designing knowledge co- production for climate and...

Designing Knowledge Co-production for Climate and Development CARIAA Working Paper #21 Blane Harvey Logan Cochrane Marissa Van Epp Pete Cranston Pier Andrea Pirani

Harvey, B., Cochrane, L., Van Epp, M., Cranston, P., Pirani, P.A. 2017. Designing Knowledge Co-production for Climate and Development. CARIAA Working Paper no. 21. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada and UK Aid, London, United Kingdom. Available online at: www.idrc.ca/cariaa ISSN: 2292-6798 About CARIAA Working Papers This series is based on work funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) through the Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA). CARIAA aims to build the resilience of vulnerable populations and their livelihoods in three climate change hot spots in Africa and Asia. The program supports collaborative research to inform adaptation policy and practice. Titles in this series are intended to share initial findings and lessons from research and background studies commissioned by the program. Papers are intended to foster exchange and dialogue within science and policy circles concerned with climate change adaptation in vulnerability hotspots. As an interim output of the CARIAA program, they have not undergone an external review process. Opinions stated are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of IDRC, DFID, or partners. Feedback is welcomed as a means to strengthen these works: some may later be revised for peer-reviewed publication. Contact Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia c/o International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON Canada K1G 3H9 Telephone: (+1) 613-236-6163; Email: [email protected] Creative Commons License This Working Paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Articles appearing in this publication may be freely quoted and reproduced provided that i) the source is acknowledged, ii) the material is not used for commercial purposes, and iii) any adaptations of the material are distributed under the same license. © 2017 International Development Research Centre

Cover photos: Top: © PANOS/Jean-Leo Dugast Bottom: © PANOS/Abbie Trayler-Smith Left: © Blane Harvey

CARIAA Working Paper #21

i

Abstract

Climatechangeposessignificantglobalchallenges.Solutionsrequirenewwaysofworking,thinkingandacting.Knowledgeco-productionisoftencitedasoneoftheinnovationsneededfornavigatingthecomplexityofclimatechangechallenges,yethowtobestapproachco-productionprocessesremainsunclear.Inthisworkingpaperweexplorethewaysinwhichclimateanddevelopmentresearchersareapproachingtheco-productionofknowledgeandgrapplewiththeextenttowhichthemodalitiesusedarereachingtheirstatedpotential.Usingadiversearrayofcasestudies,weoutlinearangeofapproachestoco-production,fromtechnicaltotransformative.Drawingonliteratureonco-production,weproposeaheuristicthatmapsoutaspectrumofapproachestoco-productionandoffersanassessmentoftherelationshipbetweenprocessesandoutcomesofco-productioninordertoenablemoreinformedplanninganddecision-making.InsodoingthispaperprovideslessonsandinsightsthatCARIAAandsimilaradaptationresearchinitiativescanapplyindeterminingthepotentialofknowledgeco-productionasameanstoinfluencepolicy,practiceandbehaviour.

Keywords

Climatechange,internationaldevelopment,knowledgeco-production


ii

Resumé

Leschangementsclimatiquesposentd’importantsdéfisàl’échelledelaplanète.Pourrelevercesdéfis,ilfautchangernotrefaçondetravailler,depenseretd’agir.Lacoproductiondeconnaissancesestsouventcitéecommel’unedesinnovationspermettantdesaisirlacomplexitédesdéfisqueprésententleschangementsclimatiques,maisildemeuredifficilededéfinirlameilleureméthodeàadopter.Danscetarticle,nousétudionscommentleschercheursenchangementsclimatiquesetendéveloppementabordentlacoproductiondeconnaissances,etnoustentonsdedéterminerdansquellemesurelesmécanismesutilisésremplissentleurspromesses.Ennousservantdediversesétudesdecas,nousprésentonsunéventaild’approchesdelacoproduction,deladémarchetechniqueàlaméthodetransformatrice.Ennousappuyantsurlalittératuretraitantdelacoproduction,nousprésentonsuneheuristiquequirecensedemultiplesapprochesdelacoproductionetfournituneévaluationdelarelationentrelesprocessusetlesrésultatsdelacoproduction,afind’éclairerlaplanificationetlaprisededécisions.

Motsclés

Changementsclimatiques,développementinternational,coproductiondeconnaissances


iii

About the authors

BlaneHarveyisanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofIntegratedStudiesinEducationatMcGillUniversityinMontreal,Canada,andaResearchAssociateattheOverseasDevelopmentInstituteinLondon,UK.

Contact:[email protected]

LoganCochraneisaBantingFellowatCarletonUniversityinOttawa,Canada.


MarissaVanEppisanindependentconsultantbasedinNewYork.


PeteCranstonisaCo-DirectorofEuforicServicesbasedintheUK.


PierAndreaPiraniisaCo-DirectorofEuforicServicesbasedintheUK.



iv

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswouldliketothankallofthecasestudycontributorswhosharedtheir

experiencesofco-productionforthisstudy:AlejandroArgumedo(ANDES),MaxBlanck,the

ClimateChangeandSocialLearning(CCSL)Sandboxteam,DavidEllis(InternationalPotato

Center),ReneGomez(InternationalPotatoCenter),SigmundKluckner(RenewableEnergy

&EnergyEfficiencyPartnership),MariaJosePacha(ClimateandDevelopmentKnowledge

Network),JamesSmith(RenewableEnergy&EnergyEfficiencyPartnership),Margot

Steenbergen(RedCrossClimateCentre),TammyStenner(ANDES),andKrystynaSwiderska

(InternationalInstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopment).Thispaperisbasedonwork

commissionedbytheCollaborativeAdaptationResearchInitiativeinAfricaandAsia

(CARIAA)andfundedbyCanada’sInternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre(IDRC)and

theUK’sDepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(DFID).Theviewsexpressedinthis

workarethoseofthecreatorsanddonotnecessarilyrepresentthoseofDfIDandIDRCor

itsBoardofGovernors.


v

Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................... i

Resumé........................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Abouttheauthors .....................................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................iv

1. Backgroundandintroduction .....................................................................................................................1

2. Knowledgeco-productioninclimateanddevelopment..................................................................3

2.1Thepromisesofco-production..........................................................................................................3

2.2Theprocessofco-production .............................................................................................................5

2.3Challengestopractice ............................................................................................................................5

3. Casestudyevidence.........................................................................................................................................7

3.1Overviewandmethodology.................................................................................................................7

3.2Characterisingthecases..................................................................................................................... 14

3.3Cross-cuttingthemes........................................................................................................................... 15

4. Discussionanddesignheuristic .............................................................................................................. 16

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 19

6. References......................................................................................................................................................... 20

Annex:GoodPracticeinKnowledgeSynthesisCaseStudies............................................................... 23

Case1:CDKNLatinAmericaandCarribbeanLearningExchangeWorkshops .................. 24

Case2:ClimateChangeandSocialLearningSandbox................................................................... 29

Case3:TheClimateKnowledgeBrokersManifesto....................................................................... 34

Case4:FAOGlobalForumonFoodSecurityandNutrition ........................................................ 39

Case5:PotatoPark-InternationalPotatoCenter-ANDESAgreementfortheRepatriationofNativePotatoes.......................................................................................................................................... 44

Case6:RedCrossClimateCentreWriteshopProcess................................................................... 50


1

1. Background and introduction

Itisincreasinglyrecognizedthataddressingthechallengesposedbyclimatechangerequiresnewapproachesandmodalitiesforresearch(DeSouzaetal,2015;Cochraneetal,2017).Thoughchangesareoccurringonaglobalscale,impactsarefeltmostdirectlyatlocalscales,anddecisionsarelargelymadenationally.Further,thedriversofclimatechange,itsimpactsandtheresponsesneededcutacrosssectors,academicdisciplinesandsocialgroups,makingitespeciallychallengingtomobilisecollectiveresponses.Oneofthesolutionsproposedtoaddresstheneedtoproduceresearchintransdisciplinarywaysatmultiplescalesisco-production(Mauseretal,2013;LemosandMorehouse,2005).Co-productionisseenasameanstogeneratemoreinclusiveandrobustresearchresultsaswellastointegratekeyaudiences,suchasdecisionmakersandimpactedcommunities,intoresearchdesign,implementationandanalysis.

TheinitialcaseanalysiscontainedinthisreportwascommissionedbytheCollaborativeAdaptationResearchInitiativeinAfricaandAsia(CARIAA),aseven-year,CAD$70millionprogramstudyingclimatechange“hotspots”inthreedistinctsocio-ecologicalsystemsacrosssixteencountries(DeSouzaetal,2015).CARIAAiscomprisedoffourtransdisciplinaryconsortia,whichcollectivelyincludeover450researchersandpractitioners.ThenatureofCARIAA’sscope,design,andobjectivesmeanthatknowledgeco-productionisofclearinterest–andthereisthereforeaninterestinlearningfromtheexperiencesfromsimilarprograms.Ourexperienceplanning,supportingandscopingoptionsforco-productionactivitieswiththeCARIAAprogrampromptedabroaderreflectionabouttheassumptionsbehindtheinterestinsuchprocesses,andhowdecisionmakingaroundthedesignandimplementationofco-productionprocesseswasundertaken.Wepositedthatanalysingcasestudiesofsuccessfulco-productioncouldfacilitatemorepurposefulchoicesandbetteralignassumptionswiththeprocess,outputsandimpacts.

WhileweareinbroadagreementwithMoser(2016)thatco-designandco-productionofferpotentialtotransformthewayresearchanddecisionmakingoccur,inthispaperwearguethat,inpractice,co-productionprocessessufferfromalimitedconceptualisationofhowprocessmeetsoutcomes.Thisisnotforalackofresearchandcritiqueonknowledgeproduction(Gibbonsetal,1994;Nowotnyetal,2001;Ostrom,1996).However,muchliketheconceptofparticipation,whichgainedfavourindevelopmentresearchinthe1970sand80s-thenfacedcritiqueinthe1990sand2000s(Chambers,1983;CookeandKothari,2001)-thereisfrequentlyanormativeuseoftheconceptofco-productionwhichfailstotakeintoaccountthewide-rangingpotentialoutcomesitcouldcontributeto,fromlargelyinstrumental(orevenextractive)processesthatentrenchnormsofpractice,totransformativeones.


2

Inthispaper,wetakeacloserlookatco-productionprocessesinclimateanddevelopment

usingareviewofrecentliteratureandasampleofcasestudiesofself-identified“successful”

co-productionprocessesthatengagedresearchers,policymakersandpractitionerstoask:

1) Whatkindsofquestionsorproblemsaresuccessfulco-productionapproachesbeingusedtoanswerorresolveinclimateanddevelopment?

2) Inthesesuccessfulcases,howdoestheco-productioncontextandprocessinfluenceitsoutputsandoutcomes?

3) Howdosuccessfactorsvaryacrossdifferentco-productionapproachesorproblemtypes?

Aswediscussbelow,thesampleofcasesofself-described“successful”instancesofco-

productionintheareaofclimateanddevelopmentreviewedinthispaperrevealsastrong

emphasisonmorebounded,output-orientedprocesses.Whiletheboundednatureofthese

outcomesdoesnotrepresentashortcomingperse,itdoescallintoquestionwhethersuch

approachessignificantlycontributetothe“transformationalunderstandingofa

sustainabilityproblem”(SchuttenbergandGuth,2015)thatsometheoristshavestatedas

theprocess’spotential.Byestablishingamorenuancedunderstandingoftherangeof

possibleprocessesandend-pointsthatco-productionoffers,researcherswillbeablemake

better-informeddecisionsaboutwhichapproachestoadopt,andbetterunderstandthe

extenttowhichco-productionisbeingusedtoitsstatedpotential.

Havingexaminedhowresearchprojectsinthesphereofclimateanddevelopmentare

currentlyseekingtosupportco-production,anddrawinguponasampleofsixcasestudies,

weproposeaheuristicthatmapsoutaspectrumofapproachestoco-productionandoffers

anassessmentoftherelationshipbetweenprocessesandoutcomesofco-productionin

ordertoenablemoreinformedplanninganddecision-making.Ourcasestudyanalysis

suggeststhat,whilesomediscussionsofco-productionpointtoitstransformativepotential

todisruptortransformingnormsofthinkingandpractice,usesinthecontextofclimateand

developmentpracticetendtobemorefocusedupontheaimofcreating“useable

knowledge”(DillingandLemos,2011).Furthermore,wearguethatwhileco-production

offersthepotentialfortransformativeprocessesandoutcomes,theinvestmentand

transactioncostsrequiredforsuchapproachesaresuchthatprojectsandprogrammes

shouldbestrategicindecidingwheretheseapproachesaremostimportant.Theymayeven

questionwhethersuchapproachesarefeasiblewithinthecontextofatime-boundproject

orprogramme.Drawingontheliteratureandonknowledgemanagementandco-

productionexperiencesinclimatechangeanddevelopment,theheuristicsupportsthinking

aboutprocessesandproductstodeterminewhichmodalityandprocessesaremost

appropriateforagivenobjective.

