IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-024-04196-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preparing for knowledge co-production: A diagnostic approach to foster reflexivity for interdisciplinary research teams

Author

Listed:
  • E. Ligtermoet

    (Agriculture and Food Research Unit and Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform)

  • C. Munera-Roldan

    (Environment Research Unit and Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform)

  • C. Robinson

    (Agriculture and Food Research Unit and Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform
    Charles Darwin University)

  • Z. Sushil

    (Agriculture and Food Research Unit and Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform)

  • P. Leith

    (Agriculture and Food Research Unit and Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform)

Abstract

There is broad recognition of the essential requirement for collaboration and co-producing knowledge in addressing sustainability crises and facilitating societal transitions. While much effort has focused on guiding principles and retrospective analysis, there is less research on equipping researchers with fit-for-context and fit-for-purpose approaches for preparing and implementing engaged research. Drawing on literature in co-production, collaboration and transdisciplinary science, we present an operationalising framework and accompanying approach designed as a reflexive tool to assist research teams embarking in co-production. This framework encourages critical evaluation of the research contexts in which teams are working, examining the interactions between positionality, purpose for co-producing, contextual and stakeholder power, and the tailoring of co-production processes. We tested this diagnostic approach with four interdisciplinary research teams preparing for co-production in sustainability research in Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO. Data collected during and after these applications, indicate that the approach effectively stimulated a greater understanding and application of a critical co-production lens in the research team’s engagement planning. Workshop discussions revealed opportunities for reflexivity were generated across four learning domains; cognitive, epistemic, normative and relational. We argue that fostering opportunities for reflexivity across these learning domains strengthens teams’ abilities to apply a critical co-production lens, in their engagement work. While this approach has been tested only in the initial preparatory phase for research teams, the framework and diagnostic questions are likely applicable to later work with collaborators and could support iterative re-application of the critical lens at important times during or throughout the life of a project.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Ligtermoet & C. Munera-Roldan & C. Robinson & Z. Sushil & P. Leith, 2025. "Preparing for knowledge co-production: A diagnostic approach to foster reflexivity for interdisciplinary research teams," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-04196-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-04196-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-04196-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-04196-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    2. L. Hazard & M. Cerf & C. Lamine & D. Magda & P. Steyaert, 2020. "A tool for reflecting on research stances to support sustainability transitions," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 3(2), pages 89-95, February.
    3. Guido Caniglia & R. Freeth & C. Luederitz & J. Leventon & S. P. West & B. John & D. Peukert & D. J. Lang & H. Wehrden & B. Martín-López & I. Fazey & F. Russo & T. Wirth & M. Schlüter & C. Vogel, 2023. "Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 493-501, May.
    4. Sheila Jasanoff, 2007. "Technologies of humility," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7166), pages 33-33, November.
    5. Andy Stirling, 2014. "Transforming Power: social science and the politics of energy choices," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    7. Simon West & Caroline Schill, 2022. "Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano & L. Michelle Bennett & Yianna Vovides, 2023. "A framework for developing team science expertise using a reflective-reflexive design method (R2DM)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Josephine M. Chambers & Carina Wyborn & Melanie E. Ryan & Robin S. Reid & Maraja Riechers & Anca Serban & Nathan J. Bennett & Christopher Cvitanovic & María E. Fernández-Giménez & Kathleen A. Galvin &, 2021. "Six modes of co-production for sustainability," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(11), pages 983-996, November.
    10. Gorddard, Russell & Colloff, Matthew J. & Wise, Russell M. & Ware, Dan & Dunlop, Michael, 2016. "Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 60-69.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    2. Saurabh Biswas & Clark A. Miller, 2022. "Deconstructing knowledge and reconstructing understanding: Designing a knowledge architecture for transdisciplinary co‐creation of energy futures," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 293-308, April.
    3. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2015. "Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Timo Y. Maas & Annet Pauwelussen & Esther Turnhout, 2022. "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Radhika Murti & Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel & Stephan Rist, 2020. "A Methodological Orientation for Social Learning Based Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Pilot Interventions in Rural Communities of Burkina Faso, Chile and Senegal," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 409-434, August.
    6. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    7. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    8. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Rebecca Page & Lisa Dilling, 2020. "How experiences of climate extremes motivate adaptation among water managers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 499-516, August.
    10. Verrier, Brunilde & Strachan, Neil, 2024. "Sunset and sunrise business strategies shaping national energy transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    11. Pangbourne, Kate & Mladenović, Miloš N. & Stead, Dominic & Milakis, Dimitris, 2020. "Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 35-49.
    12. Maru, Yiheyis & Sparrow, Ashley & Stirzaker, Richard & Davies, Jocelyn, 2018. "Integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) from a theory of change perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 310-320.
    13. Gavin Bridge & Ludger Gailing, 2020. "New energy spaces: Towards a geographical political economy of energy transition," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(6), pages 1037-1050, September.
    14. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    15. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Claudia Múnera-Roldán & Matthew J. Colloff & Jamie Pittock & Lorrae Kerkhoff, 2024. "Aligning adaptation and sustainability agendas: lessons from protected areas," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Karoliina Isoaho & Jochen Markard, 2020. "The Politics of Technology Decline: Discursive Struggles over Coal Phase‐Out in the UK," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 342-368, May.
    18. Claudia Múnera-Roldán & Dirk J. Roux & Matthew J. Colloff & Lorrae van Kerkhoff, 2020. "Beyond Calendars and Maps: Rethinking Time and Space for Effective Knowledge Governance in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, August.
    19. Julia Maria Wittmayer & Tessa de Geus & Bonno Pel & F. Avelino & Sabine Hielscher & Thomas Hoppe & Marie Susan Mühlemeier & Agata Stasik & Sem Oxenaar & Karoline K.S. Rogge & Vivian Visser & Esther Ma, 2020. "Beyond instrumentalism: Broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/312323, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Joop de Kraker & Astrid Offermans & Merel M. van der Wal, 2021. "Game-Based Social Learning for Socially Sustainable Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-04196-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.