An analytical framework for knowledge co-production

By Marianne Penker

How can students and academics starting out in transdisciplinary research begin to come to grips with knowledge co-production?

Colleagues and I developed a useful analytical framework comprising the following four elements:

1. typology of actor roles (who?)
2. research phases (when?)
3. objectives and forms of actor integration (why?)
4. types of knowledge (what?).

These four elements are illustrated in the figure below.

The development of the framework was based on the literature and our experiences in running a doctoral school on transdisciplinary sustainability research (see Enengel et al. 2012). Although we developed the framework for a comparative analysis of transdisciplinary case studies, it is also useful for planning knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary research, as we describe here.

It is helpful to start by identifying the key actors who will be involved in the knowledge co-production, as well as the research phases in which they will be involved. A third key component is the aims of the actor involvement in knowledge co-production and how their involvement occurred. The final component of the framework is the types of knowledge contributed by the different actor groups at various stages of the project. Let’s review each of these in detail.

Who? Typology of actor roles

Collaboration in transdisciplinary research comprises both the collaboration between researchers from different disciplines and between actors within and outside academia. It is useful to consider five categories of actors:

1. Core scientists, who are the main scientific actors throughout the course of a project.
2. Scientific consultants, who support the core group in particular project phases. These academic experts often come from external organisations working on similar projects in other locations and offer expertise that is not well enough covered by the core team.
3. Professional practice experts, namely practitioners, typically working in public agencies or NGOs (non-governmental organisations). They are often very familiar with the practical and political aspects of the issues investigated, but not necessarily with the specific local case context.
4. Strategic case actors, namely practitioners involved at the case level with a specific formal or informal responsibility (eg., local politicians, leaders of stakeholder groups) or professional competence (eg., regional managers).
5. Local case actors, who are all other actors involved in the processes at the case level. They may be residents, farmers, members of local conservation groups or others affected by the issue under investigation.

When? Research phases

It is useful to consider seven research phases:

1. problem history
2. problem identification and structuring
3. research design and selection of methods
4. data collection
5. data analysis and triangulation
6. reflection/interpretation and synthesis
7. dissemination of results.

The last six phases are commonly considered in transdisciplinary research, whereas problem history is less often taken into account. We proposed that this is an important phase, as a life-world problem usually exists before the researchers arrive on the stage. Prior to the initiation of a research project many actors will already have been confronted with several aspects of a problem field due to their professional or private background. These persons have individual perspectives and accumulated knowledge, which influences the way in which they act in a research process. In many cases the “problem history” might also be a conflict history, which needs to be known in order to understand the behaviour of, and relationships between, certain actors.

Why? Objectives and forms of actor integration

Three types of involvement are useful to consider:

1. Information, where actors are informed about the research project through, for example, a public meeting or a written report.
2. Consultation, where actors comment on proposals and contribute ideas and suggestions.
3. Knowledge co-production and empowerment, where actors have a say in developing, implementing and running the research project. This often means deliberate and responsible participation, where actors are empowered to be partners in the project, characterised by discourse, open debates and common decision making.

What? Types of knowledge

It is useful to consider the knowledge contributions of different actor groups at various stages of the project using three dimensions:

1. Scale dimension. This comprises context-specific knowledge about the concrete setting of the individual case, as well as the adaptation and translation of generalised knowledge to a local context.
2. Functional dimension. This comprises phenomenological and strategic knowledge. Phenomenological knowledge is concerned with local social and environmental phenomena and their description. Strategic knowledge focuses on connections and interrelations of system elements. It often addresses organisational, functional and network issues for changing the system, and is essential for structuring research processes.
3. Epistemic (cognitive) dimension. This comprises experiential and scientific knowledge. Experiential knowledge is derived from a person’s life experience or adopted traditional knowledge, and is often tacit or implicit and therefore usually not formalised or systematised. Scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence or scientifically acknowledged theories; it is systematic, formalised and explicit.

In conclusion

Although we developed this framework a decade ago, we are still using it to plan and discuss PhD projects in our doctoral school Transitions to Sustainability. Students consider the framework particularly helpful for systematically comparing their transdisciplinary approaches, which provides them with insightful learnings.

Does this resonate with your experience of key steps for knowledge co-production? Are there other steps that you would include or steps you would change?

To find out more:

Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S. and Ritter, F. (2012). Co-production of Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Doctoral Theses on Landscape Development – An Analysis of Actor Roles and Knowledge Types in Different Research Phases. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105, 1-2: 106-117.
This paper provides the references for the ideas cited in this i2Insights contribution.

Biography: Marianne Penker PhD is Professor of Rural Sociology and Rural Development at the Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU) Vienna, Austria. Her main interests cover sustainable rural development research as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to transdisciplinary research.