Suchergebnisse

This article argues that insights from the field of social studies of science and technology are relevant for assessing the highly politicized and contested knowledge for development and the eradication of global poverty elaborated by the World Bank. The World Bank, which has become a transnational expert institution, is best characterized as a 'site of co-production', producing both knowledge and social orders. Such a perspective helps in unveiling problems related to expertise and problems of delegation fundamental in relations between politics and knowledge. At the same time, applying insights from the social studies of science and technology provides an explanatory framework for knowledge-based science advice and suggestions for increasing the salience, credibility and legitimacy of such knowledge. The article calls for institutional innovations that may lead to dialogue and a more transparent and accountable debate among competing knowledge claims and political visions within and outside transnational expert bodies.

Background:'Co-production' is one of the key concepts in evidence-informed policy and practice – in terms of both its theoretical importance and its practical applications − being consistently discussed as the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.
Aims and objectives:This paper surveys the literature to identify different meanings of co-production across different disciplinary bodies of knowledge. Such exploration is aimed at identifying the key points of convergence and divergence across different disciplinary and theoretical traditions.
Methods:We performed a systematic search of Web of Science via a query designed to capture literature likely focusing on co-production, and then manually examined each document for relevance. Citation network analysis was then used to 'map' this literature by grouping papers into clusters based on the density of citation links between papers. The top-cited papers within each cluster were thematically analysed.
Findings:This research identified five meanings of co-production, understood as a science-politics relationship, as knowledge democracy, as transdisciplinarity, as boundary management, and as an evidence-use intervention.
Discussion and conclusions:Even though different clusters of scholarship exploring co-production are closely connected, this concept is mobilised to capture phenomena at different levels of abstraction – from post-structuralist theories of knowledge and power to specific strategies to be employed by researchers and policymakers.

A comment on Walsh's article, "Uncomfortable Collaborations': Contesting Constructions of the 'Poor' in South Africa.

ISBN 978-2-7380-1284-5. ; International audience ; The co-production of knowledge within sustainable agriculture. The techno-science based model of development, which relies on a joint process of acceleration (implementation of a speed society) and space destruction (both material and symbolic) is currently showing its limits. It is indeed causing an ecological, social and meaning crisis. As a result, it calls for the implementation of new modes of production (and of consumption) which re-structure the economic, ecological and social spheres of agricultural activity. These new modes of production are implemented by a great number of farmers which often belong to knowledge co-production spaces. This paper aims at showing how these new modes of production are based on the construction of peasant knowledge which relies on the hybridization of lay knowledge (inherited from tradition) and expert knowledge (produced by modernity), that is of knowledge resulting from revisited tradition. ; Le modèle de développement technoscientifique, qui repose sur un processus conjointd'accélération (mise en œuvre d'une société de la vitesse) et de destruction (physique etsymbolique) de l'espace, montre aujourd'hui ses limites. En effet, il est à l'origine d'une triple crise :écologique, sociale et du sens. Par conséquent, il appelle la mise en œuvre de nouveaux modesde production (et de consommation) qui réarticulent les différentes sphères (économique,écologique, sociale) de l'activité agricole. Ces nouveaux modes de production sont mis en œuvrepar de nombreux agriculteurs qui appartiennent souvent à des espaces de coproduction de savoirs.L'objectif de cette communication sera de montrer en quoi ces nouveaux modes de productions'appuient sur la construction de savoirs paysans qui reposent sur l'hybridation de savoirs profanes(hérités de la tradition) et de savoirs savants (produits de la modernité), c'est-à-dire de savoirsissus d'une tradition revisitée.

ISBN 978-2-7380-1284-5. ; International audience ; The co-production of knowledge within sustainable agriculture. The techno-science based model of development, which relies on a joint process of acceleration (implementation of a speed society) and space destruction (both material and symbolic) is currently showing its limits. It is indeed causing an ecological, social and meaning crisis. As a result, it calls for the implementation of new modes of production (and of consumption) which re-structure the economic, ecological and social spheres of agricultural activity. These new modes of production are implemented by a great number of farmers which often belong to knowledge co-production spaces. This paper aims at showing how these new modes of production are based on the construction of peasant knowledge which relies on the hybridization of lay knowledge (inherited from tradition) and expert knowledge (produced by modernity), that is of knowledge resulting from revisited tradition. ; Le modèle de développement technoscientifique, qui repose sur un processus conjointd'accélération (mise en œuvre d'une société de la vitesse) et de destruction (physique etsymbolique) de l'espace, montre aujourd'hui ses limites. En effet, il est à l'origine d'une triple crise :écologique, sociale et du sens. Par conséquent, il appelle la mise en œuvre de nouveaux modesde production (et de consommation) qui réarticulent les différentes sphères (économique,écologique, sociale) de l'activité agricole. Ces nouveaux modes de production sont mis en œuvrepar de nombreux agriculteurs qui appartiennent souvent à des espaces de coproduction de savoirs.L'objectif de cette communication sera de montrer en quoi ces nouveaux modes de productions'appuient sur la construction de savoirs paysans qui reposent sur l'hybridation de savoirs profanes(hérités de la tradition) et de savoirs savants (produits de la modernité), c'est-à-dire de savoirsissus d'une tradition revisitée.

