In this evaluative study on structural collaborations between the municipality of Rotterdam and the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), boundary management (Parker & Crona, 2012) and proximity (Boschma, 2005) are used as conceptual lenses to understand the functioning of these collaborations. This study focused on a system of local science-policy collaborations in Rotterdam, also referred to as a "knowledge infrastructure". Our experiences are summarised below.
The case study: Rotterdam’s Knowledge Infrastructure
Since 2010, the municipality of Rotterdam and the EUR made an investment in their relationship by initiating, stimulating and facilitating the establishment of thematically-oriented structural collaborations between scientific researchers, policymakers and other relevant actors in the city. Their agreement expressed the intention to bring science closer to society and to inform and support municipal policy with scientific evidence.
The Evaluating Societal Impact (ESI) project was requested by both parties to assess the functioning and diversity of this knowledge infrastructure. A case selection of eleven structural collaborations in the form of knowledge labs, academic collaborative centres and centres of expertise was made (from here on referred to as collaborations). Although the collaborations vary in terms of objectives, origin, funding and composition, the selection was based on four common characteristics:
All collaborations
- included municipal policymakers and EUR researchers;
- received structural financial support from both parties;
- formalised their collaboration to some extent in the form of an agreement;
- were aimed at topics of societal relevance to the city of Rotterdam.
What did the assessment consist of?
The assessment took place between February 2021 and December 2021 and it was approached as an ‘appreciative inquiry’, meaning that it aimed to understand the functioning of collaborative processes and the conditions that sustain and nurture existing practices (e.g. knowledge transfer, long-term relationship building) (Douthwaite et al., 2003). To do so, the concepts of boundary management (Parker & Crona, 2012) and proximity (Boschma, 2005; Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006) were used as analytical lenses.
We approached the collaborations as hybrid research spaces (Wehrens, Bekker, & Bal, 2014), where boundaries between the relatively separate worlds of politics, policy, practice and science become temporarily or locally permeable (Guston, 2001). The concept boundary management helped interpret the processes that take place within these spaces: the continuous negotiation between the diverse interests and desires of heterogeneous actors (Parker & Crona, 2012). We studied what boundaries were broken down or blurred and what boundaries were simultaneously being perpetuated or even erected. We also studied how boundary management was manifested to establish and facilitate productive interactions and to what extent the way collaborative processes were organised contributed to this.
To gain a better understanding of the conditions underlying cooperation in hybrid research spaces, we followed Heringa et al. (2014) and used dimensions of proximity as an analytical lens. Proximity dimensions (social, cognitive, organisational and physical proximity) helped guide the conversation about conditions that enable successful cooperation in relation to the impact objectives of the collaborations and the design of their collaborative processes. Go to our tool on proximity dimensions for more guided information on this approach.
The method for data collection involved document analysis, observations, 58 semi-structured interviews and two focus groups with members of the selected collaborations.
Results of the analysis
By analysing the collaborations as hybrid research spaces, we observed at least four types of boundary management taking place: boundary management between
- policy design and scientific research;
- political decision-making and science-policy collaborations;
- knowledge-driven policy design and implementation in practice;
- science-policy collaborations and urban practices.
Each collaboration can be understood as a unique combination of different types of boundary management carried out through various activities; for example, we found that the boundary between scientific research and policymaking blurs as scientists and policymakers design, produce and disseminate knowledge together while dissemination activities, such as workshops and expert meetings are often aimed at practitioners, citizens, or politicians. Participatory research, in which people other than scientists actively participate in data collection, analysis and interpretation, occurred in some collaborations.
Adding another interpretative layer through a proximity lens provided an opportunity to analyse the conditions that facilitate and prohibit productive interactions and knowledge exchange. For example, we found that physical proximity, not only through the shared local context of Rotterdam but also through shared project and meeting spaces, played an important role to develop social proximity (trust and commitment), especially at the start-up phases. However, the place where encounters took place matter, as always meeting at the university or municipality can lead to a sense of inequality, even to the feeling that the agenda is determined more by policy than by science. However, as collaboration matures and trust is built, the symbolic importance of the meeting location diminishes, and practical considerations, such as travel time and agendas, dominate. With an eye to equality, it remains important to consciously choose a (more neutral) location, especially for more special, reflective meetings. Read Chapter 4 of the full report for a detailed explanation on the other dimensions of proximity, namely social, organisational and cognitive proximities.
The concepts of boundary management and proximity can benefit collaborations between science, policy, and practice as tools for reflection. Over the course of the project, we experienced that facilitating dialogue and exchange on the ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ of cooperation can be a learning situation in itself. Critically reflecting on this can help establish certain practical, formal and social preconditions that can be important factors for achieving an impact objective.
Downloads
For more elaborate learnings please find the full report "Bevlogen grenzenwerk, begrensde nabijheid" and the summary (both in Dutch) below as downloadable files.
- More information
The first version was written by Jorrit Smit and Hedi Westerduin and published on January 9, 2022. Recent revisions have been made by the Evaluating Societal Impact team on September 2025.
- Related content
