Co-production in action: perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process

Abstract

Opening up knowledge-action systems to a wider range of disciplinary and societal actors is considered to be a necessary step in achieving transformative change for sustainability. In science for sustainability, there is a growing body of experience and literature of putting this 'co-production' into action. However, there is an opportunity to strengthen the application of analytical resources for more explicitly recognising and accounting for the power relations embedded in these initiatives. This paper deploys social theory from science and technology studies to develop an approach to perceive power relations between the participants, processes and products of co-production. This necessitates paying attention to the multiple and distributed organisational spaces where co-production takes place to discern: who participates; who (and what) is represented; how deliberations are structured; and how outcomes are circulated. This paper shows that these organisational dimensions of participation, representation, deliberation, and circulation not only give structure to co-productive forums, but can also define the power relations between their participants, processes and products. The paper then illustrates the applicability of this approach using the case of a current global expert process for biodiversity: The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This case study offers insights on the challenges and opportunities for designing and evaluating co-production initiatives for sustainability.

What is intersectionality and why is it important in oral health research?

“…Co‐production has challenges, however, which could be the reason why there are few examples of co‐produced interventions addressing oral health inequalities 37,61,62 . Barriers include dominant expert‐based research processes, 54 differing priorities, 63 and a lack of knowledge and understanding about what co‐production means 64,65 …”

Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation–research partnership

“…To do so required compromises and an understanding that research rarely per se can be a priority for healthcare organisation and their employees. The research team’s understanding of this, and that power dynamics are often a factor within the practice of knowledge co-production,56 57 led us to be sensitive to the organisation’s needs and priorities and continually to seek to avoid confrontation. Furthermore, because power imbalance can jeopardise team outcomes58 59 when challenges arose, we worked to find solutions that minimised operational disruptions and for which organisational partners indicated support.…”

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

“…Often, scholarship in global environmental politics takes the IPCC or other global environmental assessments as the main reference point for interaction between science and politics. We argue, with others, that a deeper understanding of global environmental politics requires an expansion of empirical focus as well as a new theoretical approach (Gustafsson & Lidskog, 2018;Montana, 2019). This presents a shift in perspective for the study of epistemic authority in global environmental politics.…”

“…In particular, we are interested in how, in response to changes in the conditions and demands made of global environmental politics, knowledge platforms strive for epistemic authority (Sending, 2017). They do so by interacting with people and groups inside and outside of the expert community (Lidskog & Sundqvist, 2018) and by negotiating the institutional designs that shape the making of environmental knowledge Montana, 2019).…”

“…Scholars in STS have been particularly vocal in stressing that "expertise does not simply lie in specific exercises of knowledge-making" but also in "the institutional dynamics in which knowledge is rendered authoritative" (Beck et al, , p. 1069. Institutional designs define the power relations between participants and bring about specific knowledge products (Montana, 2019). From this perspective, we regard design choices as the locus where the dynamic and contested nature of epistemic authority becomes visible (Miller & Wyborn, 2019).…”