Beforepresentingthecasestudies,thefollowingsectionreviewssomeofthemain

definitionalandconceptualaspectsofco-production,outliningwhatco-productionisand


3

whyithasbeenarguedascrucialforclimatechangeresearch.Thethirdsectionpresentsadiversearrayofcasestudiesthathavesuccessfullyutilizedco-productioninthecontextofclimateanddevelopment.Drawingonouranalysisofthesecasestudies,andofthewideracademicliterature,wethenproposetheuseofa“pathwaysapproach”asaconceptforlinkingco-productionprocesstooutcomesinastrategicmanner,andofferadesignheuristictothisend.Wealsocallforcriticalreflectionontheintendedendsofco-productioninclimateanddevelopment,invitingthoseworkingtowardtheseendstoreflectonhowwellourcurrentpracticesmeetourambitions.

2. Knowledge co-production in climate and development

2.1 The promises of co-production

Knowledgeco-productionisseenacriticalaspectofunderstandingandactingoncomplexglobalchallengeslikeenvironmentalchangeandsustainability.Thisisduetoitsperceivedabilitytodrawinknowledgefromacrossdisciplinaryandepistemiccommunities;promotesharedlearningbasedoncollectiveexperience;increasetheperceivedlegitimacy,relevanceandusabilityoftheknowledgebeinggeneratedamongnon-academicstakeholders;andforsome,challengeentrenchednormsofknowinganddoing(Langetal,2012;Moser,2016;CampbellandVanderhoven,2016;vanKerkhoffandLebel,2015).Assuch,ithasgarneredconsiderableattentionasameansofaddressingthegulfbetweenresearch,policyandpracticeinthefieldsofclimatechangeadaptationandsustainabledevelopment(DillingandLemos,2011),andasatoolformorefundamental,ortransformative,typesofchange(SchuttenbergandGuth,2015).

Whileinterpretationsvary,asweexplorebelow,Armitageetaldefineco-productionas“thecollaborativeprocessofbringingapluralityofknowledgesourcesandtypestogethertoaddressadefinedproblemandbuildanintegratedorsystems-orientedunderstandingofthatproblem”(2011:996).Theboundarieswhereco-productionprocessesbeginandendareunderstooddifferentlywithintheliterature.Mauseretal(2013)proposethatco-productionsitswithinabroader,iterativeprocessofco-creationwhereco-designprecedesco-production,andadisseminationofresultsfollows.Elsewhere,co-productionisseentoincludeco-design,collaborativeplanningandco-implementation,co-analyses,andcollaborativeadvocacyforchange,allofwhichareoftenenabledbyahostofintermediaries,includingknowledgebrokers,facilitatorsandboundaryagents(Harvey,LewinandFisher,2012;Reyersetal,2015).Beyondthequestionoftheboundariesofco-productionprocesses,theretwoothersignificantareasofdivergenceininterpretationsoftheconceptwhichweexplorebelow.

First,twocontrastinginterpretationsofthevalueofco-productioncanbefoundintheliterature(vanKerkhoffandLebel,2015;Wyborn,2015).Wetermthesetwointerpretationsemergentandinstrumental.Theemergentinterpretation,whichhasbeen


4

dominantinthefieldofscienceandtechnologystudies,seesco-productionasanidiomthatoffersnewwaysofknowingandrepresentingtheworldacrosssocialandnaturalorders(Jasanoff,2004).Inthisinterpretation,thekeycontributionofco-productionisitscapacitytochallengethehegemonyofparticularwaysofknowingandtoinviteamoreconsciousreflectiononhowscienceandsocietyconstituteoneanother(Pohletal,2010).Thisvalueemergesfrompeople’sengagedparticipationintheco-productionprocess.

Theinstrumentalinterpretationofco-production’svaluefocusesinsteadonitsroleincreating“useableknowledge”.Hereco-productionisseenasaninstrumentforaddressingthepressingneedtogetknowledgeintoaccessibleformatsandrelevantcontextstoinformdecisionmakingonmajorchallengesliketheimpactsofclimatechangeonthelivelihoodsofthepoor(DillingandLemos,2011;Clarketal,2016).Thismeans,forDillingandLemos(2011:681),bridginginterpretationsofwhatisunderstoodtobe“useful”fromascientificperspectiveandwhatis“useable”fromapracticalperspective,andestablishingasharedvisionofwhatknowledgeisuseableinparticulardecisionmakingprocesses.

Whiletherearecomplementaritiesbetweentheseinterpretationstherearealsotensions.Thefirstinterpretation(e.g.Jasanoff,2004)challengestheuniversalisingpositionofscience-drivenknowledgeanditsperceiveddistinctnessfromlocalisedsocialcontextswhilethesecond(e.g.DillingandLemos,2011)tendstoleavetheseunchallenged,takingamoreprescriptivestanceonhowtheserelationshipscanbebettermanagedtoaddresstheprioritiesofdecisionmakersatarangeoflevels(vanKerkhoffandLebel,2015).Further,thetwointerpretationsrevealapotentialtensionbetweenvaluingtheoutputsoroutcomesofco-production(newknowledgeorsolutions,ascapturedaboveinthedefinitionfromArmitageetal(2011),versusseeingtheprocessofco-productionasagoodinandofitself.Jasanoff(2004),forinstance,suggeststhatknowledgeco-productionisbetterthoughtofontologicallyandnormatively:notasameanstoaspecific,desiredresult,butasaprocessthatrepresentshowknowledgecreationoughttobe-emergent,andfocusedontherightquestions(ratherthantherightanswers;seeTable1).Thesedistinctionsarereflectedinthecasestudiesthatfollow,andmayhaveabearingonwhatkindsofoutcomescanbeexpectedfromprocesseslabelledasco-productive,asweexplorebelow.

Table1–Instrumentalandemergentco-productionends

Emergent(frominteractionsbetweenactors) Instrumental(knowledgethatisuseableforpracticalpurposes)

Co-productionasaprocessthatrepresents-andtransformsperspectiveson-howknowledgeproductionoughttobe.Processasanend.

Co-productionasavehicletogetknowledgeintoaccessibleformatsandrelevantcontextstoinformdecisionmaking.


5

2.2 The process of co-production

Muchasitsexpectedendsvary,theprocessthroughwhichco-productionisundertakenisinterpreteddifferentlyacrosstheliterature,fromtheactorsinvolvedtothewaysinwhichtheyengagewithoneanother.Animportantdimensionofco-productionprocessesisthenatureoftheinterfacebetweenactorsfromdifferentdomains.HerePohletal(2010)proposetwomainapproaches,thefirstbeingthroughtheuseofintermediariesorbrokerswhohelptomediateacrossboundaries,andthesecondbeingthroughdirectinteractionbetweentheseactorsinaspaceofconfluencetheyterm“theagora”(seeTable2).Inthisapproach,theysuggest,“boundariesbetweentheclassicalepistemologicalrealmsandcorrespondingrolesofacademicandnon-academicactorsareblurred”(Pohletal,2010:269).Incontrast,Cvitanovicetal(2015)seeintermediaryorbrokeredapproachesasseparatetoco-production,withco-productionbeingaprocesswhereinequalparticipationoccursfromtheideadevelopmentuntilthedisseminationofoutcomes.Weseethesedifferentinterfacesasaspectrumratherthanfullydistinctapproaches.Brokeredapproachesmaystillofferdirectinteractionbetweenscientistsandnon-scientists,while“agora”approachesmaybefacilitated,forinstance.Thedistinctionlies,inourview,intheextenttowhichparticipantsaredeliberatelycalledupontodealwiththesocialandcognitivechallengesofaccommodatingcontrastingworldviewsandpotentiallyconcedingaspectsoftheirown.Further,wealsoarguethattheroleoffacilitationmay(anddoes,inthecasestudiesbelow)featureinbothbrokeredandagoraframings,butthatthefacilitationfunctionmaybedistinctlydifferentineach.

Table2–Brokeredand“Agora”Co-productionProcesses

Brokeredco-production “Agora”framingofco-production

‘Boundaryorganizations’helptostabiliseinteractionsbetweenscienceandnon-scienceactors.(Pohletal,2010)Design,conveningandfacilitationbyathirdpartywithamandatetohelpestablishagreedobjectivesandgeneratesharedunderstanding.

Collaborativeendeavourofacademicandnon-academicactorswherethesecommunities“confrontoneanother’sworldviewsinapurposefullyopenintellectualandsocialspace.”(Pohletal,2010)

Co-productionoccurswheninteractionsbetweenactorsminimizedifferencesintheirculturalbackgroundsandemphasizethecollectivenatureoftheendeavour.(SchuttenbergandGuth,2015)

2.3 Challenges to practice

Asoutlinedabove,therearestrongreasonstoadvocatefortheco-productionofknowledgeinclimateanddevelopment.Yet,therearemanychallengesandbarrierstodoingso.Knowledgeco-productionposesdifferentsetsofchallenges:heterogeneousgroupsofstakeholdershavediverseworldviews,culturalbackgrounds,interests,objectives,


6

motivations,relationships,institutionalstructuresandresources(Huppe,CreechandKnoblauch,2012;Cvitanovicetal,2015).Pohletal(2010)highlightthestructuralandpower-relateddimensionsofco-productionindefiningitas“asimultaneousproductionofknowledgeandsocialorder.”Thediversityofknowledgethatisrequiredmaythereforealsobetherootofsomebarrierstocollaboration.Thebasisforsuccessfulcollaboration,manyargue(e.g.Huppe,CreechandKnoblauch,2012),iscreatinganenvironmentwhereinrelationshipsareestablished,commonvisionisdetermined,andsharedobjectivesareclear.Pohletal(2010:270-271)notethat“anoverallchallengeforsustainabilityresearchers[is]thatofstructuringtheagoraduringtheco-productionofknowledge.”Evenincaseswhereco-productiondevelopsfromanexistingcommunityofpracticewheresocialcapitalishigh,thetransactioncostsandtimedemandsforco-productionarehigh.Thispaperwillnotexplorehowthesechallengescanbemitigatedorovercomegenerally,asCvitanovicetal(2015)andothersdo.Rather,wefocusontheimplementationofknowledgeproductionprocesseswithintheintersectingspacesofclimateanddevelopment.

WhileweagreewithMoser(2016:107)thatthe“casehasbeenmade,convincingly,whyengagementofscientistsandusersofscientificknowledgeissuperiortoresearchconductedinisolationfromitspracticecontext”,weareconcernedthattheconflationbetweendivergentendsandmeansofco-productionreviewedabovecanleadtoinstanceswhereco-productionprocessesfailtodeliverwhattheyareseentopromise.Somerecentscholarshiphasavoidedtakingastanceonthecontrastinginterpretationsoftheendsofco-production.VanKerkhoffandLebel(2015)forinstance,seekinsteadtoidentifyconceptsandapproachesthatcandrawconnectionsbetweentheseinterpretationsandtheirrespectivepointsoffocus.Wewouldchallengethat,infact,moreworkisneededtoteaseoutthedistinctionsbetweenthesedifferingendsandmeans,andtobetterunderstandtheopportunitiesandlimitationsofeachinpractice.Asimilarprocessemergedfromtheexplosionofattentiononparticipatoryapproachestodevelopmentaftercriticismoftheirincreasinglyutilitarianordepoliticiseduse(CookeandKothari,2001).

BuildingonMoser(2016)andothers’considerationofhowbesttoundertakeco-production,researchonco-productionshouldalsointerrogatewhetherco-productionisthebestapproachforparticularproblemtypes,whichmodesofco-productionaremostappropriatetotheaimsthathavebeensetout,andwhichpathwaysofactioneffectivelylinkapproachesandoutcomes.Thecasestudiesexploredinthispaperhelpusbegintoaddressthesequestions.Theyofferexamplesofknowledgeco-productionthatcansupportthedevelopmentofaheuristicforco-productiondesign.Ouraimhereisnottodebatethemeritofco-production,buttorecognizehowthedifferentframingsplayoutinpractice,andcallformoreinformeddecisionmakingaboutwhen,where,howandforwhatknowledgeco-productionmaybethemosteffectiveandappropriateprocess.


