schools for students and early-career scientists on topics of environmental risks, sustainable development, and climate change Linking national researchers and stakeholders to international Future Earth (core projects actions and Knowledge Action Networks) and national committee activities via regular communication (Newsletter, website).
knowledge may contribute to practical solutions. They can also participate in development research processes by defining and developing new concepts that can be used in co-production of knowledge, which will contribute to solving the grand challenges. The interviews showed the importance of acknowledging the spatial and temporal scale of transdisciplinary research — both research communities and stakeholders’ needs vary as a function of these scales, as do the required resources. Although boundary organizations exist at various spatial levels from sub-national to global, they are perhaps most functional at the national level. This is where boundary organizations can most readily connect scientists and stakeholders to work towards a commonly understood, nationally important goal both on short and long term. At this level, the organizations can also connect themselves with a number of funders and science–policy stakeholders and facilitate a discussion on the development of research policy and culture that could promote transdisciplinary research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
Emerging national Future Earth platforms The Governing Council of Future Earth consists of a coalition of organizations in the global change realm,9 giving it an ambitious aim to bring together different fields of science to co-design research with stakeholders [28,29,30]. Future Earth engages large, international scientific communities through core projects and national communities through national committees, some of which have had long histories under the previous global change programmes10 [31,32]. Today, the significance of national committees in Future Earth is increasing 9
International Council for Science (ICSU), International Social Science Council (ISSC), Belmont forum, UNEP, UNESCO, UNU, WMO, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), Science and Technology in Society forum. 10 International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), International Human Dimension Programme (IHDP), and DIVERSITAS. These programmes merged into Future Earth. A fourth programme, World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) still continues and its national committees have in some cases merged nationally to an integrated Future Earth platform. www.sciencedirect.com
Contributions of national platforms to Future Earth Suni et al. 67
because of their ability to link national scientific communities and societal stakeholders (Table 2). Among many other possibilities, the emerging Future Earth national platforms are in a good position to evolve into effective boundary organizations that could address the challenges of transdisciplinary research. These platforms are typically set up under research councils and science academies, giving them a particularly suitable mandate to take on important roles as mediators and facilitators for solutions-oriented global change research. Creating the necessary long-term relationships between academia and society, they can break old disciplinary research structures and connect different disciplines to work together with societal actors for a more sustainable future. This way, national Future Earth platforms can connect scientists from different fields of global change research by enhancing the novel dialog around global change and sustainability and thus, participate in knowledge production both in the sphere of science and that of society. On a science–policy level, they can bring funders, policymakers, and scientists together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change. We argue that Future Earth national platforms could have an essential role in several functional levels of the science–policy interface: (1) in co-designing solutions for the society; (2) in facilitating integration of knowledge at the sectorial levels, and; (3) in stimulating processes on the ground that could feed into both research and societal needs. Hence, to support the implementation of the Future Earth agenda, there is a need to understand the changing landscape within this field of research, as well as the changing role of the researchers and end-users themselves. The national Future Earth platforms could be used to support the processes to facilitate this kind of research. Successful examples of such platforms and activities already exist in Europe (Table 2). Future Earth is in an excellent position to spearhead the transformation of research culture from local to global level.
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge MA Iina Koskinen for co-conducting the interviews that form part of this review’s material. We also gratefully acknowledge Maj and Tor Nessling foundation for supporting this work. We also thank Urs Neu from ProClim, Diana Dogaru from Future Earth Romania for their kind help in completing the information on their organizations.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of outstanding interest 1.
2.
Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockstro¨m J, O¨hman MC, Shyamsundar P, Noble I: Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495:305-307. Smith BD, Zeder MA: The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2013, 4:8-13.
www.sciencedirect.com
3.
McNie EC: Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 2007, 10:17-38.
4.
Kates R: What kind of a science is sustainability science? PNAS 2011, 108:19449-19450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1116097108.
5.
Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ: Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 2012, 7:25-43.
6.
Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G: Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences; 2007:. 120 pp..
7.
Etzkowitz H: The Triple Helix. University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action; 2010.
8.
Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (Eds): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer; 2008.
9.
Shrivastava P, Ivanaj S, Persson S: Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Bus Strategy Environ 2013, 22:230-244.
