Sharachchandra Lele - Session 03, 2022-12-11

(00:00:37) Navigating engagement on committees as a non-domain specialist/expert; challenges, opportunities and learnings Sharachchandra Lele discusses his experiences on committees related to coal mining and the Karnataka Elephant Task Force, highlighting the challenges and opportunities he faced as a non-domain specialist. Despite lacking extensive knowledge, he used various strategies to learn and familiarise himself with the subject matter. In the coal mining committee, Lele, an environmental governance person, lacked direct experience in coal mining. To overcome this, he hired an intern to sift through documents and engaged with experts in civil society to gain insights. Visiting coal mines provided valuable firsthand learning. Lele found himself in the middle of the diverse committee, possessing a broad understanding of environmental governance but lacking specialised sector knowledge. This allowed him to approach the work without biases. He emphasises setting aside egos and acknowledging expertise limits for collaboration. Serving on the Karnataka Elephant Task Force, Lele admits not being an elephant specialist. He extensively read, discussed, and gathered information to understand the complexities. Being a non-specialist prevented fixed opinions and promoted openness to new ideas and evidence. He learned the importance of common understanding within committees. Collaboration is hindered when everyone considers themselves experts with complete knowledge and therefore predetermined solutions. Acknowledging limited knowledge enables open-mindedness and collective learning. Examining assumptions about elephant corridors, Lele discovered inaccuracies through data analysis. He emphasises the need for experts to be cautious about preconceived ideas and receptive to alternative viewpoints. Revising opinions based on evidence and open dialogue is crucial. [00:11:18 - 00:12:14 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:12:28) Value of avoiding preconceived/expert notions in committee work Lele’s experience in committees like the Elephant Task Force and the coal mining committee highlights the danger of experts holding onto preconceived notions. His multidisciplinary perspective as a social scientist was valued, emphasising the need for diverse committees. He credits Raman Sukumar for recognising the importance of a social scientist on the Task Force. Lele advocates for approaching committee work with an open mind, setting aside expert status to foster collaboration and consider alternative arguments and suggestions.

(00:15:34) Committee engagement- potential for change amidst politics and challenges Committees can provide an opportunity for change, although scepticism and caution are necessary. The government may cherry-pick recommendations, but there is still potential for positive impact. The setting up of committees is often influenced by politics, and terms of reference must be carefully examined and negotiated. In this regard, Lele gives the example of the Forest Rights Act committee set up by Jairam Ramesh. Even with good recommendations, reports can end up ignored or discarded due to various political factors. However, participating in committees remains a potential avenue for bringing about change. Recommendations should be crafted to minimise counterproductivity. Further, declining committee participation may result in the appointment of less favourable alternatives.

Part 2 (00:00:10) Challenging committee limitations and driving environmental change through public engagement and political advocacy Lele acknowledges the limitations of committees in driving environmental change and emphasises the need for careful examination of terms of reference and avoiding counterproductive actions. He acknowledges the influence of political factors and conflicting interests in environmental decision-making and stresses the importance of public pressure, civil society efforts, and lobbying for policy change. Lele urges scientists to make their knowledge accessible to the public, engage with civil society activists and political leaders, and communicate scientific information in a way that is understandable to non-experts. He challenges the assumption that the state will automatically act upon scientific knowledge and argues that decision-making is often driven by vested interests rather than objective truth. He calls for a critical examination of how knowledge can effectively bring about change and suggests exploring alternative channels beyond traditional committee structures. Engaging with civil society, building relationships with political leaders, and challenging the status quo are seen as important avenues for driving environmental action. He emphasises the need for scientists to be adaptable and vigilant in navigating the political landscape to ensure that knowledge is effectively utilised for positive environmental outcomes. He calls for a broader understanding of the state’s role, considering the possibility of an anti-democratic setup that prioritises the interests of the powerful over marginalised communities and the environment.

(00:06:53) Activism in applied research In the realm of applied research, Lele says, scholars must go beyond publishing papers and reports. They need to recognise their role as activists and engage actively to bring about change. Merely assuming that knowledge alone will lead to action is naive. Scholars must become advocates and find ways to engage with agents of change, going beyond traditional academic boundaries. In societies with power imbalances, scholars have a responsibility to take on an activist role and ensure their message reaches a wider audience.

(00:10:07) Enhancing training for scientists in applied fields The training of scientists often lacks differentiation, failing to address the specific skills and responsibilities required in applied fields like environment and conservation biology. This leads to a limited understanding of the role and the necessary skill sets. To address this issue, it is essential to provide explicit training in interdisciplinary research, communication, consultancy, time management, and policy engagement. Consistently incorporating these skills and knowledge into applied Masters or PhD programmes is crucial. Additionally, scholars can benefit from lessons on serving on committees and understanding their dynamics, including tasks like writing minutes. The importance of such training is exemplified by Lele’s personal experience with John Holdren’s guidance in 1987, highlighting the need for comprehensive and tailored training programmes in applied disciplines.

