 there are either early morning, afternoons, or evenings. Welcome back after our summer break to this webinar series of our TransPath Plan project. I've heard many of you had really enjoyed their times in Mexico during the workshop. That's nice to hear. I already heard some good stories from Leon himself back in office. But it's also nice to see each other online again and thank you Leon for picking up the glove and starting this webinar series again. Let me then also take this opportunity to invite you all to go to the shared document in which we have a schedule for the webinars. Currently for next month, 18 September, we have Patricia and later in October, Ana Mica and Mimica already scheduled. But further, I think for this year and early next year, we are still looking for your contributions. So that being said, I'm now just going to read the title, how it is in my screen. So Leon, you are going to share your wisdom and insights with us with the title Power and Empowerment in Transdisciplinary Research, Insights for Joint Problems Structure. Thank you. And then let's the floor be yours. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think I came up with a really nice title, didn't I? Let me share my screen and my slides and then start presenting. Is it okay like this? Yeah. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so thanks, Jep, and thanks everybody for joining. Yeah, I thought I'll just share some of my own experiences with transdisciplinary research around transformations with a focus on problem structuring and problem framing, since that is also the phase that I think we're currently in most of our projects in the transformation pathways planning project. I don't expect that I have mind-boggling new insights for most of you, but maybe for some of you there is something new and I hope that for everyone it is useful to maybe just once again be reminded of some of these issues and questions that require attention. And I do hope that I managed to finish well in time to allow for quite some discussion to see how this plays out in our own project and in our own cases in the various notes. So yeah, with that being said and sort of the rough outline here on slide alongside a picture of the Dijkwerker, a Dijk worker in Friesland along the Wadden sea coast, which is part of one of the Dutch case notes, work in progress let's say, let's start. Maybe let's start by just briefly reminding ourselves of what we sort of set out to do in our project based on our proposal as we also developed it, but also discussed it not now in various meetings, but especially if you look here at what we called stream one around these activities in the various notes. I guess that our initial plans are still more or less intact and that that also means that we really want to do transdisciplinary research and starting with a proper sort of problem diagnosis problem framing for our case as part of our project and in Mexico we did not in detail revisit this kind of planning, but I think we still benefited from what we did discuss around our so-called theory of change when we had our first inception workshop in Delft, which actually also was where this part around the cases and the activities in the notes and what do we want to do and to achieve there was actually also supported by Lakshmi and Patti so I think we have some basis to build on and maybe it's just good to remind ourselves of that before I continue to share my views and my experiences on these types of activities in our project, but then returning to transdisciplinarity. This is a picture for my I think one of the most cited papers at least when it comes to sustainability and then what are types of applications on transdisciplinary research and what it basically depicts is that typically there are indeed different phases in a transdisciplinary process which start with problem framing and team building I guess the stage that we are still in but hopefully well progressing in that phase but then it is about co-creating solution-oriented knowledge and then of course seeing what happens if we apply that knowledge and if we can sort of integrate it both in practice and in science so on the left you see the sort of societal practice column and on the right you see the scientific practice column and and those are indeed sort of the two the two axes that that matter for transdisciplinary research and after Mexico I had one more interesting workshop to attend to before I started my holidays and that was in Berlin it was part of the closing sessions of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences and there we also came to talk about transdisciplinarity and that that sort of triggered me to think about it in this kind of quadrant but it's really based on that societal relevance which is at sort of the vertical axis at the societal column that that we saw in the previous picture and the scientific relevance sort of the scientific column in the previous picture which is here on the horizontal axis and and what we really want to do what what our aspiration and ambition is with transdisciplinary research is really to co-create knowledge and to co-produce transformations so to be in in in the space in this figure that is both relevant for society and for science because at the end of the day we are trying to either get a PhD or a successful postdoc or or or another sort of scientific contribution as well as as a societal contribution to to transformations and when when you discuss transdisciplinary research or when you review it you you also sometimes encounter either anxieties that hey we're we're not consultants had that that was a bit the the anxiety that I heard in Berlin with some of the hydro hydrology colleagues not all but some were saying but why are we doing this we're we're scientists we're we're not consultants and in detail if we don't get it right as scientists then maybe we are being societally relevant but we are maybe indeed producing a nice sort of consultancy type of analysis but not scientific knowledge and then um on on sort of the scientific