skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice
Co-production has become a cornerstone of research within the sustainability sciences, motivating collaborations of diverse actors to conduct research in the service of societal and policy change. This review examines theoretical and empirical literature from sustainability science, public administration, and science and technology studies (STS) with the intention of advancing the theory and practice of co-production within sustainability science. We argue that co-production must go beyond stakeholder engagement by scientists to the more deliberate design of societal transitions. Co-production can contribute to such transitions by shifting the institutional arrangements that govern relationships between knowledge and power, science and society, and state and citizens. We highlight critical weaknesses in conceptualizations of co-production within sustainability sciences with respect to power, politics, and governance. We offer suggestions for how this can be rectified through deeper engagement with public administration and STS to offer a broad vision for enhancing the use, design, and practice of a more reflexive co-production in sustainability science. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources Volume 44 is October 17, 2019. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1633831
PAR ID:
10113114
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Volume:
44
Issue:
1
ISSN:
1543-5938
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; (, Energy research social science)
    null (Ed.)
    Scholars bridging the fields of science and technology studies (STS) and energy research in social sciences (ERSS) offer a rich and integrated conceptualization of how energy systems are imbued in social systems, including cultures, social structures, institutions, and social relations of power. Yet as fields of study, STS and ERSS are dominated by approaches to understanding nature, culture, and relationships among them with origins in western European Enlightenment thinking. In this article, we argue that the language of “imaginaries” provides an understanding of culturally organized normative commitments but may obscure attention to what are actually diverse and sometimes incommensurable yet legitimate plural ontologies. Tribal Nations, Indigenous communities, and other non-Western worldviews are not simply imagined; they offer different teachings regarding the relational and embedded realities governing relations among human and more-than-human beings across time and space. The field of STS has a rich history of exploring ontological controversies and provides insight into understanding diverse and competing perspectives in science and technology, yet without articulating the connection between this conceptual terrain and the lived realities of socio-technological system entrenchment or change. ERSS recognizes participation, energy system democratization, and even co-production as components of a just energy transition, while most typically thinking about participation as a methodology or research approach rather than as requiring consideration and even wholesale reconceptualization of ontological foundations. To advance convergent, transdisciplinary social science research in socio technological transitions requires grappling with plural ontologies regarding the reality of relations in the world. Here, we explore diverse ontologies shaping the realities of energy systems through the lens of Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region in the United States. Ontologies that recognize reciprocal relationships among human and more-than-human beings as well as the sovereignty of these beings and their collective kinships suggest fundamentally different priorities for energy systems transitions. Moving beyond the language of imagination to recognize that cultures can involve diverse and sometimes incommensurable pluralistic ontologies is essential for developing inclusive and just frameworks for socio-technological system transitions. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience)
    Understanding and redressing the climate crisis in the Arctic demands acknowledging and translating perspectives from frontline communities, environmental scientists, Indigenous knowledge bearers, and social scientists. As a first approximation to the question of how Arctic scientists conceptualize and enact “knowledge co-production,” we analyze how they write about it in their academic publications through a systematic literature review. Based on the results, we identify the lack of clear definition and practical engagement with “co-production” understood as a practice of integrating knowledges and methodological approaches from various disciplines and cultures. We raise concerns regarding researchers’ claims of co-production without understanding what it means, which is particularly harmful for Arctic communities whose knowledge practices scientists have long marginalized and exploited. In response, we argue that feminist STS scholarship provides crucial guidance on how to create and sustain meaningful relationships for knowledge co-production. These relationships can potentially subvert power inequities that have prevented many Arctic science teams from breaking out of traditional disciplinary silos to create new forms of knowledge exchange, particularly those based on notions of care for collaborators, communities, and equity. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Community Science)
    Abstract Co‐production is becoming an increasingly important approach to facilitating integrated climate, environmental, social and earth systems research to achieve societal impact. Across the research and science‐policy ecosystem, there are multiple indicators of its growing prominence as means to engage the public and generate research that is more likely to address real‐world problems and community priorities. Power plays a key role in co‐production, as power imbalances can affect participation, decision‐making, and the distribution of benefits. Addressing power imbalances, through a focus on equity in co‐production, helps to ensure past harms are addressed and participants have the resources and opportunities to contribute effectively. This special issue includes articles that explore equity in co‐production. Articles describe the results of projects that used co‐production approaches, social scientific findings that can inform equitable co‐production, and some that do both. Across the submissions, inclusive decision‐making, strengthening capacity at multiple levels, and fostering trust and respect were key themes. The collection provides practical lessons and future directions to advance equity in co‐production processes, meeting the urgent demand for more inclusive and impactful environmental science practices. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, Community Science)
    Abstract Co‐production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co‐production is conducted can perpetuate long‐standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co‐production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision‐relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co‐production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co‐production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place‐based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co‐production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co‐production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable. 
    more » « less
  5. ; (, BioScience)
    Abstract Despite widespread interest in science communication, public engagement with science, and engaged research, a large gap exists between the theories behind science engagement and how it is practiced within the scientific community. The scholarship of science engagement is also fractured, with knowledge and insights fragmented across discourses related to science communication, informal science learning, participatory research, and sustainability science. In the present article, we share a planning tool for integrating evidence and theory from these discourses into effective programs and projects. The ECO framework promotes three distinct and interacting modes of science engagement practice: formative engagement (listening and relationship building), codesign and coproduction (action-oriented partnerships), and broader outreach (expanding networks and dissemination). By planning engagement activities with attention to these three modes of engagement, scientists and scientific research organizations will be better poised to address urgent needs for stronger connections between science and society and increased use of scientific research in decision-making. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email