On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

Dutch boundaries

In many schools of architecture the 1970s have been an important watershed for the way in which architecture was taught. For example, recent studies have stressed the importance of Aldo Rossi for the changes in the teaching of architec-ture at the ETH in Zürich that before was based on orthodox modern principles. A similar struggle between an orthodox conception of modernity and its criticism took place at the architectural faculty of Delft, in the Netherlands. Although Delft is an important European school of architecture, the theoretical work produced during this period is not largely known outside the Netherlands. This is perhaps due to the fact that most studies were published in Dutch. With this article, I intend to make the architectural theory developed during this period known to a larger public. The article describes the intellectual journey made by Dutch stu-dents of architecture in the 1970s and 1980s. This was the quest to receive recognition for the intellectual substance of architecture: the insight architecture could be a discourse and a form of knowledge and not only a method of building. Specifically, the work of the architectural theoretician Wim Nijenhuis is highlight-ed. However, as I point out in this article, the results of this journey also had its problematic sides. This becomes clear from the following sentence taken from the dissertation of Wim Nijenhuis: "The search for metaphysical fiction and the tendency towards a technological informed absolute through fully transparent and simultaneous information, should be contested by a fantasy dimension, that does not wish to 'overcome' a given situation and that does not rely on 'creativi-ty' (that would still be historical and humanistic)." Texts like this have a hermet-ic quality that is not easy to comprehend for an architectural public. Even more, there is an important debate looming behind these sentences. As an important outcome of their quest the architectural students in Delft asked themselves: how do we give form to architectural theory once its claim to truth is exposed as an illusion? For Nijenhuis, the discourse about architecture is a mere 'artful game with words': a fiction, besides other forms of fiction like poetry or literature. The question is then if we have not entered the realm of total subjectivity and relativ-ism with this position. From what can the discourse of architecture derive its authority after the death of God?

Terrestrial and submarine evidence for the extent and timing of the Last Glacial Maximum and the onset of deglaciation on the maritime-Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands

This paper is the maritime and sub–Antarctic contribution to the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR) Past Antarctic Ice Sheet Dynamics (PAIS) community Antarctic Ice Sheet reconstruction. The overarching aim for all sectors of Antarctica was to reconstruct the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ice sheet extent and thickness, and map the subsequent deglaciation in a series of 5000 year time slices. However, our review of the literature found surprisingly few high quality chronological constraints on changing glacier extents on these timescales in the maritime and sub–Antarctic sector. Therefore, in this paper we focus on an assessment of the terrestrial and offshore evidence for the LGM ice extent, establishing minimum ages for the onset of deglaciation, and separating evidence of deglaciation from LGM limits from those associated with later Holocene glacier fluctuations. Evidence included geomorphological descriptions of glacial landscapes, radiocarbon dated basal peat and lake sediment deposits, cosmogenic isotope ages of glacial features and molecular biological data. We propose a classification of the glacial history of the maritime and sub–Antarctic islands based on this assembled evidence. These include: (Type I) islands which accumulated little or no LGM ice; (Type II) islands with a limited LGM ice extent but evidence of extensive earlier continental shelf glaciations; (Type III) seamounts and volcanoes unlikely to have accumulated significant LGM ice cover; (Type IV) islands on shallow shelves with both terrestrial and submarine evidence of LGM (and/or earlier) ice expansion; (Type V) Islands north of the Antarctic Polar Front with terrestrial evidence of LGM ice expansion; and (Type VI) islands with no data. Finally, we review the climatological and geomorphological settings that separate the glaciological history of the islands within this classification scheme.