During my one-month research stay at INGENIO, Universitat Politècnica de València, I had the chance to deepen my doctoral research on how artificial intelligence is regulated in Brazil. I wanted to look into different approaches used in this type of regulation, so I had the opportunity to engage closely with the Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) framework and the researchers who have shaped it.
My thesis examines AI regulation in Brazil, and one of its central challenges has been finding a theoretical lens capable of capturing not just how regulation is designed, but what ends it’s directed toward. Before this stay, my analysis lacked a clear framework for tackling this second question. Working closely with Alejandra Boni at INGENIO gave me direct access to deep knowledge of TIP theory, and through sustained discussion I was able to connect concepts that had previously stayed disparate in my thinking — particularly the idea of directionality, which asks not simply whether a policy intervenes in a sector, but whether it steers that sector toward a particular transformative goal. This distinction proved central to reframing my own research questions and to making more deliberate, better-supported analytical decisions going forward.
One of the most valuable outcomes of the stay was learning from researchers at INGENIO how they approach wicked problems. AI regulation is exactly this kind of problem: it involves competing values, uncertain future consequences, and stakeholders with divergent interests. Learning how they frame and analyze such problems gave me new conceptual tools for approaching AI regulation in Brazil not as a technical or legal puzzle to be solved, but as a socio-political process to be steered.
Beyond one-on-one discussions, I also attended the colloquiums held at INGENIO during the stay. While my role there was passive, these sessions exposed me to a range of applications of transition studies beyond my own topic.
Although the stay didn’t result in a publication at this stage, its main output was conceptual and structural: it allowed me to formulate a whole new chapter of my thesis. This chapter examines AI regulation in Brazil through multiple theoretical “lenses.” It’s a substantial addition to my thesis, and one that wouldn’t have taken shape without direct engagement with TIP theory and the researchers at INGENIO.
In terms of overall impact on my PhD, the stay was transformative in a very literal sense: it changed the theoretical architecture of my research. Access to Alejandra Boni’s expertise let me ask questions, test interpretations, and get direct feedback in a way that considerably accelerated my understanding. The result is a stronger, more coherent theoretical backbone for my thesis, and a clearer sense of the contribution my work can make.
Overall, this one-month stay at INGENIO gave me both a sharper theoretical foundation and a new working chapter for my thesis, while also connecting me to a research community whose way of framing transformative policy problems I intend to keep drawing on throughout the rest of my doctoral work.
My Eu-SPRI Early Career Researcher and PhD Researcher Circulation Scheme visit with SPRU at the University of Sussex gave me the opportunity to deepen my doctoral research on sustainable business model innovation in the fashion industry and strengthen its links with sustainability transitions, innovation policy and consumer engagement.
As a PhD researcher at Politecnico di Milano, my research examines how certification mechanisms, particularly B Corp certification, influence the adoption and development of sustainable business models across fashion supply chains. During my three-month visit, hosted by Dr Xiangming “Tommy” Tao, I refined my conceptual and analytical framework, sharpened my qualitative case study design and further developed my interview protocols.
One of the most valuable outcomes of the visit was progress on several academic outputs. I completed a manuscript on how sustainable business models are accommodated in fashion through an activity-based perspective, which has been submitted to the Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. I also advanced a second paper exploring the role of digital platforms in educating and engaging consumers in sustainable fashion, comparing B Corp-certified and non-certified companies. In addition, I began developing a further manuscript focused on standardisation and policy innovation.
The visit also enabled me to participate in seminars and research discussions with SPRU and colleagues across the wider University of Sussex. Sessions on science and politics, circular resource use and consumer culture broadened my perspective and helped me position sustainable fashion within a wider system involving firms, consumers, governments, intermediaries and cultural contexts. These conversations encouraged me to move beyond observing industry practices and focus more closely on the underlying mechanisms that shape sustainability transitions.
Looking ahead, I plan to build on this work through more detailed case studies of fashion companies adopting B Corp certification and other sustainability-oriented practices. I also hope to continue the academic relationships developed during my time with SPRU, creating opportunities for future collaboration between Politecnico di Milano and the University of Sussex.
