GRF · Research Nexus
Risk research dialogue
Systemic risks cross disciplinary lines: a drought becomes a food, health and finance problem, and no single field holds the evidence for the whole chain. Research dialogue is the structured exchange through which disciplines and institutions agree shared questions, compare framings and record where they still disagree. This page sets out how that dialogue is organised, how its quality can be judged, and what it can and cannot settle for the institutions that rely on it.
Risk research dialogue in seven parts.
- 01The questionRisk research dialogue: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsWhat cross-disciplinary dialogue asks
- 06MechanismsWhat makes dialogue productive
- 07Methods and limitsHow dialogue is structured
Risk research dialogue: how the risk develops.
Cross-disciplinary research themes. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Framings diverge
Each discipline defines the problem, the unit of analysis and acceptable evidence differently. Without explicit translation, groups talk past each other, and a shared word such as resilience carries several incompatible meanings.
Silos are reinforced
Funding calls, journals, promotion criteria and departmental budgets reward work inside one discipline. Cross-disciplinary themes stay under-resourced even when the risk itself is systemic, so gaps sit exactly where risks interact.
Voices are uneven
Dialogue is shaped by who is invited, who can afford to attend and which language is used. Researchers from lower-income settings and holders of non-academic knowledge often arrive late or not at all.
Disagreement is lost
Summaries of dialogue tend to report consensus and drop dissent. When the record loses the reasons for disagreement, later readers mistake an open question for a settled one, and the error travels into policy.
Evidence synthesis workspace.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Evidence synthesis workspace
Risk research dialogue · Science-policy panel · Synthesis SY-05
- Records found4369
- Screened2895Active
- Included53Normal
- Reviewer agreement0.84kappaNormal
Systematic review
- QuestionPICO
- Protocolregistered
- Search4 databases
- Screentwo reviewers
- Extractform v2
- Appraisecertainty
- Briefpolicy owner
Certainty of evidence
| Reduced losses | 4 | Moderate | Benefit |
| Faster recovery | 7 | Low | Unclear |
| Equity of access | 6 | Very low | Unclear |
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interdisciplinary co-authorship on a risk theme | percent of outputs on the theme | annual | Bibliometric records | OBSERVED |
| Funding awarded through cross-disciplinary calls | national currency; share of competitive funding | annual | Funder award records | Published statistics |
| Participation in dialogue by region and sector | participants by category | per event | Dialogue records | REPORTED |
| Recorded points of disagreement | count per dialogue record | per event | Dialogue records | REPORTED |
| Fields contributing to a theme | number of fields | annual | Topic classification of publications | ESTIMATED |
| Mentions of dialogue outputs in policy documents | count per period | annual | Policy document indexes | REPORTED |
| Follow-up research commissioned on a theme | count of funded projects | annual | Funder award records | Published statistics |
How risk research dialogue is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Who holds which role
The actors around risk research dialogue: who decides, who implements, who finances and who brings knowledge and voice.
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| OpenAlex | Open index of works, authors, institutions, topics and citations for mapping research themes | Open, CC0 |
| Crossref metadata | Publication, funding and update metadata registered by publishers | Open, metadata free to reuse |
| UNESCO Science Report | Periodic review of research systems, priorities and cooperation by country and region | Free to read, CC BY-SA IGO |
| CORDIS (European Commission) | Records of EU-funded research projects, partners and outputs | Free reuse, attribution |
| National research council award databases | Awards by programme, discipline and institution, such as UKRI Gateway to Research and NSF award search | Open Government Licence or public domain, by council |
| International Science Council publications | Reports on transdisciplinary research and global research priorities | Free to read, terms per report |
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Research Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Research councils and funders | Whether to open a cross-disciplinary call on a risk theme, and how to review proposals that span panels | Theme maps of contributing and missing fields; records of where review panels disagreed |
| Ministries responsible for science | Which systemic risk themes to name in national research priorities | Dialogue records with consensus and dissent kept apart; coverage gaps by discipline |
| National academies and learned societies | Whether to convene a joint study across disciplines, and on what terms | Earlier dialogue records, their participation profile and the open questions they leave |
| University research offices | How to recognise cross-disciplinary work in hiring and promotion | Comparative practice from other institutions and the assessment frameworks they use |
Outputs this topic produces
- Research dialogue records with agreements and open disagreements kept apart
- Theme maps showing which disciplines contribute and which are absent
- Methods seminars on translating framings between fields
- Peer learning briefs for institutions convening cross-disciplinary work
What cross-disciplinary dialogue asks.
- How do different disciplines define and measure the same risk, and can their findings be combined?
- Which links between systems fall between disciplines and are studied by no one?
- Where do researchers agree, where do they disagree, and is the disagreement about evidence, methods or values?
- Which questions from institutions are not being answered by current research?
What makes dialogue productive.
Research on interdisciplinary collaboration shows that shared vocabulary matters more than shared methods. Groups that spend time agreeing what terms mean, and that map how their models connect, produce more integrated work. Boundary objects, such as a shared scenario, dataset or diagram, give participants something concrete to work on together.
Dialogue fails when one discipline dominates, when participants defend positions rather than explore them, or when institutional participants are present only as audience. Power imbalances between well-resourced and less-resourced researchers, or between global and local knowledge, can silence important voices unless the process corrects for them.
Why now: the volume of research on systemic risk keeps rising while decision holders report difficulty finding what is relevant to their mandate. Research Nexus convenes researchers and institutions on a stated question, records where interpretations diverge, and, with consent, offers reviewed records to the Evidence Brief series of Reports.
How dialogue is structured.
No format suits every question. Exploratory dialogue on an emerging risk needs openness and time; dialogue on a contested finding needs careful balance and a clear record of each position.
- 01
Structured dialogue formats
Facilitated sessions with defined questions, balanced participation and recorded outcomes. Limits: depend heavily on facilitation quality.
- 02
Evidence mapping
Mapping what research exists on a question, across disciplines, before discussion. Limits: maps reflect what is published and indexed.
- 03
Structured expert elicitation
Formal methods for combining expert views, informed by probability and statistics. Limits: experts share blind spots.
- 04
Disagreement mapping
Recording where and why participants disagree. Limits: some disagreements cannot be resolved by evidence.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceComparing science advice systems · Mapping integrity proceduresApplied here
- 02Probability and statisticsBuilding bibliometric indicators · Detecting selective reportingApplied here
- 03Causal inference and impact evaluationEvaluating funder policy changes · Assessing knowledge brokerage schemesApplied here
Questions and answers.
What is a research dialogue record?
Why keep disagreement in the record?
Does Research Nexus publish research?
Which values on this page are real?
Is dialogue a substitute for research?
Who can propose a dialogue topic?
Are dialogue records peer-reviewed?
How is balance kept between disciplines?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.