Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production

Klenk, Nicole; Fiume, Anna; Meehan, Katie; Gibbes, Cerian

doi:10.1002/wcc.475

Cited by 148 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some have cautioned against labeling all academic-practitioner collaborations as 'transdisciplinary' [12], while others express concern that too little attention is paid to the TDA process [9,23]. Power asynchronies among participants can interfere with the success of the TDA process [24] and practitioners of TDA do not always fully consider power [4,25]. Finally, Westberg and Polk (2016) caution that TDA-produced action-related knowledge is specific to the 'micro-context' of the TDA practice [11] and cannot be generalized, although the process of TDA can be [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex sustainability problems (e.g., climate change) are challenging to understand and manage, leading to an increase in approaches that connect scholars to society and research to action (collaborative approaches). The transdisciplinary approach (TDA) represents one such approach. While TDA is new to many, there are several prior collaborative approaches including collaborative adaptive management, knowledge integration, participatory action research, and indigenous/local knowledge. Other contemporary and parallel approaches include citizen science, translational science, evidence-based practice, and knowledge with action. The varied disciplinary roots and problem areas contribute to a lack of interaction among these parallel but distinct approaches, and among the scholars and stakeholders who practice them. In this paper, we consider the connections, complementarities and contradictions among these distinct but related collaborative approaches. This review offers insights into the interaction between science and practice, including the importance of social processes and recognition of different ways of knowing, as well as how to conduct collaborative approaches on a variety of scales and think about how to generalize findings. The review suggests a need to rethink roles and relationships in the process of knowledge co-creation, both extending the roles of researchers and practitioners, creating new hybrid roles for “pracademics”, and placing greater awareness on issues of power.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This very practice tends to ignore the original tenets of the term, which focused on how knowledge, power, and world‐making practices are mutually reinforcing, and rather focuses on isolating the co‐production of knowledge (Lövbrand, ). In many cases, co‐production of knowledge for climate adaptation is carried out as a regulative ideal that imposes particular logics, practices, and epistemic and ethical framings, often relying on “extractive approaches that mine local knowledge to reinforce globally framed climate governance regimes” (Klenk, Fiume, Meehan, & Gibbes, , p. 11), such as the notion of static “indigenous knowledge” indicators. Many instrumental approaches to the co‐production of knowledge fail to account for the various ways in which power differentials are reproduced within these processes and how, in turn, these shape what knowledge is considered authoritative within adaptation decision making.…”

Section: The Politics Of Co‐production In Theory and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics

Goldman

Turner

Daly

2018

WIREs Climate Change

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand the broader epistemological and ontological politics of human dimensions of climate change, this review adopts a political ecology approach, informed by Science and Technology Studies concepts and research on multiple ontologies. We are particularly interested in assessing critical approaches to climate change knowledge as related to adaptation policies. The review addresses three specific areas where more critical engagement could help move debates about knowledge politics in human dimensions research forward in fruitful ways: first, discourse and a focus on the language used to talk about and reflect on human dimensions of climate change; second, co-production and the troubling proliferation of depoliticized "instrumental" co-productions of knowledge for adaptation; and third, the emerging literature on multiple ontologies exposing multiple enactments of climate change processes. We review each of these areas of literature, highlighting where more direct engagement with epistemological, ontological, and ethical questions is underway. In doing so, we subject the knowledge and practices that underlie dominant understandings of climate change to critical political ecology scrutiny.

show abstract

“…At the international policy level, this is not a new idea (Gaillard & Mercer, 2012;Tipler, Tarrant, Johnston, & Tu, 2017). Yet integrating knowledge of DRR in communities is difficult due to a variety of reasons that include a lack of trust, lack of government (due to hierarchies or corruption), and situations in which other circumstances demand attention instead of DRR (Gaillard & Mercer, 2012;Klenk, Fiume, Meehan, & Gibbes, 2017;Mönter & Otto, 2017).…”

Section: Drr and The Politics Of Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

A proposal for unpacking the politics of knowledge production in disaster reduction education

Trumble

2018

Geography Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction (2015–2030) states that education is an important way to build resilience of people and communities. Further, reducing inequality should be a goal of disaster risk reduction (DRR) politics. Disaster reduction education (DRE), like the ideas resilience and DRR from which it stems, is not an innocent notion. The production of knowledge and its implementation via DRE are inherently political. With this in mind, I discuss recent work in DRE and suggest that science and technology studies (STS) is a helpful ally in examining the significance of DRE for communities. I first discuss the relationship between resilience, DRR, and DRE. I then review recent case studies from the growing field of scholarship in DRE; each of which brings into question (a) the politics of knowledge production and (b) uneven relationships across scales that shape the ways in which education for disaster risk is implemented. Next, I explore how scholarship from STS is useful to think through ways to further unpack the politics of expertise woven into DRE. I conclude by stating that if we are to consider possibilities for DRE practices that increase equality, we must first explore the power relations that shape DRE. STS engagements with expertise will help in the process.

show abstract

Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production

Cited by 148 publications

References 76 publications

Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action

Placing Transdisciplinarity in Context: A Review of Approaches to Connect Scholars, Society and Action

A critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics

A proposal for unpacking the politics of knowledge production in disaster reduction education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About