10. Wiek A, Lang DJ, Transdisciplinary research: In The Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Measurements, Indicators, and Research Methods for Sustainability. Edited by Fogel D, Fredericks S, Harrington L, Spellerber. Berkshire Publishing; 2012:355-358. 11. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J: User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Publ Pol 2011, 38:379-390. 12. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL: Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 2011, 6:203-218. 13. Heink U, Marquard E, Heubach K, Jax K, Kugel C, Neßhoever C, Neumann R, Paulsch A, Tilch S, Timaeus J, Vandewalle M: Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities. Sci Publ Pol 2015, 42:676-689. This paper offers a clarification of key concepts of credibility, relevance and legitimacy when discussing the science–policy interface. The study shows how they influence the perception and evaluation of science– policy interfaces. 14. Walter A, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz R: Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plan 2007, 30:325-338. 15. Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J: Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Evaluat 2014, 23:117132. The paper introduces a framework and methodological scheme for capturing the societal effects of participatory sustainability research. The article discusses what researchers and others should consider when engaging in participatory research, and provides coping strategies for doing so. 16. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D: The future of sustainability science: a solutionsoriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 2014, 9:239-246. 17. Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, Takeuchi K, Farioli F, Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R: Sustainability science in action: a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci 2015, 10:17-31. This study starts form the point of sustainability science transitioning from problem-focused to solution-oriented field of study that provides positive impacts on mitigating sustainability challenges. 18. Wiek A, Lang D: Transformational sustainability research methodology. In Sustainability Science. Edited by Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A. Springer Science + Business Media; 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.007/978-94-017-7242-6_3. 19. Wittmayer JM, Scha¨pke N: Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 2014, 9:483-496.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
68 Open issue, part I
20. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Wiesmann U: Researchers’ roles in knowledge coproduction: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Pol 2010, 37:267-281. 21. Sarkki S, Niemela¨ J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J: Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci Publ Pol 2014, 41:194-206. 22. Guston DH: Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 2001, 26:399-408. 23. Hoppe R, Wesselink A: Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Env Sci Pol 2014, 44:73-85. This paper examines boundary organizations and their role in climate change governance in three EU member states. The study shows how the political–cultural context affects the form that the boundary organizations take in providing expert advice to policy makers. 24. Osmond DL, Nadkarni NM, Driscoll CT, Andrews E, Gold AJ, Allred SRB, Berkowitz AR, Klemens MW, Loecke TL, McGarry MA: The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Front Ecol Environ 2010, 8:306-313. 25. McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L: Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability science through communication. Sustainability 2013, 5:4195-4221.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
26. Pohl C: From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Env Sci Pol 2008, 11:46-53. 27. Eigenbrode S, O’Rouke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff D, Goldber C, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Perese NA: Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 2007, 57:55-64. 28. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H: Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Env Sustain 2013, 5:420-431. 29. Future Earth Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team. International Council for Science (ICSU), p. 50–52. http:// www.icsu.org/future-earth/media-centre/relevant_publications/ future-earth-initial-design-report. 30. Rockstro¨m J: Future Earth. Science 2016, 351:319 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2138. Paper discusses the emergence of Future Earth and how the Future Earth research program builds on the legacy of previous research programmes and how it is the right response to the new scientific challenges. 31. Bondre N, Gaffney O (Eds): IGBP Annual Report 2014/2015. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); 2015. 32. Wilhelmsson D, et al.: Investigating the potential of national committees in Future Earth. Unpublished report submitted to Future Earth interim secretariat; 2014. 33. Pohl C: From Transdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinary Research. Transdiscip J Eng Sci 2010, 1:65-73.