(00:15:02) Bridging the gap between potentially impactful knowledge and knowledge that has meaningful impact in applied research There exists a gap between potentially impactful knowledge and knowledge that actually has an impact. Reports and research, no matter how well-written and grounded, can be disregarded or overlooked, especially within governmental systems. Bridging this gap requires researchers to engage with decision-makers, collaborate with civil society groups, and actively disseminate their findings. Language and accessibility also play a crucial role in the impact of knowledge. Translating reports into local languages and conducting public hearings [interviewee addition: the latter too ought to be in local languages] can increase awareness and engagement. However, taking the example of the Karnataka Knowledge Commission, Lele says that such efforts may be resisted and viewed as beyond one’s mandate. In conducting research, Lele says, it is important to distinguish between relevance and salience. Researchers should address the most pressing and debated questions within a specific context, rather than solely pursuing their personal interests or expertise. Furthermore, researchers should consider the practical applications and engagement with theoretical debates in academia to ensure their work has a meaningful impact. Balancing academic publishing requirements with public dissemination is challenging, given the pressure to publish and the prevailing publication game in academia. Lele reflects on the fragmentation of the environmental movement, cautioning against professionals retreating into isolated silos and careers. He stresses the importance of interdisciplinary applied work, engaging with policymakers and the public to bring about significant change.

Part 3 (00:00:12) Rethinking academic publishing, generalisability and context-specific knowledge Lele acknowledges the importance of rigour and suggests that publishing in academic journals [interviewee addition: publishing in academic journals in theory] serves the purpose of ensuring the quality of applied research. However, the reality of publishing, including the limitations of the peer review process, prompts the consideration of alternative mechanisms of peer review that emphasise content and impact rather than the number of papers published. He proposes the creation of new institutional spaces, citing Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED) as examples, that measure scholarly contributions differently. Lele goes on to address the notion of generalisability in academic knowledge. He points to biases within academia, such as the bias against publishing case studies from certain regions and the demand for research with global applicability. This trend, driven by technological advancements and the dominance of scholars from the global North, he says, perpetuates a new form of colonialism, where researchers from privileged backgrounds dictate knowledge about distant places without fully understanding local contexts. He cautions against the excessive pursuit of generalisability, urging scholars to maintain a balance between particular and general knowledge. He emphasises the need to be cautious when drawing broad conclusions from specific case studies. The prevailing trend of favouring glossy world maps in prestigious journals is criticised as a false representation of knowledge, disregarding the relevance, usefulness, and real-world value of research. Lele highlights the danger of pushing generalisability to extreme levels and calls for a revaluation of academia’s emphasis on global trends. An example of a study on pollution in the Vrishabhavathi river illustrates how an integrative and cross-disciplinary approach was initially rejected by journals due to being perceived as a mere case study. However, the study’s insights on industrial pollution in urbanising rivers were relevant to many developing countries, challenging the notion that such research lacks originality or broader significance.

(00:09:18) Perils of biased and irrelevant academic work using restoration science as an example Lele highlights the dangers associated with biased and irrelevant academic work, particularly in the field of restoration science. The focus on global solutions and the production of maps showcasing restoration potential often overlooks the underlying normative concerns, such as the urgent need to address fossil fuel burning and reduce carbon footprints. He criticises the mapping of restoration potential for its limited understanding of local realities and its potential to drive counterproductive policies. Lele calls for a critical examination of the restoration debate, emphasising the importance of accurate and contextually relevant research to avoid detrimental consequences, such as displacement of communities and the misuse of agricultural land.

(00:12:36) Influence of funding on research Funding plays a crucial role in shaping research agendas, and donor politics and fashions greatly influence the work that researchers undertake. While there is room to seek out donors with more progressive politics, larger donors like Ford Foundation or MacArthur Foundation may have their own agendas. In the context of India, foreign donors have been driven away, leaving a gap filled by national-level philanthropy, often individual philanthropists lacking professional expertise. This shift towards individual and corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding prioritises short-term projects and infrastructure rather than long-term, interdisciplinary, and socially relevant research. The change in funding direction hampers critical work that raises uncomfortable questions about societal issues.

(00:16:06) Donor politics and funding shifts- implications for research The field of research funding is complex and diverse, with different donors having their own ideological positions. Private donors like Ford Foundation or MacArthur Foundation, as well as Scandinavian donors, support work aligned with their ideologies. Bilateral donors, on the other hand, are heavily influenced by state policies. For instance, climate adaptation funding has been favoured over mitigation to avoid uncomfortable questions about domestic actions at the donor country’s end. The Canadian donor, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Lele says, initially supported research in developing countries independently but now acts as a manager for funding disbursed by bilateral agencies. The trend of larger grants with high transaction costs hampers research quality. Hidden agendas and the desire to redirect funding back to the donor country further complicate the research funding landscape.