My experience highlights the value of the Eu-SPRI circulation scheme in helping doctoral researchers deepen their work, expand their networks and connect sustainability research with real-world business and policy challenges.
A week at Villa del Grumello, in a room full of PhD students and senior faculty members whose backgrounds are as diverse as they come, yet who all fit under one umbrella: innovation and international business. As a second-year PhD student, I appreciated the depth of each method session. We were not scraping the surface; no matter our background, we were deeply engaged in a single methodological deep dive, whether qualitative research or mathematical modeling. This way, we could see where we might have methodological shortcomings in our own “way of doing.” That is exactly what this year’s EIBA-EU/SPRI Summer School delivered: not another round of more theory or surface-level methods workshops, but faculty members who showed us how to actually apply the theory, and where we could work to genuinely join the academic conversation and strengthen our own contributions to research.
Each day was designed not only to teach new concepts but also to encourage reflection on our own research projects. Three in-depth expert talks were held daily, introducing new research areas, methodological angles, and ideas we could bring back into our work. We discussed how John Walsh’s research sparked a twenty-year debate on biomedical patenting. John Cantwell reflected on why we are returning to the very principles of the OLI paradigm. Christian Rasmussen gave us a hands-on introduction to mathematical modeling, using tangible examples of IB research we could easily relate to. His demonstration of a Monte Carlo simulation showed that a completely artificially generated relationship between internationalization and performance still yields a “significant” result in a naive regression. This was a clear reminder of how easily we can fool ourselves if we don’t think carefully about endogeneity and functional form. What stood out in particular were the “How to Publish” sessions, delivered from an editor’s perspective: an honest conversation for junior scholars and established researchers alike, on publishing in both innovation research and general management. Everyone in the room brainstormed and discussed the hurdles and key points of successful publishing, not only within IB but more broadly. Overall, each expert talk either deepened or refined our existing knowledge or opened new paths for adapting our thinking and implementing novel research approaches in our own projects.
At the end of each day, the faculty offered a 1:1 session for focused discussion of individual research projects. I took full advantage of this rare opportunity by scheduling a 1:1 session each day with a different faculty member, receiving highly useful feedback on both my PhD projects and my overall academic path. What made the week so strong was that each faculty member was genuinely present and invested in our projects.
All of this took place in a beautiful setting with a breathtaking view of Lake Como. Each lunch and coffee break turned into a casual encounter with top scholars and fellow PhD students.
I am deeply grateful for this opportunity, and to the entire organizing team, for a summer school that ran smoothly from start to finish.
During my three-months Eu-SPRI Early Career Researcher circulation at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIOIR), Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, I had the opportunity to further develop my postdoctoral research at the intersection of public sector social innovation, innovation ecosystems, public entrepreneurship, and science, technology and innovation policy.
As Assistant Professor at theSocial Research Center (sfs), Department of Social Sciences at TU Dortmund University, my work focuses on how public sector actors can enable social innovation in response to societal challenges. More specifically, my research stay at MIOIR allowed me to refine and pre-test a work-in-progress scale for measuring social innovation orientation (SIO). The scale aims to capture how individuals and organizations, particularly in the public sector, orient themselves towards enabling social innovation.
Before the circulation, the SIO scale had primarily been developed from the perspective of the German public sector and the German social innovation ecosystem. The stay in Manchester therefore provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on the conceptual clarity, robustness, and potential international applicability of the scale in a different research and institutional environment. Discussions with MIOIR colleagues helped sharpen the thematic relationship between social innovation orientation, social innovation enablement, strategic orientations, public sector innovation, and innovation ecosystems. I was able to apply a structured scale development procedure and pre-test the SIO scale and received valuable feedback by academics and practitioners specifically on the comprehensibility of items, the relevance of dimensions, and the transferability of a scale. With regard to this, the feedback confirmed the relevance of the overall approach, while also showing where items need to be refined to travel better across different national and institutional settings.
