IMPACT-ORIENTED RESEARCH: FROM DISCIPLINES TO PROBLEMS
IMPACT-ORIENTED RESEARCH: FROM DISCIPLINES TO PROBLEMS
Rebuilding Research for Applied and Societal Impact through an Engineering-First Approach
Author: Monica Bianco, Ecosystems Cooperation advisor -CRF Italy
Abstract
Contemporary research faces a deep structural contradiction. On one hand, specialization and disciplinary excellence have led to unprecedented scientific advances; on the other, this same specialization has fragmented knowledge, isolated researchers, and increasingly detached academia from the urgent, complex needs of society. Addressing the intertwined challenges of climate transition, digital transformation, social cohesion, and territorial resilience requires a radical shift. This article argues for the necessity of reorganizing research ecosystems around impact-oriented, problem-driven missions, operationalized through an Engineering-First logic. Only by re-centering problems, projects, and real-world constraints can research reconnect with its transformative social mission.
Introduction: The End of Disciplinary Comfort Zones
The traditional organization of knowledge into disciplines, while historically fruitful, has become a structural impediment to tackling the multidimensional crises of the 21st century. Problems like climate adaptation, digital divides, or resilient food systems inherently cross disciplinary boundaries, demanding integration of physical sciences, social sciences, engineering, and humanities.
As Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons (2001) powerfully assert, “knowledge production must become more socially robust, context-sensitive, and transdisciplinary if it is to maintain legitimacy” [1]. The disciplinary comfort zone, centered on internal academic validation, is increasingly at odds with the external societal demand for actionable, systemic solutions.
The Problem as Organizing Principle
Inverting the relationship between disciplines and problems is the starting point. Instead of fitting problems into disciplinary molds, research must fit disciplines into problem spaces. Mariana Mazzucato (2021) proposes that mission-oriented innovation must be organized “not around sectors or technologies, but around the concrete problems that societies face” [2].
Framing research around problems creates natural drivers for multidisciplinarity, as no single discipline holds the monopoly of insight. It fosters systemic thinking, because real problems reveal interdependencies, feedback loops, and non-linear dynamics. It also demands a culture of humility and collaboration, replacing disciplinary territoriality with operational solidarity.
Engineering-First Research: Toward Operational Intelligence
The Engineering-First approach provides a pragmatic epistemology for this shift. Engineering does not primarily seek to understand for the sake of understanding; it seeks to act, to design, to solve under constraints. In the engineering mindset, knowledge is always instrumental, always directed toward application.
Henry Petroski (2010) notes that “the engineer’s fundamental duty is to design for real-world operation, where idealizations fail and complexity dominates” [3]. Applying this logic to research at large implies embracing failure as a learning vector, iteration as an operational method, and adaptability as a core scientific virtue.
Engineering-First research is therefore not anti-scientific; it is post-disciplinary, integrating theoretical insights into systemic operational designs that are resilient, adaptive, and territorially embedded.
Projects as Laboratories of Systemic Intelligence
Projects emerge as the natural operational unit of impact-oriented research. A project structures time, resources, and expertise around a specific mission, aligning diverse competences toward a shared goal. In this context, projects become laboratories of systemic intelligence: spaces where biological sciences, data analytics, political economy, and urban design meet to solve complex societal issues.
As Gibbons et al. (1994) argue in The New Production of Knowledge, “Mode 2 research is characterized by its context-driven, problem-solving orientation, involving heterogeneous teams operating in socially accountable ways” [4]. Projects cultivate this context-sensitivity, embedding research into social, economic, and environmental realities.
Within a project-based ecosystem, learning happens horizontally, knowledge is co-produced with stakeholders, and impact is measured by territorial transformation, not merely by academic outputs.
Systemic Thinking as a Core Competence
If impact-oriented research demands integration across knowledge domains, it simultaneously demands a re-education of researchers themselves. Systemic thinking must become a core intellectual habit, beyond technical specialization.
Donella Meadows (2008) emphasized that “the highest leverage for transformation lies in changing mental models, in shifting the paradigms out of which the system arises” [5]. Researchers trained in systemic intelligence recognize patterns across domains, foresee unintended consequences, and design interventions that strengthen resilience rather than optimizing isolated parameters.
This systemic literacy is critical for addressing mission-oriented challenges, where technological, social, economic, and institutional dynamics interact in unpredictable ways.
Territorial Innovation: From Abstract Excellence to Situated Impact
Territories — cities, regions, local communities — are not passive spaces but active laboratories where societal challenges and innovation opportunities converge. Embedding research into territorial ecosystems transforms abstract excellence into situated impact.
The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) emphasizes that “place-based innovation ecosystems are key to achieving the Green Deal, digital transition, and social cohesion objectives” [6]. Living labs, urban demonstrators, and regional innovation hubs exemplify how research, when anchored to local realities, can produce tangible societal transformations.
A territorial perspective restores scale, complexity, and human agency to research endeavors, moving beyond the abstraction of global metrics to the concreteness of lived experiences.
Rethinking Evaluation and Funding: From Metrics to Missions
The transition to impact-oriented, Engineering-First research is impossible without transforming how success is measured and rewarded. Current evaluation systems, dominated by publication counts and journal rankings, reinforce disciplinary fragmentation and abstraction.
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics both argue for a “context-sensitive, mission-driven, and qualitative assessment of research” [7][8]. Funding agencies must prioritize projects based on their relevance to societal missions, their systemic integration, and their potential for territorial transformation.
This shift implies moving from competition among individuals toward collaboration among ecosystems; from career incentives based on insular prestige toward recognition of systemic contributions.
Conclusion: Toward a New Research Social Contract
Impact-oriented research, structured around problems and operationalized through an Engineering-First approach, represents not a rejection but an expansion of scientific ambition. It reconnects research with its historical mission: to serve humanity, to empower territories, to transform societies.
This new paradigm demands new institutions, new evaluation systems, new educational models, and above all, new intellectual virtues: humility, systemic vision, operational intelligence, and territorial engagement.
Rebuilding the social contract between science and society requires nothing less than this comprehensive transformation.
References
- Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press.
- Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. Penguin.
- Petroski, H. (2010). The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems. Vintage.
- Gibbons, M., et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage.
- Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2022). Place-Based Innovation Ecosystems: Key Actors and Practices for Territorial Transformation. JRC Science for Policy Report.
- San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2012). https://sfdora.org/
- Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). “The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics.” Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
- OECD (2023). Promoting Research for Regional Resilience. OECD Publishing.