7

3. Case study evidence

3.1 Overview and methodology

Tobetterunderstandhowco-productionprocessesareappliedinclimateanddevelopmentpracticeweundertookastudyofsixcasestudiesofself-identified“successful”co-production(seeTables3and4).Thecasesetwasidentifiedthroughacombinationof“snowball”samplingaswellasaninvitationforsubmissionscirculatedonrelevantemaillistservs.CaseswereselectedfromthosethatmetastandardsetofcriteriadesignedtofitwiththetypesofcontextualfactorsfoundwithintheCARIAAprogramme,whichthisreviewwasdesignedtoinform,andwhicharecommonplaceinahighpercentageofclimateanddevelopmentresearchprogrammes,namely:Thattheactorsinvolvedaregeographicallydistributed;thattheyspandifferentdisciplinaryorepistemicboundaries;thattheyfacecompetingprioritiesordemandsfortheirtime;andthattheoutputsoroutcomesoftheseprocesseswerenotsolelyacademicinnature.Theassessmentthattheco-productionprocessqualifyasa“success”waslefttothoseputtingforwardthecases,inlinewiththecriteriaoutlinedabove.Itwasnotevaluatedanyfurtherbytheauthorsbeyondreviewingsupportingdocumentationrelatedtothecase.

Acommoninterviewprotocolwasusedtoensuresimilardatawascollectedabouteachcasestudy.Thesixselectedcasestudieswerethendevelopedbaseduponin-personandremoteinterviewswiththeparticipantsinvolved,whichweresemi-structuredandguidedbykeyquestionstoensureconsistency.Thedatawasinputintoacommoncasetemplateallowingforsimilarinformationtobeeasilycomparedandcontrasted,resultinginsixbriefsummarydocuments(seeAppendix1).Eachdraftcasestudywasthenvalidatedbyintevieweestoensureaccuracy.Inonecase,theCIPPotatoPark,thecasestudywasderivedfromongoingresearchthatwasexaminingsimilarquestions(VanEppandGarside,2016)andthereforedidnotrequireadditionalinterviews.Comparativeanalysisacrossthecasestudieswasthenconductedbytheauthors,whosortedthedata,andfromwhichkeythemesweredrawnusinganopencodingapproach.Inotherwords,theauthorsdidnotpre-determinekeyindicatorsforassessment,butinsteadderivedthemesbasedonwhatrespondentsidentifiedasmostsignificant.Whilethispresentssomelimitationsforcomparabilityacrossthedataset,doingsoallowedforamoreexploratoryresearchprocess.

Inthispaper,wefocusonresultsemergingfromknowledgeco-productionprocessesviatheselectedcasestudies.AdditionaldetailonthecontextandfeaturesofeachcaseisavailableinAppendix1.Duetotheheterogeneityofcasestudies,thescopefordirectcomparisonislimitedandwefocusinsteaduponthefeaturesandlearningeachcasestudyidentifiedinlinewiththedimensionsofco-productionlaidoutabove,andassesstheseintheaggregate.Afurtherpotentiallimitationisthatthecasestudieswereexplicitlysoughtasexampleswhereinco-productionwassuccessful.Wedidnotseekcasesfromthosethatdidnotworkwellforcontrast,butrecognizemuchcanbelearnedfromexploringsuchinstances.Tables3and4summarisetheseresults,firstlookingattheaims,meansandends


8

oftheseinstancesofsuccessfulco-productioninclimateanddevelopment(Table3),andthenatthedriversandbarrierstosuccessidentifiedbyrespondents(Table4).


9

Table3–SummaryofSixCasesofCo-productiononClimateandDevelopment

Case Objective(s)ofco-production

Co-productionapproach Outputsand/oroutcomes

ClimateKnowledgeBrokersGroup(CKB):Climateknowledgebrokers’manifesto

Instrumental:Productionofasetofjointprinciplesontheroleofknowledgebrokeringforclimatechange

Brokered:TheCKBsecretariatapproachedarangeofpotentialcontributorstothemanifesto,whocollectivelyundertookaprocessofgatheringviewpointsfromawidersetofactors.Thegroupthenanalysedthefindingsandcraftedtheresultsintothemanifestothroughatwo-dayfacilitatedworkshop.

Primary:TheprimaryoutputwastheManifestobookandanaccompanyingsummary.

Complementary:Theprocessalsoprovidedanetworkingand“bonding”experienceastheteamcollaboratedontopicsthatdrewgroupmemberstogether.IthelpedtopushtheCKBgroupforwardinitsthinkingaboutitsroleinthewiderclimatechangecommunityandhowbesttoplayit.Finally,theprocessconnectedclimateknowledgebrokerstoclimateknowledgeusers.

RedCrossClimateCentreWriteshopprocess

Instrumental:Documentingexperiencefrompracticeandcollectivelearningthroughafacilitatedpeereditingandreviewprocesses.

Brokered:Interdisciplinaryteamsofauthors,editors,reviewersandfacilitatorscometogethertodevelopcasestudiesofexperiencesonacommonthemeoverthecourseofaweek.Throughtheprocessparticipantsrefinetheirunderstandingsoftheirowncasesandexpandtheirlearningthroughthereviewsofothers’experience.Insomeinstancesajointsynthesisoutputisalsoproducedtobringtogetherthesharedperspectives.

Primary:Productionofasetofpeer-reviewedcasestudiesfromeachoftheparticipatingauthorteams.

Complementary:Identificationofcommonlessonsthatcanbelearnedandsynthesisedfromacrossarangeofrelatedexperience.

Climate&Development Instrumental:Sharinganddocumentingthechallenges

Brokered:Thedesignoftheagendaaimedtocreateabalancebetween

Primary:Participantsco-created30lessonslearned,aroundthedesign,


10

KnowledgeNetwork(CDKN)andFundacion

FuturoLatinoamericano(FFLA):LatinAmerican&CaribbeanLearning

ExchangeWorkshops

andlessonslearnedfromadiverse(andoftendisconnected)rangeofprogrammingactivitiesonclimatecompatibledevelopmentfundedinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbeanthroughCKDN.

creativeandrationalthinking,generatingasuitableenvironmentfordialogue,learningexchangeandthecollectiveconstructionofknowledge.Facilitationtechniquesaimedtocreateaspacewhereparticipantscouldco-createasetoflessonslearnedacrossthedifferentinitiatives.

implementation,governanceandprioritiesforfutureresearchonclimatecompatibledevelopmentinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Thelessonswerepackagedinto1-pagedocumentsforeachoftheprojectspresentedintheworkshop,aswellasinblogposts,aworkingpaper,andapublicwebinar.

Complementary:TheprocessallowedparticipantstoputforwardrecommendationsforCDKNtoimproveprojectimplementationintheregionandtocreateaNetworkinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.ParticipantsdecidedtosetupaFacebookgroupcontinuetoexchangeideasonclimatecompatibledevelopmentintheirregion.

GlobalForumonFoodSecurityandNutrition

(FSN):‘ClimateChangeandFoodSecurityandNutrition’dialogue

Instrumentaloremergent:Afacilitatedonlineforumthatisusedtoeitherobtainstakeholderinputsintodraftreportsorpoliciesforfurtherdevelopment;ortohostmoreopen-endeddialoguearoundatheme,withthespecificoutputoroutcomeofthatdialogueleftmoreopen.Inthecaseofthedialogueonclimatechangeandfoodsecurityandnutrition

Brokered:TheFAOfacilitatestheforumusingtwoapproaches:(1)Consultations-Adraftdocument(e.g.globalguidelines,nationalpolicydocuments)issharedforfeedback;therearesomeinstancesofradicalchangestodrafts,inothersnot,and(2)Opendiscussions,withopeningcommentsandkeyquestionsposed.Bothareparticipatoryprocessestoenhanceknowledgesharing/dissemination.Ingeneral,FSNbelieves50%ofparticipationisfortheinputitselfand50%isforknowledge

Dependinguponwhichofapproachisused,theoutputvaries.Forconsultationstheoutputisarevisedreport/policy/setofguidelineswhichtakesintoaccountstakeholderpriorities.Fordiscussionstheoutcomeisasynthesisorscopingofmulti-stakeholderperspectivesonselectedthemes.Intheclimatechangedialogue,outputsincludedawebinarfollowingthediscussion,andsummariesinthreelanguages.


11

objectivesweremoreinstrumentalinnature.

sharingandlearningforthecommunity.

CGIAR’sClimateChangeAgricultureandFood

Security(CCAFS)programme:Climate

ChangeandSocialLearning(CCSL)Sandbox

Emergent:AfacilitatedonlineforumusedtocatalyzeinteractionandinitiatenewcollaborationsbetweenCCAFSteammembersandexternalpartnersusingasociallearningapproach.

Agora:ThevisionwasthattheSandboxcouldevolveintoaself-governingcommunityofpracticeandactasareflectionofhowsociallearningmayworkinpractice.Itfocusedonencouragingconversationsandaslow,organicandsustainablegrowthofacommunityofcollaborators.

Amixofoutputsandoutcomesthatincluded:acollectivenarrativeontheimportanceofsociallearningtoclimatechange,agricultureandfood;collectiveframeworksonsociallearning;gatheringsofthemembers;innovationgrantstoideasproposedthroughthesandbox;andaseriesofpublications.

InternationalPotatoCenter(CIP),Quechua-Aymara

AssociationforSustainableCommunities(ANDES),andthePotatoPark:Agreement

fortheRepatriationofNativePotatoesinPeru

Emergent:ForthePotatoParkcommunities,akeyobjectivewastoenableareciprocal(two-way)exchange,andenhancetherecognitionoftheirrightsovernativepotatoescollectedfromtheircommunities.

Agora:PotatoParkfarmersworktogetherwithCIPscientiststorepatriateandexperimentallygrowpotatovarietiesnativetotheindigenouscommunities.AsociacionANDES,anNGOwhichworkscloselywiththePotatoParkcommunities,playsanimportantroleincapacitybuildingandfacilitationtoenableindigenousfarmerstoengageincollaborativeresearchwithCIPscientists.

Primary:Increasedcropdiversityresultingfromtheagreementhasprovidedmoreoptionsinthefaceofincreasedpestinfestation,andotherchangingclimateconditions.


12

Table4–Driversandbarrierstosuccessidentifiedinthecases

Case CKBManifesto RCCCWriteshops CDKNExchange FSNDialogue CCSLSandbox IPCPotatoPark

Drivers Relevance/resonance:Focusonatopicandcontentthatresonatedwiththegroup

Facilitation:Strongandexperiencedfacilitationcriticalfordealingwithfluidityandemergence.

Ownership:Collectiveownershipoftheprocessandcontentthroughouttheprocess.

EfficientFormat:Thewriteshopprocessisafastandefficient.Itavoidsdrawn-oute-mailconversationsandinevitabledelaysasteamscollaborateoverlongdistancesamidstcompetingpriorities.

Diversityofexpertiseandskillsets.

Incentives:Itdeliversaproductforparticipantsbytheendoftheworkshop.

Design:Providesaconstructiveplatformforfeedback,andapleasantco-creationenvironment.

Design:Facilitatorsmanagedtoensureagoodbalancebetweencreativeandanalytical/reflectivesessions

Thefacilitationoftheworkshop.

Relevance/resonance:Capturedtheinterestofparticipants.

Theincentivesfortheparticipants.

Investment:High-level,long-termsupportfromFAO.

Relevance/resonance:topicsreflectideasandinterestsofthecommunity.

Diversity:intermsofthemesandparticipants.

Accessibility:Ensuretheprocesses&technologyareeasy-to-use,clearandengaging.

Strongfacilitation–occurringatmultiplelevels.

Translation:ofprocessandoutput.

Participants:Identifyingandengagingthosewithexperienceandinterestinthearea.

Relevance/resonance:Definingwhatarethenewissuesforinvestigation.

Design:Modellingasociallearningapproachtothewaythattheactivitiesdevelopedandbuildingconnectionsbetweendifferentdisciplinesandinstitutions

Incentives:Supportingandpromotingpublications

Investmentinfacilitation,CommunityofPracticedevelopmentandsupporttosmallresearchandpublicationprojects.

Design:Themixofprocessandproduct

Language:TheabilityofaCIPscientisttospeakQuechuawascrucialfortheintegrationoftraditionalknowledge.

ThefacilitationroleofANDESensuredactivefarmerparticipationandanequitablepartnership.

Participants:Activeparticipationoffarmersensuredcommitmenttoreachingtheprojectgoals.

Flexibility:CIPscientistshavelearnedtouseanideaasasparktobuildaprojectratherthanpresentingprojectstothecommunities;andtonotbeblindedbyconventionaldatacollectionmethods/needs.


13

orientationisimportant.

InvestmentincapacitybuildingbybothCIPand

ANDES.

BarriersTime:Difficulttofind

sufficienttime

forstrategic

conversations

inanetworked

organisation.

Theconsistency

ofstructure

andcontent

among

contributors.

Language:TheManifestowas

onlyproduced

inEnglish.

Timeandguidance:Sufficient

preparationtimeand

clearguidancefor

authorsarecriticalat

theoutset.