A particularly important aspect of the stay was the further development of the role of artificial intelligence (AI) within the measurement approach. Rather than treating AI only as a technological tool, the exchange at MIOIR helped me think of AI as part of a broader enabling infrastructure for social innovation. This is relevant, for instance, in relation to e-government, citizen services, data-based decision-making, and the ways in which public sector organizations may use emerging technologies to address societal challenges in more inclusive and responsible ways.
Beyond the scale development itself, I benefited greatly from the wider academic environment at MIOIR. I participated in research seminars, workshops, informal academic exchanges, and a one-week professional workshop on policy evaluation. These activities exposed me to current debates in innovation studies, science, technology and innovation policy, research evaluation, responsible innovation, emerging technologies, and public sector innovation. They also broadened my methodological perspective, including insights into quantitative experimental designs, qualitative approaches, AI-supported methods, bibliometrics, scientometrics, and policy evaluation.
Beyond formal academic activities, the stay was also enriching through everyday cultural and intellectual immersion. Sharing an office with several visiting researchers from different parts of the world created many opportunities for informal exchange about academic systems, research cultures, methodological traditions, and the practical realities of conducting research in different institutional and national contexts. These conversations broadened my perspective on global research approaches and added an important interpersonal and intercultural dimension to the circulation experience.
During my stay, I also participated in the R&D Management Conference in Manchester. My contribution, which is co-authored by my colleagues at sfs, Christoph Kaletka, Ralf Kopp, Daniel Krüger, Marthe Zirngiebl, Carlotta Buchholz, and Alexander Dederichs as part of the German SIGU platform, was presented in the session “Innovation, People, Place, and Research: Strengthening the UK’s Innovation Ecosystem.” While the session focused on the UK innovation ecosystem, our paper introduced Germany as a case and discussed how social innovation is taken up by higher education institutions. This allowed me personally to connect my research to broader debates on innovation ecosystems and to receive valuable feedback from an international audience.
The stay has already resulted in a short paper version that will serve as the basis for a full manuscript on social innovation enablement and measurement in the public sector. In the next steps, I will further revise the SIO scale based on the feedback received in Manchester, especially regarding its AI-related and policy-related dimensions. I also plan to develop the extended abstract into a full paper and submit the work to international conferences in innovation studies, management, entrepreneurship, public sector innovation, and social innovation research.
Looking ahead, the circulation has laid the foundation for future collaboration with colleagues at MIOIR and within the wider Eu-SPRI community. I am also exploring the possibility of a further research stay at MIOIR in 2027, independently of the present Eu-SPRI ECR circulation funding, to continue the joint work on the manuscript, further refine the comparative and international perspective of the SIO scale, and develop follow-up research activities.
Overall, the Eu-SPRI circulation was highly valuable for strengthening my postdoctoral research profile in public entrepreneurship, social innovation enablement and co-creation and longer-term habilitation trajectory. At the same time, the stay enriched collaboration opportunities for my own research projects and, certainly, of my home institution, sfs at TU Dortmund University, by strengthening links to MIOIR, the Eu-SPRI community, and broader debates on innovation policy, public entrepreneurship, and social innovation.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to spend this time at MIOIR. The circulation offered exactly what makes international research exchange so valuable: space to test ideas, receive critical feedback, build collaborations, and rethink one’s own work from a different institutional and disciplinary perspective. I strongly encourage other ECR researchers in the EU-SPRI community to take that chance and apply for a circulation award. Likewise, I would like to motivate future Eu-SPRI circulation fellows to use this opportunity not only to advance a specific project, but also to become part of a community in which ideas can be developed across fields, institutions, and countries.
During my two-month Eu-SPRI Forum Early Career Researcher circulation at Utrecht University’s Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, I had the opportunity to refine and extend my research at the juncture of innovation, policy and transition studies.
My work, rooted in neo-institutionalist approaches, explores how political institutions and ideas shape state intervention and policy design for system transformation. This consists of two research projects undertaken at Fraunhofer ISI. The first project is a conceptual endeavor exploring the neglected role of polity in shaping the legitimacy and effectiveness of state in transformative policies in Western democracies. It seeks to provides a conceptual basis for future comparative, empirical work. The second project employs the discursive-institutionalism perspective to trace the ideational foundation and its interplay with material interests in the electric mobility policy in the UK and Germany. It seeks to contribute to transformative policy literature by bringing in the ideational and comparative political economy perspective and opening the black box of ideas and the ideational process in the context of system transformations.
