This is a CTP of initiative: Living Knowledge ‐ The Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG ‐ Hungary)
Date: 2010
This CTP relates to their first EU Project, PERARES, which the interviewee describes as the next stage for them:
BB: the next stage for us was the beginning of the PARERES project.
BB: already when the PARERES project started in 2009 maybe, we went into PARERES with a brand new virgin limited company. This gave us the freedom to do community based research the way we would want to do it, and also enable the involvement of other academic research institutions.
The interviewee goes on to explain a little bit more of the development, and the significance, of this CTP:
At that year they even became the contact point for Living Knowledge network in Hungary, probably Henk or Casper issued an official statement that they are very happy that they managed to identify us and etc. So, that was the moment in 2004, and then a year after we managed to get founding for this type of activity, which was running for 2 years within the institutional framework of the agricultural university. And then after that time we became independent thanks to the PERARES project (in 2010, but work on the application and confirmation etc. started all the way back in 2008), which provided the necessary founding for maintaining this kind of activities. All the projects that we are organizing as Hungarian science shops are on the social environmental field, problems, and all the university calls is the service learning can be applied to this.
What the interviewee here explain is that they had a kind of turbulent time, as can be seen from the previous CTPs, but thanks to PERARES they became independent and have a secure source of funding. As can be seen in the description of the other CTPs for this local initiative, the EU projects have had a large impact for them.
This CTP is all about co-production, here specifically with the EU through a project in the 7th framework programme for research and development, which GP puts a lot on emphasis on in connection with the Living Knowledge network:
GP: The Living Knowledge network, when we were established, we were invited to the PERARES project, and that was I guess another boost or another very important point, since we got the financing to do some work. What we decided, we are not financing directly our work, but we involve some of the other colleagues from another university in southern Hungary, where we know these colleagues who were open to the science shop idea. Then through PERARES we could also simple work the birth of another science shop… in Hungary […] there is no unit or there was no unit at that time, just some interested researchers so there was no institutionalization, but it was a project work. However, after PERARES these guys in that southern city established an association… you can find it on the internet… I think it’s called “Actual researchers for sustainability” or something like that… I think the abbreviation of the NGO is CRS… maybe “community researchers for sustainability” or something like that.
So specifically, this co-production with the EU through PERARES enabled them to start another science shop in Hungary, which here was through the funding budgeted in PERARES for starting science shops. However, there were also other types of co-production:
First, we thought that through PERARES there was an opportunity to bring science shop training to Hungary. They hosted it at Corvinus University, and Henk was talking at this science shop workshop, and the European partners, other universities, and NGOs were attending… so it was a quite nice workshop. And we also involved some of the colleagues to get some idea about this situation… but mostly they were kind of taking part and learning a lot how to do it, if they want to do it. So she [GP’s executive manager] became very convinced and very committed…
What is happening here, is that GP on one side draws on the experience and knowledge of Henk and the rest of the Living Knowledge network to disseminate to his colleagues how this type of work can be done. However, these partners also bestow legitimacy on him and the idea of having a science shop, which makes his own manager more committed and convinced about the idea. The last aspect of this co-production, is how it can directly finance some of their work:
in many senses, but of course through the PERARES and through the ENRRICH project, we can finance some of the colleagues who are also contributing like RI, or other colleagues, who are involved in organizing and running the workshop and maybe involved in the ENRRICH project.
However, they are mostly financing colleagues or other people, and not the time they spend on these activities personally, which are often volunteer time.
The initial connection with Living Knowledge is the first related event, which quickly lead to the PERARES project. In connection with this development there were a range of smaller events, like conferences and other places, where ESSRG did networking with other actors.
Of later related events there is the workshops and other activities run during PERARES, as well as the establishment of a science shop in southern Hungary, and lastly the range of other EU projects they have been part of after then end of PERARES, like ENRRICH and TRANSIT. These events have already been described in other CTPs.
Of special interest is the gradual enrollment of other colleagues at the universities where the ESSRGS team teach and otherwise work. Some of the colleague starts to participate in the projects, or use participatory research in their own work.
Especially the CTP on establishing activities at Corvinus University are tightly related, as the activities related to PERARES and subsequent projects, like workshops, have proved decisive in convincing the university management.