Participants:Challengingwhen

participantsarenot

thosewithdirect

experienceofthe

subjectmatter.

Skills:Nothavingtherightskillsinthe

room.

Time:Challengestosecuringtheright

participantsamidst

competingpriorities

andbusyschedules.

Keepingthemomentum

Maintaining

momentumand

connectionsafter

theeventendsis

nosimpletask.

Participants:Havingtheright

peopleparticipate

iscriticalto

achievingthe

workshop

objectives.

Comfortwithsharing-Peopledon’tnecessarily

knowhowto

sharetheir

lessonslearned,

especiallydeep

lessons.

Focus:Balancingspecificitywith

inclusion/accessibil

ityinexchanges.

Languagebarriers:Translation

presentssignificant

costandtime

barriers.

Time:Someusers

feeling

overwhelmedwith

communications.

Time:Over-busynessdetractforcollaboration;

Format:Membersaren’t

veryinterestedinworking

onlinebutwhoacceptit

asa‘necessaryevil’.

Ownership:Projectwasnobody’scentralfocus.It

wasbuildingintothe

intersticesofpeople’s

lives.

Time:Regularcommunication

supportsinformation

sharingandincreased

understanding,although

CIP’stimeinthefieldis

quitelimited.

Documentation:Amore

systematicprocessfor

documenting,storing

andsharinginformation

andresultsof

collaborativeresearchis

needed.


14

3.2 Characterising the cases

Onedefiningfeatureofallsixcasestudiesisthattheywereareallfundedandprogramme-based.Whiletheliteraturesuggeststhatstablefundingisoneofthekeystosuccessfulco-productionprocesses(FAO,2012;Palmeretal,2016),thisdistinguishesthesecasestudiesasbeingdrawnfromasubsetofknowledgeco-productiontypes.Assuch,themajorityoftheseinitiativeswerenotcompletelyemergentprocessesasonemightfindinsocialmovementmobilisationorautonomouscommunitybasedadaptationforinstance,butratheroperatedinanenvironmentinfluencedbypoliticalprioritiesanddonordecisions,andareprocessesthatsetoutwithanobjectivetoaffectorsupportspecifictypesofchange.Cognizantofthis,thecasestudiesserveasexamplesofknowledgeco-productionwithinaparticulartypeofcontext,albeitonethatisnonethelessrepresentativeofaconsiderableamountofworkinthefieldofclimateanddevelopment.

Thiscommonfeature(fundingwithinthecontextofatime-boundprogramme)mayhaveabearingontheco-productionactivities-whichtendedtowardmorestructuredandbrokered.Programmedinterventionsoftenstruggletoreconcileslow,emergentprocesseswiththetime-boundandoutput-orientedmanagementprocessesthattendtogovernthem(Harveyetal,2017).Inthetwocasesthattendedtowardsmoreemergentoutcomesusinglessbrokering,theCIP-ANDES-PotatoParkAgreementwasgroundedinacommunitypartnershipthatdatesbacktoDecember2004-farlongerthanatraditionalprojectorprogrammecycle,whiletheCCSLSandboxfeaturedalargecoresetofcollaboratorswhowerepartof,orlong-timecontributorsin,theCGIARsystem.Thatthesetwocasesbuiltcloselyonwell-establishedrelationshipsmayhaveencouragedthedesignofco-productionapproachesthatfavouredemergenceanddeepinteraction.Indeed,lessonsfromresearchersinthePotatoParkinitiative(seeTables3and4)highlighthowadoptingacommitmenttoallowinganticipatedoutcomesemergefrominteractionratherthanpre-definedquestionsorgoalshasbeenakeytoeffectiveengagementwiththecommunity.Thisviewissupportedelsewhereintheliterature(Huppe,CreechandKnoblauch,2012).

Itisalsopossiblethatthemoreboundednatureoftheco-productionactivitiesthatemergedfromthesekindsofprogrammesledtoanincreasedrateofperceivedsuccess,giventhatobjectiveswereclearlydefinedandachievablewithinafixedtimeframe.Recentanalysisofparticipatoryprocessesforaddressingpolicyproblemsrangingfromstructuredtounstructuredoffersparallelshere.HurlbertandGupta’s(2015)studyofa“splitladderofparticipation”revealedthatcasesofparticipationinpolicyprocessestendedtowardsmorestructured-to-moderatelystructuredandtechnocraticproblem-types,withfewerexamplesofunstructuredor‘wicked’policyproblemsthattheypositarethemostappropriatecontextsforexpandingparticipationandadaptivegovernance.Theseunstructuredproblems,HurlbertandGupta(2015)note,areareaswherevaluesarelikelytobeinquestionandconsensusmaybeoutofreach.Thus,forthecasesofco-productiondescribedhere,itisperhapsunsurprisingthatsuchexampleswerelesslikelytobeputforwardas


15

instancesof“success”inthecasesourcingprocess.Caseswithinoursamplewhereobjectivesareclassedasemergenteitherfeaturedparticipationfromapre-establishedcommunity(CCSLSandboxandPotatoParkcases),orexplicitlysetouttotakestockofdifferingperspectives(FAO’sFSNDiscussions).

3.3 Cross-cutting themes

Lookingacrossthesixcasesatthedriversandbarriersthatshapedtheirsuccess(Table4),anumberofcommonfactorsemerge.Thesefactorsaligncloselywiththeelementsofco-productionprocesssetoutbySchuttenbergandGuth(2015),namely:

● Focusingonmeaningfulissues,whichwedescribeasrelevanceand/orresonanceofthethemes;

● Engagingrepresentativestakeholders,whichwetermedparticipation;

● Facilitatingshared,iterativelearning;

● Usingconstructivedecision-makingandconflictresolutionprocesses,whichfeatureunderfacilitationanddesignfactorsinourtable;and

● Producingaboundaryobject(oftenaco-producedknowledgeproductinthecasesreviewed),whichfeaturedstronglyasincentiveswithinthecaseshere.

Inadditiontothesefactors,ourreviewconsistentlyhighlightedtheparticularinfluencethatlanguagebarriersandtimeconstraintscanhaveonthesuccessofco-productionacrossthecontextswehavestudied.Thesenewfeaturesmaystandoutparticularlystronglywithinthesampleofcasesduetotheirinternationalandprogramme-basednature.

Thecoherenceofdriversandbarriersacrossthissamplesuggeststhatmanypre-conditionsspanapproachestoco-production,regardlessofwhethertheyareinstrumentaloremergent,brokeredorrepresentativeof‘theagora’.Whetherparticularcriteriaaremorecriticaltosuccessdependingontheapproachwasnotassessedinthisstudybutcouldbeausefulareaforfutureinvestigation.Thereweresomecriteriathatdifferedacrossthesample,however.Theseincludesustainedinvestmentinaprocessandasenseofsharedsenseofownership.

● Sustainedinvestment:Theroleofsustainedinvestment,bothintermsoffinancingandcommitmentfromorganisationalleadership,wasparticularlyhighlightedincaseswhereco-productionobjectiveswereemergent.Incontrasttomoreinstrumentalco-productionprocessesthatofferefficientmeansofreachingspecificoutcomes(forinstance,theRCCCWriteshops),emergentapproachesthatdonotfeaturepre-definedoutcomesmaydependmoreondemonstratedorganisationalcommitmenttothevalueoftheco-productionprocess.Incontextswhereinvestmentinaco-productionprocesscannotbemaintained,itmaythereforebe


16

advisabletoadoptmoreinstrumentalapproaches,ortoavoidusingaco-productionapproach.

● Ownership:Whileownershipwashighlightedacrossthesetofcases,itvariedfrombeingadrivertoabarrier,or,inthecaseofthePotatoParkremainedakeychallengethatparticipantshadtonavigatebyadjustingtheirapproachesovertime.Thecaseevidencesuggeststhatownershipofco-productionmaybemoreeasilydevelopedininstrumentalapproaches,atleastwithinthecontextofthecasesexaminedhere.Thismaybeduetothemoreclearly-definedandtime-boundnatureoftheseactivities,incontrastwiththechallengesconfrontedbyemergentprocesseswithlessfocusonspecificoutputstowardswhichallmemberswerecollectivelyworking.Co-productionprocessdesignshouldconsiderthecompetingdemandsthatparticipantswillfaceindeterminingwhatkindsofco-productionprocessesareappropriate,indeedifany.

4. Discussion and design heuristic

Inreflectingontheresultsfromthisreview,werevisitthethreequestionsposedattheoutsetofthispapertostructureourdiscussion.TheresponsesmayprovideinsightsonhowprogramslikeCARIAA,andthoseexaminedthroughthecasestudies,canbestapproachfutureco-productionendeavours.

1) Whatkindsofquestionsorproblemsaresuccessfulco-productionapproachesbeingusedtoanswerorresolveinclimateanddevelopment?

Drawinguponthecasestudiesandtheliterature,weproposethattheaimsofco-productioncanbesituatedonaspectrumthatrangefrommoreinstrumentalapproachesaimedatimprovingtheusabilityorrelevanceofparticularknowledgesets,tomoreemergentaimsrelatedtochangingtheframingofproblems,thenatureofthequestions,andthenormsofknowledgeproduction.Thecasesofsuccessfulco-productionidentifiedforthissamplespanthisspectrumbuttendtobemoreconcentratedtowardcreatinguseableknowledge.Aswehavehighlightedthroughoutthepaper,thecontextinwhichthesecasesareoperatingistypicalofmuchofthe‘programmed’workinthisfieldbutexcludesco-productionactivitiesinitiatedbysocialmovements,citizens’groups,etc.,whichmayinfluencethequestionsandaimssetoutfortheprocess.Wealsoconsideredwhetherthenatureofthequestionthatwasaskedhasinfluencedthelikelihoodofperceivedsuccessinsofarasmoreboundedandinstrumentalendsmightbedeemedmoreanswerableorachievable.Manyofthecasesherealsohaveaclearemphasisonproducingcollectively-ownedboundaryobjectsasacentralaspectoftheco-production.Thismaymakereachingaspecificendpointwheresuccesscanbedeclaredmorefeasible(e.g.aco-productioneventisconcluded;aquestionanswered;oraproductfinalised).Furtherstudyisneededtounderstandhowperceptionsofsuccessvaryacrossthisspectrumofquestions/aimsand


17

theextenttowhichthatinfluencesinvestment,engagement,orownershipofparticularco-productionapproaches.

2) Inthesesuccessfulcases,howdoestheco-productioncontextandprocessinfluenceitsoutputsandoutcomes?

Drawinguponthesignificantbodyofexistingliteratureonapproachestoco-production,wecharacteriseco-productionprocessesintwobroadcategories:Inthefirst,brokeredapproaches,engagementacrossdifferentstakeholdergroupsismediated,preservinggroups’respectiveepistemiccultureswhilstenablingtheproductionofnewhybridknowledgeorboundaryobjects.Alternatively,through“agora”approachesinteractionsseektominimizeordisruptthesedifferences,yieldingnewperspectivesonthecollectivenatureofthechallengeinquestion.Whileoursampleofsuccessfulcasesofferedexamplesofbothapproaches,theuseofbrokeredapproacheswasmoreprevalent,perhapsowingtotheirlessdisruptiveandmoreeasilystructurednature.

Acrossallprocesstypes,despitethedifferenceinanticipatedoutcomes,thegenerationofoutputs(orboundaryobjects)wasseentocontributetothesuccessoftheco-production.Thecentralityoftheseoutputstotheoverallaimsoftheco-productionactivitydifferedhowever,rangingfrombeingtheanticipated“end”oftheco-productionitselftobeinganincentivethatcatalysesandsustainsparticipationintheprocess.

Thesedistinctionsappearsignificantintermsofinformingthedesignofco-productionprocesses.Whentakenalongsidetherangeofpossibleapproachesweseethepossibilityofchartinga“co-productionpathway”thatsetsouttheassumedrelationshipbetweenprocesses,outputsandoutcomesinwaysthatensurecoherencebetweenmeansandends,andthatensurethepotentialsofparticularapproachestoco-productionarenotoverstated(ononehand),orunder-equipped(ontheother).Inlarge,multi-actorcollaborationssuchastheCARIAAinitiative,theremaywellnotbeconsensusonthisrelationshipbetweenprocessandoutcomes,noronwhichismoreimportant.Thus,itseemsimportanttodefinethese,andensurethatsucha“co-productionpathway”enablesacollaborationtoaddressbothultimateandintermediateaimsinwaysthatareclearlyunderstoodbythosetakingpart.

3) Howdosuccessfactorsvaryacrossdifferentco-productionapproachesorproblemtypes?

