Creating collaboration for contentious projects on managed aquifer recharge: two cases from Finland

In Finland, community water supply has increasingly relied on natural groundwater and artificially recharged groundwater as the raw water source. Several managed aquifer recharge (MAR) projects have been co-created with involved parties and have proceeded well, while some cases have raised considerable resistance among the stakeholders. It seems that success or failure in MAR cooperation is related to management cultures and the ways in which various interests are taken into account, from the very beginning and throughout the process. Empirically, this paper builds on comparison between two conflictual case studies in Finland: one in the Tampere region and the other in the Turku region. The study analyses the major constraints of these projects through the lens of collaborative rationality, also drawing upon discourse analysis and negotiation theory. The material is gathered through thematic interviews of stakeholders, newspaper articles and a stakeholder workshop. The results indicate that conventional management approaches, drawing from expert-based instrumental rationality, were insufficient in both cases. The collaborative rationality framework suggests that legitimacy for the groundwater projects should be gained through joint knowledge production and inclusive multiparty interaction for creating options for collaboration. Both cases lacked the tools and know-how for authentic dialogue and collaboration. The emerging paradigm emphasizes more collaborative approaches for natural resources management and urban planning. While MAR projects operate inside these areas and are highly complex in nature, it is essential to embrace the emerging paradigm in order to promote MAR systems along with their huge potential.

Loops and Building Blocks: a Knowledge co-Production Framework for Equitable Urban Health

This paper sets out a structured process for the co-production of knowledge between researchers and societal partners and illustrates its application in an urban health equity project in Accra, Ghana. The main insight of this approach is that research and knowledge co-production is always partial, both in the sense of being incomplete, as well as being circumscribed by the interests of participating researchers and societal partners. A second insight is that project-bound societal engagement takes place in a broader context of public and policy debate. The approach to co-production described here is formed of three recursive processes: co-designing, co-analysing, and co-creating knowledge. These ‘co-production loops’ are themselves iterative, each representing a stage of knowledge production. Each loop is operationalized through a series of research and engagement practices, which we call building blocks. Building blocks are activities and interaction-based methods aimed at bringing together a range of participants involved in joint knowledge production. In practice, recursive iterations within loops may be limited due of constraints on time, resources, or attention. We suggest that co-production loops and building blocks are deployed flexibly.

How scale matters in joint knowledge production for nature-based solutions. Dynamic proximity among stakeholders in climate adaptive water management for brook catchment Aa, the Netherlands

<p>The question ‘how scale matters’ from experienced policy makers in adaptive water management motivated us to explore the issue. In search for climate resilience of brook catchments stakeholders collaborate. Those collaborations involve dynamic proximity, giving rise to innovative, creative solutions using natural hydrological and landscape processes. Dynamic proximity is known from innovation research in the field of high-tech regional economic development. The question is whether dynamic proximity among stakeholders influences success of joint knowledge production (JKP) processes as well. We focus on a more nature-tech context of regional economic development: creating nature-based solutions (NbS) to support climate resilience. The conceptual model to study the creative process of JKP combines the four dimensions of JKP with four forms of dynamic proximity. Along this matrix quotes of stakeholders were analysed from seven semi-structured interviews. At least one stakeholder in the process for the brook-restoration of the Aa (the Netherlands) was selected from industry, academia, government and non-profit organizations (following the ‘quadruple helix model’). Findings show that stakeholders who are versatile in using various forms of social, cognitive, institutional and geographical dynamic proximity in the process of JKP experience the process as more successful. Moreover, stakeholders overdoing the institutional or geographical aspects of proximity run into adverse effects, a mechanism recognized in economic geography as the proximity paradox. Furthermore, stakeholders are better supported when they use knowledge instruments, but only when keeping in mind the balance of forms of dynamic proximity. Findings were validated against two stakeholders’ experiences in another process for the Aa of Weerijs (the Netherlands). We suggest refining the model by adding two forms of dynamic proximity relating to interests and to resources, enabling a sharper focus on knowledge production under the heading of cognitive proximity. So, scale matters in such rural, natural processes. The perspective on proximity helps innovation, if proximity among stakeholders does not become too proximate. We have summarised findings in the form of a proximity tool, which is useful for optimizing the science-policy interface in regional adaptive water management.</p>

From Stakeholders to Joint Knowledge Production Partners

Academic research involving societal partners often approaches the latter as less knowledgeable, not possessing the skills and authority that the academic field has in producing legitimate knowledge. Still, several (academic) traditions have engaged in practices that destabilise the notion of the academia as the exclusive field of knowledge production, albeit not without inconsistencies between theory and practice. Building on this tradition, this article addresses the need to involve societal partners in the start-up phases of projects that aim for participatory knowledge production. Using (autho)ethnography this article reflects on the start-up phase of a research project on environmental communication, which involves a wide range of societal actors. It critically evaluates the participatory intensities of the start-up phase process which involved a series of collaborative decisions on how to structure participation, and reports on the outcomes of this process, namely a set of guiding principles and a toolkit aiming to foster and enable participation.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and joint knowledge production in climate change adaptation in mountain regions in South Asia, Latin America and Switzerland

