Co‐production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives

Abstract

Notions of 'co-production' are growing in popularity in social science and humanities research on climate change, although there is some ambiguity about the meanings of the term and how it is being used. It is time to critically and reflexively take stock of this expanding area of scholarship. A comprehensive review of over 130 scientific publications first mapped the scholars using co-production, relative to characteristics like their discipline, nationality, and research themes. Second, it looked at how this diversity of scientific perspectives has opened up a multiplicity of meanings of co-production. While most discussions of co-production stop at a basic distinction between descriptive and normative uses of the term, this review unpacked eight conceptual lenses on co-production, each discernible by its particular emphases, academic traditions, logic, and criteria of success. There are two important implications of this work. On one hand, it urges self-reflexive transparency when using co-production concepts. The multiple meanings attached to co-production add richness to the concept and open it up to different uses. However, it is important that scholars clearly communicate how they use the term and are mindful of what they 'buy into' by using the concept in certain ways. On the other hand, there are tensions between the different perspectives as well as opportunities for combining them into a compound concept of co-production. In this way, co-production is reconceptualized as a prism, where each aspect allows different but complimentary insights on the relationship between science, society, and nature.

Challenges to the sustainability of climate services in Europe

“…Although as a theoretical concept co‐production can be linked to an array of definitions (see, e.g., Bremer & Meisch, ), co‐production is often used as a “(…) normative framework for engaging non‐scientists as active partners in the funding, making and use of such knowledge” (Lövbrand, , p. 227). However, from from a practical implementation point of view point of view, there are significant disparities by what is meant by co‐production and how it is applied methodologically in this emerging and complex landscape of climate services (cf.…”

Toward valuable weather and sea-ice services for the marine Arctic: exploring user–producer interfaces of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute

“…Similarly, valuable DSS ideally provide useful, usable and exchangeable information (Dilling & Lemos, 2011;McNie, 2012;Zulkafli et al, 2017). However, to date, conceptualizations of co-production in relation to WWIC services often remain undefined and undertheorized (Bremer & Meisch, 2017). For example, what constitutes co-production and how co-production will be assessed varies depending on which 'lenses' (Bremer et al, 2019) are employed to look at the process.…”

“…For example, in YOPP (Year of Polar Prediction) it is argued that it is vital to 'better understand what really matters at the end of the forecast chain to those operating in Polar Regions' (Gößling, 2017). Hence, research and development in meteorology and related fields increasingly build on the idea that involving users in a 'co-production' process is a prerequisite for more meaningful services (Bremer & Meisch, 2017).…”

Co‐producing simulation models to inform resource management: a case study from southwest South Dakota

“…This combination of methods was intended to facilitate iteration between scientists and management partners throughout the modeling process (Miller and Morisette ), with the ultimate goal of producing more usable information (Dilling and Lemos , Lemos et al. ); this approach is consistent with the most common theme in the co‐production literature (Bremer and Meisch ). Our use of the term “co‐production” also speaks to the climate science community's growing interest in and demand for knowledge co‐production (National Research Council , ACCCNRS , Briley et al.…”

“…The modeling effort itself can be thought of as participatory modeling (Voinov and Bousquet 2010), but we refer to it as model co-production because modeling was part of a larger iterative, collaborative climate change adaptation planning process and included scenario planning workshops. This combination of methods was intended to facilitate iteration between scientists and management partners throughout the modeling process (Miller and Morisette 2014), with the ultimate goal of producing more usable information (Dilling andLemos 2011, Lemos et al 2012); this approach is consistent with the most common theme in the co-production literature (Bremer and Meisch 2017). Our use of the term "co-production" also speaks to the climate science community's growing interest in and demand for knowledge co-production (National Research Council 2009, ACCCNRS 2015, Briley et al 2015, Meadow et al 2015.…”