This Special Issue aims to reflect on knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity, exploring the mutual interaction between water governance and water research. We do so with contributions that bring examples from diverse parts of the world: Bolivia, Canada, Germany, Ghana, Namibia, the Netherlands, Palestine, and South Africa. Key insights brought by these contributions include the importance of engaging the actors from early stages of transdisciplinary research, and the need for an in-depth understanding of the diverse needs, competences, and power of actors and the water governance system in which knowledge co-production takes place. Further, several future research directions are identified, such as the examination of knowledge backgrounds according to the individual and collective thought styles of different actors. Together, the eight papers included in this Special Issue constitute a significant step toward a better understanding of knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity, with a common thread for being reflective and clear about their complexity, and the political implications and risks they pose for inclusive, plural and just water research and governance.
The governance of modern science requires a heightened sensitivity to societal issues in relation to, and in particular within, the life sciences. Current opinion about practices, potential achievements and applications of genomics research oscillates between hope and fear; promise and realization; intended and unintended consequences; knowledge and non-knowledge; understanding and misunderstanding - on all sides, including scientists. Governments, research funding agencies and industry seem to have learnt, to some extent, that what was once fittingly called "organized irresponsibility" (Beck, 1995) must be transformed into 'organized responsibility' if scientific research, new therapies and diagnostics, improved health care, and new consumer products and services are to stand any chance of being accepted by society.
The governance of modern science requires a heightened sensitivity to societal issues in relation to, and in particular within, the life sciences. Current opinion about practices, potential achievements and applications of genomics research oscillates between hope and fear; promise and realization; intended and unintended consequences; knowledge and non-knowledge; understanding and misunderstanding—on all sides, including scientists. Governments, research funding agencies and industry seem to have learnt, to some extent, that what was once fittingly called "organized irresponsibility" (Beck, 1995) must be transformed into 'organized responsibility' if scientific research, new therapies and diagnostics, improved health care, and new consumer products and services are to stand any chance of being accepted by society.
This article explains the emergence of civil society movements around deforestation issue in Indonesia as contestation over knowledge claims that defines 'deforestation' as a political term. The term 'deforestation', which is translated into 'perusakan hutan' in Indonesian forestry laws and regulation, is a product of political epistemology that serve the needs to sustain state-reinforced developmentalism. It is imposed by valorization of modern scientific and technocratic values as well as bureaucratization of the forestry sector. Engaging with critical political ecology literatures, this study unpacks the constitutive interactions among various ways of seeing that redefine state forestry and its implications to the reproduction of political order. 'Perusakan hutan' is continuously re-negotiated in the relations between the state and its formative societal elements. Knowledge on addressing deforestation is organized around three contesting epistemologies: conservation, redistribution, and indigeneity. Each epistemology seeks to claim political space in the institutionalization of knowledge that fortifies state's policies in the forestry sector. Politics of knowledge co-production operates at two levels: between hegemonic knowledge construct and its counter knowledge formation, and within the formation of counter-knowledge through alternative epistemologies.
AbstractIn this article, we aim to describe and demonstrate the use of a methodology for using arts-based techniques to co-produce knowledge with community members, thus making it accessible at both the theoretical and practice levels for social workers and social work educators. In this methodology, the arts are used not as a diagnostic tool or as fine art, but rather as a trigger for a reflective and socially critical dialogue with community members, with the aim of understanding how they experience their life situation. The proposed methodology includes three central compositional elements of art analyses: the inter-relationship between figure and background within a composition, the recourses and obstacles included in the picture background and the use of symbols and metaphors. The present manuscript illustrates this innovative analytical prism, providing examples of images and explanatory narratives of engaged and married young Muslim women in Israel, as self-defined by the participants rather than as an external anthropology. We further outline the implications of this methodology for other cases.
