Earthquake prediction, (where? how big? and when?) is currently not possible but recent, rapid developments in earthquake science have made progress on identification of regions of high seismic hazard on which mitigating actions and scarce resources can be focused. For many scientists, the goal of earthquake prediction has been superseded by the goal of targeted preparation of at-risk populations. Integrated earthquake science, much of it established and uncontested, has produced effective disaster risk reduction preparedness programmes which can be shown to work. In western Sumatra, for example, the city of Padang lies broadside on to the Mentawai Islands segment of the Sunda megathrust which has been shown to be advanced in its seismic cycle and nearing failure in a large earthquake. This event will likely generate a destructive tsunami and, without preparation, a death toll on the same scale as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami is thought possible. The population of the city have been the subject of intensive preparedness work based on the current insights from integrated earthquake and tsunami science. On 30 September 2009 an earthquake of magnitude 7.6 hit the city killing some 1200 people. Interestingly, this earthquake ruptured deep in the crust and did not cause any vertical movements of the seafloor and therefore did not generate a tsunami but no one in Padang knew this, it was perfect dry run for the expected earthquake. Later forensic studies of the response of Padang residents show that large numbers of people evacuated the city according to the evacuation plan and many lives would have been saved had the earthquake been tsunamigenic. Unfortunately in developing countries, where the risk to lives is highest, examples of excellent practice in utilising uncontested earthquake science are too rare, and thus avoidable loss of life to earthquakes and their associated hazards is too common. The 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake is a case in point, here, despite several publications in international earthquake science journals warning of the impending threat of an earthquake of magnitude around 7, the population and NGO's working with them remained completely ignorant of the threat and more than 230000 people died when the earthquake (M=7.1) occurred. We aim to change this balance. In this project we will put together an international team of earthquake scientists, NGO actors and government agencies and develop a large consortium project aimed at the integration and demonstration of cutting-edge, hybrid methods in earthquake science in parallel with the development of partnerships and methodologies for dissemination, utilisation and contextualisation of the best methods for disaster risk reduction programming in developing countries. The consortium project will do cutting-edge applied science by taking the best of current methods from different earthquake science fields, all of which have been shown to work, and combine them to produce protocols to identify regions of highest earthquake hazard. We will then take examples of international best practice, like Padang, in preparedness and work with social scientists and end users in the NGO and government agencies to ensure that the lessons from these examples are learned on a global basis so that the at-risk populations can fully avail of the state-of-the-art earthquake science. To enable appropriate use of earthquake science, the consortium will identify the most effective forms of science policy dialogue and develop innovative approaches which best support the effective communication and application of earthquake science for ARCs. This science policy learning will be of enormous transferable value, enabling learning from across scientific fields concerning future vulnerability to directly inform and support at risk communities.

This proposal arises responsively from concern expressed by both practitioners and academics to improve research partnerships between HEIs and INGOs in the field of international development. In the context of a British funding climate in which academics are under heightened pressure to justify the impact of their research by engaging research users and mediators (HEFCE et al 2011) and INGOs are seeking to satisfy donors and supporters by providing 'rigorous measures of success' for their programmes (Eyben 2013) partnerships are increasingly perceived as mutually beneficial. However, while the drive towards research collaboration has fuelled many new initiatives to broker partnerships, a recent wave of studies have suggested that the effectiveness of partnerships is often limited by constraints to participation (e.g. Aniekwe et al 2012; ELRHA 2012; Hanley and Vogel 2012). These studies have been largely descriptive, focusing on the instrumental nature of partnerships but with little analytical attention to the mechanics of participation or to the implications for the kind of evidence that is valued in and produced through partnerships. A new research agenda is therefore needed to strengthen the analyses of partnerships and in doing so, contribute to broader understandings of the politics of knowledge production within and outside of the academy. In response, this series brings together interrelated strands of research on 'participation in knowledge production' and the 'politics of evidence'. The seminars will explore the intersection between these two strands by drawing together research from different disciplines and sectors on how participation and notions of evidence are negotiated in research partnerships at three distinct levels: institutions (assumptions, agendas, structures and processes); literacy practices (new communication practices required for effective co-production of research); and research artefacts (tools, techniques, technologies and texts). It will achieve this in the following ways: First, context-setting workshop informed by position papers will frame the core seminars by providing a series of analytical frameworks for understanding partnerships. This 2-day workshop will also be used to develop a tool kit for participatory analysis of partnership case studies and establish a code of conduct for the following seminars. Second, a core series of four seminars structured around eight case studies of research partnerships (each co-presented by an academic and practitioner) will be used to create a safe space to facilitate trust and enable critical reflection of experiences in partnerships. These seminars will be innovative in their form using a range of participatory methodologies to structure analysis and debate, encourage active participation, and enable power dynamics within the process to be made visible and confronted. Due to the sensitive nature of discussions, these seminars will be restricted, however, dialogue with external participants will be facilitated through innovative use of social media (including a real-time Twitter-feed). Third, the outcomes of the core seminars will be presented at a high-level conference which will also incorporate insights and perspectives from a range of UK-based and international contibutors. The conference will conclude with a round-table discussion on the research agenda and around strategies for developing resources to support stronger research partnerships By drawing together as co-researchers practitioners and academics (including senior and early-career researchers) and research students - who often occupy both roles simultaneously - the seminar series aims to democratise the status of both academics and practitioners as co-researchers. The series will result in the development of publications and resources to inform a new research agenda and improve practice in research partnerships.