dimension we would um we would feel um the the other hand is is some something that you hear scientists being concerned about less often at least in in scientific conferences and journals but it is of course equally concerning because that is also not what we aspire to if we really want to do transdisciplinary science we want not just to have something nice for the scientists but actually we do want to also um co-produce societally relevant solutions or or or contributions towards transformations and of course we can also utterly feel but let's maybe ignore that for now but I thought that this quadrant might might be useful for us in in designing our casework both to be sure that it is still scientifically relevant and and producing something novel while at the same time producing societally relevant knowledge towards transformations um yeah so so that's that's that's what we aspire to and it's not easy I think many of us have experienced that before or by now do realize it and and my my own experiences which I wanted to share here a little bit are um um from previous research but but especially a paper that that came out of a previous research project in which we focused on um power and empowerment in transdisciplinary research because that is one of the complications that you do get when you do want to produce science uh with and for stakeholders in society um and in that in that paper we we did start with reviewing transdiscipline some of the transdisciplinary literature and identifying the challenges and sort of the coping strategies that that are identified in the literature for dealing with those challenges and that results as you may expect in in long tables but if we focus on on problem framing and team building let's say that the first face of trans disciplinarity um very commonly mentioned and experienced challenges are um lack of problem awareness or insufficient problem framing and I think many of the discussions that that we had in Mexico or or online when the others were in Mexico were really about um also these kind of challenges how do we get to um a problem framing that is shared by everyone and where the awareness of of several dimensions of the problem are also um yeah sufficiently shared by by different types of stakeholders um unbalanced problem ownership have still in transplant planning we we are trying and then we have involved not just scientists but also NGOs civil society organizations and at the same time that might still lead to an unbalanced problem ownership to especially the organizations that are currently already active in our project and how do we get uh an ownership of our efforts that is not confined to our project teams and that that relates also to the to the legitimacy of the team and we by ourselves and alone cannot pretend to to to represent also different societal stakeholders but even if we engage different societal actors also they need to have a sufficient legitimacy and sufficient um be sufficiently representative of the different actors and their stakes that are involved in this problem and those are really typically challenges at at the early phases of transdisciplinary research um how we how we tried to tackle those in that previous um project was by combining science with um empowerment through something called the negotiated approach which was brought in by um um an NGO called called called both ends and the idea was that as I think we are also trying in our trans path project and in all the nodes to to prepare the process really together with all the stakeholder representatives and that means understanding past initiatives and but also being careful and being conscious in in how we select participants to our workshops and and to our to our teams um to also make the the process design a sort of collective agreement and make sure that that is based also on a good understanding about the situation where we are trying to do our transdisciplinary work including um the the the possibilities and the limitations that that exist in context poses and then I think um after that a joint situation analysis and the joint fact finding things that are known to to be helpful in sort of negotiation types of situations and to foster mutual understanding and and and joint learning um this is um the project from which um we have those experiences it was called shift in grounds um some of you are maybe familiar with it and um Anamika in fact has been part of it for a relatively short period um and and we we there focused on peri urban water security especially ground water management in peri urban villages near Kolkata in India and near Kulna in in Bangladesh and it was really similarly designed maybe as as as many of our trans path nodes so with phd and postdoc researchers focusing on different aspects of these cases but next to it really a column here under the negotiated approach which was led by our civil society partners our NGOs to really make sure that that we would connect well with um the stakeholders in these peri urban villages and that proved to be a very worthwhile but also not so easy effort and of course the the success was um partial and limited as I I guess often with transdisciplinary research but but but very useful I think and I hope for everyone who was involved also to to support future efforts in my case lie like this one in trans path planning um and it means that um yeah all these steps would be done not just um by scientists or scientists and maybe some some high level policymakers or high level representatives of NGOs and workshops but also really together with in this case community representatives of the villages and also including efforts to to include groups that and and in that sense empower groups that would automatically not be necessarily included in these kinds of efforts and that really took a huge additional effort that in designing a scientific project we easily underestimate I think and and sometimes even overlook um now what I I hope that this all um yeah sounds sounds familiar and and like something that that we all would want