Regional economies are continuously evolving shifting from more traditional manufacturing toward more service-oriented production systems. Despite the increasing relevance of services, however, the analysis of innovation at the regional aggregate level has mainly focused on manufacturing, gathering the attention on the role of R&D expenditure as input in the production process and, in some cases, accounting for research-based knowledge externalities. In this paper the role of Knowledge Intensive Business Services is studied and their contribution to the regional aggregate innovation is evaluated. The aim is twofold. First is to provide insights on the role covered by KIBS as a second knowledge infrastructure. Second is to examine the extent to which KIBS operate as bridges between the general purpose analytical knowledge produced by scientific universities and more specific requirement of innovative firms. A role commonly acknowledged to KIBS is in fact that of knowledge transferors. If on the one side it is however clear to whom they transfer knowledge, their client firms, on the other it is not as clear from whom the knowledge is originally transferred. For this reason a major attention in this work is dedicated to scientific universities considered as a primary source of knowledge. Being this knowledge analytical and highly codified, it probably can be more easily accessed by nearby located firms having higher opportunities of research collaboration and less easily by firms located in different regions. It is argued that KIBS, in transferring knowledge from universities to firms, are therefore specially important in the latter case. To test hese hypothesis a knowledge production function is estimated for a sample of 200 EU NUTS II regions including also information of university research and KIBS concentration. Parameters are estimated using the heteroschedasticity-consistent G2SLS estimator for spatial models and the evidence suggests that the contribution of KIBS to regional innovation is considerable. In fact accounting for the knowledge embedded in business services can considerably contribute to explain the cross-regional variation in innovative activities. Furthermore it is find that the KIBS contribution is more sizeable in regions in which there are not scientific universities. The highlighted results have important policy implications asking to rethink to how much effective an R&D-centered innovation strategy could be, at least in some regions.
Supporting the development of trusted and usable science remains a key challenge in contested spaces. This paper evaluates a collaborative research agreement between the North Slope Borough of Alaska and Shell Exploration and Production Company—an agreement that was designed to improve collection of information and management of issues associated with the potential impacts of oil and gas development in the Arctic. The evaluation is based on six categories of knowledge co-production indicators: external factors, inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Two sources of data were used to assess the indicators: interviews with steering committee members and external science managers (n = 16) and a review of steering committee minutes. Interpretation of the output and outcome indicators suggests that the Baseline Studies Program supported a broad range of research, though there were differences in how groups perceived the relevance and legitimacy of project outcomes. Several input, process, and external variables enabled the co-production of trusted science in an emergent boundary organization and contested space; these variables included governance arrangements, leveraged capacities, and the inclusion of traditional knowledge. Challenges to knowledge co-production on the North Slope include logistics, differences in cultures and decision contexts, and balancing trade-offs among perceived credibility, legitimacy, and relevance. Reinforced lessons learned included providing time to foster trust, developing adaptive governance approaches, and building capacity among scientists to translate community concerns into research questions. ; La nécessité d'appuyer la production de données scientifiques fiables et utilisables demeure un défi important dans les espaces contestés. Le présent article évalue une entente de collaboration de recherche entre la municipalité de North Slope, en Alaska, et la Shell Exploration and Production Company, entente destinée à améliorer la collecte de renseignements et la gestion des enjeux liés aux incidences éventuelles de l'exploitation pétrolière et gazière dans l'Arctique. L'évaluation est fondée sur six catégories d'indicateurs de coproduction des connaissances : facteurs externes, intrants, processus, extrants, résultats et incidences. Deux sources de données ont été employées pour évaluer les indicateurs : des entrevues avec les membres du comité directeur et des gestionnaires scientifiques externes (n = 16), et l'examen des procès-verbaux du comité directeur. L'interprétation des indicateurs d'extrants et de résultats suggère que le programme d'études de base a appuyé un large éventail de recherches, mais qu'il y avait des différences dans la façon dont les groupes percevaient la pertinence et la légitimité des résultats du projet. Plusieurs variables d'intrants, de processus et de facteurs externes ont permis la coproduction de données scientifiques fiables dans une organisation frontalière émergente et un espace contesté. Ces variables comprenaient les mécanismes de gouvernance, les capacités utilisées et l'inclusion des connaissances traditionnelles. Parmi les défis propres à la coproduction de connaissances à North Slope, notons des défis de logistique, de différences sur les plans de la culture et des contextes décisionnels, ainsi que l'équilibre des compromis entre les perceptions en matière de crédibilité, de légitimité et de pertinence. Quant aux leçons apprises, notons la nécessité d'accorder du temps pour favoriser la confiance, d'élaborer des méthodes de gouvernance adaptatives et de renforcer les capacités chez les scientifiques pour traduire les préoccupations communautaires en questions de recherche.
