4.5 Article

Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.482

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council's KLIMAFORSK program
  2. Institutional Strategy of the University of Tubingen (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [ZUK 63]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Notions of 'co-production' are growing in popularity in social science and humanities research on climate change, although there is some ambiguity about the meanings of the term and how it is being used. It is time to critically and reflexively take stock of this expanding area of scholarship. A comprehensive review of over 130 scientific publications first mapped the scholars using co-production, relative to characteristics like their discipline, nationality, and research themes. Second, it looked at how this diversity of scientific perspectives has opened up a multiplicity of meanings of co-production. While most discussions of co-production stop at a basic distinction between descriptive and normative uses of the term, this review unpacked eight conceptual lenses on co-production, each discernible by its particular emphases, academic traditions, logic, and criteria of success. There are two important implications of this work. On one hand, it urges self-reflexive transparency when using co-production concepts. The multiple meanings attached to co-production add richness to the concept and open it up to different uses. However, it is important that scholars clearly communicate how they use the term and are mindful of what they 'buy into' by using the concept in certain ways. On the other hand, there are tensions between the different perspectives as well as opportunities for combining them into a compound concept of co-production. In this way, co-production is reconceptualized as a prism, where each aspect allows different but complimentary insights on the relationship between science, society, and nature. (C) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available