Acrossthecasestudyset,wefoundhighdegreesofsimilarityinfactors,aswellasafewkeydistinctions.Thecommonfactorsconfirmandbuildonfeaturesofco-productionsetoutelsewhereintheliterature(SchuttenbergandGuth,2015).Sustainedinvestmentandownership,asdiscussedabove,highlightuniquefeaturesandpresentimportantlearningaboutwhatquestionsoughttobeaskedwhenconsideringco-production.Yet,questionsremainastowhethertheconstraints/realitiesimposedbydevelopmentprojectslike


18

CARIAAactuallyallowforthefullharnessingofsuccessfactorsthatcanenableandsustainco-productionwithagora-styleapproachesandemergentoutcomes(c.f.Harveyetal,2017).

Oneoftheobservationsonco-productionprocessesthatwesharedattheoutsetofthisstudywasthatplanninganddesigndecisionsarenotaspurposefulandinformedastheycouldbe,particularlyabouthowandwhyparticularco-productiveapproachesshouldleadtoanticipatedoutcomesthatprojectsorprogrammessetout.Ouranalysishasidentifiedthattherearedifferentprocesses,outputsandoutcomesalongthespectrumofco-production.Basedontheliteratureandthecasestudiesanalysed,wepresentadesignheuristic(Figure1)thatcancontributetoasharedunderstandingofprocessaimsanddeterminewhichmodalityandprocessaremostappropriatefortheirrespectiveresources,timelinesandobjectives.Thiscanthenbecomplementedbyareviewoflessonsonthedriversandbarriersassociatedwitheachdimensionoftheheuristic.Thiswouldallowplanninginco-productionactivitiesorlargerprogrammeslikeCARIAAtobedrivenbyfundamentalquestionsrelatedtothepathwaysenvisionedforco-productionactivitiestoaffectthetypeofchangedesired,andtheapproachesthatarebestsuitedtheintendedaims.

Figure1.Adesignheuristicforknowledgeco-production

Thisheuristicpresentsthetwospectrumsofco-productionsetoutearlierinthispaperarounditsaim/ends(frominstrumentaltoemergent)anditsapproach(frombrokeredto“agora”).Drawingonthecaseevidenceandtheliteraturewepositthatbrokeredand


19

instrumentalapproaches-wheretheintended“use”oftheprocessoutcomehasbeendefinedandinteractionsaremediatedinwaysthatdonotseektodisruptstakeholderrolesoridentities-aremorelikelytoyieldtangibleoutput-orientedknowledgeproductswithinlimitedtimeframe.However,theyarelesswellsuitedtomoreintentionallytransformativeaims,suchasdisruptingnormsorworldviewsontheirown.Conversely,emergent“agora”approachesaresuitedtothedisruptiveandpotentiallytransformationalaimsowingtotheirmoreevolvingandintersubjectivenature.

Toillustratethis,wehavesituatedtypesofactivitiesorengagementthatmaybeusedtowardsco-productionaimsinthesevariousguises.Wehavenotplottedthecasesreviewedhereagainstthisspectrumastheyrepresentamuchnarrowerrangeofapproachesowningtotheircontextualsimilarities,aswehaveoutlined.

5. Conclusion

Theemphasisonco-productionandsimilarmodelsofcollaborationacrossdisciplinaryandepistemicboundariesinrespondingtoclimatechangeanddevelopmentchallengeshasgrownconsiderably.Whileweagreethat,inprinciple,co-productionoffersrealbenefitsinaddressingthe‘wicked’natureofthesechallenges,weechoothersincautioningthatthetangibleoutputsormoretransformativeoutcomesthatarefrequentlyassociatedwithco-productionriskbeingoverstated,oratleastmisunderstood(Lewis,2015;Mitlin,2008).Theanalysisofaseriesofsuccessfulco-productionprocesseshasfacilitatedtheoutliningofaheuristictosupportdecisionmakingaboutwhatmodality,when,where,howandforwhatknowledgeco-productionmaybethemosteffectiveandappropriateprocess.

Thispaperhassoughttobetterunderstandhowtheco-productionapproachescontributetoparticularkindsofoutcomes,advocatingtheconceptof“co-productionpathways”asawayofthinkingmorestrategicallyabouthowparticularframingsandapproachestoco-productioncanyieldparticularoutcomes.Wehavealsoprovidedsomecautionaryobservationsaboutthepotentiallimitstoco-productionwithinthecontextoftime-boundandproject-basedclimateanddevelopmentinitiativeslikeCARIAA.


20

6. References

Armitage,D.,Berkes,F.,Dale,A.,Kocho-Schellenberg,E.&Patton,E.(2011).Co-managementandtheco-productionofknowledge:LearningtoadaptinCanada’sarctic.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,21(3),995–1004.

Campbell,H.&Vanderhoven,D.(2016).Knowledgethatmatters:Realisingthepotentialofco-production.N8ResearchPartnership.Availableonlineat:http://www.n8research.org.uk/media/Final-Report-Co-Production-2016-01-20.pdf.

Chambers,R.(1983).Ruraldevelopment:Puttingthelastfirst.London:Longman.

Clark,W.C.,vanKerkhoff,L.,Lebel,L.&Gallopin,G.C.(2016).Craftingusableknowledgeforsustainabledevelopment.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,113(17),4570-4578.

Cochrane,L.,Cundill,G.,Ludi,E.,New,M.,Nicholls,R.J.,Wester,P.,Cantin,B.,Murali,K.S.,Leone,M.Kituyi,E.&Landry,M.-E.(2017).AreflectiononcollaborativeadaptationresearchinAfricaandAsia.RegionalEnvironmentalChange.doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1140-6

Cooke,B.&Kothari,U.,Eds.(2001).Participation:TheNewTyranny?ZedBooks:NewYork.

Cvitanovic,C.,Hobday,A.J.,vanKerkhoff,L.,Wilson,S.K.,Dobbs,K.&Marshall,N.A.(2015).Improvingknowledgeexchangeamongscientistsanddecision-makerstofacilitatetheadaptivegovernanceofmarineresources:Areviewofknowledgeandresearchneeds.Ocean&CoastalManagement,112,25-35.

DeSouza,K.,Kituyi,E.,Harvey,B.,Leone,M.,Murali,K.S.&Ford,J.D.(2015).VulnerabilitytoclimatechangeinthreehotspotsinAfricaandAsia:Keyissuesforpolicy-relevantadaptationandresilience-buildingresearch.RegionalEnvironmentalChange,15,747-753.

Dilling,L.&Lemos,M.C.(2011).Creatingusablescience:Opportunitiesandconstraintsforclimateknowledgeuseandtheirimplicationsforsciencepolicy.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,21(2),680-689.

FAO.(2012).TheGlobalForumonFoodSecurityandNutrition:Onlinediscussionsthatmakeadifference.Rome:FoodandAgricultureOrganization.

Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Nowotny,H.,Schwartzman,S.,Scott,P.&Trow,M.1994.TheNewProductionofKnowledge:TheDynamicsofScienceandResearchinContemporarySocieties.London:SAGEPublications.


21

Harvey,B.,Lewin,T.&Fisher,C.(2012).Introduction:Isdevelopmentresearchcommunicationcomingofage?IDSBulletin,43(5),1-8.

Harvey,B.,Pasanen,T.,Pollard,A.&Raybould,J.(2017a).Fosteringlearninginlargeprogrammesandportfolios:Emerginglessonsfromclimatechangeandsustainabledevelopment.Sustainability,9(2),315.

Huppe,G.,Creech,H.&Knoblauch,D.(2012).Thefrontiersofnetworkedgovernance.Winnipeg:InternationalInstituteforSustainableDevelopment.

Hurlbert,M.&Gupta,J.(2015).Thesplitladderofparticipation:Adiagnostic,strategic,andevaluationtooltoassesswhenparticipationisnecessary.EnvironmentalScience&Policy,50,100-113.

Jasanoff,S.(2004).Theidiomofco-production(p.1-12).InStatesofKnowledge:TheCo-productionofScienceandSocialOrder.NewYork:Routledge.

Lang,D.J.,Wiek,A.,Bergmann,M.,Stauffacher,M.,Martens,P.,Moll,P.,Swilling,M.&Thomas,C.J.(2012).Transdisciplinaryresearchinsustainabilityscience:Practice,principles,andchallenges.SustainabilityScience,7,25-43.

Lewis,J.(2015).Collaborateordie?Interdisciplinaryworkholdsgreatpromisebutgoal-orientedassumptionsmustbechallenged.LSEImpactBlog.Availableat:http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/04/02/collaborate-or-die-disciplinary-differences-in-the-social-sciences/

Lemos,M.C.andMorehouse,B.J.(2005).Theco-productionofscienceandpolicyinintegratedclimateassessments.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,15(1),57-68.

Mauser,W.,Klepper,G.,Rice,M.,Schmalzbauer,B.S.,Hackmann,H.,Leemans,R.&Moore,H.(2013).Transdisciplinaryglobalchangeresearch:Theco-creationofknowledgeforsustainability.CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability,5(3),420-431.

Mitlin,D.(2008).Withandbeyondthestate—co-productionasaroutetopoliticalinfluence,powerandtransformationforgrassrootsorganizations.EnvironmentandUrbanization,20(2),339-360.

Moser,S.C.(2016).Canscienceontransformationtransformscience?Lessonsfromco-design.CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability,20,106-115.

Nowotny,H.,Scott,P.&Gibbons,M.2001.Re-ThinkingScience:KnowledgeandthePublicinanAgeofUncertainty.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Ostrom,E.1996.CrossingtheGreatDivide:Coproduction,Synergy,andDevelopment.WorldDevelopment,24(6),1073-1087.


22

Palmer,M.A.,Kramer,J.G.,Boyd,J.&Hawthorne,D.(2016).Practicesforfacilitatinginterdisciplinarysyntheticresearch:TheNationalSocio-EnvironmentalSynthesisCenter(SESYNC).CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability,19,111-122.

Pohl,C.,Rist,S.,Zimmermann,A.,Fry,P.,Gurung,G.S.,Schneider,F.,Speranza,C.I.,Kiteme,B.,Boillat,S.,Serrano,E.&Hadorn,G.H.(2010).Researchers'rolesinknowledgeco-production:experiencefromsustainabilityresearchinKenya,Switzerland,BoliviaandNepal.ScienceandPublicPolicy,37(4),267.

Reyers,B.,Nel,J.L.,O’Farrell,P.J.,Sitas,N.&Nel,D.C.(2015).Navigatingcomplexitythroughknowledgecoproduction:Mainstreamingecosystemservicesintodisasterriskreduction.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,112(24),7362-7368.

Schuttenberg,H.Z.&Guth,H.K.(2015).Seekingoursharedwisdom:Aframeworkforunderstandingknowledgecoproductionandcoproductivecapacities.EcologyandSociety,20(1),15.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07038-200115.

VanEpp,M.andGarside,B,(2016).Solving‘wicked’problems:cansociallearningcatalyseadaptiveresponsestoclimatechange?IIEDWorkingPaper.IIED,London.

VanKerkhoff,L.E.,&Lebel,L.(2015).Coproductivecapacities:Rethinkingscience-governancerelationsinadiverseworld.EcologyandSociety,20(1),14.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07188-200114

Wyborn,C.A.(2015).Connectingknowledgewithactionthroughcoproductivecapacities:Adaptivegovernanceandconnectivityconservation.EcologyandSociety,20(1),11.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06510-200111


23

Annex: Good Practice in Knowledge Synthesis Case Studies

Thesixcasestudiesinthisannexshowcaseapproachestoknowledgesynthesisandco-productionthathavemetwithpositiveresults.TheyincludebothtraditionalandinnovativeapproachesthatmayserveasaninspirationforCARIAA.

Thecasestudiesweredrawnfromtheauthors’knowledgeofrelevantinitiatives,aswellascrowdsourcedthroughplatformssuchasKM4DevandResearch2Action.Aselectionwasmadebasedonthefollowingcriteria:

• Thecaseprovidesanovel/interestingexampleofsynthesisorco-productionthatyieldedasuccessfuloutput/outcome;

• Itfeaturesparticipationfromadecentralisedpartnership(ideallyglobal);

• Participantshadcompetingpriorities/areasoffocusordemands;

• Collaborationcrossesdisciplines/sectorsordrawsindifferentknowledgetypes;and

• Theoutput/outcomeisinthepublicdomainandnotsolelyacademic.

