Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Both in literature and in practice, it is claimed that joint knowledge production (JKP) by researchers, policy makers, and other societal actors is necessary to make science relevant for addressing climate adaptation. Although recent assessments of JKP projects have provided some arguments in favor of their societal merit, much less is known about their scientific merit. We explored the latter by developing a conceptual framework addressing characteristics of doing JKP as well as hypotheses on potential merits and pitfalls in terms of its process, output, and impact for science. Semistructured interviews with six environmental science research leaders as well as discussions with five researchers involved in past JKP projects were used to start operationalizing the framework into criteria and compiling a survey. This survey was filled out by 144 researchers involved in Knowledge for Climate, a large Dutch multiactor research program. The findings suggest that, at least in the context of recently carried out Dutch climate adaptation projects, JKP contributes to a broader empirical knowledge base; more reflexivity on the part of researchers; and more publications for policy makers. We conclude this paper by formulating next research steps, including evaluating what would be a proper balance between more versus less participatory forms of scientific knowledge production.

How transdisciplinary projects influence participants’ ways of thinking: a case study on future landscape development

“…On the other hand, the structure of the research programme allowed us to work parallel in four case study regions without overloading the researchers schedules, and it enabled a variety of publications. In contrast to other TD projects (Hegger and Dieperink 2015), this research programme did not result in fewer scientific publications than five individual projects would have done. Simultaneously, we could benefit from opportunities for coproduction and published more articles for practice than five single projects.…”

“…The workshops with the local stakeholders in the case study regions built a platform for mutual learning outside the context of local politics Safe spaces facilitated new hybrid communities of researchers and non-academics Trust and enthusiasm were promoted Establishing a hybrid community of research and practice Network building; community identification; sense of belonging Trust in others Hegger and Dieperink (2015), Polk (2014) Walter et al (2007, Wiek et al (2014) The field trips to the case study regions and the on-site discussions with representatives of the local stakeholders were the most valuable for researchers and funding partners Immersion in the real world of other stakeholders enhances reflexivity among participants Enthusiasm was generated More reflexivity among participants Generating attention and enthusiasm…”

“…Bringing together different thought-styles and having them interact supports societal debate and reflection and enhances the participants' capacity for decision-making (Walter et al 2007;Pohl 2011;Wiek et al 2014;Polk 2014;Hegger and Dieperink 2015;Luederitz et al 2016). Capacity building in decision-making occurs in TD research according to Pohl (2011) because the participants collectively enhance their own thought-styles when interacting with different thought-styles, by broadening or changing their understanding of an issue and developing new ways of handling the issue in their own real worlds.…”

“…Capacity building in decision-making occurs in TD research according to Pohl (2011) because the participants collectively enhance their own thought-styles when interacting with different thought-styles, by broadening or changing their understanding of an issue and developing new ways of handling the issue in their own real worlds. Such increases in decision-making capacity are not necessarily an immediate consequence of participatory events, but are induced by a number of intermediate effects, since the exchange of different thought-styles can influence the knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of the participants (Walter et al 2007;Wiek et al 2014;Hegger and Dieperink 2015). The authors mention examples such as 'generating attention and enthusiasm', 'community identification', and 'trust in others'.…”

Improving the publication visibility of Ecuador’s higher education system

“…Ecuador should turn its universities into centers of collaborative learning and research and into campuses where young people get a chance to "grow up" (Tapscott & Williams, 2010). Furthermore, HEIs ought to place a strong emphasis on joint knowledge production, whereby researchers, policy makers and other societal actors work together in the search for socio-economically relevant and sustainable solutions (Hegger & Dieperink, 2015).…”