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect National Future Earth platforms as boundary organizations contributing to solutions-oriented global change research Tanja Suni1, Sirkku Juhola2,3, Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki4, Jukka Ka¨yhko¨5, Katriina Soini4 and Markku Kulmala1
Increasing international commitment is emerging to harness research to contribute to solving grand societal challenges related to global change. Examples include global research programmes like Future Earth and concerted efforts in the form of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. During the last decade and a half, diverse concepts and design principles have also been developed for solutions-oriented sustainability research. However, a number of challenges have emerged related to this new kind of transdisciplinary research. We argue that these challenges, related to, for example, research culture and stakeholder engagement, suitable funding, necessary interaction and communication skills for the researchers and end-users of research, and reward systems, could be addressed in a systematic way by new types of boundary organizations, and that Future Earth has potential to develop its national platforms into such organizations. We propose that these platforms, typically operating under research councils and science academies, have just the right mandate to take on important roles as mediators and facilitators for solutions-oriented global change research. They can create the necessary long-term relationships between academia and society, bring attention to capacity-building needs, and break old disciplinary research structures by promoting a new research culture where stakeholders and scientists find each other around relevant research questions. On a science–policy level, they can bring funders, policymakers, and scientists together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change. Successful examples of such Future Earth platforms and activities already exist in Europe. Future Earth is in a position to spearhead the transformation of research culture from local to global level. Addresses 1 Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Finland 2 Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland 3 Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, Finland 4 Helsinki University Center for Environment, HENVI, University of Helsinki, Finland 5 Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Finland
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68 This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue, part I Edited by Eduardo S Brondizio, Rik Leemans and William D Solecki
Received 15 June 2016; Revised 02 November 2016; Accepted 17 November 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.011 1877-3435/# 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Introduction Humanity will be facing grand challenges in the future. Archetypes of these challenges include acceleration of climate change, erosion of biodiversity coupled with societies’ increasing need for food, fresh water and energy supply. Large-scale scientific assessments have synthesised knowledge with regard to ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, MEA), climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) and biodiversity (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services, IPBES). Simultaneously, a renewed commitment in the form of the new sustainable development goals [1] has emerged to promote sustainability. Thus, the discussion of sustainability in the Anthropocene [2] has never been more pertinent. Significant changes are also underway regarding how global change-related research is organized. The new global initiative, Future Earth, has brought together a large part of the existing global change research community and is gradually becoming operational.
Corresponding author: Juhola, Sirkku ([email protected])
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
64 Open issue, part I
Global change research6 carries connotations of transdisciplinarity7 and societal relevance with the aim of bringing the two together in a comprehensive process. However, many research communities are not yet familiar with how to engage stakeholders in research and with the sound methodologies for such research. In this review, we explore a range of challenges and success factors for boundary organizations advancing global change research and offer lessons learned on how such research can be co-designed and co-produced in an interactive process with researchers, knowledge users, and other stakeholders. We further supplement the literature with a small number of interviews with key stakeholders within existing national organizations.8 Ultimately, we propose that the national platforms forming under Future Earth are well suited for advancing such work.
Challenges of solution-oriented sustainability research The last decade has witnessed increasing call for the policy relevance of the science produced [3] and the emergence of altogether new fields of science to support this development. Transdisciplinary research7 has increased rapidly but its methodologies and opportunities for solution-oriented sustainability are still relatively poorly understood outside of sustainability science and other related fields [4]. Knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary methodologies between the research communities of sustainability science and global change research has been limited as information has not been easily accessible [5]. 6 By global change, we mean changes in the societies and the environment occurring and interacting on local, regional, and global scales. Changes take place, for example, in global trade, climate, employment, food–water–energy nexus, technology, cultures and lifestyles, industry, demography, and politics. 7 By transdisciplinarity, we refer to research crossing disciplinary boundaries and conducted in collaboration with academic and nonacademic operators with the aim of solving societally relevant sustainability problems. According to Pohl [33] transdisciplinarity may refer to (1) transcending and integrating disciplinary paradigms in order to address socially relevant issues; (2) including non-academic actors (i.e. participatory research and co-production of knowledge); (3) searching for a unity of knowledge by reorganizing the academic knowledge and by developing a general perspective beyond all disciplines. 8 We supplement the review of articles with seven interviews of national boundary organizations that are relevant to the issues posed in this review. The interviews were conducted in 2015 and included the following organizations. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed with thematic content analysis. The themes were related to the role of boundary organizations and their role nationally.1. Living with Environmental change (LWEC): network of 20 UK public-sector funders and users of environmental research.2. The Finnish Government’s Analysis, Assessment and Research Activities Working Group at the Prime Minister’s Office.3. ProClim, Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change.4. Finnish Expert Panel on Sustainable Development, Sitra.5. BiodivERsA, Horizon2020 ERA-NET CO-FUND network of funders on biodiversity and ecosystem services.6. CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS).7. Swedish Secretariat for Environmental Earth System Sciences (SSEESS).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