to do also in this project but I thought it is good maybe to to really and remind ourselves of that but I also wanted to combine that with something else that we did use indirectly in in the shifting grounds project something that I think we are using also in um trans path planning project but that also um can can be explained more explicitly as part of of existing approaches or methods and in my case as a as a policy analyst I am familiar with with these kind of activities as being part of a of a policy analysis approach this is a picture from a textbook that we use in teaching in delft both at a tu delft and at ihg delft in policy analysis classes on on policy analysis of multi-actor systems and and it depicts actually really the first stage of of a policy analysis process um with where you start with sort of an initial problem perception and hopefully and with sort of a framed problem and and a plan of action but that plan of action could be the plan for um transdisciplinary research done together and um what what you would typically do is is look at the system from different angles different aspects try to understand the the the causal influences in sort of a system analysis for some people it might be also a dip sear analysis or or a causal loop diagram but also look at the actors and the institutions involved and look at the the the future scenario analysis which also in Mexico we have seen with that really nice exercise that I think Lakshmi facilitated at least for the people no I think it was also for the online colleagues using using one novel technique for those scenario analysis but but based on that you would come up with a sort of a richer problem description and um yeah see where are your maybe your interesting scientific gaps but also sort of follow on activities not just for science but also for for society so I think that's maybe a useful yeah diagram to share with you all also just to to give some structure to what I guess everyone is doing in in the case notes already and what I would like to do now is I would not want to go through all these sort of separate approaches because they can be done in various ways and I think we have some tools available or maybe future webinars to to look in some of them or to share experiences with some of them here but what I would want to do in in this in this in this last part is explain a little bit what the initial problem perception would entail for a policy analyst and I think that's useful because if we're looking at transformations we are looking at collective collective action problems and in that sense the the lens of a policy analyst I think can can come in handy and I think is applicable also to settings that are maybe more informal or more bottom up organized but that do involve this notion of a collective issue requiring some collective action so that the the problem for a policy analyst starts with with five key key elements that actually should be present to to say that we have a worthwhile policy analysis problem and those elements are a problem owner a gap actions or action ability agency if you want but then also trade-offs and or a dilemma and of course the presence of multiple actors so let me let me very briefly go over each of these main elements with you so the problem owner is really key very important and we have had some discussions in in previous meetings and and and workshops on positionality how what is our position as a scientist and and of course with that also comes the question do we consider ourselves as as sort of maybe concerned or engaged scientists or sometimes scientists as activists do we consider ourselves to be the problem owner or do we consider another actor or stakeholder to be the problem owner and if we consider another actor maybe a local community or maybe a government agency that that's that we are trying to support are we are we really checking that our idea of what the problem is is is really also their idea of what the problem is and realize that being explicit about your problem owner is important because actors stakeholders people will worry really about different problems maybe the overarching issue of a wetland or of circularity or or of a trans boundary river that needs to be carefully managed maybe at that level there is agreement that that issue is of joint importance but what more specifically is is really the problem or maybe the most important problem and a promising solution that that will really different differ from from one stakeholder to another and where we start our intervention or even are working with these stakeholders really also depends on on what problem we take as our starting point and whose problem this is who is the problem owner connected to this problem the second one is is the problem owner has a problem if if there is a gap and that gap is typically a gap between the current situation or maybe the future situation as it is expected in sort of a business as usual scenario something a lot occurring in in climate change related discussions so between that current or that expected situation plus the desired situation where we would actually want to be in a situation where there is sufficient secure safe water for for everyone or where we do not deplete our our water resources unnecessarily and that gap is is really essential to to speak of a problem if there is no gap there is no need to to take action but for a policy problem and I think also for our transformation types of problems it also needs to be actionable if we frame the problem in a way that it is just bothering us that we cannot actually do anything about it yeah then it's not very interesting I would say for a policy analyst but also not for a transdisciplinary researcher because whatever we do it will not make any difference and sometimes that that that is just a matter of making sure that we frame the problem correctly and and and the example I often use as a very simple example for this is we can frame the the problem of of the weather as as a problem of of of hey it's it's it's it's raining if that is our