Some of the contestation experienced here relates to the bureaucracy in this type of collaboration:
You cannot employ yourself for, I don’t know, double hours… and basically the thing is that if you are employed also in one of the other universities as teachers, or we have some teaching tasks, then we have to be very careful of what percentage of our times goes to which project. That’s kind of an old rule and we are managing it without any problems now. So, for example if I am employed into an EU project in one third of my time, at the university, then two thirds of my time can be budgeted to another EU project through the science shop, so that’s normal, so I cannot say okay I am employed in 60 % of my time here and 75 % of my time there… so that’s not 100 % but you know… this could happen in Hungary because the Hungarian law would actually permit this, they don’t care about how much you work…
It might seem logical that you cannot work more than 100%, and seem that claiming to work more than that would be corruption. However, it is not. It mostly has to do with calculative practice. The 100% relates to the definition of working hours for a specific amount of time, like a week, in that specific context. In Denmark that would be 37.5 hours a week. So, if you spend more than that amount of hours working, and bills that to projects, you go above 100% as it is defined, which is not allowed by the EU, even if you actually do work 45% above a normal full-time working week. This is one of the reasons that the staff in ERSSG often work as volunteers without pay, and then hire in their colleagues or other partners to do work on projects, as the EU rules prevent them getting paid for “overtime” work. This is interestingly a regulatory practice that disempowers people from working more than is asked of them, while also protecting/preserving working conditions.
When asked about anticipation about PERARES one of the informants answered very directly:
BB: It was in and around a year when we basically upscaled the activities just after the PARERES project started. We were lucky enough to kind of anticipate that this will happen, and at that time we were already in the PERARES project… so when you ask was it anticipated, in a sense it was very anticipated. We always have to you know, stand on the field, on the crowd with several… I don’t know how to say it in English but there is kind of saying for that.
Jens: yeah I get the picture, you always have to be prepared.
BB here explains that they really anticipated that they would get the project, and they even seem to have planned their activities according to it. BB also says that they always have to prepared for such developments, so it can be inferred that they have developed an organization that quickly can utilize such developments, as it is one of the main ways they get funding. The other interviewee, GP, is not as sure about the anticipation of PERARES:
Jens: What about your involvement in PERARES, did you know what it meant at the time, or did you anticipate that you could get into that kind of project?
GP: I wouldn’t say, me personally no… but definitely BB who were involved more in the living knowledge network. He would say that this is, partly at very nice network, nice people are involved, it is good to be there because it is time we enjoy, the conferences are great, you get a lot of inspiration, and so I kind of… we were active enough to talk with many people, to talk about the possibilities to work together at the project. So in that sense, if you were asking this, we were kind of very active to be involved in projects. And TRANSIT partly, yeah, your group, Michael, is coming from the living knowledge, so I mean… you can never know where you end up. Maybe the project is not exactly a living knowledge project, but there is some relationship to it.
GP here explains that he did not anticipate it, but he is pretty sure that BB did as he was more involved in Living Knowledge. He alleges though that they do a lot of networking, and are broadly interested in many projects, not all of the directly tied to Living Knowledge, so it is not surprise that different projects are coming in, you are just not sure which and where the next projects is coming from. They are also part of the TRANSIT project, and talks about Michael that are one of the founders of Living Knowledge, which is also part of TRANSIT. In this way, through their network and partners, they get into various projects. However, it is mostly all related to Living Knowledge or the type of work done in Living Knowledge, according to GP. The discussion here could be reframed to say that while PERARES was not in itself anticipated by everyone, there is a constant anticipation of new projects coming in. There is also the discussion of when an anticipation occurs, which is very hard to say without an in depth study. For PERARES it was likely 1-2 years ahead of the formal starting date.
A lot of the learning that can be inferred here, are similar to many of the other CTPs for this local initiative, especially the CTP when they established activities at Corvinus University.
European projects can bring legitimacy to an area, like community engagement. This happens both because it signals the interest and value of the EU, and because it brings resources to the university. PERARES have been a part of this process, especially the workshops and partners from the Living Knowledge network it brought to Corvinus University seems to have been important.
Funding is a crucial factor in starting up new initiatives, even if it is not permanent funding, but just as an initial boost in the start phase. This was the case for the second science shop in Hungary.
Networking seems to be at the core or getting project funding from the EU or other sources. ESSRG networked continuously, and they clearly had an expectation for getting projects one way or another. BB was confident about PERARES, while GP was just more generally expecting projects to come in.
An interesting learning here was the potential contestations with EU regulation in regards to hours’ registration on projects. It might be surmised that that regulation was made to protect employees from working too much, or it might be a fail-safe against corruption, but in either case it might result in issues for local partners. Part of the problem here is also a clash between national standards and EU standards.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