In the literature, a variety of methodological and epistemological concepts and design principles have been developed for solutions-oriented and use-inspired sustainability research projects [5–11]. These studies have also considered the necessary competencies for researchers [12], explored the different ways to define effectiveness of science–policy interfaces [13], and taken strides towards a framework for capturing the societal effects of participatory research [14,15]. The challenges related to transdisciplinary research attempts outlined in literature are related to both individual researchers and their skills and to institutional/organizational factors. In terms of the former, sustainability science has evolved from mostly descriptive-analytical towards transformative research that aims at producing knowledge for actionable solutions [5,16,17,18]. This type of solutions-oriented transformative research introduces new types of roles for the researchers [19]: reflective scientists, knowledge brokers, change agents, process-facilitators and self-reflexives. Scientists have not traditionally held these roles and this means they have to require new skills and new kind of practical and interpersonal expertise not only from researchers but also from the non-academic stakeholders to interact with both academic and non-academic stakeholders [20]. Also, institutional factors inhibit the advance of transdisciplinary research. The narrow financial resource base does not provide for the additional costs incurred by inter-disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, and educational programmes to support the necessary skills for individual researchers are lacking. Many scientists interested in transdisciplinary research face a risk of losing in academic merit or career opportunities in the absence of innovative institutional support structures, incentives, and reward systems [5,7,10,11,15,17,21].
Science–policy boundary organizations as a solution Boundary organizations have emerged as a potential solution to facilitate the science–policy gap and to support the facilitation of scientific knowledge into action. Boundary organizations are defined as institutionalized arrangements that link science and policy [22]. There are a number of boundary organizations that act in the field of environmental and sustainability research and policy, following different types of arrangements regarding their purpose (convergent vs. divergent) and primacy (science vs. policy) [23]. In general, these organizations typically involve participants from different social worlds (e.g. policy and science), but often also professionals who serve a mediating role. According to Guston [22], participants on either side of the boundary determine the success of a boundary organization. They expect the boundary organization to www.sciencedirect.com
Contributions of national platforms to Future Earth Suni et al. 65
provide them with necessary resources, whether material (e.g. shared space for meeting) or immaterial (e.g. knowledge, skills). Besides engagement of disparate groups, the boundary organizations encourage social learning and participatory processes, provide opportunities for dissimilar groups to work together, provide translation between groups, help focus the work on issues of relevance to either party; and help each group understand the strengths and needs of the other players [24]. By doing so, boundary organizations contribute to the co-production of the knowledge, while also being part of the process themselves [25].
the one more likely to yield processes where policies are developed as a result [26].
The role of boundary organizations in promoting transdisciplinary can be diverse. Transdisciplinary work takes time and requires building of trust and learning to understand different viewpoints and time scales for action. This calls for new skills from the scientists and collaborating stakeholders — the ability to be reflective and responsive. Boundary organizations can spar and train both the individual producers and the users of the research in these new skills in the early stages of a collaborative (codesigned and co-produced) research project. Boundary organizations can also train scientists to communicate their research, as well as train stakeholders to understand the complexity of sustainability questions.
Motivation is a key issue in transdisciplinary work [27]. For scientists, a strong motivation is to be able to influence and solve real-world problems with key stakeholders. Working with a boundary organization can be considered as an incentive because it enables researchers more easily to reach the right societal actors to work with. Our interviews further emphasized that national-level boundary organizations are necessary as proactive, independent mediators between science and society incentivizing scientists and stakeholders by the opportunity to address real-world problems. They can help to build trust and respect, as well as enhance mutual and joint learning between the scientists and stakeholders.
When attempting to engage the broader global change research community in solutions-oriented work, several examples already exist of boundary organizations that support the attempts to bring together scientists and stakeholders for varying purposes and by varying means. Examples include national expert panels for different sustainability issues such as climate change, global change, economics, bioeconomy, and sustainable development; groups and organizations of funders, such as ERANETs and the Belmont forum; long-term development projects working on sustainable development such as CCAFS, SIDA, and national platforms for international research programmes, such as Future Earth.