problem at least on the short-term local level you can't do anything about it it's it's it's whether either raining or it's not raining and if it's if it's raining then well too bad but if we frame it as getting wet from the rain then it becomes actionable because then there are lots of things we can do about it we can take an umbrella we can decide to stay indoors and all kinds of other things to to prevent ourselves or or reduce the extent to which we get wet from the rain so so that is important in in framing the problem in also an actionable way even if if the action is is is short of a complete solution for the problem because with transformation issues and and typically with complex problem problems really solving them maybe too high an ambition may be even impossible but we should feel that that we can have an influence for the positive and I think that's also very much the philosophy behind our project had not just to have these transformations occurring to us or to or to the stakeholders we tried to work with but really to to empower a little bit to to to have at least an influence towards more sustainable trajectories or more equitable or just trajectories and then if it's interesting this solution should not be sort of self-evident but there there there will be some dilemmas things that are good for one maybe bad for another or things actions good on the short term may not be so promising on the on the long term in that very urban project that that I talked about before if it's about securing water supply for villagers you can immediately imagine that there is a call for more and deeper wells and indeed on the on the short term that that can be a solution and on the longer term a groundwater researcher can can really help to see how sustainable or how long such a type of solution might be expected to work and and that might sometimes be shorter than than you hope so it it should not be evident that this is what we need to do because if that is evident then it's it's may be still a sort of a problem but it's more a problem for for action and and not and not for analysis or research but I think almost all problems upon a second look or all solutions upon a second look to our types of of water related problems do involve trade-offs and dilemmas and then finally it's important to realize this all takes place in in a multi stakeholder setting so the problem is perceived differently but it can really only be resolved if different stakeholders play a part or do not sort of actively obstruct it but also analyzing understanding and acting on the problem should be a a collective effort and yes sort of as an analytical tool that that brings in stakeholder analysis or institutional analysis network analysis types of instruments so so with these elements you could say that hey then then we have a problem worth solving and and I think also in our in our projects it would be good to be explicit about what these elements are for our for our cases the cases that that we want to to work on in the notes um to to then maybe move on um something um that yeah so so these are a bit more the the next steps the more the more detailed analysis although there there would still be maybe exploratory and partly conceptual in nature and of course the question of how we how we connect although all those parts and and just reminding ourselves that that we do this not in in a straightforward linear mechanical way um but that that is really sometimes a puzzle and and and a puzzle to yeah for us and and the people that we work with to to decide on on what the story is what what the picture is that that emerges from these from these parts so not to present this as an overly mechanistic process and and I think this is one set of methods and one overarching approach I think there is a lot of similarity with other approaches and and methods and definitely including the the T-Labs approach that our colleagues in Mexico are very familiar with but also I think some of the the partners in Kenya are familiar with so there there is not just one good way to do this and I think many sort of similar approaches are available and and are there out there for us to to really use and and benefit from and this one shared I think also earlier by by Lakshmi and and Patti is is definitely a good resource to use for these kind of analysis together with stakeholders yeah and and I think that that leaves us with some some some questions maybe for for also discussions if if if we think as a on our trans path project okay so then where are we um I think we have some initial problem frames to start with in in all the in all the countries and maybe we are at different stages as to how we have discussed them and co-developed them co-created them as starting points for our projects together with the societal stakeholders but what would be maybe interesting to just have a bit of exchange on these kind of questions um against and that is the last slide this this slide that um what was was developed by by colleagues in in Berlin also also present at that conference in Berlin with this transdisciplinary working group that that we had in that hydrological society and and making the notion of closing up and closing down kind of opportunities for transdisciplinary research distinguishing sort of different components of of knowledge methodologies which which maybe are closer to to academic and scientific activities to to the problem framings that that I have been talking about and to then actually do things at the interventions I thought it made I thought it would be nice to close with this slide as it also just raises a lot of questions around transdisciplinary research but also questions I think that maybe are good for us to to ask ourselves now so with that I would like to I would like to stop the the presentation part and see if there is someone who wants to respond or or share or or ask something yeah thank you uh lay also are there immediate questions from you uh it it's not a question uh it just that when you were presenting one thing that comes to my mind