ISBN 978-2-7380-1284-5. ; International audience ; The co-production of knowledge within sustainable agriculture. The techno-science based model of development, which relies on a joint process of acceleration (implementation of a speed society) and space destruction (both material and symbolic) is currently showing its limits. It is indeed causing an ecological, social and meaning crisis. As a result, it calls for the implementation of new modes of production (and of consumption) which re-structure the economic, ecological and social spheres of agricultural activity. These new modes of production are implemented by a great number of farmers which often belong to knowledge co-production spaces. This paper aims at showing how these new modes of production are based on the construction of peasant knowledge which relies on the hybridization of lay knowledge (inherited from tradition) and expert knowledge (produced by modernity), that is of knowledge resulting from revisited tradition. ; Le modèle de développement technoscientifique, qui repose sur un processus conjointd'accélération (mise en œuvre d'une société de la vitesse) et de destruction (physique etsymbolique) de l'espace, montre aujourd'hui ses limites. En effet, il est à l'origine d'une triple crise :écologique, sociale et du sens. Par conséquent, il appelle la mise en œuvre de nouveaux modesde production (et de consommation) qui réarticulent les différentes sphères (économique,écologique, sociale) de l'activité agricole. Ces nouveaux modes de production sont mis en œuvrepar de nombreux agriculteurs qui appartiennent souvent à des espaces de coproduction de savoirs.L'objectif de cette communication sera de montrer en quoi ces nouveaux modes de productions'appuient sur la construction de savoirs paysans qui reposent sur l'hybridation de savoirs profanes(hérités de la tradition) et de savoirs savants (produits de la modernité), c'est-à-dire de savoirsissus d'une tradition revisitée.

Purpose– This study focuses on the relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge effectiveness. By learning orientation and co-production, this study demonstrates the indirect effects of knowledge sharing on knowledge effectiveness. Moreover, the direct and indirect effects of knowledge sharing – which vary with the different levels of tacit knowledge – on knowledge effectiveness are examined.Design/methodology/approach– The proposed model is tested using a structural equation model that involves LISREL and multi-group analyses.Findings– Knowledge sharing increasingly affects knowledge effectiveness under the condition of explicit knowledge. The mediating roles of learning orientation and co-production in the process of tacit knowledge sharing become apparent.Originality/value– Knowledge sharing across organizations can be regarded as a dynamic process. In view of the increasing importance of knowledge sharing across organizations, this study provides insight into the method of receiving useful knowledge across organizations.

This article critically examines the play of power in the co-production of scholarly knowledge in the context of a queer, feminist Participatory Action Research (PAR) project. By unpacking the power relations inherent in crafting a narrative of a collective project for a broader audience, we consider the conflicts, silences, and erasures that we experienced as participants, gatekeepers, and co-authors. We analyze iterations of a co-produced conference and journal article papers to recall the power dynamics that framed and reframed the outcomes of this project. In so doing, we critique what 'co-' and 'with' actually mean in the practice of publishing queer feminist PAR. We argue that there is an accelerating process of de-participation and exclusion that can work to erode the progressive, inclusive politics of feminist participatory methodologies.

Abstract
Concepts of knowledge "co-production" are increasingly encouraged in climate research, including as an extended mode of climate science inquiry. So-called "post-normal" science offers opportunities to advance this branch of co-production research with theory and methods. However, the literature lacks material of how to "do" climate knowledge co-production as extended science, and particularly as post-normal science.
This paper presents an account of post-normal science theory and how it guided the TRACKS (Transforming Climate Knowledge with and for Society) project's research practice, co-producing climate knowledge with communities in northeast Bangladesh. Key principles of post-normal science are described and explanations given of how they were translated into the research process, and specifically into workshops. The paper therefore provides insights for scholars and practitioners on one form of knowledge co-production, and thus contributes to this growing scholarship.

Technologies of the second industrial age can be characterized as knowledge-intensive, & knowledge now dominates machinery, raw material, & labor in production. In knowledge-intensive production, the human factor is recorded in the machinery & in the organization of production. However, though knowledge increases productivity, it does not increase employment or wages. Since knowledge costs almost nothing to duplicate, capitalists are concerned about locking in knowledge, & making it private property. In this sense, the workplace struggle is not about wage levels, but about property & social relations. M. Pflum