Fun in Designing TRIPS pathways
Transformative Research Innovation Proposals: a challenge of
METEOR Programme: Methodologies for Teamworking in Eco-Outwards Research
1. What: Eco‑outwards transformative research in METEOR
METEOR is a Horizon Europe programme that reimagines doctoral education as a driver of societal transformation by developing early‑career researchers’ transversal skills in teamwork, collaboration and project design across disciplines and countries. Eco‑outwards research is the guiding principle: research is expected to radiate outwards from the individual scholar to broader ecosystems of people, institutions and environments, so that project results create tangible benefits beyond academia.
Within this frame, an eco‑outwards Theory of Change (ToC) starts from the transformative impacts METEOR seeks – more equitable, sustainable and resilient societies for people and planet. ToC is developed through backwards mapping. First, we identify the desirable future, expressed as the relevant impact. Second, we work backwards to specify the outcomes, outputs, activities and inputs that would make that impact achievable. Third, the resulting ToC map becomes a shared planning tool: it helps partners negotiate who will lead which activities, based on interests and expertise, and supports the development of a realistic schedule (for example, a GANTT chart).
Proposals are invited to articulate how their teams will move along this chain, showing how researcher development, collaborative practices and institutional conditions combine to produce outward‑facing, sustainability‑aligned change..
2. Why: The need for eco‑outwards, engaging approaches
Doctoral training and early‑career research often emphasise individual excellence and publication metrics, while offering limited structured support for collaboration, societal engagement or mental wellbeing. At the same time, the challenges framed by the Sustainable Development Goals demand research that can navigate complexity, work across boundaries and co‑create solutions with diverse stakeholders.
Eco‑outwards proposals respond to this gap by positioning researchers as relational agents who connect knowledge domains, sectors and communities in order to generate positive social and environmental impact. By explicitly adopting a backwards‑mapped ToC, they demonstrate that impacts are not accidental by‑products but the result of deliberate design choices about how people will work together, learn from one another and translate insights into action.
3. Who: Actors in the eco‑outwards ecology
In METEOR, the primary actors are doctoral candidates and early‑career researchers, who are supported to become “eco‑outwards” in both mindset and practice—connected researchers, project coordinators and network leaders who can operate confidently in transdisciplinary and intersectoral teams. Around them sits a wider ecology: academic supervisors, institutional leaders, NGOs, community groups, businesses, public bodies and international partners who co‑shape research agendas and share responsibility for impact.
Eco‑outwards proposals narrate how these actors will relate to each other over time: how peer mentoring groups will function; how cross‑institutional teams will co‑design projects; and how external partners will be involved not only as data sources but as co‑researchers, co‑educators and co‑owners of the knowledge that is produced. This “who” is therefore less a static list of stakeholders and more a description of a living, evolving community of practice.
In practical terms, using an eco‑outwards ToC means that, once the impact and main outcome pathways are sketched, teams deliberately bring all sectors linked to that impact into the conversation from the start: citizens and communities, enterprises, NGOs, government bodies, education providers and research centres. In METEOR, the primary actors are doctoral candidates and early‑career researchers, who are supported to become “eco‑outwards” in both mindset and practice—connected researchers, project coordinators and network leaders who can operate confidently in transdisciplinary and intersectoral teams.
Around them sits a wider ecology of academic supervisors, institutional leaders, NGOs, community groups, businesses, public bodies and international partners who co‑shape research agendas and share responsibility for impact. When designing their ToC, project teams are encouraged to map how these actors will work together over time—how peer‑mentoring groups will function, how cross‑institutional teams will co‑design projects, and how external partners will be involved not only as data sources but as co‑researchers, co‑educators and co‑owners of the knowledge that is produced—so that the “who” becomes a living, evolving community of practice rather than a static stakeholder list.
4. When and How: CARE–KNOW–DO as the developmental spine
The when and how of eco‑outwards transformation in METEOR are organised around the CARE–KNOW–DO framework, which underpins the upSkill.Map competence instrument and the programme’s academies and online resources. CARE–KNOW–DO runs longitudinally through the METEOR journey: from initial online preparation and self‑assessment, through the in‑person academies, to subsequent proposal development and legacy activities.
-
CARE is activated early, as participants reflect on their values, responsibilities and wellbeing in relation to global challenges and local contexts. Activities such as guided self‑assessment, narrative exercises and mentoring conversations help researchers recognise how issues of justice, equity and sustainability intersect with their own trajectories, laying the ethical and emotional foundations for collaboration and impact.
-
KNOW becomes prominent as teams begin to explore knowledge ecologies: comparing disciplinary perspectives, integrating academic and practitioner insights, and engaging with open science and responsible research and innovation. Through seminars, peer‑learning tasks and collaborative inquiry, participants practise epistemic humility, learn to navigate uncertainty and build shared conceptual frameworks that are robust enough to inform serious proposals.
-
DO crystallises during the academies and subsequent project development phases, where groups design and refine eco‑outwards research proposals aligned with the SDGs and Horizon Europe priorities. Here, engaging methodologies—interactive workshops, challenge‑based sprints, scenario design and co‑creation with external partners—enable researchers to translate CARE and KNOW into concrete plans, work packages and impact pathways that are both ambitious and feasible.
Because CARE–KNOW–DO is embedded across time, the ToC is not a one‑off planning tool but a living ecology: participants revisit and adjust their assumptions as their understanding of contexts, partners and opportunities deepens.
5. So what? Lessons learned for eco‑outwards proposals
Framed in this way, METEOR’s eco‑outwards approach offers several lessons for transformative proposals. First, starting from impact and backwards‑mapping the ToC helps teams to be explicit about whose lives they hope to change, in what ways, and through which mechanisms of knowledge exchange and capacity‑building. This avoids the common trap of designing attractive activities that are weakly connected to societal outcomes.
Second, centring CARE–KNOW–DO demonstrates that researcher development is itself a pathway to impact: as individuals and teams become more reflective, more critically informed and more capable of acting collectively, they increase the likelihood that their work will make a meaningful difference in the systems they inhabit. Proposals that show this developmental logic—how participants move from inner alignment (CARE) through shared understanding (KNOW) to collaborative intervention (DO)—are better positioned to convince reviewers that transformation is possible, not merely aspirational.
Third, eco‑outwards narratives help institutions and funders see how investments in transversal skills, teamworking and engaging pedagogies can leave a durable legacy in doctoral education and research culture, beyond the lifespan of individual projects. When proposals tell this story clearly—linking what they are doing, why it matters, who is involved, when and how CARE–KNOW–DO will shape the journey, and so what in terms of societal and ecological futures—they contribute to METEOR’s broader ambition: to normalise research that is outward‑looking, ethically grounded and transformative in practice as well as in rhetoric.
Notes and Glossary
The verbs that research proposals typically consider, in increasing order of strength:
- Informing — the research provided input; the adopter made the decision. Honest but understates a measured-outcome case.
- Shaping — the research influenced the form of what was adopted. Stronger than informing; defensible for partnership cases.
- Enabling — the research made possible what otherwise could not have happened. Strong for cases where the research provided the conceptual instrument that the adopter then used.
- Embedding — the research has been incorporated into ongoing practice. Strong for durability claims.
- Reframing — the research shifted how the field thinks. Strong for conceptual impact.
- Underpinning — the research forms the foundation of what was adopted. Strong but risky if the foundation has other contributors (Lemann, Natura, PARC architecture).
- Driving / Transforming — the research caused the change. Strongest but requires sole-attribution evidence you do not have.