Beyond checkboxes: Brokering interdisciplinary collaboration

What happens to the agency of social scientists in projectified spaces? How do these spaces change the way we work, and how to avoid becoming checkboxes? Our recent article , co-authored with Zita Van Horenbeeck, Elisa Lievevrouw and Ine Van Hoyweghen explores these questions. There, we suggest that thinking through a brokering lens can give social scientists a way to work with the constraints of large-scale projects without losing sight of their agency, own voice or purpose.

For social scientists studying algorithmic systems, gaining behind-the-scenes access to understand their societal impact is often difficult. Interdisciplinary projects, such as those funded by EU Framework Programmes (e.g. ), provide social scientists with access to the field and a look behind the curtains. In return, we take on tasks of ‘stakeholder engagement’ and operationalizing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), a concept taken up by the European Union to promote science and innovation that are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest.

This sounds like a clear win-win. And sometimes, it is. But it can also place us in a tricky position. We become the ones tasked with “doing ethics” or “engaging stakeholders”, tasks that are expected to produce measurable, reportable outcomes. ​​This can lead to a performative mode of participation, where the value of our work might be judged by its alignment with the project’s deliverables and its visibility is determined by how effectively it is serving the consortium.

With so much emphasis on institutionalizing RRI in EU science policy, which is an experiment in itself within European consortia, we rarely pause to consider what these collaborations do to us. Instead, we tend to focus on the natural scientists we work with. We move from project to project and report to report without taking the time to reflect or find breathing space (). In the absence of reflection on how collaborations shape our research, we risk losing awareness of how our roles evolve within these spaces, the dynamics we engage in, and how we can best present our expertise (). Over time, it can become harder to articulate the value of our work in our own terms.

Our article on brokering grew out of this concern. It began as a methods paper outlining RRI activities, but in writing it, we kept returning to a deeper concern: what happens to us, our agency, and our ways of working in these spaces? We drew connections from our experience to recent RRI literature that critiques how social scientists in projects are often expected to engage in conventional tick-box activities (and PDF-ing), which undermines their expertise and responsibilities (., 2015; ). Plus, not to forget, the struggles of ending up in predetermined positions where the problems to be solved and ‘the barriers to overcome’ have already been established ().

So what can we do about this? Our response is not to reject these projects or the broader ambitions of RRI, but to seek out a different way of collaborating. We turn to the notion of brokering, a concept that captures the relational and sometimes improvised work that social scientists do in these settings.

Framing RRI efforts as brokering offers a way to articulate the sometimes invisible practices through which we balance competing realities, translate concerns across domains, adapt frameworks, and steer consortia toward more reflexive ways of working. These efforts should not be deemed secondary or peripheral. Brokering, as we understand it, is not a fixed role but a situated and shifting practice, one that involves moving between multiple positions at once, as the examples in our article illustrate. 

At times, brokering has meant actively bridging and translating stakeholders’ concerns and hopes to engineers, navigating the social dimensions embedded in technically worded issues, and offering tools to make engineers’ reflexivity resonate with broader societal concerns. In other moments, it involved making visible the tensions between project goals and our own research commitments or creating an extra step in their innovation lifecycle. Brokering in this case leaves a mark, subtle perhaps, but nonetheless one that cannot be ignored. 

We see our article as contributing to and strengthening the broader conversation on how social scientists can remain attentive to their own positioning in collaborative work.  There is still much to be explored when it comes to brokering, and our article merely scratches the surface of its broader complexities. For those whose curiosity is sparked, you will be pleased to hear that the has recently launched a proof-of-concept project called . It brings together experts from the technology industry and the public sector to collaboratively explore how to develop algorithmic systems in a responsible manner. The project collaborates with professionals, who have worked as brokers, and it treats brokering as a series of contextual balancing acts aimed at achieving a comprehensive understanding of the algorithmic systems in question. 

While brokering is typically seen as a human activity, BROKERS will also focus on creating concepts that assist human brokers. We believe that there are times when it is advantageous for no single individual to assume the broker role. Instead, the brokering process is facilitated by tools that guide collaboration. These tools may take various forms, including conversation starter cards, games, applications, and scenarios. The overall aim is to create practical brokering concepts that enhance collaboration and decision-making in the development process. 

By promoting brokering, we provide a framework for understanding and valuing the work that researchers and professionals engage in within interdisciplinary spaces. RRI efforts should never be reduced to mere checklists. Instead, they should inspire genuine collaboration and innovation.

The blog post is based on the article:  

**

Elisa Elhadj is a Doctoral Researcher in the  project led by professor Minna Ruckenstein.