Basedonthesecriteria,thesixcasestudiesselectedforanalysisare(inalphabeticalorder):

1) CDKNLatinAmericaandCarribbeanLearningExchangeWorkshops

2) ClimateChangeandSocialLearningSandbox

3) TheClimateKnolwedgeBrokersManifesto

4) FAOGlobalForumonFoodSecurityandNutrition

5) PotatoPark-InternationalPotatoCenter-ANDESAgreementfortheRepatriationofNativePotatoes

6) RedCrossClimateCentreWriteshopProcess


24

Case 1: CDKN Latin America and Carribbean Learning Exchange Workshops

Contributor:MariaJosePacha(CDKN)

Editedby:BlaneHarveyandPierAndreaPirani

Overview• ThiscasestudydescribeslearningandexchangeworkshopsorganizedbyClimate

andDevelopmentKnowledgeNetwork(CDKN)tosharelessonslearnedfromprojectsrelatedinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Theworkshopaimedatstimulatingparticipantstoreflectontheirexperiences,todistillsuccessfulpracticesandtocodifytheirtacitknowledgeinwaysthatcouldbeeasilysharedandcommunicatedtoothers.

• Toachievethisobjective,theworkshopfollowedaparticipatoryapproachandwasfacilitatedusinginnovativeknowledgesharingmethodologies.Thisstimulatedparticipants’interestandactiveengagement.

• Asetoflessonslearnedwasco-createdduringtheworkshop.Theselessonswerethenre-usedandre-packagedintoadditionalknowledgeproducts.

• TheworkshopalsosetthefoundationforanemergingnetworkofpractitionersworkingonClimateCompatibleDevelopment(CCD)atsub-nationallevelintheregion.

• Thecasestudyprovidesaninterestingexampleofhowtodesignandfacilitateaneffectiveface-to-faceeventtoshareexperiencesandco-createknowledgeproductsthatcanberepackagedintoadditionaloutputsandusedtoinformsubsequentwork.Forthistohappen,therightpeopleshouldbeinvolved,andtheappropriateparticipatorymethodologiesandfacilitationtechniquesshouldbeputinplace.

ContextCDKNhasbeenfinanciallysupportingprojectsthataretestingnewapproachestoClimateCompatibleDevelopmentincitiesandregionsinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Alotofvaluable“knowledgecapital”isgeneratedbytheseprojectsandalotoflessonscanbecapturedandlearnedfromtheseexperiences.However,mostofthetimekeystakeholdersdon’thavetime(ordon’thavethehabit)toreflectontheirexperiencesandtodistillusefullessonsthatcanbesharedandcommunicatedtoothers,toscaleupexperiencesandgoodpractices.

MuchofCDKN’sworkiscarriedoutby“suppliers”,orcontractedgroupswhocontributeforalimitedamountoftime.WithoutadedicatedprocesstodocumentsomeofthelessonsfromthesesuppliersCDKNhasstruggledtoconsistentlylearnfromtheworktheysupport.


25

ToovercomethesechallengesandfacilitatetheexchangeofexperiencesandlessonslearnedinthedesignandimplementationofCCDprojects,CDKNorganizedthreeregionalworkshops,bringingtogetherrepresentativesofinstitutionsmanagingtheseprojectsaswellasgovernmentrepresentatives.Thefirstworkshop,co-organizedbyCDKNLACandFundacionFuturoLatinoamericano(FFLA),tookplaceinQuito(Ecuador)inJuly2015.TeamsfromtenprojectsworkingonclimatecompatibledevelopmentintheCaribbean,Colombia,Ecuador,Lima,BoliviaandArgentinatookpartintheworkshop.Themainobjectiveoftheeventwastoenableparticipantstosharetheirexperiences,articulatechallengesandcapturethelessonslearnedfromsuccessfulpracticesputforwardbycitiestoadvanceinCCDinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.

TheinitiativeFromtheoutset,theQuitomeetingwasconceivedasalandmarkforCDKNandtheorganizerswantedittobeadifferenteventthana‘workshopasusual’.Witharound40peoplefromtendifferentprojectsattending,theideawastoovercomethetraditionalPowerPoint-basedapproachtosharecontexts,achievements,challengesandlessonsfromtheCDKNsupportedprojectsintheregion.Thiswasreflectedintheoverallworkshopmethodologyanddesign,processflowandfacilitation,whichwasconceivedtobeasparticipatoryaspossible.Inthe2.5daysoftheworkshop,thefacilitatorsguidedandsupportedparticipantstocollectivelysharetheirknowledgeandexperience,reflectontheirworkand,mostimportantly,drawouttacitknowledgeandgenerateasetoflessonslearnedfromtheirpractices.

Thedesignoftheagendaaimedtocreateabalancebetweencreativeandrationalthinking,generatingasuitableenvironmentfordialogue,learningexchangeandthecollectiveconstructionofknowledge.Examplesoftheparticipatoryknowledgesharingtechniquesusedtofacilitatethedifferentworkshopsessionsinclude:

• Groupwork,duringwhichparticipantswereaskedtomakea3DdesignoftheiridealcitywithinaCCDframework

• Sixthinkinghats:“TheThinkingHatsexerciseisakindofrole-playinwhichdifferentperspectivesarerepresentedbyhatsofdifferentcolours.Whenaparticipantissymbolicallywearingaspecifichat,theymustseektoperceivethesituationthroughthelensassociatedwiththatcolour.Thismethodshowshowdifferentaspectsofone’spersonalitycanapproachaproblemdifferently.”1

• Fishbowl:“Fishbowlsinvolveasmallgroupofpeople(usually5-8)seatedincircle,havingaconversationinfullviewofalargergroupoflisteners.Fishbowlprocessesprovideacreativewaytoincludethe“public”inasmallgroupdiscussion.”2

1Source:KSToolkit.2Source:KSToolkit.


26

• Chatshow:“Thechatshowencouragesparticipantstoshareexperiencesinaninformal,funenvironment.Thechatshow'sopencirclelayoutencouragesgreaterparticipationthanafishbowland,duetoitsinformalnature,islessintimidatingthanapaneldiscussion.”3

• Chinesewhispers:“Participantsformed2lines,oneforthosespeakingandunderstandingEnglishandtheotheronlySpanish.Alongandcomplicatedtextwasselectedfulloffigures,datesanddetailsthatwasreadtothefirstpersonoftheline.Then,heorshehadtoconveythemessagetotheimmediatelybehindfellowparticipantandtheactionswassubsequentlyrepeateduntilreachingtheendoftheline.Thefinalresultwasreallydifferentfromtheoriginalincontentandlength.Thisdynamicwasusefultounderstandhowdifficultitistoconveyanoriginalmessagewithoutdistortionsfromapriorpersonalknowledge.”4

Theflowofthemeetingandthefacilitationtechniquesusedallaimedtoputparticipantsintheconditiontoco-createasetoflessonslearnedacrossthedifferentinitiatives.Specifically,participantspreparedthelessonslearnedperprojectandtheypresentedthetwoorthreemostimportantlessonstotherestofthegroup.Participantsthenvotedforthoselessonsthatwererelevantfortheirprojects,too.Asaresultofthisprocess,thirtydifferentlessonsweregeneratedandclassifiedintodifferenttopics,fromlessonslearnedwhileformulatingaCCDproposaltolessonslearnedonprojectGovernancetolessonslearnedonresearchandCCD.

Participatoryworkshopssuchasthisonerequirepeopletogetoutoftheircomfortzoneandthismaynotbeeasyforeverybody.Someoftheparticipantsstruggledtothinkdifferentlyandtocommunicatethelessonslearned.However,theyrecognisedthechallengestheywereworkingagainstandingeneralappreciatedandenjoyedtheoverallprocessandapproach.

DriversandchallengesThefollowingdriversofsuccessareworthhighlighting:

• Thedesignoftheworkshop:Facilitatorsmanagedtoensureagoodbalancebetweencreativeandanalytical/reflectivesessionswhichwasinstrumentaltoreachtheworkshopobjectiveandtheco-creationoflessonslearned.

• Thefacilitationoftheworkshop:Noteveryoneisaccustomedtoparticipatoryworkshops.Goodfacilitationskillsareessentialtoencourageparticipantstoactivelyengageintheprocess.

3Source:KSToolkit.4Source:CDKNWorkshopreport.


27

• Theinterestofparticipants:Thewaytheworkshopwasdesignedandconductedenabledtofreeupparticipant’sattentionandstimulatetheirinteresttoactivelyengageintheprocess.

• Theincentivesfortheparticipants:Theworkshopgaveparticipantstheopportunitytosharewhattheyweredoingintheirprojectsandwhattheylearned.Likewise,theyhadauniqueopportunitytolearnaboutothers’experiences.

• Thecreationofanetwork:Priortotheworkshop,participantswerenotconnectedtoeachotheracrossprojects.Theface-to-faceworkshopgavethemtheopportunitytomeetandtosetthefoundationsforanewnetworkofpractitioners.

Ontheotherhand,theworkshoppresentedalsoasetofchallenges:

• Keepingthemomentum:Thisisakeyandcommonchallengetomostface-to-faceworkshops,especiallywhenparticipantsdon’tknoweachotherpriortotheeventanddon’tbelongtoanestablishednetworkorcommunity.Whilealotofenergyandengagementcanbeachievedduringtheworkshop,maintainingthemomentumandkeepingpeopleconnectedaftertheeventendsisnosimpletask,regardlessofthetechnologyinplaceandtheonlinespacesthatmaybeavailabletocontinuetalkingandexchanging.

• Invitingtherightpeople:Especiallyinaparticipatoryworkshop,itistheparticipantswhoowntheprocessanddeterminetheoutcomeoftheevent.Havingtherightpeopleparticipateisthereforecriticaltoachievingtheworkshopobjectives.InthecaseoftheQuitoworkshop,thismeanthavingparticipantsthathadbeeninvolvedintheprojectssincethebeginningandhadahandsonexperienceofthesubject.Additionally,itwouldbeusefultohaveparticipantsthatactuallyhavedecision-makingpowerintheirorganisationstoincreasethelikelihoodofrecommendationsbeingtakenforward.

• Knowinghowtoshare:Peopledon’tnecessarilyknowhowtosharetheirlessonslearned,especiallydeeplessons.Theyarenotsurehowtocommunicatetheminwaysthataremeaningfultoothers.Thisiswhereprocessfacilitationiskeytostimulatecollectivelearningandsharing.

• Takingtheprocessforward:Thereisatrade-offbetweenbeingprescriptiveandleavingparticipantsscopetodefinewhattheywanttodeveloporshareaftertheworkshop.Theriskisthat,whenthemomentumisgone,littlegetsactuallydone.Inthiscase,CDKNproposedsomeoptionsbutthefinaldecisiononwaystotaketheprocessforwardaftertheeventwasuptoparticipants.

ResultsUsuallyproductssuchaslessonslearnedareoutsourcedtoprofessionalsordrawnupengagingwithsinglesuppliers.InthecaseoftheQuitoworkshop,thewholeapproachwas


28

underpinnedbytheefforttopromoteaco-creationprocess,whichcapturesdifferentperspectivesandtransformstacitknowledgefromparticipants’headsintoexplicitknowledge.

Asaresult,duringtheworkshopparticipantsco-created30lessonslearned,aroundthedesign,implementation,governanceandfurtherresearchonCCDinLAC.Theselessonshavebeenpackaged,re-usedandpresentedindifferentproducts,suchasa1-pagerforeachoftheprojectspresentedintheworkshop,blogposts,aworkingpaper,andapublicwebinar.

Theworkshopwasinstrumentaltoidentifyingchallengesrelatedtosustainabilityofprojects,fromdiagnosisandplanningtoimplementationandhowtogeneratethepoliticalsothatprojectsaretranslatedintolaws,rulesandspecificactivities.

Further,theco-creationprocessallowedparticipantstoputforwardrecommendationsforCDKNtoimproveprojectimplementationintheregionandtocreateaCCDNetworkinLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean.Specifically,participantsdecidedtosetupaFacebookgrouptobringforwardwhatachievedinQuitoandcontinuetoexchangeideasandchallenges,tosharegoodpracticesandcontinuelearningfromeachotherhowtoimplementclimatecompatibledevelopmentintheirregion.

AnalysisTraditionalworkshopsandeventsoftenfailtotriggerparticipants’interestandengagement,resultinginmissedopportunitiesforeffectivedialogue,knowledgetransferandlearning.

Thiscasestudyinsteaddemonstrateshowarelativelyshortface-to-faceeventcanbeeffectiveinbringingpeopletogethertoshareexperiencesandco-createvaluableknowledgeproducts.The30lessonslearnedproducedintheQuitoworkshopemergedfromthecollectiveknowledgeandexperienceinparticipantsandhavebeenthere-usedbyCDKN,repackagedintoadditionaloutputsandusedtotoinformsubsequentwork.

Forthistohappen,therightpeopleshouldbeinvolved,andtheappropriateparticipatorymethodologiesandfacilitationtechniquesshouldbeputinplace.


