Knowledge co-production is gaining traction as a powerful approach to tackle complex environmental challenges. Researchers from Australia and Canada unpack the pros and cons of this research approach.
Knowledge co-production—where researchers, policymakers, and communities work together to create actionable science—is gaining traction as a powerful approach to tackle complex environmental challenges.
Unlike traditional research where scientists work in isolation and then share findings, co-production involves "iterative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge."
Knowledge co-production means genuine partnership from the very beginning: jointly identifying research questions, collaborating throughout the entire research process, and sharing both existing knowledge and creating new insights together.
But here's the catch: it's expensive, time-intensive, and resource-heavy.
How do we know when collaborative research is worth the investment?
Researchers from аIJʹÙÍø, alongside other Australian and Canadian universities and research centres have tackled a question that's been largely overlooked: the cost-efficiency of knowledge co-production. Using marine fisheries management as a case study, the researchers developed a practical framework to help determine when intensive collaboration delivers the best value for money.
Key findings:
The paper offers practical guidance for researchers, funders, and policymakers on when to invest in intensive co-production versus lighter-touch approaches. These insights are useful for anyone involved in collaborative environmental research who wants to maximise impact while staying within budget.
The bottom line: Co-production can be transformative, but it's not always the answer. This research gives us the tools to make smarter, more strategic decisions about when and how to collaborate.