Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks

Schneider, Flurina; Tribaldos, Theresa; Adler, Carolina; Biggs, Reinette; Brémond, Ariane de; Büser, Tobias; Krug, Cornelia B.; Loutre, Marie-France; Moore, Sarah; Norström, Albert V.; Paulavets, Katsia; Urbach, Davnah; Spehn, Eva; Wülser, Gabriela; Zondervan, Ruben

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007

Cited by 46 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Practitioners of NFM are a heterogeneous group, individuals will differ in their perspectives, ideas and interactions with other actors in response to different disciplinary backgrounds and a range of values and conceptual framings. Research that harnesses processes of knowledge co-production (Mauser et al, 2013;Pereira et al, 2018;Schneider et al, 2021) and social-learning to explore and clarify differences can reveal a range of values and framings (Keen et al, 2005 changes seed shifts in scientific and policy discourse that have been shown to bring about paradigm shifts (Bark et al, 2021;Pahl-Wostl et al, 2011).…”

Section: Research Approach and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schanze gives an alternative view ( 2017) calling for research that advances knowledge to support NFM delivery within flood risk management practice. This is 195 the first study that brings together these two practitioner groups to examine these two perspectives in transdisciplinary and knowledge co-production research (Norström et al, 2020;Pohl et al, 2021;Schneider et al, 2021).…”

Section: Participant Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore a technocratic model of transmitting scientific fact without engaging in dialogue across disciplines and between science and society is seen in the academic literature's focus on NFM effectiveness as a measure of flood peak reduction or delay (Connelly et al, 2020;Dadson et al, 2017;Wingfield et al, 2019) is insufficient for transformative decision making (Young et al, 2014). A growing number of voices concerned with sustainable futures have 80 called for a change to scientific knowledge generation, to instead foster knowledge co-production with academic and nonacademic actors to develop integrated research questions, services, policies and processes (Mauser et al, 2013;Pereira et al, 2018;Schneider et al, 2021). System oriented research also known as interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research aims to 'transcend disciplinary and methodological paradigms' (Hadorn et al, 2008) to foster knowledge exchange and generate new mental models and practices for sustainability oriented action (Pereira et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…practitioner supervisory team that draws interdisciplinary expertise from flood research, human geography, governance, time space and territory, catchment science, fundraising and partnership working. The process of a transdisciplinary research 100 program begins with problem framing, knowledge co-production and integration of interested actors (Norström et al, 2020;Pohl et al, 2021;Schneider et al, 2021). To do this, Group concept mapping (GCM) (Trochim 1989) with Ketso (Tippett et al, 2007), a systems thinking methodology (Hassmiller Lich et al, 2017) that applies a mixed method, data collection approach was used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Barriers to mainstream adoption of catchment wide Natural Flood Management, a transdisciplinary problem framing study of delivery practice

Wingfield

Macdonald

Peters

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Natural Flood Management (NFM) is the name given to Nature Based Solutions (NBS) for Flood Management in the UK. It is a holistic flood management technique that employs natural hydrological processes, through the instillation of interventions, to slow the flow of water, creating a landscape scale flood management system. Despite widespread interest and supporting policy from governments and non-profit organisations NFM, as yet, has not been widely adopted as a mainstream flood management technique. A small number of academic studies examining perceived barriers to NFM adoption have identified a variety of individual factors as being responsible. It is commonly accepted that flood risk management broadly, and NFM specifically, are complex, challenges of interacting physical and human parameters and that academic, institutional and policy divisions are rarely sympathetic to embracing these complexities. A transdisciplinary problem framing study in conjunction with professionals experienced in the delivery of NFM projects in the UK aimed to capture these multifaceted parameters of flood management and strategic delivery at a landscape scale using Group Concept Mapping, a systems approach to identify conceptual convergence. This policy-delivery impasse was further explored by quantifying the relative importance of individual barriers and conceptual groupings from the perspective of two different practitioner groups (flood risk managers and conservation practitioners). The results demonstrate that the NFM delivery system can be grouped into seven interacting elements: policy and regulation, politics, public perception, cross-cutting issues, funding, technical knowledge and evidence, of which each have a varying number of barriers that limit NFM uptake. Opinions differs as to the importance of these individual barriers, however when considering the system broadly we identify that the institutional and social barriers are perceived as the most important, whilst technical knowledge and evidence are the areas of least concern. This paper aims to promote NBS flood management delivery in the UK and globally by generating, structuring and representing the multifaceted and multilevel NFM delivery system at a local level to evidence adaptive decision making at a regional, national and global level. Through problem structuring and an increased understanding and awareness of the structure and network of linking elements and perceived differences of practitioner groups that influence the system of delivery, steps can be taken towards solutions that are socially, scientifically and practically robust.

