Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts

Abstract

Transdisciplinary research often utilizes collaborative ways of knowledge production to enable deliberate transformations towards sustainability. Multiple concepts with varying definitions are applied, leading to confusion in the aims and uses of these concepts. In this article, we review five concepts relevant to the current debate on the new collaborative ways of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research. We focus on the concepts of co‐creation, co‐production, co‐design, co‐learning, and adaptive co‐management in the context of natural resources management (NRM). This study couples a literature review and a conceptual analysis, and aims to clarify definitions, use, the interlinkages of these concepts and to shed light on their intertwined nature. We propose an integrative understanding of the concepts to facilitate collaborative modes and to enable the transformative aims of research processes. To this end, we discuss how to harvest the transformative potential of the “co‐concepts” by focusing on reflexivity, power analysis and process orientation.

Co‐design: Working with farmers in Europe to halt the loss of biological diversity

“…The results of our interviews showed that interviewees shared a common understanding of co‐design in the context of agricultural biodiversity conservation, reflecting the definitions in the current literature (Hakkarainen et al., 2021; Marin et al., 2016; Page et al., 2016). Co‐design was described in the interviews as a process of shared learning that facilitates a continuous eye‐to‐eye exchange between farmers, scientists and other stakeholders over time.…”

“…Hakkarainen et al. (2021) recently compared the different ‘co‐concepts’ and conceptualized co‐design, following Mauser et al. (2013), as a first step in the process of co‐creating knowledge, ‘where actors articulate their positions, determine the concepts, the skills and the solutions’.…”

“…Co-design is a term that, similarly to co-production or cocreation, often appears in transdisciplinary research in sustainability science and describes intensive collaboration between practitioners and researchers (Kurle et al, 2022;Lacombe et al, 2018;Lang et al, 2012;Mauser et al, 2013;Norström et al, 2020;Wyborn et al, 2019). Hakkarainen et al (2021) recently compared the different 'co-concepts' and conceptualized co-design, following Mauser et al (2013), as a first step in the process of co-creating knowledge, 'where actors articulate their positions, determine the concepts, the skills and the solutions' . However, scholars in design studies (e.g.…”

Getting personal with collaborative sustainability experimentation: Reflections and recommendations from a transdisciplinary partnership with the Swedish craft beer sector

“…It has grown into a diverse field, evolving from largely hypothetical contributions on how to coordinate and carry out concerted processes, including interaction of actors from in- and outside of academia, to concrete examinations of particular cases located around the globe (Lang et al 2012 ; Darbellay 2015 ; Polk 2015 ; Zscheischler and Rogga 2015 ; Turnhout et al 2019 ; Bergmann et al 2021 ; Jahn et al 2021 ). Methods have also advanced to focus on the process of knowledge co-production and co-design as well as the testing of sustainability solutions (Pohl and Hirsh-Hadorn 2007 ; 2008 ; Giuseppe 2015 ; Moser 2016 ; Felt et al 2016 ; Renn 2021 ; Hakkarainen et al 2021 ). This has also opened doors to the development of approaches and frameworks for the design, evaluation, and proper financing of more robust collaborative processes (Roux et al 2010 ; Taylor et al 2016 ; Luederitz et al 2017 ; Bernert et al forthcoming; Simon et al 2018 ; Williams and Robinson 2020 ).…”

On a razor’s edge : Maintaining lake ecosystem services and functions in an extreme world

“…Therefore, gathering knowledge from a diverse group of stakeholders is pertinent for mapping out these cause-effect chains. Firsthand knowledge from the people that live with and use the lake systems can be significant sources of information (Hakkarainen et al, 2021), with co-creation processes allowing the different actors to appreciate epistemological differences. From outlining the user groups within the system to detailing the history of the system, personal accounts of the residents can "fill in" gaps about how the lake is integrated into the local community and economy (e.g.…”