By Emma Ligtermoet, Claudia Munera-Roldan, Cathy Robinson, Zaynel Sushil and Peat Leith.
How can interdisciplinary teams rapidly and collectively diagnose and design effective engagement approaches as they prepare for engaged (transdisciplinary) research? How can they build bridges with non-researcher societal actors to understand differences in language, methodology and even fundamental philosophies about ways and means of understanding the world?
We have developed a framework with context as the central feature, as this shapes all aspects of collaborative work. Context is then used to centre exploration of interconnected elements of positionality, purpose, power and process (4Ps).
Shared deliberation of the research context and the interconnected 4Ps requires an effective collective learning environment, which is upheld by the pillars of equity, trust, openness and inclusivity, and reflexivity.
The framework, which we call the “Context-centred 4 P’s Knowledge Co-production Framework” is illustrated in the figure below.
The framework elements, highly interconnected, but separated to help in operationalising critical co-production thinking, can be summarised as follows:
- Context – characterising the scope, operating space, intervention or research setting of the project, noting there are many frameworks available to assist with limitations and strengths to each. It includes recognition of knowledge systems, and temporal and scalar aspects.
- Positionality – understanding the multi-layered characteristics that make up individuals and the team (eg., social plus researcher identities). Requires an awareness of how one sees themselves in relation to others (eg., within their internal team, within their broader research collective).
- Purpose – arriving at a shared understanding among the team of both the research purpose (project aims) and the purposes for engaging with co-production, and to be revisited with the transdisciplinary (non-research societal actor) collaborators.
- Power – making visible and transparent the variety of power differences that exist within research collaborations and among broader societal actors involved in change processes. There are many different forms of power, but they largely reflect access to decision making.
- Process – establishing the operating conditions and building the collective learning environment. Ensuring processes (eg., governance, roles, responsibilities, and relational work) are fit-for-context and purpose, and working to reduce any inequities throughout the research engagement with societal actors.
- An effective collective learning environment – is one built on the foundational pillars of trust, reflexivity, equity, and openness and inclusivity.
We took interdisciplinary sustainability science research teams through a variety of activities to test this framework and build reflexive capabilities as teams prepared for engagement work with non-researcher societal actors (ie., the transdisciplinary work). Additionally, we developed a set of diagnostic prompt questions, that can be used with the framework, to help teams prepare for co-production and potentially revisit with external collaborators.
Diagnostic prompt questions
Context:
- What are the social, cultural, economic, environmental, historical, etc., characteristics shaping your research challenge and what are the related power dynamics?
- What drives change in the setting you are working in and what aspects do you want to influence to effect change? (Drivers might be influential technological, behavioural, environmental, governance, relationships, networks, cognitive or values-based factors or emerge from interactions among them.)
- What scope and scale(s) (time and space) is this work influencing?
- What is the cultural context and its influence?
- How might the societal actors see the context and scope for intervention?
Positionality
- What is your positionality as an individual researcher? What is your positionality as an interdisciplinary team, about to embark on engaged research? How is your organisation viewed by those outside?
- What are your characteristics, skills and background that make the research context more or less accessible to you?
- In what ways does your position or standpoint influence your understanding of the context or research problem?
- What steps might you take to manage assumptions you or others may make about you, given your position intervening in this context?
- How is your research project positioned within your organisation? How is it viewed from outside?
- How does the particular mix of characteristics, skills and backgrounds shape research foci and methods?
Purpose
- Do all researchers in the group recognise the overarching purpose for engaging in this context?
- What is your (collectively identified) purpose for engaging with co-production in this context?
- If there is no collectively identified purpose, how will you arrive at a shared purpose(s)?
- How do you anticipate your research purpose aligning with the interests of the societal actors you plan to engage with?
Power
- How is power understood by your team? Are there voices you need to hear from, or those who should have opportunities to contribute or shape the research? What are the barriers and enablers to involving these voices?
- Who is affected by the research problem or change or issue in your context?
- Who has a stake (interested, affected, or influential) in the context and research question?
- Who are considered ‘experts’ in this context?
- How do you invite those identified into a research collaboration? (What are you offering?)
- What are potential risks for those you are engaging with?
- What is the degree of shared decision making?
- What kinds of power differentials influence decision making, evident in: i) actor and resource power, ii) structural power, iii) normative and discursive power?
Process
- What form will the engagement likely be (collaborative, partner-led, Indigenous-led)? Could this change at different stages of the project?
- Is there transparency and shared defining of scope, roles, responsibilities, decision-making, monitoring and evaluation processes?
- Reflect on project decisions made to date. What are essential and/or non-negotiable requirements? What aspects have flexibility?
- Are project processes endorsed by the research collective (which underpins legitimacy)?
- Are there opportunities to reflect on the values, assumptions, and potential biases within the researcher group and societal actor collective?
- How will you generate a collaborative environment, open to difference and being challenged?
- How do you build and maintain trust?
- How will you ensure sufficient equity within the research collective (eg., communicative competence) and in distribution of outcomes (risks/benefits)?
- How will you be adaptive to incorporate learnings ‘as you go’?
- What roles will individual researchers take on (given co-production purpose, context, power dynamics)?
- What might effective monitoring, learning and shared evaluation processes look like in this context with these collaborators?
Concluding questions
Would this framework and questions support your interdisciplinary team in their preparation for transdisciplinary co-production? Is there an ideal time for you and your team to do this preparatory work? Is there an ideal time for revisiting the framework collectively with your societal actor collaborators?
To find out more:
Ligtermoet, E., Munera-Roldan, C., Robinson, C., Sushil, Z. and Leith, P. (2025). Preparing for knowledge co-production: A diagnostic approach to foster reflexivity for interdisciplinary research teams. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 257. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04196-7. This paper provides relevant references.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Emma Ligtermoet PhD is a human-environment geographer and postdoctoral research fellow at CSIRO’s Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform. She is based in Perth, Australia. Her research applies knowledge co-production theory and practice to understand socio-ecological change and just governance in navigating transitions and adaptation.
Claudia Munera-Roldan PhD is an interdisciplinary postdoctoral research fellow at CSIRO’s Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform, based in Canberra, Australia. Claudia works at the interface of science-policy-practice in environmental governance arrangements, co-production, and futures. She applies future-oriented approaches, exploring options towards strategic thinking and collective learning to navigate global changes, considering the linkages between local communities and private and public sector initiatives to find options towards sustainable futures.
Cathy Robinson PhD is the project lead at CSIRO for Valuing Local Provenance which focuses on how to support locally defined co-benefits into emerging sustainability markets. Based in Brisbane, Australia, her research as a social and sustainability scientist has been applied through a range of Indigenous-led initiatives that show how to accelerate innovation with ideas that empower Indigenous knowledge, on-country enterprises and communities.
Zaynel Sushil MSc is an impact entrepreneur and strategist at CSIRO, based in Brisbane, Australia. He has a track record of launching and scaling social enterprises and is currently working on CSIRO initiatives including the Ag2050 Caring for Country and the Agricultural Productions Systems Simulator.
Peat Leith PhD leads CSIRO’s Valuing Sustainability Future Science Platform and is project lead for the Sustainability Science Scaffolding Project. He is based in Canberra, Australia. His research background as a social scientist in natural resource management across marine and coastal zone management, and agriculture, has focussed on how science can effectively underpin sustainability outcomes.