Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut

Abstract

An increasing need for novel approaches to knowledge co-production that effectively and equitably address sustainability challenges has arisen in the twenty-first century. Calls for more representative and contextual co-production strategies have come from indigenous communities, scientific research forums, and global environmental governance networks. Despite calls to action, there are no systematic reviews that derive lessons from knowledge co-production scholarship to interpret their significance through the lens of a specific sociopolitical and cultural context. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on knowledge co-production published from 2000 to 2020. Using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis, we identified two conceptual themes—guiding principles and approaches—to structure the synthesis and interpretation of 102 studies. We found that knowledge co-production studies often converged on four interrelated principles: recognition of contextual diversity bounding knowledge co-production, preemptive and intentional engagement with indigenous knowledge holders, formation of shared understanding of the purpose of knowledge co-production, and empowerment of knowledge holders throughout the co-production cycle. These principles manifested in multiple approaches for interpreting, bridging, applying, and distributing power amongst diverse knowledge systems rooted in different epistemologies. We filter these findings through the social–ecological context that frames an ongoing knowledge co-production project with Inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada: the Sustainable Nunatsiavut Futures Project. Our review suggests that emerging forms of knowledge co-production principles and approaches yield immense potential in diverse contexts. Yet in many regions, including Nunatsiavut, principles alone may not be enough to account for systemic and contextualized issues (e.g., colonization and data sovereignty) that can present roadblocks to equitable sustainability science in the twenty-first century if left unaddressed.

Methodological sensitivities for co-producing knowledge through enduring trustful partnerships

“…(ARC 2020). 17 For a deep dive into co-production approaches and complexities see Zurba et al (2021) in this Special Feature.…”

Developing methods of knowledge co-production across varying contexts to shape Sustainability Science theory and practice

“…Co-production processes offer both opportunities and risks for Indigenous people (Hill et al 2021;Maclean et al 2021b), given the profound differences in the world views of their non-indigenous partners and the complex and contested histories of colonisation on Indigenous territories (e.g., Maclean 2009;Zurba et al 2019). Indeed, the benefits that may result from the efforts for knowledge co-production are likely to be lost if they are enacted without consideration of the power imbalance and ongoing impacts of colonization to Indigenous peoples and collaborators (Zurba et al, 2021). Further, although similarities do exist between colonial and postcolonial events in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, the historical differences and contemporary experiences far outweigh those similarities.…”

“…A central argument of all contributions to this Special Feature is the need for research approaches to embrace polyvocality and new ways of doing/being in research and partnerships (see Johnson et al 2016 editorial for WISDOM2). Key to such approaches are innovative approaches to interpret, bridge, apply and distribute power amongst and between diverse knowledge systems (Zurba et al 2021). Zurba et al (2021) systematic review of literature (peer-reviewed and grey) on knowledge coproduction (published between 2000 and 2020), identified four interrelated principles across these studies.…”

“…Since the valuable contribution to Sustainability Science of the Special Feature: Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify our Methods (WIS2DOM, Vol 11, Issue 1, 2016), knowledge co-production has become a central feature of many sustainability efforts. Global environmental governance networks (e.g., IPBES, Indigenous Peoples' Regional Forum 2019, Forest Peoples Programme) and scientific research forums (e.g., Sustainability Science), call for representative and context-specific strategies for knowledge production (Zurba et al, 2021). Advocacy for Indigenous rights within academia and research institutions has resulted in part to structural change (in some countries) to ensure scientific enquiry protect Indigenous cultural and intellectual property, recognize Indigenous rights to data sovereignty and facilitate negotiated research agreements that stipulate benefit sharing.…”

Pursuing Plurality: Exploring the Synergies and Challenges of Knowledge Co-production in Multifunctional Landscape Design

“…So, while the COE team embraced, what can be termed, "weak" co-production, limiting the inclusion of IPLC to a few key actors during the co-design phase, they were responding to IPLC stakeholders who expressed that they wanted a more "concrete" idea of what the COE was proposing before investing their time and energy. We believe, pursuing such active representation, can address the problem with tokenism which co-production has struggled with (Reid and Rout, 2018;Zurba et al, 2021).…”