In practical terms, boundary organizations could act as hubs of information on the theory and practice of transdisciplinary research. On a science–policy level, boundary organizations can bring the right people together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change in research culture: funding, educational programmes, reward systems, and career paths. However, as an institutional challenge, this requires enough personnel, time, and financial resources and an institutional setting that provides a sufficient mandate for the boundary organization to operate and liaise with academic institutions such as funders, universities, research institutes, and research councils on the one hand and with government, industry, citizens, and media on the other.
So far, research on transdisciplinary practice from Sweden and Switzerland shows that researchers have approached transdisciplinarity in different ways, either by starting from the perceived interests of the intended audience or by engaging them in a process of co-production with the help of boundary organizations. The latter approach is
In order to understand what role national-level boundary organizations can play in global change research, it is necessary to review the types of challenges that researchers have faced and what kinds of solutions have emerged. Our interviews with seven boundary organizations (Table 1) revealed similar findings as the literature review above. At the individual level, various factors enhance transdisciplinary research.
It is also important to note that working on all these arenas is critical in order to incorporate transformative, solutionsoriented research on sustainability in decision-making and innovation in society more broadly. Boundary organizations can speed up the process where scientific
Table 1 Interview questions in brief. 1. Co-design of research with societal stakeholders. Have you promoted research co-design in your research initiatives and how have you succeeded in it? Please identify the best examples and evaluate what have been the reasons for their success. 2. Science policy. If we want to promote solutions-oriented global change research, how should we organize the national and international research community and funding structures? 3. Boundary organizations. What kind of bodies are needed to promote research to support sustainable development? How do you see the role of boundary organizations, that is, scientific panels and other bodies linking science and society in promoting sustainable development? What has been the role of boundary organizations in the successful research initiatives? What would be the optimal structure for a boundary organization? 4. Future Earth. How could Future Earth best support phenomenon-based global change research?
www.sciencedirect.com
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
66 Open issue, part I
Table 2 Examples of national Future Earth — related platforms acting at the science–society interface Parent organization Future Earth Finland Council of Finnish Academies
Funder
Structure
Council of Finnish Academies, University of Helsinki, private environmental research foundation
Steering committee of 10: natural & social sciences & government, industry, think tank stakeholders Secretariat: 2 paid staff, 1 voluntary Main tasks Providing interaction platforms for scientists and societal stakeholders for mutual learning and research co-design and coproduction Facilitating science–policy discussion on societally influential research and its support options Capacity building for researchers and stakeholders Linking national researchers and stakeholders to international Future Earth activities: core projects and Knowledge Action Networks ProClim–Swiss Forum for Climate and Global Change Steering committee of 11: natural and social Swiss Academy of Sciences State Secretariat for Education, Research (SCNAT) and Innovation (SERI), other governmental sciences and government stakeholders institutions, foundations, also economy or Secretariat: part-time staff equivalent to 4 fullother organizations. time positions Main tasks Acting as an interface for communication between science, public administration, politics, economy and the public. Publishing reports, factsheets, publication series and statements on current state of knowledge around global change issues. Audience: the public, science, practice and media. Organizes networking and discussion events for stakeholders, scientists, journalists and the public. Regular parliamentary meetings. Round tables and workshops involving researchers and practitioners regarding current issues News/Publications and Events calendar, an overview of national and international news, publications and events concerning global change issues. Research InfoSystem: information about scientists, research programmes, research institutes, research related organizations and commitees as well as publications by and projects of Swiss scientists. Future Earth Romania Romanian Academy Romanian Academy Membership of 14: natural and social sciences and government stakeholders Secretariat: 2 part-time researchers Main tasks Organization of scientific events in collaboration with different academic institutions/universities, as well as the organization of a yearly meeting of the members of the National Committee Facilitating connections and discussions with national and local area decision makers and stakeholders, in general, according to particular topics on environmental change research. Regular meetings and international summer schools for students and early-career scientists on topics of environmental risks, sustainable development, and climate change Linking national researchers and stakeholders to international Future Earth (core projects actions and Knowledge Action Networks) and national committee activities via regular communication (Newsletter, website).
