Suchergebnisse

Although there is a growing interest in transdisciplinary knowledge co-production approaches applied to rangeland political ecology, the research paradigms and methodologies still dominating this field of research leave little room for equitable engagement with research participants and genuine action-oriented research. In this article, we provide a reflection on new practices grounded in feminist studies of science and care ethic literature to orient transgressive and engaged transdisciplinary political rangeland ecology research. Feminist epistemologies call for reflection on who produces knowledge and how such knowledge is used and shared. Feminist practices, such as reflexivity, embodiment, reciprocity, and care, cultivate awareness of the power dynamics embedded in the research process and motivate researchers to counteract asymmetrical or extractive relationships when we identify them. We first introduce the scholarship that inspires key principles of our feminist research approach and then reflect on our experiences as researchers and as activists working with Spanish and Catalan networks of women pastoralists. Three research questions guide our reflective process: (i) how can feminist theories of knowledge co-production contribute to rangeland political ecology; (ii) how can feminist methodologies be applied in practice so that collaboration between women pastoralists, their organizations, and researchers is mutually reinforcing, care-full, and action-oriented; and (iii) what are the challenges and limitations of our experiences to foster transformation and emancipation in knowledge co-production processes?

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to challenge and address the limitations of the traditional system of knowledge production that is embedded in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It argues that knowledge production in research processes conforms to colonialist thinking or west-inspired approaches. Such a system often results in the omission of crucial information due to a lack of participation, inclusion and diversity in knowledge production.Design/methodology/approachThe paper proposes practices and recommendations to decolonise knowledge production in disaster and climate change research studies, and research studies in general. It provides a brief literature review on the concepts of decolonisation of knowledge and epistemological freedom, and its origins; assesses the need for knowledge decolonisation, emphasising on the integration of local knowledge from grassroots women-led initiatives in instances where disasters and crises are being investigated in vulnerable communities, especially in the Global South; and finally the paper proposes to decolonise knowledge production through activating co-learning and co-production. The practices have been developed from the work of relevant authors in the field and case studies.FindingsThrough a brief literature review on previous discourses on the topic of knowledge decolonisation and analysis of recent case studies on disaster and crisis management and community resilience, the paper finds that there exists a lack of pluralism and inclusion in epistemology which limits the pursuit to obtain the whole truth in the production of knowledge in research studies.Originality/valueThis paper adds to the discussion of decolonisation of knowledge in the field of disaster and climate change research studies, and research processes in general. It provides in-depth analyses of recent case studies of emerging community resilience and local practices that were crucial in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis.

Communities of Practice are sites of social learning for the co-production of knowledge. Building on recent literature on Transdisciplinary Communities of Practice, this article reflects on the experiences of an emergent 'Food Governance Community of Practice' in South Africa that brings together multiple stakeholders to co-produce knowledge to inform local food policy and governance. Our results show the following lessons for managers and participants engaged in establishing similar 'third spaces' for knowledge co-production: 1) make inevitable power asymmetries explicit; 2) the identity of the group should not be built on a particular normative position but emerge from discursive processes and 3) create a balance between supporting peripheral learning and maintaining the specialist cutting edge discussions needed for co-production. Furthermore, the most beneficial legacy of a Community of Practice may not be the outputs in terms of the co-produced knowledge but the development of a cohesive group of stakeholders with a new shared way of knowing.

In theory, building resilience is touted as one way to deal with climate change impacts; however, in practice, there is a need to examine how contexts influence the capacity of building resilience. A participatory process was carried out through workshops in regions affected by drought in Chile in 2014. The aim was to explore how resilience theory can be better applied and articulated into practice vis-á-vis participatory approaches that enrich the research process through the incorporation of co-produced. The results show that there are more differences in responses by type of actor than between regions, where issues of national interest, such as 'education-information' and 'preparedness', are highlighted over others. However, historically relevant local topics emerged as differentiators: decentralisation, and political will. This reinforces why special attention must be given to the different understandings in knowledge co-production processes. This study provides evidence and lessons on the importance of incorporating processes of the co-production of knowledge as a means to better articulate and transfer abstract concepts, such as resilience theory, into practice.

Sustainable land use needs a manageable nexus of knowledge from planning practice, policy makers, the private economy, and civic society, as well as from scientific research. This is mutually dependent on the communicative and collaborative turn in spatial planning as well as by transdisciplinary research approaches. This paper offers an approach how to organise knowledge management and co-production of knowledge in the context of complex land use decisions. Therefore, a prototype of an internet-based knowledge platform is introduced based on a theoretical reflection of concepts for integrated information and knowledge management, as well as on practical experiences derived from a German case study. We conclude that sustainable land use requires Planning Support Systems (PSS) that combine transdisciplinary perspectives in order to co-produce robust knowledge. This also implies a transdisciplinary design of PSS. Challenges of implementation are discussed and further research is specified.

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.