<p>The level of already committed climate change implies massive impacts and risks to natural and human systems on the planet which probably have been underestimated so far, as recent research and science-policy assessments such as from the IPCC indicate. Scenarios with less stringent emission reduction pose even greater risks of partly unknown dimensions. Adaptation to climate change is therefore of critical importance, in particular for countries with low adaptive capacity where climate change can seriously undermine efforts for sustainable development. Mountains are among the hotspots of climate impacts and adaptation.</p><p>Climate adaptation is fundamentally an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavor. Various sources of knowledge and perspectives need to be considered and integrated to produce actionable and solution-oriented knowledge. While experiences on joint knowledge production (JKP) has been increasing over recent years there is still missing clarity how to design and implement such a process in the context of climate adaptation.</p><p>Here we analyze experiences from a new initiative and network of climate adaptation in education and research with institutions from South Asia, the Andes and Central America, and Switzerland (knowledgeforclimate.net). Partners form a highly multi-disciplinary network with diverse cultural and institutional backgrounds which is both an important asset and challenge for interdisciplinary collaboration. A core of the collaboration are case studies conducted in all six countries in mountain contexts which are developed considering different disciplinary perspectives and represent the basis for both research and teaching. JKP takes place at different levels which need to be systematically and carefully analyzed. </p><p>We find that the processes of JKP are diverse, complex, and highly dependent on the interests and roles of actors within a network. To keep such processes alive, signposts in form of analysis and intermediary products along the network lifetime should be positioned as means of stocktaking and monitoring for the future.</p><p>We suggest that existing models of JKP need to be broadened to better accommodate the high diversity and non-linearity of JKP processes. JKP does not just happen as a product of interdisciplinary collaboration but needs continuous reflection, research, update and upgrade. Trust and a range of common interests among partners in the network have been identified as key aspects in the process. A particular challenge furthermore is to dedicate enough time and resources to the framing process but then clearly moving beyond into the action and solution space. Harmonizing different forms of knowledge pertinent to climate adaptation in mountains and harvesting the diversity while accepting possibly limited consensus is essential, yet, it is not a priori predictable where this balance lies.</p>

Bridging the research‐policy gap: the importance of effective identity leadership and shared commitment

It is widely agreed that the availability of high quality evidence does not translate readily into influence over policy decisions. This insight has generated long-running debates about the most effective way to ‘bridge the gap’ between policy research and policymaking, and to increase policy research ‘uptake’. The proposed remedies (for example, greater ‘linkage and exchange activity’, ‘knowledge brokering’, ‘joint knowledge production’) tend to be premised on the idea that increased contact will increase preparedness to take on board other stakeholders’ views. We agree that contact is important, along with adequate resourcing and access to good quality research evidence. However, as social and organisational psychologists have shown, trust and mutual understanding do not automatically emerge from more intensive interaction, but require effective ‘identity leadership’, to ensure core values (about shared goals and directions) become internalised in new shared self-understanding. So far, these insights have been neglected in the evidence-based policy literature, and the purpose of this paper is to fill this gap. More specifically, we draw on social-psychological research into ‘identity leadership’, and use illustrative data from interviews with leaders in public agencies and a major NGO partnership, to show (a) that leaders play an important role embedding commitment to evidence-based policy into ‘organisational culture’; and (b) that leaders of successful partnerships go to great lengths to unite stakeholders and to promote a shared (overarching) sense of purpose and ‘mission’.

A History and Analysis of the Evolution of Action and Participatory Action Research

Action research is a type of research which is conducted with research participants rather than on participants. This premise democratizes research, resulting in transformative potential, while addressing issues such as power and hierarchy which are present in traditional positivist research approaches, allowing those affected by the research to benefit from a more democratic research experience: According to Habermas, “in a process of enlightenment, there can only be participants”. However, as with social science research, or perhaps any method of research, there are different forms of action research which have evolved over time. This paper describes the worldviews that have informed the evolution of action research and examines three different forms of action research with respect to assumptions value, beliefs, and claims to truth inherent with each form. These three main forms may be thought of as “umbrella” terms for the forms of action research, with various threads of action research originating and continuing to originate from each form. Lastly, this paper explores one thread of action research-participatory action research. The reason for focusing on participatory action research specifically is that this type of action research has grown in popularity recently within social sciences research due to the opportunity for new insight for all research participants. Further, participatory action research allows for joint knowledge-production, may draw attention to previously neglected areas of qualitative research, and is therefore relevant to a specific community. For a researcher considering employing participatory action research, it is helpful to understand the historical and philosophical underpinnings of action research in general in order to better unerstand the specific intricacies and characteristics of participatory action research.