knowledge may contribute to practical solutions. They can also participate in development research processes by defining and developing new concepts that can be used in co-production of knowledge, which will contribute to solving the grand challenges. The interviews showed the importance of acknowledging the spatial and temporal scale of transdisciplinary research — both research communities and stakeholders’ needs vary as a function of these scales, as do the required resources. Although boundary organizations exist at various spatial levels from sub-national to global, they are perhaps most functional at the national level. This is where boundary organizations can most readily connect scientists and stakeholders to work towards a commonly understood, nationally important goal both on short and long term. At this level, the organizations can also connect themselves with a number of funders and science–policy stakeholders and facilitate a discussion on the development of research policy and culture that could promote transdisciplinary research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
Emerging national Future Earth platforms The Governing Council of Future Earth consists of a coalition of organizations in the global change realm,9 giving it an ambitious aim to bring together different fields of science to co-design research with stakeholders [28,29,30]. Future Earth engages large, international scientific communities through core projects and national communities through national committees, some of which have had long histories under the previous global change programmes10 [31,32]. Today, the significance of national committees in Future Earth is increasing 9
International Council for Science (ICSU), International Social Science Council (ISSC), Belmont forum, UNEP, UNESCO, UNU, WMO, Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), Science and Technology in Society forum. 10 International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), International Human Dimension Programme (IHDP), and DIVERSITAS. These programmes merged into Future Earth. A fourth programme, World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) still continues and its national committees have in some cases merged nationally to an integrated Future Earth platform. www.sciencedirect.com
Contributions of national platforms to Future Earth Suni et al. 67
because of their ability to link national scientific communities and societal stakeholders (Table 2). Among many other possibilities, the emerging Future Earth national platforms are in a good position to evolve into effective boundary organizations that could address the challenges of transdisciplinary research. These platforms are typically set up under research councils and science academies, giving them a particularly suitable mandate to take on important roles as mediators and facilitators for solutions-oriented global change research. Creating the necessary long-term relationships between academia and society, they can break old disciplinary research structures and connect different disciplines to work together with societal actors for a more sustainable future. This way, national Future Earth platforms can connect scientists from different fields of global change research by enhancing the novel dialog around global change and sustainability and thus, participate in knowledge production both in the sphere of science and that of society. On a science–policy level, they can bring funders, policymakers, and scientists together to discuss how to overcome the key obstacles in the path of such change. We argue that Future Earth national platforms could have an essential role in several functional levels of the science–policy interface: (1) in co-designing solutions for the society; (2) in facilitating integration of knowledge at the sectorial levels, and; (3) in stimulating processes on the ground that could feed into both research and societal needs. Hence, to support the implementation of the Future Earth agenda, there is a need to understand the changing landscape within this field of research, as well as the changing role of the researchers and end-users themselves. The national Future Earth platforms could be used to support the processes to facilitate this kind of research. Successful examples of such platforms and activities already exist in Europe (Table 2). Future Earth is in an excellent position to spearhead the transformation of research culture from local to global level.
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge MA Iina Koskinen for co-conducting the interviews that form part of this review’s material. We also gratefully acknowledge Maj and Tor Nessling foundation for supporting this work. We also thank Urs Neu from ProClim, Diana Dogaru from Future Earth Romania for their kind help in completing the information on their organizations.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of outstanding interest 1.
2.
Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockstro¨m J, O¨hman MC, Shyamsundar P, Noble I: Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495:305-307. Smith BD, Zeder MA: The onset of the Anthropocene. Anthropocene 2013, 4:8-13.
www.sciencedirect.com
3.
McNie EC: Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 2007, 10:17-38.
4.
Kates R: What kind of a science is sustainability science? PNAS 2011, 108:19449-19450 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1116097108.
5.
Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ: Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 2012, 7:25-43.
6.
Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G: Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences; 2007:. 120 pp..
7.
Etzkowitz H: The Triple Helix. University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action; 2010.
8.
Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (Eds): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer; 2008.
9.