show abstract

Section: Research Approach and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Participant Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Barriers to mainstream adoption of catchment wide Natural Flood Management, a transdisciplinary problem framing study of delivery practice

Wingfield

Macdonald

Peters

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If well designed and conducted, the literature highlights that integrative and reflexive modes of knowledge co-creation have relational outcomes that contribute not only to learning processes but also to capacity building, empowerment and network building. These relational outcomes of participatory processes of co-exploration are important for shaping socially robust knowledge and transdisciplinary sustainability research (Schneider et al, 2021). The process of acknowledging a broader set of relations in knowledge co-creation can foster new opportunities for integration and systemic engagement in wider networks or in nodes that are highly connected to decision-makers and practitioners.…”

Section: Engaging In Processes Of Co-explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐exploring relational heuristics for sustainability transitions towards more resilient and just Anthropocene futures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, four relational heuristic responses for exploring new modes of engagement, or patterns of activity, that could enliven humanity's efforts in fostering systemic thinking and action to inform sustainability transitions are offered. Their purpose is to realise more resilient and just Anthropocene futures. These relational heuristics are (1) re‐patterning our theories of change‐making, (2) cultivating a shared future consciousness, (3) creating transformative spaces and (4) engaging in processes of co‐exploration. We argue that these heuristics are better aligned for studying and responding to the systemic and interdependent nature of the real‐world challenges we are currently facing.

show abstract

Taking knowledge exchange to practice: A scoping review of practical case studies to identify enablers of success in environmental management

Kapoor,

Cvitanovic,

Klenk

et al. 2024

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A gap exists in the literature on how to implement theories of knowledge exchange (KE) into practice within an environmental management context. To support the improved practice of KE, we conducted a scoping literature review evaluating 56 empirical case studies globally to identify enabling conditions for implementing effective KE. Identified enabling conditions were organized into a core capacities framework, which highlighted essential elements of effective KE from organizational, individual, financial, material, practical, political, and social capacity dimensions. Results show that major enablers to effective KE relate to practitioners' individual and organizational capacity including the ability of practitioners (often boundary spanners) to establish trust with relevant actors through their interpersonal relationships and possessing sufficient background knowledge and skills to facilitate collaborations across disciplines and sectors. We also identified main challenges to engaging in KE (e.g., insufficient long‐ term funding for projects, lack of interpersonal skills for KE practitioners to build relationships and network, and inadequate background knowledge for practitioners to exchange knowledge in an accessible manner), and the outcomes and impacts that can emerge from effective KE work. We find that practitioners often perform quantitative evaluations that provide instantaneous and measurable impacts for the effectiveness of KE, but do not capture the impact of interpersonal relationships and trust that are best achieved through qualitative approaches. Lastly, the synthesis of enablers, challenges, outcomes, and impacts presented in this paper can be a resource for practitioners to identify what enablers may be missing from their KE strategies and in what capacity the KE work can be strengthened.

show abstract

Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks

Cited by 46 publications

References 33 publications

Barriers to mainstream adoption of catchment wide Natural Flood Management, a transdisciplinary problem framing study of delivery practice

Barriers to mainstream adoption of catchment wide Natural Flood Management, a transdisciplinary problem framing study of delivery practice

Co‐exploring relational heuristics for sustainability transitions towards more resilient and just Anthropocene futures

Taking knowledge exchange to practice: A scoping review of practical case studies to identify enablers of success in environmental management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About