is that uh it seems that problem framing is really very very important and in your last slide you also mentioned scale and who are there with you when you are framing the problem as well so given our own work our own research that we are doing in this project it looks to me that we still have a lot to do if we are if we plan to follow exactly how it is because it may take a lot of time even to frame the problem because that also requires us to invite many more stakeholders and not just us because like you mentioned who is the owner I mean for whom are we are are we not a part of that problem also right so yeah so I mean like I said it's not a question but it's something that probably we need to further think about that how do we frame it correctly each of our cases yeah I I would agree with your comment or your observation on Amica including the fact that that we are a stakeholder ourselves as well and then in that sense we also have have a have something to say in in that problem framing and and I don't think it is even sort of necessarily bad if we if we maybe start with looking out for who who connects to to what we consider that the the problem framing because if you would do all these things completely out in the open then maybe going to the same communities or the same stakeholders we work with but in some cases maybe water is not even the first thing on their priority list and still that is for us of course one of our boundaries so it is really about indeed also playing and and maybe negotiating a bit the boundaries but one thing that that we did encounter in in the shifting grounds project is that that at some point it became very difficult to keep the some of the science really connected to some of the developments in the villages and if that happens I think it's also not necessarily bad but but if we can try to start together and then then then we are often on a good start and and it may also require us sometimes to do some things that are not directly relevant for science but that that we can do as scientists and as sort of part of the group to to support other stakeholders as we expect them to support us by participating maybe in our data collection or in our workshop type of activities may I yeah please second yeah sorry I just tried to join our meeting sensitively because I already scheduled another meeting before yeah so very happy to see you again especially to hear Neon digitalization yeah I think generally is I think also very much our interest here especially we try to let's say to make more impacts or translate science into into practice where we try to work it especially with local government to develop policies but also to some particularly industry or enterprises yeah yeah so I think I think this is it's really interesting of course I think this also very challenging because at least now from university perspective we see quite a gaps really between uh difference from university to to practice thing that's the when when for example we try to to do something more scientifically like and then write some papers but we cannot really give people those papers and even yeah sometimes we see uh to talk with with with the government or with with the company the consulting firms that are doing maybe maybe better job even they don't really need to go to insight on scientific understanding yeah so that that's what we're trying to to to work now is to collaborate with consultants some others yeah and I'm just wondering because really for example now I'm trying to work on a look on some framework to really to work on these collaborations for example we've been looking at the triple helix where academy governments and industry but also some other helix the quick uh I think the quintums or some others where people can uh really to work uh together yeah so when when when when we're talking about this chain basically uh what type of the models or I mean kind of approach or something similar that you're getting we we can we can uh we can learn or we can we can look like furthers yeah that there are also in in literature on transdisciplinary there are some of these sort of models and uh I'm not sure um exactly about their names but but one that that that has sort of this this picture that is often used it has that picture that that that looks a bit like maybe the triple helix type of picture where three types of of stakeholders being involved and I think in in in the in the type of work that that maybe you do now with your institute in Vietnam it's it's it's maybe quite common that you work in a business environment so that maybe your societal component is is also involving industry and and and businesses and then maybe consultants if you work more on on local level community issues like like maybe in in Mexico or Kenya then then maybe it's it's more that you work with with NGOs or civil society or conservation groups and um but but in any cases I think if you look at it from a sort of narrow efficiency perspective transdisciplinary science does not fit sort of the the efficiency type of of thinking it it would fit better than the thinking of in in science maybe maybe at least for me of sort of slow science um but but thereby also maybe meaningful science because indeed you as a scientist I can write a paper much more efficiently if that is my main goal without engaging with with other stakeholders just doing maybe a good literature review or model study that is the most efficient way for me probably to write a paper but but because the interaction and and the communication with others takes takes time but I guess it also sort of enriches and and deepens your your understanding and I think the the the idea behind transdisciplinary science is that that that not only enriches and deepens the understanding of the scientist but also of all the other sort of parties involved who also each for themselves maybe more efficient in in in a in a narrow idea an NGO can maybe really efficiently sort of advocate and get media attention by by not get getting into dialogue with others consultancies can probably also