29

Case 2: Climate Change and Social Learning Sandbox

Contributors:TheCCSLSandboxteam

Draftedby:PeteCranston

OverviewCGIARresearchprogramsarecomplicatedventures,involvingseveralCGcentresaswellasarangeofotherpartners.TheClimateChangeAgricultureandFoodSecurity(CCAFS)programledaninvestigationintotheroleofSocialLearninginfosteringlearningandchangewithinits’domain.TheClimateChangeandSocialLearninginitiativeCCSLranforthreeyears.AllofthepartnersengagedinCCSLactivitiesasanadditionalfocusintheirwork.CCSLheldworkshops,commissionedandproducedco-authoredpublicationsandothercommunicationmaterial,includingalargenumberofblogsandacartoon-story.TheinitiativewassupportedbyaSandbox,afacilitatedcommunityofpracticethatusedasocialnetwork(Yammer)andawikitomaintainandgrowcommunicationbetweenfacetofacemeetings.CCSLillustrateshowatargetedinvestmentinamixoffacetofacemeetingsandafacilitatedcommunityofpracticecansupportandbuildanenvironmentinwhichaloosenetworkofpeopleareabletocollaboratetohelpformandbuildasetofconceptsinanemergentareaofinterest,andoutofwhichtodevelopandsynthesiseideasandrecommendationsforresearchandcommunicationproducts.

ContextCCAFSexplorescommunicationandlearningapproachesthatmightbeappropriateinits’constantlychangingdomain.Withagroupofpartnerorganisations,5CCAFSheldtwoworkshopsonCommunicationsandSocialLearninginClimateChangeinMayandNovember2012.Theseworkshopshighlightedthatforproblemslikeclimatechangeitisnotsufficienttodirectexpertstoevaluatetheissueandadvisepolicymakersoraffectedpeoplehowtorespond.Instead,weneedongoing,flexible,consultativeprocessesthatdevelopacollectiveunderstandingandresponse.

TherelevanceandpotentialofSocialLearningasalearningandcollaborationapproachwasfirstdiscussedwithintheCCAFSteamandthensharedwithmembersoftheILRICommunicationandKMteamin2012.ToengagepotentialcollaboratorsacallwasissuedforExpressionsofInterestindevelopingaResearchpaperonthepotentialofSocialLearninginClimateChangeAdaptation.AllthefinalistswereinvitedtothefirstworkshopinMay2012.Thisfacilitatedparticipatoryworkshopscopedouttheareaandidentifiedareasofresearchinterest.ThefirstCCSLpaper,‘UnlockingthePotentialofSocialLearningforClimateChangeandFoodSecurity’settheconceptualframeworkfortheproject,and

5InternationalLivestockResearchInstitute(ILRI),theInternationalInstituteforEnvironmentandDevelopment(IIED),theInstituteofDevelopmentStudies(IDS),andotherpartners.


30

wasfollowedbyotherpapersovertime.Allthepapersweredevelopedcollaboratively,sharedanddiscussedontheSandboxYammernetwork.

TheInitiativeASandbox(essentiallyafacilitatedandresourcedspaceforvirtualcollaboration)wasestablishedtosustainworkontheideasandactivitiesaroundClimateChangeSocialLearning(CCSL)thathadsurfacedduringtheworkshop.

TheSandboxconsistedof:

• ApublicwikiwhereCCAFSandrelatedprojects’CCSLexperiencewasdocumented

• Aprivatesocialnetwork(onYammer)toseekfeedbackonideasandprojects,toshareresourcesandtolearnsocially,wherepracticalchallengesandissuescouldbereflecteduponandsupportedbythecollectivewisdomofSandboxmembers

• Amodestfundingmechanismtoencourageinterestingideasaroundsociallearninginclimatechangeagricultureandfoodsecuritytobedevelopedandrolledout

TheSandboxranfromSeptember2012-June2015andwasdesignedfortheuseofCCAFSandpartnerstoenthuseandcatalyzeinteraction,innovationandconcretecollaborationusingsociallearningtoinformdecision-making.ThevisionwasthattheSandboxcouldevolveintoaself-governingcommunityofpracticeandbeagenuinereflectionofhowsociallearningmayworkinpractice.

Anotheroutcomewastheinitiationofaseriesofworkingpapers,journalarticlesandbriefsthatcontinuetocapturethenewthinkingcomingoutoftheCCSLinitiative6.

ActivitiesandOutputsOveritslifetimethesandboxsupportedthefollowing:

• TheCCSLFrameworkandToolkit

• Threeinternationalworkshops7

• Fourinnovationgrants8

• 108peoplewhojoinedtheCCSLgroup(onYammer)from27differentorganisations

• 381CCSLYammergroupconversations,118associatedfiles,17collaborativenotesandover48topics

6https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/32729.7EvidenceGatheringfortheClimateChangeandSocialLearningcommunity,June2014;CCAFSScienceMeeting,April2013;ActingonWhatWeKnowandHowWeLearnforClimateandDevelopmentPolicy,IDSMarch2013.8ToMakerereUniversity,ILEIA,IIEDandIDS.


31

• 92CCSLwikipagesand228associatedfiles(coveringstrategy,events,projects,resources,glossary,fundingopportunities,etc)

• Threeface-to-faceandtwovirtualCCSLCoreTeammeetings

• TheCCSLnarrativeexplaininghowsociallearningforclimatechange,agricultureandfoodsecurityshouldbebroughtaboutamongscientistsandclimatechange-focusedpractitioners

• TheCGIARstocktakingpaper:‘AnewrelevanceandbetterprospectsforwideruptakeofsociallearningwithinCGIAR—FindingsfromastocktakingexercisewithinCGIAR’

• Thewhiteboardvideo‘Transformativepartnershipsforafood-secureworld’.

Resources:FundingforthecoreSandboxactiviteiscovered60daysperyear,splitbetweenthreepeople,whoco-facilitatedtheactivities.9

DriversandchallengesOverall,theSandboxwasn’tespeciallyinnovative.Ratheritusedamixofwell-triedapproachestobuildingandsupportingacommunityofinterest,selectingfromatoolboxoffacetofaceanddigitalfacilitationmethods.TheCCSLprojectasawholewassimilarlyeclecticinitsbalancedsetofactivities,startingwithexplorationandconceptformation,andthendevelopingintoresearchandpublication,aswellasadvocacywithintheCGIARforthevalueofSocialLearning.TheSandboxsimilarlyhadamixedproductandprocessorientationandwasdeliberatelyemergentinconcept-notengaginginpromotionalactivitiesaimedatmassrecruitmentnorspreadingitselfthinlyovermanyactivitystreams.Insteadtheprojectfocusedonencouragingconversationsandslow,organicandsustainablegrowth.Theoveralllevelofactivitywastypicalofnetworksthatconnectmainlyonline,withonlyperiodicfacetofacemeetings.Therewasasmallbutslowlygrowingcoreofregularuserswhoposteditemsandrespondedtoothers;alargergroup,thatalsogrewduringtheproject,whorespondedoccasionally;andthemajoritycontenttoviewthetraffic,whovaluedbeingconnected,andwerecontenttoexploitorshareresourcesprivately,outsidetheSandboxitself.Oneindicatorofthestrengthofthecommunitycamefromtheannual‘refresh’process.Whenaskediftheywishedtoremainmembers90%+ofthemembersoptedtostayconnected.

TheSandboxalsofacedtypicalchallengesforsuchanetwork:constantcomplaintsofover-busyness,andalotofmemberswhoaren’tveryinterestedinworkingonlinebutwhoacceptitasa‘necessaryevil’.Anotherchallenge,relevanttoCARIAA,wasthattheCCSLprojectasawholewasnobody’scentralfocus.Itwasbuildingintotheintersticesofpeople’slives.

9EwenLeBorgne;CarlJackson;PeteCranston.


32

Results“Respondingtothechallengesofclimatechangeasacross-cuttinganddisruptivediscourseindevelopmentrequires…freshcombinationsorconjunctionsoflearningandknowledgesharingpractice.”10SocialLearning(SL)asaconceptisnotnew,andthegeneralcaseiseasilymadethatSLcouldbeavaluableapproachtosupportcollaborationandadaptiveresponsestoclimatechange.Thereisalsogenerallyenergyaroundtheidentificationofnewresearchareas,andbridgingdifferentdisciplines.However,applyingsomerigourtoaninvestigationofthepotentialandactualvalueofsociallearningrequiredaseriesofsteps:

• Theidentificationandengagementofthosewithexperienceofandaninterestinthearea

• Workingwiththosecollaboratorstodefinewhatwasanewareaforinvestigationandexploreresearch

• ApplyingresourcestomodellingaSLapproachtothewaythattheactivitiesdeveloped,ensuringthatallconnectedwerekeptintouchwithdevelopments,hadaccesstocollectivesupportandsharedfindings

• Buildingconnectionsbetweendifferentdisciplinesandinstitutions

• Supportingandpromotingpublications

Networksandcommunitiesofpractice,especiallythosewhichrelyheavilyondigitalchannelsforcommunicationalmostneverformspontaneouslybutinsteadformaroundagroupofpeoplewhoplayafacilitativerole.TheSandboxwasdesignedtouseentry-leveldigitaltechnologyandprovideaminimumviableamountofsupportforcollaborationandnetworkdevelopment.Thesteadygrowth,engagementofaverydiversenetworkaswellastheoutputsdemonstrateapositivereturnonthisinvestment.Ofcoursecollaborativeresearchandco-productiontakeplaceoutsideoffacilitatedgroupsandnetworks.TheSandboxcaseisthatlimitedfacilitationusingsimpledigitaltoolscanspeedupresearchandcollaborationprocesses,increasethediversityofparticipantsandimproveoutputqualitythroughcollectivesupportandreview.

AnalysisThepotentialrelevancetoCARIAAisthatCCSLoverallwasaloosenetworkofpeopleandorganisationswhosemainfocuswaselsewhere.Sothechallengewastofindwaystolink,connectandengagepeopleinacommonareaofinterest.TheSandboxdemonstrateshowasmallinvestmentinfacilitation,CommunityofPracticedevelopmentandsupporttosmallresearchandpublicationprojectscangenerateusefulresearchproductsandalso,moreimportantly,connectandengagepeopleinanongoingprocessofreflection,learningand

10CCSLSandboxbriefingnotehttp://bit.ly/1qLzvQd.


33

conceptdevelopment.Andthattheseconnectionsinturnbuildintoandsupportotherprojects.Themixofprocessandproductorientationisalsoimportant:theproductfocusgeneratesmotivationaltimelines,targets,andasenseoffocus;attentiontoprocesskeepspeopleinformed,buildsconnectionsandengagementaswellasmaintaininginterestandconnectionbetweenfacetofacemeetings.Whiletheparentproject,CCAFS,hadastronginterestintheareaanditsdevelopment,theywereabletooutsourceitsdevelopmentandbenefitthemselvesfromtheprocessandproducts.


34

Case 3: The Climate Knowledge Brokers Manifesto

Contributors:JamesSmithandSigmundKluckner,REEEP

Draftedby:BlaneHarvey

Overview• TheClimateKnowledgeBrokersManifestolaysouttherolesandprinciplesofthe

professionofaClimateKnowledgeBroker:anorganizationorindividualfacilitating

theexchangeofclimaterelatedinformationtoenableclimatesensitivedecisions

basedonthehighestqualityinformationandknowledgepossible.

• TheManifestowasdevelopedinthroughahighlycollaborativeprocesswith17

individualsfromdifferentprofessionalbackgrounds,organisationsand

geographicallocationscontributingtodatacollection,analysis,draftingofresults

andvalidatingthefinaloutput.

• Theprocessoffersclearopportunitiestobuildstrongerbondswithinateamand

withawidersetofstakeholderwhilesimultaneouslygeneratingaco-produced

pieceofknowledgesynthesis.

ContextClimateknowledgebrokershelptoensurethatthosewhoneedtotakeclimatesensitive

andclimate-relateddecisionshaveaccesstothebestavailableknowledge.Theyactas

filters,interfacesandtranslatorsbetweenclimateknowledgeproducersandusers,across

differentdisciplines,fieldsandsectors,employingarangeofmethodsandcommunication

approachestomeettheirdiverseusers'needs.Itisarelativelynewfieldofthinkingand

practice,butonethathasdevelopedfasttoservetheneedsofknowledgeusers.

Collaboration,coordinationandcoherencehavebeenthecoreprinciplesbehindtheClimate

KnowledgeBrokersGroup(CKB)sinceitwasestablishedin2011.TheCKBGroupactsasa

championforthisemergingfield,aninnovationhub,andathrivingcommunityofpractice

withover150membersdrawnfromleadingglobal,regionalandnationalknowledge

brokersworkingacrossthefullspectrumofclimate-relatedthemes.Organisationsinvolved

rangefromUNorganisationsandmultilateraldevelopmentbanks,throughgovernmental

organisations,academicinstitutions,researchinstitutesandthinktanks,andNGOs.

