An official website of the United States government
Participatory modeling (PM) is an engaged research methodology for creating analog or computer-based models of complex systems, such as socio–environmental systems. Used across a range of fields, PM centers stakeholder knowledge and participation to create more internally valid models that can inform policy and increase engagement and trust between communities and research teams. The PM process also presents opportunities for knowledge co-production and eliciting cross-sectional and longitudinal data on stakeholders’ worldviews and knowledge, risk assessment, decision-making, and social learning. We present an overview of the stages for PM and how it can be used for community-based, stakeholder-engaged social science research.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 1, 2026
Inclusivity, Capacity‐Building, Trust, and Respect: An Introduction to the Special Issue Equity in Co‐Production
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
- Award ID(s):
- 2135538
- PAR ID:
- 10641842
- Publisher / Repository:
- Community Science
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Community Science
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2692-9430
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- co-production
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Birchall, S Jeff (Ed.)This paper explores the concept of co-stewardship in the Arctic through the lens of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change’s Human Wellbeing (HWB) team. Rooted in Indigenous knowledge and collaborative science, our work prioritizes equity in decision-making, recognizing multiple knowledge systems as equally valuable. Through intentional team-building, trust, and reciprocity, we examine successes, challenges, and opportunities in co-stewardship. Key successes include fostering meaningful relationships, integrating Indigenous perspectives into scientific and policy discussions, and uplifting innovative knowledge-sharing tools such as oral histories and visual storytelling. However, structural challenges persist, including colonial policy frameworks, inadequate funding models, and a lack of institutional mechanisms to support Indigenous leadership in co-stewardship initiatives. We propose policy shifts, long-term funding commitments, and greater Indigenous representation in decision-making as steps toward meaningful change. This work underscores the importance of Indigenous-led stewardship in addressing Arctic environmental and social challenges, offering a model for collaborative governance rooted in respect and reciprocity.more » « less
-
Who makes decisions about what K-12 computer science education(CSed) should look like? While equitable participation is a central focus of K-12 CSed, the field has largely thought about equity through the lens of providing access to inclusive and robust CS learning. But issues of who has a "seat at the table" in determining the shape of those experiences, and the larger field that structures them, have been largely under-explored. This panel session argues that equitable CSed must take into account questions of participation in decision-making about CSed, with such issues of power themselves a key dimension of equity in any education effort. We highlight efforts engaging stakeholders from across the education landscape-parents, educators, community members, administrators, and students-exploring how decision-making is structured, how voices that are usually marginalized might be elevated, the tensions involved in these processes, and the relationships between participation and equity.more » « less
-
Abstract Recent major investments in infrastructure in the United States and globally present a crucial opportunity to embed equity within the heart of resilient infrastructure decision-making. Yet there is a notable absence of frameworks within the engineering and scientific fields for integrating equity into planning, design, and maintenance of infrastructure. Additionally, whole-of-government approaches to infrastructure, including the Justice40 Initiative, mimic elements of process management that support exploitative rather than exploratory innovation. These and other policies risk creating innovation traps that limit analytical and engineering advances necessary to prioritize equity in decision-making, identification and disruption of mechanisms that cause or contribute to inequities, and remediation of historic harms. Here, we propose a three-tiered framework toward equitable and resilient infrastructure through restorative justice, incremental policy innovation, and exploratory research innovation. This framework aims to ensure equitable access and benefits of infrastructure, minimize risk disparities, and embrace restorative justice to repair historical and systemic inequities. We outline incremental policy innovation and exploratory research action items to address and mitigate risk disparities, emphasizing the need for community-engaged research and the development of equity metrics. Among other action items, we recommend a certification system—referred to as Social, Environmental, and Economic Development (SEED)—to train infrastructure engineers and planners and ensure attentiveness to gaps that exist within and dynamically interact across each tier of the proposed framework. Through the framework and proposed actions, we advocate for a transformative vision for equitable infrastructure that emphasizes the interconnectedness of social, environmental, and technical dimensions in infrastructure planning, design, and maintenance.more » « less
-
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