produce reports quite efficiently by by not having a real dialogue but um but but I think that the in that sense the the the transdisciplinary science comes with an yeah maybe an investment in in dialogue that that pays off in a depth of understanding and and just maybe a broader contribution to to science to society than just our immediate key performance targets let's say but but it but it does create a lot of tensions between each of the players including us as scientists we do need at some point to produce papers if we want to make a promotion or if we just want to get a PhD yeah let's say also the expected outcome of the transdisciplinary projects is this like a policy recommendations or everybody's really the key output of of the transdisciplinary project yeah if we if we talk about it as transdisciplinary science then I think a part of the output at least to be in that sort of quadrant should be scientific outputs and that can be papers that can also be just other maybe methodologies but but in the scientific world eventually being put forward for peer review and then scrutiny in in in publications and papers or at least presentations but what those are can be quite can be anything it can it can be like it like in shifting grounds a better understanding of the hydrogeology of certain systems it in that same project another PhD produced an approach a participatory approach to develop games together with community stakeholders so the and then the postdoc researcher produced papers on a sort of a multi-dimensional index that that could inform policy decisions on underwater water groundwater security and and similarly I think on the sort of societal sides the these in these hoped for outcomes can can really differ depending on what what the cases and then what those stakeholders are are looking for yeah and and what one of the one of the big boundaries and transdisciplinary that that is that is known is that we tend to work on sort of project or program basis a few years and that is not the the the the the time spent in which you often in in which you really produce lasting outcomes both both science I think takes takes a longer time than just one one four or five years study but definitely also societal transformations yeah thank you the question just oh yeah I see in the in the in the chat you want to unmute to to to to ask a time well I feel a little bit sleepy you know I thought I'm just asking the question would work but yeah I was wondering about that because in my experience it's pretty difficult not to do transdisciplinary research per se which is as you said hard but you know I found many institutional barriers so I was wondering what was your experience yeah I I think I also found quite quite quite some barriers one one thing that makes in in Delft that the the institutional environment slightly more sort of conducive to to this type of research is that for IHE Delft it is always already a part of sort of its its its mission it's it's not just to to produce science and and to educate people via MSc's and PhD education but also to to contribute to to let's say real-world capacity development and and water issues so that makes it a little bit easier at at TU Delft Delft University of Technology that that is of course also still part of the mission to contribute to society but but really as it is I guess at many universities meaning really nice to do and if we can get nice publicity with it we should do it but it's not what what what we typically sort of fund so there it it is already a bit more difficult and I found it also a bit more difficult in in in the past in the earlier years when I started there as an assistant professor but there's still that that is still sort of an engineering university and in that sense sort of engineering universities also still do have the the urge to to design things and to sort of make things in addition to just understanding and and describing things but what I've also really seen and and benefited from is that I guess there there are there are these kind of waves and I guess in in the past maybe you have had sort of at some point maybe a sort of an action research kind of wave but that that definitely finished I guess in the 1990s or early 2000s but what I what I do see now is that this whole notion of transdisciplinarity it does seem to to be gaining a lot of traction actually and and that and that I also see at TU Delft I see people talking about it who have never sort of cared about it before who in that sense also maybe just use it as a as a buzzword but nevertheless that that does help to to do it in sort of the right way and it's it's true that that program that funded shifting grounds it was actually also still one of the few programs maybe that that the Dutch Science Council had for these types of activities but but I think the number is is growing also with sort of the the science funders so yeah definitely institutional barriers and maybe if you really want to it depends also what what you want as yourself as a scientist it's also choices we all make just for ourselves based on what we I guess enjoy and given that I just enjoy it's not just doing science for science but also for society I just also chose to invest in that a little bit even if it was not strictly speaking efficient and it does help a lot in teaching by the way so that's that's sort of a positive thing although also in institutional careers that teaching is not the most highly weighted contribution we make but it is an important part of us as academics and I think the transdisciplinary research does give you more insight in the also in in the practical problems and I think many of our students do not end up in academics so in that sense I think there is also really a positive effect of this type of research yeah okay excellent thank you Haime for your question and Leon for your response I have actually also a question you mentioned that so right you've mentioned well you have mentioned a lot of interesting things but you talked about ownership but also about empowerment and and