Upon my exchange at Utrecht, the two projects were approaching accomplishment. The exchange was invaluable for sharpening research gaps, clarifying conceptual and theoretical linkages, and strengthening engagement with the transition studies community. Feedback from Utrecht colleagues helped bridge more closely theoretical frameworks and policy concerns, especially regarding the “comparative advantage” of multi-dimensional political institutions in transformative policies for socio-technical transitions, and the role of ideas versus material interests. I also benefited from active participation in the Eu-SPRI Conference in Dortmund and Mission-oriented Innovation Policy Observatory seminar series, which fostered new collaborations and provided insights into innovative teaching formats and career development strategies.
Besides, drawing from the highly eclectic research themes and perspectives at Utrecht, I also got to learn about relevant research conducted by scholars at the institute that related to my broader research interest in directionality of innovation, policy intervention for green and digital transitions, and the role of state in the global South. These exchanges and contacts helped bridge North-South perspectives and empirics and inspired future research ideas.
Looking ahead, the stay has laid the foundation for future joint research, publications and collaborative conference tracks. The experience has enriched both my academic development and the research profile of my home institution, Fraunhofer ISI, by broadening our engagement with transition studies and the inter-disciplinary research profiles. I encourage future circulation students to get connected and co-develop ideas, further strengthening the Eu-SPRI early career community.
How can researchers and policymakers engage in meaningful dialogue to address complex societal challenges? Bridging the gap between science and policy requires mutual, ongoing learning, yet early-career professionals are often underrepresented in existing initiatives. The 2nd EuSPRI Early Career Training on Mission-Oriented Science-Policy Dialogues set out to address this gap.
Held from 27–30 January 2026 in Vienna, co-organized by LISIS and AIT, the training brought together 24 early-career researchers and policymakers from 10 countries. Throughout the week, participants worked in transdisciplinary groups to develop mission-oriented STI policy pitches addressing concrete societal challenges.
The programme was kicked-off by three online preparatory sessions in December 2025 and culminated in an intensive in-person training week. Interactive workshops and practical exercises, facilitated by trainer Lene Topp, supported participants in exploring roles, competences, and collaboration at the science–policy interface. With guidance from a mentoring team, groups translated problem definitions into coherent policy solutions.
The week concluded with the presentation of six policy pitches focusing on mobility, coffee production, obesity, community building, mental health, and heat transition. Beyond the pitches, the training strengthened shared understanding, practical skills, and an international network of science–policy professionals.
I recently spent three months at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development in Utrecht through the Eu-SPRI Circulation Scheme and it was an incredibly rewarding experience. My main goal was to advance my second PhD paper focusing on how governments implement missions. Regular discussions with my host supervisor, Iris Wanzenböck, were invaluable. These conversations helped me refine the framing of my paper and now only minor edits remain before submission to a journal. Beyond writing, I immersed myself in a vibrant academic environment. Weekly seminars and activities organised by the Mission-Oriented Policy Observatory (MIPO) gave me fresh perspectives. Presenting my work to MIPO was a highlight—the feedback I received improved the clarity and structure of my research. Networking was another major benefit. I connected with leading scholars and fellow PhD students, which broadened my understanding of mission-oriented innovation policy in the Netherlands. While a comparative study with Norway wasn’t feasible within my timeline, these insights will enrich my thesis by placing Norwegian findings in a broader context. If you’re an early-career researcher, I wholeheartedly recommend applying for the Eu-SPRI Circulation Scheme—even for a short stay. It accelerated my research and expanded my network. My advice? Embrace the opportunity to learn from diverse perspectives. This experience reaffirmed how collaborative environments can drive impactful research on sustainability and innovation policy.