Shrivastava P, Ivanaj S, Persson S: Transdisciplinary study of sustainable enterprise. Bus Strategy Environ 2013, 22:230-244.
10. Wiek A, Lang DJ, Transdisciplinary research: In The Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Measurements, Indicators, and Research Methods for Sustainability. Edited by Fogel D, Fredericks S, Harrington L, Spellerber. Berkshire Publishing; 2012:355-358. 11. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J: User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Publ Pol 2011, 38:379-390. 12. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL: Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 2011, 6:203-218. 13. Heink U, Marquard E, Heubach K, Jax K, Kugel C, Neßhoever C, Neumann R, Paulsch A, Tilch S, Timaeus J, Vandewalle M: Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: challenges and opportunities. Sci Publ Pol 2015, 42:676-689. This paper offers a clarification of key concepts of credibility, relevance and legitimacy when discussing the science–policy interface. The study shows how they influence the perception and evaluation of science– policy interfaces. 14. Walter A, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz R: Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plan 2007, 30:325-338. 15. Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J: Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Evaluat 2014, 23:117132. The paper introduces a framework and methodological scheme for capturing the societal effects of participatory sustainability research. The article discusses what researchers and others should consider when engaging in participatory research, and provides coping strategies for doing so. 16. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D: The future of sustainability science: a solutionsoriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 2014, 9:239-246. 17. Wiek A, Harlow J, Melnick R, van der Leeuw S, Fukushi K, Takeuchi K, Farioli F, Yamba F, Blake A, Geiger C, Kutter R: Sustainability science in action: a review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustain Sci 2015, 10:17-31. This study starts form the point of sustainability science transitioning from problem-focused to solution-oriented field of study that provides positive impacts on mitigating sustainability challenges. 18. Wiek A, Lang D: Transformational sustainability research methodology. In Sustainability Science. Edited by Heinrichs H, Martens P, Michelsen G, Wiek A. Springer Science + Business Media; 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.007/978-94-017-7242-6_3. 19. Wittmayer JM, Scha¨pke N: Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 2014, 9:483-496.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
68 Open issue, part I
20. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Wiesmann U: Researchers’ roles in knowledge coproduction: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Pol 2010, 37:267-281. 21. Sarkki S, Niemela¨ J, Tinch R, van den Hove S, Watt A, Young J: Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: a critical assessment of trade-offs in science–policy interfaces. Sci Publ Pol 2014, 41:194-206. 22. Guston DH: Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 2001, 26:399-408. 23. Hoppe R, Wesselink A: Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Env Sci Pol 2014, 44:73-85. This paper examines boundary organizations and their role in climate change governance in three EU member states. The study shows how the political–cultural context affects the form that the boundary organizations take in providing expert advice to policy makers. 24. Osmond DL, Nadkarni NM, Driscoll CT, Andrews E, Gold AJ, Allred SRB, Berkowitz AR, Klemens MW, Loecke TL, McGarry MA: The role of interface organizations in science communication and understanding. Front Ecol Environ 2010, 8:306-313. 25. McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L: Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability science through communication. Sustainability 2013, 5:4195-4221.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 23:63–68
26. Pohl C: From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Env Sci Pol 2008, 11:46-53. 27. Eigenbrode S, O’Rouke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff D, Goldber C, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Perese NA: Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 2007, 57:55-64. 28. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H: Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Env Sustain 2013, 5:420-431. 29. Future Earth Future Earth Initial Design: Report of the Transition Team. International Council for Science (ICSU), p. 50–52. http:// www.icsu.org/future-earth/media-centre/relevant_publications/ future-earth-initial-design-report. 30. Rockstro¨m J: Future Earth. Science 2016, 351:319 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2138. Paper discusses the emergence of Future Earth and how the Future Earth research program builds on the legacy of previous research programmes and how it is the right response to the new scientific challenges. 31. Bondre N, Gaffney O (Eds): IGBP Annual Report 2014/2015. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); 2015. 32. Wilhelmsson D, et al.: Investigating the potential of national committees in Future Earth. Unpublished report submitted to Future Earth interim secretariat; 2014. 33. Pohl C: From Transdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinary Research. Transdiscip J Eng Sci 2010, 1:65-73.
www.sciencedirect.com