staples and having those stakeholders then on board yet at the same time I think a lot of this what is promoted as transdisciplinary research is also very much politically somewhat motivated look at our proposal that we take political stance of social inclusions and sustainable justice those kinds of terms we see reflected back so and you talked about positionality um so I'm not sure where my question actually is going but these are I think also relates to to to that problem framing so that we also that transdisciplinary research we create a narrative that that contributes to our problem framing as well of why are we doing research and that we are less let's say the neutral independent researcher in these cases but that we actually with this kind of research want to contribute to a more social just and sustainable development as I said I don't know where the question is going yeah no but those are those are kind of complicating issues that that that you may run into um in in that shifting grounds and in in that paper I think we also describe it of course we started out with with a question and and with sort of a scientific ambition to to look at groundwater issues then we were looking for villages that actually also were sort of experiencing groundwater issues and that seemed to have some some level of organization capable of of of sort of um engaging with us and then um in some of these villages we really started engaging but also to discover that some of the things that from our let's say water science perspective seemed the bigger issues that that we could not basically touch them without upsetting the the entire the entire village so what what we then did to really together with that that that village is was was something a bit a bit smaller realizing that if we would touch the the larger issues which also involved some some local industrialist taking water but also adjusted division within the community about what what they wanted with with their with their drinking water and with the presence of these larger industrialists and these outsiders coming to the village that they they had actually violent clashes about it and that we thought okay we can start meddling with this and then leave again in in three or four years but then then we we we we just start pouring in something that that we can't make any sensible contribution to so we simply agreed to to focus on something much smaller and and probably not um in in at least in my opinion maybe not the the root cause of some of the water issues in that village but plus plus that that sometimes you come into in that case also with that village we came in with a with with one what we thought was a non-political village informal leader who nevertheless later was sidelined and and that that also really affected our activities and how we were perceived and yeah not not trusted by the entire village so we then had to work quite a lot to to to rebuild that and and also with the other groups in the village yeah so we are in that sense then also part of the political process that we don't understand don't know uh and should be really careful with yeah and and um and I think also in our our program when we um advocate for transformations and we we basically already make a stance that transformations that we so well have an idea that transformations are needed yeah although I would also at least for me our project is yeah indeed it's basically the idea that transformation are needed but we could even say if only because they are they are they are happening some transformations I I think are are hopefully recognized by by by several stakeholders as as as happening and as requiring maybe even if it's just a reaction a reactive response but but requiring some some action but indeed the notion would like to pay attention to transformations that we are recognizing which we deem actually to worsening let's say the situation no I think that's part of the of the dialogue right enough the debate and and and to figure out can we actually even agree on the parts of the transformation that that we think we we should support and maybe the parts where we disagree and and maybe that that that clarity even is is is quite difficult to to obtain and of course it becomes easier to obtain if we work with a limited set of stakeholders and especially those that agree with us and that is actually I think the tendency that we all always have but I think that's also the biggest pitfall we can we can step into to to stay within our comfort zone with the stakeholders that tend to agree with us we tend to be especially the nature conservation organizations but that are not the only ones we need really to make that change thank you um are there other questions I see that time here in the Netherlands just as past 4 p.m so that means that we are reaching the hour is there a final question or remark no okay can you have send a presentation later Leon yeah I will I will check what which folder we are using nowadays and then I will make sure to to put it on there and to share the link with with everyone uh yeah thank you at some point we still try to post the recordings on on a youtube channel but that might take a bit longer yeah okay thank you and let me then thank you Leon for sharing your insights with us it was very interesting um and then let me repeat again that um in our schedule we have uh Patricia on the top of Q methodology for next month's schedules and I don't know it again by heart but I thought it is 18 September we're now scheduled um and um so there are still quite some spots open so um we will with every invitation also send around the link to the schedule document in which we schedule the the different webinars so please um uh announce yourself also when you have interesting interesting stuff uh to share um again thank you Leon everybody thanks for being here with us and I'm looking forward to seeing you soon again online yeah thanks maybe also just a final reminder for the ones for the project meeting there that is Thursday I'm now looking at Anamika again as project data okay