4.8 Article

Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research

期刊

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 182-190

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council Formas [2017-01326, 2017-01631]
  2. GRAID programme at SRC
  3. foundation BalticSea2020
  4. Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre
  5. Walton Family Foundation [2017-693, 2018-1371]
  6. David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2017-66205, 2019-68336]
  7. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation [GBMF5668.01, GBMF5668.02]
  8. South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) of the Department of Science and Technology
  9. National Research Foundation of South Africa [98766]
  10. Swedish Research Council [621-2014-5137]
  11. Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT)
  12. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
  13. CGIAR Trust Fund
  14. Vinnova [2017-01631] Funding Source: Vinnova
  15. Forte [2017-01326] Funding Source: Forte
  16. Formas [2017-01326, 2017-01631] Funding Source: Formas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research practice, funding agencies and global science organizations suggest that research aimed at addressing sustainability challenges is most effective when 'co-produced' by academics and non-academics. Co-production promises to address the complex nature of contemporary sustainability challenges better than more traditional scientific approaches. But definitions of knowledge co-production are diverse and often contradictory. We propose a set of four general principles that underlie high-quality knowledge co-production for sustainability research. Using these principles, we offer practical guidance on how to engage in meaningful co-productive practices, and how to evaluate their quality and success. Research addressing sustainability issues is more effective if 'co-produced' by academics and non-academics, but definitions of co-production vary. This Perspective presents four knowledge co-production principles for sustainability research and guides on how to engage in co-productive practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据