The Second Joint Eu-SPRI training for early-career researchers with early-career policy professionals ‘Mission-Oriented Science-Policy Dialogues’
27-30 January 2026 (Online pre-events: 2, 9 and 16 Dec. 2025) Vienna, Austria
The Second Eu-SPRI Early Career Training on ‘Mission-Oriented Science-Policy Dialogues’, co-organised by LISIS and the Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT) will take place in person in Vienna, Austria, from 27–30 January 2026, with online pre-events scheduled for the 2nd, 9th, and 16th December 2025.
This unique opportunity brings together early-career researchers and policy professionals to build bridges at the science-policy interface through mutual learning, co-production, and collaborative innovation.
How do we learn to engage in dialogue at the science-policy interface?
Several formats and initiatives for (un-directional) policy advice exist, but bridging between the different environments is not straightforward and requires mutual (bidirectional) learning. In addition, established formats usually focus on experienced researchers and policymakers, and exclude early career individuals, which underlines the importance of (re)educating both researchers and policymakers of the future to systematically collaborate and leverage scientific as well as policy knowledge.
The recent emergence of transformative and mission-oriented Science, Technology and Innovation policies (TIP and MOIP) requires a new and cross-sectoral approach to policy making, thus leaving renewed impetus to build relationships between science and policy in addressing societal challenges.
In 2023, an exploratory initiative called Policy Dialogues Demonstrator (P2D), was launched by researchers from Eu-SPRI partner organisations: Fraunhofer ISI (coordinator), AIT, Ingenio and LISIS (https://euspri-forum.eu/exploratory-initiatives/p2d-policy-dialogues-demonstrator/). This initiative aims to develop and pilot new formats of dialogue between STI policy research and policymaking practice in Europe. This training is one of the demonstrators, to nurture new generations of early career professionals able to navigate within the science-policy interface.
This training is a joint event for early-career researchers with early-career professionals in the policy arena (e.g. ministries, funding agencies, etc.). The aim is to create a dialogue between both groups and in this way, to nurture a new generation of professionals at the science- policy interface. It provides a learning exercise in mission-oriented science-policy dialogues towards:
Understanding mutual perspectives, professional values, needs and constraints;
Understanding the process of co-production in terms of problems and solutions to improve policy making and
Generating reflexivity for increased societal impacts.
Structure of the Training
This training is delivered in three phases:
Phase 1: Online Pre-Events (2, 9, and 16 December 2025) In the first phase, we organise three online (plenary) pre-events, consisting of three main elements to:
Provide insights into the contexts of MOIP, and the need for dialogues in this regard
Provide practical testimonies from (couples of) policy makers and researchers
Initiating and preparing the group work of the training.
Phase 2: In-Person Training in Vienna (27–30 January 2026) The second phase represents the main in-person training event in Vienna (AIT). The aim is to understand the difficulties of the different roles in science-policy dialogues, to understand institutional barriers and to co-develop a policy pitch through group work. Consequently, the training will be a mixture of two main activities:
Interactive sessions to understand different roles and competences in science-policy dialogues (facilitated by Lene Topp) Group work to co-develop a policy pitch from problem definition to the design of potential solutions.
The groups will consist of four participants of four (two early career researchers and two early career policy makers) and their work will be guided by mentors
Phase 3: Online Post-Events (Feb–June 2026, dates TBD) The aim of the online post-events is to constructively discuss this learning exercise, continue creating networks among (previous) participants and share the outcomes with the larger Eu-SPRI community.
Who will attend
There will be place for 24 participants on the ‘Science-to-Policy training’: Twelve early-career researchers that are advanced in their PhD research (3rd year or higher) or post-doctoral researchers and research assistants having obtained the PhD degree in the past five to eight years. Research topics should be related to Science, Technology and Innovation Policies. Twelve early-career professionals in the STI policy arena (minimum 3 years of experience).
Key dates
Applications are now closed for this event.
Registration period: October 2025
Online pre-events:
Session 1: 2 December 2025 09.30-12.30 Session 2: 9 December 2025 12.00-13.30 Session 3: 16 December 2025 12.00-13.00
An Yu Chen is an Early Career scholar researching the linkages between science and technology in emerging green technologies at the IMP Innovation, Strategy & Sustainability group within Alliance Manchester Business School at The University of Manchester. She approaches this topic through three major disciplines: science-of-science studies, innovation studies and sustainability transitions. Her doctoral work investigates how scientific knowledge flows across disciplines to underpin the development of green technologies.
