Negotiating space for knowledge co-production

Abstract

Despite increased popularity of knowledge co-production as a research approach to address contemporary environmental issues, its implementation in science–policy contexts is not self-evident. In this paper, we illustrate how researchers at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL)) ensured a fit between key features of knowledge co-production and conventional norms and customs for knowledge production processes at the science–policy interface while simultaneously challenging those norms to create space for knowledge co-production. Drawing on implementation science, we analyzed two types of alignment activities: negotiation of normative and relational norms and modification of co-production features. Based on three policy evaluation cases, we show that PBL researchers developed co-production capacity over time. They became more skilled at recognizing (un)conducive structures to knowledge co-production, negotiating such structures, and modifying co-production features without compromising co-production integrity. We argue that investment in these skills is required to negotiate space for knowledge co-production in science–policy settings.

Enabling successful science‐policy knowledge exchange between marine biodiversity research and management: An Australian case study

“…Being able to build this hub on previous programs through an evolution from those past experiences (see Campbell et al, 2015) is an enabler of success through improved relationships, processes, and governance structures. It shows that not only a KE‐oriented funding program but also co‐production capacity develops over time with observation, reflection, and improvement (Verwoerd et al, 2022).…”

Transdisciplinarity: an imperative for information behaviour research

“…Disciplinary silos further perpetuate tensions between transdisciplinary theory and practice. There are entrenched ways of knowing and doing within all (unitary) disciplines, which make using transdisciplinary approaches challenging for many scholars (Verwoerd et al, 2023). For example, Haeffner and colleagues (2022) documented the challenges quantitative, positivist-oriented scientists faced when asked to engage with qualitative autoethnography.…”

“…Transdisciplinary research has also been successful within policy settings, as demonstrated by Verwoerd and colleagues' study with a Dutch environment agency (2023). They demonstrated how scientists and policy administrators could collaborate to create effective policies supporting scientific rigour through planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Verwoerd et al, 2023).…”

Transforming relations between science, policy and society for sustainable futures?

“…Indeed, how irresistible is it to be able to present an improvement of sciencepolicy arrangements in a way that transforms them into an ostensible objective account, to 'fit and conform' improvements by aligning them with dominant modernist norms (cf. Smith and Raven, 2012;Kunseler, 2017;Verwoerd et al, 2022). But by depoliticizing the role of science-policy arrangements, we also lose the ability to ask what role we want science-policy arrangements to play.…”

“…The risk that transformative initiatives become partly co-opted into dominant modes of working, and thus, get partly stripped of their transformative potential is illustrated in Verwoerd's (2022) in-depth study of the normalization of 'reflexive evaluation' at PBL. 17 Verwoerd's work not only shows how reflexive evaluation has become an acceptable policy evaluation repertoire within the institute, but also points out how this repertoire has been adjusted throughout in order to align it more neatly with dominant norms (see also Verwoerd et al, 2022), i.e. the aforementioned problematic modernist assumptions.…”