During her EU‑SPRI‑funded circulation at the Entrepreneurship, Finance & Innovation (EFI) group at Politecnico di Milano, she was able to further develop the conceptual framework underpinning her PhD. There, she examined how the scientific knowledge base supports sustainable innovation, enriching her analysis and enabling more nuanced insights into green technology emergence.
In this piece, An Yu shares her experience working in a different academic environment and reflects on how the circulation award helped enlarge her existing networks, deepening collaborations within both Manchester’s IMP group and Polimi’s EFI colleagues.
Fig.1:The Politecnico di Milano was established in 1863
A PhD journey offers many opportunities, but few are as transformative as stepping into a new academic environment. I recently had the privilege of undertaking a month-long research exchange at Politecnico di Milano in Italy, funded by the EU-SPRI PhD Circulation Award. This experience became a catalyst for my intellectual growth, collaboration and personal development.
As a final-year PhD researcher, I had long thought about pursuing a research exchange. I wanted to understand how PhD life unfolds in different parts of the world, and I hoped that new perspectives would enrich my thesis. Thanks to the support of Professor Stefano Baruffaldi, my supervisors Cornelia Lawson and Silvia Massini, and the guidance of Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo, I secured EU-SPRI funding for this exchange.
The award itself reflected a commitment not only to the advancement of my research but also to fostering personal growth through international mobility.
Shaping My Research Focus
Throughout my stay at Politecnico di Milano, I worked on refining a paper that explores the perspective of gender and its indirect influence on interactions between technology inventors and academic authors. Weekly discussions under Professor Baruffaldi’s mentorship helped me sharpen my arguments and clarify my writing.
Initially, my research aimed to cover gender disparity in science and technology, homophily (the preference for associating with one’s own gender), and their impact on innovation outcomes. I chose green technology as my research setting, recognising that gendered personality traits could lead to diverse innovation pathways. However, I soon realised that I was attempting to address too many complex issues in a single paper. Through dialogue and reflection, we successfully disentangled these ideas to build a more focused, coherent argument.
Learning from Experts and Broadening Horizons
A major highlight of my exchange was gaining practical skills in constructing disruptiveness and novelty indicators which are the key tools for my PhD work. Thanks to the insightful guidance from Daniel Souza and Thomas Feliciani, I deepened my understanding of how scientific indicators can reveal whether novel approaches in research drive technological advancement.
I also attended the META Workshop – Machine Learning in Climate Change Mitigation Scenarios. This event introduced me to cutting-edge discussions in technoscience, focusing on the philosophical, ethical, and societal implications of emerging technologies. I enhanced my proficiency in random forest algorithms and learned techniques for designing robust data architectures in machine learning.
Green technologies are vital for addressing climate change. The workshop broadened my methodological toolkit and deepened my understanding of how innovation contributes to climate mitigation.
The Power of Academic Community
My time at the Entrepreneurship, Finance and Innovation (EFI) group was deeply rewarding. From day one, I was welcomed into a vibrant, open environment where spontaneous discussions and collaborative thinking thrived. The EFI Research Seminar gave me a platform to present my work, sparking engaging debates and helping me see my research through new lenses.
Fig.3: The ceiling of the PhD office has plants, and there are staff who come in to water them
The open office design at Politecnico, with glass walls and shared spaces, fostered a unique energy. It encouraged focus and made interactions with colleagues easy and natural. These daily exchanges during coffee breaks and lunches helped me build confidence in sharing and refining my ideas.
Cultural Exchange and Personal Growth
Living in Milan also gave me the opportunity to immerse myself in Italian culture. From navigating the metro system to savouring the local cuisine, I found parallels with my own life and learned to appreciate the subtle cultural differences. I believe these experiences contributed significantly to my PhD journey, offering lessons in empathy, adaptability and global citizenship.
This exchange strengthened my research, expanded my academic network and enriched both my personal and professional development. I am deeply grateful to Eu-SPRI for supporting this transformative opportunity. For any PhD student considering research mobility, I wholeheartedly recommend applying for the Eu-SPRI Circulation Award. The intellectual, professional and personal benefits are profound and enduring.
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University
SCIENCE SYSTEMS IN AND FOR TRANSITIONS: DOING POLICY-RELEVANT REEARCH ON TRANSFORMING SCIENCE SYSTEMS
Grand societal challenges relating to climate change, planetary health, and global inequalities are placing new demands on the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced, used, and evaluated, as well as on the policies and institutions that shape these processes. There is a growing consensus that responses to these urgent challenges require new modes of knowledge production and a rethink of the relationships between science, society, and policy. Over the past two decades, this recognition has contributed to the emergence and mainstreaming of new approaches to knowledge co-production such as transdisciplinary and transformative research, alongside broader institutional reforms aimed at promoting Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Open Science (OS) and a third-generation of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policies. These developments are unfolding in a changing geopolitical landscape marked by rising concerns over knowledge security and authoritarianism. Together, they raise critical questions on the future of science and its place in society and policy-making processes.
The Eu-SPRI Early Career Research Training School on Science in and for transitions aims to bring early career scholars together for training on these issues, with a specific focus on doing policy-relevant research on changing science systems. During the Early Career Training School, we will discuss how we can understand, study, and strengthen the dynamics and capacities of science system and policies to contribute to addressing grand societal challenges. The school explicitly addresses the exchange between various intellectual traditions and perspectives within the domains of innovation studies, STI policy, science, technology and society (STS) and transition studies, which all increasingly engage with notions of transformation and transformative change in relation to science. Building on participants’ own research projects, we will also introduce a range of approaches to critically reflect on and strengthen their capacity to conduct policy-relevant research within the Eu-SPRI community, and to contribute to shaping science systems that support societal transitions.
In particular, the Early Career training school addresses the following key areas:
Historical and contemporary perspectives on the evolving science-society contract and transformation of science systems;
Studies of the societal impact of research, including how impact is generated, understood, and evaluated by various actors within the science system;
Emerging approaches to knowledge co-production, such as transdisciplinary and transformative research, and their implications for the role of researchers;
The historical and contemporary role of science within STI policy, with particular attention to third-generation transformative STI policy;
Notions of responsibility and openness in the governance and policy of science, and their relevance for the production, use and evaluation of research;
Perspectives on the design and functioning of the science–policy interface;
Emerging issues related to knowledge security, global science, and shifting geopolitical dynamics, and their implications for the future of science.
Target group: The training school is open to PhD candidates from both Eu-SPRI member and non-member organisations working in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) studies, particularly those focusing on science dynamics, systems, and policies. It also welcomes PhD candidates from the sustainability transitions field with an interest in the role of science in transition processes. Applications from postdoctoral researchers and practitioners are also considered. Participation is limited to 25 spots.
Local team (UU): Kristina Bogner, Gaston Heimeriks, Jarno Hoekman, Jonas Torrens
Teachers: The course brings together faculty from Utrecht University (UU) and outside with expertise on studying science dynamics, systems, and policies. Confirmed speakers are Prof. Dr. Magnus Gulbrandsen, Prof. Dr. Laurens Hessels (Rathenau Institute) (University of Oslo) and Dr. Lotte Krabbenborg (Radboud University). Part of the program is co-organised with the Rathenau Institute. More speakers will be announced.
Costs and arrangements: The training school is provided free of charge (including accommodation) for early-career researchers affiliated to Eu-SPRI member institutes. The cost for participants of non Eu-SPRI members is 200 euros (including accommodation). Arrangements for the training school include accommodation as well as a diner on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Participants need to pay their own travel and they have to make their own travel arrangements.
During my one-month research stay at INGENIO, Universitat Politècnica de València, I had the chance to deepen my doctoral research on how artificial intelligence is regulated in Brazil. I wanted to look into different approaches used in this type of regulation, so I had the opportunity to engage closely with the Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) framework and the researchers who have shaped it.