TheCKBCoordinationHubwasestablishedin2014tocoordinatedifferenteffortswithin

theCKBGroup.ItishostedatREEEP,theRenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency

PartnershipinViennaandconsistsofasmallteamoffullandpart-timestaffmembers

workingontheCKBintitiative,withonepersonactingasafull-timeprojectlead.Three

membersoftheREEEPCKBteamwereinvolvedintheplanninganddesignoftheManifesto

knowledgesynthesisprocess.


35

ThemainpurposeoftheClimateKnowledgeBrokersManifestowastoputclimateknowledgebrokeringingeneral,andtheCKBgroupinparticular,firmlyinthemindsofdecision-makers.Theyalsowishedtoattractfurtherknowledgebrokerstotheirgroup,andpersuadefunderstosupportbrokeringwithincreased,andmorecoordinatedfunding.TheManifestosetsoutthecaseforclimateknowledgebrokering:whatitis,whyitisimportantandhowitworks.Importantly,itstartsfromtheneedsoftheusersofclimateknowledge;decisionmakersinwhateverfieldwhodecisionsare(orshouldbe)influencedbywhatisknownaboutclimatechange.

TheInitiativeTheManifesto(availableonlinehereinarangeofformats)wasdevelopedinahighlycollaborativemannerwith17contributors(whoactedasinterviewersandeditors)–individualsprimarilydrawnfromtheCKBgroupwhoconductedover80interviewswithclimateknowledgeusersandbrokersalike.Theseinterviewswerelooselytranscribedthencollectivelyeditedataloosely-structuredbutfacilitatedtwo-daywrite-shop.Afinalroundofeditingwasundertakenbyasmallcoregroupofeditorswithcontributorsthenprovidingafurtherreviewandapprovalofthefinalproduct.

Whatmotivatedpeopletocontribute?Contributorsparticipatedvoluntarilywiththeexceptionofafewwhohadtravelcostscovered.Theysawvalueofengagingwiththissetofinterviewtargetsandmanyself-selectedbasedoninterestandperceivedopportunity.ThisengagementwasbuiltontheconveningpoweroftheCKBgroup,andcontributorsweretoacertainextentabletousetheCKBManifestoprocess(whichwasperceivedassemi-independenttotheirusualresponsibilities)asanopportunitytolearnmoreforthemselves.Clearly,personalinterestandperceivedimportanceofthistopicalsohadabigroleinpeople’swillingnesstovolunteertheirtimeandexpertise.

Step1.Designingtheprocess:ThetimingoftheCKBManifestodraftingprocesswas,tosomeextent,opportunistic.TheSteeringGroupandCoordinationHubhadintendedtodevelopaclearstatementaboutknowledgebrokeringprinciples,buttheopportunitypresentedbysomenewly-availablefundstosupporttheteam’sworkreallykick-startedtheprocess.

AsmallteamatREEEPundertookthedesignoftheprocessbasedonsomepastexperienceofcollaborativedraftingfromadifferentfieldofwork.TheypresentedtheideatotheCKBSteeringGrouptogettheirbuyinandsolicittheirparticipation.ThroughthediscussionswiththeSteeringGroupthecoreteamdraftedafirstlistofpeopletoinviteaseithercontributorsorinterviewees.Theytriedtodevelopalistthatwouldreflectthefulldiversityoftheknowledgebrokeringfield,buildingthelistthroughmultipleroundsofinputsfromcontributorsastheyjoinedtheinitiative.ThegroupusedGoogleAppstohostdocumentsandallowformasscollaboration.

Step2.Gatheringcontributions:Oncetheteamof17contributorswasinplaceandalistofpotentialintervieweeswasdevelopedthelistwassharedoutamongbyregionandby


36

topicwhereverpossible.Asetofsemi-structuredinterviewquestionswasdevelopedbytheteamofcontributors.Theinterviewsthemselvesservedmultiplepurposes.Obviouslytheyservedtogatherinformationaboutwhattheusersneed,buttheyalsohadthebenefitofraisingawarenessaboutthegroupandtheforthcomingpublicationamongpeoplewhowereseentobekeyactorsinafieldoftheirinterest.

Thecontributorsthemselvestranscribedtheinterviews,butdidsotovaryingdegreesofcompleteness.Onthispoint,giventhenumberofcontributors,thevoluntarynatureoftheexercise,andthefactthatthiswasnotapieceofacademicresearch,theteamdidnotimposestrictresearchprotocolsontheprocess,leavingadegreeofinconsistencyacrosstheevidencecollected.

Step3.Collectiveanalysisandwrite-up:Theresultsoftheinterviewswerejointlyanalysedbythecontributorsinaloosely-structuredtwo-dayworkshophostedbyREEEPinVienna.Theteamworkedwithafluidframeworkfortheworkshoptorespondtoemergingideas–workingwithstacksofinterviewreportsathandtomakesuretheyaccuratelyreflectedwhattheyhadheard.Oncecontributorshadfamiliarisedthemselveswithenoughoftheinterviewtranscriptions/reportsthenexttaskwastodrawoutinterestingcontentonuserneedsandtoputthesepointsontopost-itnotes.Participantsthenundertookaclusteringandrankingexercisethatservedtoemergetheproducedthebasicframeworkoftheiranalysis,andultimately,oftheManifesto.

AftertwodaystheteamofcontributorshadproducedasuccinctstatementonwhattheManifestowasgoingtosay,alongwithasetofquotesandnotesdrawnfromtheinterviews.AtthispointthecoreteamatREEEPtookonthetaskofproducingafulldraftoftheManifesto,withtwoteammembersleading,andtwoothersprovidingsupport.Thisprocesstookapproximately2-3weeksofwork.Thedraftwasthensharedbacktocontributorsandsteeringgroupforrevision.Aseconddraftwasthendiscussedduringfacilitateddiscussions–bothplenaryandsmallgroup-withthewiderCKBgroupduringtheannualCKBworkshop.Thisledtofurtheramendments,andtheManifestowasformallyadoptedbytheSteeringGroupafewweekslater.

Driversandchallenges

Drivers:• Thefocusonatopicandcontentthatstronglyresonatedwiththegroupwasa

criticalfactorinsecuringpeople’spersonaleffortstojoinandcontribute.Thefactthatcollaboratorsvolunteeredtheirtimetothisservesasevidenceofthisbuy-in.

• Asecondmajorcontributortothesuccessoftheprocesswasthecontributionofstrongfacilitationwithexperienceinsimilarprocesses.Thefluidnatureoftheworkshopprocess,inparticular,requiredfacilitationthatcouldgivepeoplefaiththattheoutcomewouldemergefromsomethingwithaquiteloosestructure.


37

• Perhapsasaproductofbothpointsabove,afinalimportantdriverwasthatthesenseofcollectiveownershipoftheManifestoprocessandcontentremainedstrongthroughouttheprocess;nosmallfeatforateamof17contributors.

Challenges:• TheManifestowritingprocessraisedstrategicquestionsanddiscussionsforthe

CKBGroup,anditisalwaysdifficulttofindsufficienttimeforsuchconversationsinanetworkedorganisation.

• Asnotedabove,theconsistencyofstructureandcontentbetweentheinterviewsandthereportsdraftedbycontributorswasnotoptimal.However,thiswasarelativelyminorissuesincethemaincontentdevelopmentwasundertakenthroughthediscussionsattheworkshop

• TheManifestowasonlypublishedinEnglish,buthassincesparkedalotofinterestofregionaleditionsinotherlanguages.AtranslationhasbeendoneintoSpanishasoftoday,andiscurrentlyinthedesignandprintprocess.TheCKBteamexpectthistohaveapositiveimpactontheoutreachandconnectiontowardsLatinAmericanKnowledgeBrokers.

Results• TheprimaryoutputwastheManifestobookandanaccompanying8-pagesummary

pamphlet.Awebpagehostingalloftheoutputswasalsocreated.

• Theprocessalsogeneratedotherpositiveoutcomes.Itprovidedagreatnetworkingand“bonding”experienceastheteamcollaboratedontopicsthatdrewgroupmemberstogether.

• Relatedtothis,theprocesshelpedtopushtheCKBgroupforwardinitsthinkingaboutitsroleinrelationtothewiderclimatechangecommunityandhowbesttoplayit.

• Finally,theprocessofferedastrongaddedvaluebyconnectingclimateknowledgebrokerstoclimateknowledgeusers.Thisofferedastrongnetworkingeffectthatwasofbenefittotheindividualsandgroupalike.

AnalysisTheprocessdescribedofferssomevaluablepointsforreflectionfortheCARIAAprogramme.Ithighlightsthepotentialtouseknowledgesynthesisandco-productionprocessesaswaysofbuildingstrongerstakeholderengagementbypositioningtheknowledgeproductsforuptakerightfromtheverydesignstagewhilebroadeningtheknowledgebaseonwhichtheprogrammeisdrawing.Donewell,thiscanalsohaveapowerfulteam-buildingdimensionthatisvaluableinadistributednetworkorpartnershipsuchasbothCKBandCARIAA.


38

Itisworthnoting,howeverthattherearesomeclearpre-conditionsforsuccessinthiskindofendeavour:

1) Theselectionofathemethatgenuinelyresonateswithparticipantsiscriticaltogainingandsustainingbuy-intotheprocess.

2) Thereisastrongneedforfacilitationandcoordinationintheprocess.Thisshouldnotbeseenasatime-savingexercise,butratherawayofbroadeningthesourcesandpotentialuser-baseofknowledgeproducts.

3) Participantsmustbewillingtohavedegreeoftoleranceforuncertaintyandfluidityastheprocessevolves.Aswithmanyco-productionprocesses,theendpointiscollectivelydefinedandthereforepeoplemustbewillingtosurrendersomecontrolofbothprocessandoutcomes.


39

Case 4: FAO Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition

Contributor:MaxF.Blanck

Editedby:LoganCochrane

Overview• TheFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO)oftheUnitedNationshasoperateda

GlobalForumonFoodSecurityandNutrition(FSN)since2007,facilitatingknowledgesharingandsynthesisworkforaglobalcommunityofexpertsandpractitioners.To-date,thereareover7000members,whohavecontributedtomorethan150onlinediscussions.

• Therearetwomainapproachestaken,bothofwhichareentirelyonlineandtypicallyrunfor3to4weeks.Inthefirst,theFAOsharesadraftdocumentseekingfeedbackandinput,andinthesecondanexpertfacilitatesadiscussionbyofferingopeningremarksandkeyquestionswiththeobjectiveofsharingandpresentinginformation.

• ThekeytoFAO’sFSNistheflexibilityoftheplatform,whichallowsgovernmentstohaveregionally-specificdiscussionsonpolicy,aswellasglobaldiscussionsonemergingissues.

• Theimpactsvaryaccordingtothediscussion,theyhavedirectlychangedandinformednationalpolicy,supportedthecreationofglobalguidelines,providedfeedbackintointernationalforumsandcreatingnewknowledge,oneofwhichresultedinthewritingofabook.

ContextFAOestablishedtheFSNandfacilitatesthediscussionsthatoccuronit.However,arangeofindividuals,organizationsandgovernmentscanproposetopicstotheFSN,whothenfacilitateorsupportthefacilitationofthediscussion.Forexample,agovernmenthasusedtheplatformtoseekinputandfeedbackonitsnationalpolicy,whichresultedinacompletechangeofdirectionforthatnationalpolicy.Inotherinstances,theFSNcommunityprovidesinputfortheHighLevelPanelofExpertsonFoodSecurityandNutritionfortheUnitedNationsCommitteeonWorldFoodSecurity.Inothercasesindividualsproposetopicsfordiscussion,suchasadoctoralstudentwhofacilitatedadiscussionondeconstructingtheconceptoffoodsecurity,afterwhichhepublishedabookonthetopic.Inyetothercases,theFSNcommunitycontributesinputandfeedbacktoglobalguidelines,suchastheVoluntaryGuidelinesonSustainableSoilManagement.Thepurposeoftheprojectsvaryaccordingtothetypeofdiscussion,althoughtwobroadapproachesareused,whicharediscussedinmoredetailbelow(oneseeksinputandfeedback,theothercreatescontentandsharesnewknowledgeonasubject).Thedriversforparticipationarelargelyparticipants’involvement


40

andinterestintheFSNcommunity.TheFAOleadershipoftheprojectdrawsinterest,andtheopportunitytoprovideinputfordocumentssuchastheHighLevelPanelofExpertsonFoodSecurityandNutritionfortheUnitedNationsCommitteeonWorldFoodSecurity,offersincentiveforindividualstooffertheirtimeandthoughtsvoluntarily.

TheinitiativeTwobroadapproaches:(1)Consultations-adraftdocument(e.g.globalguidelines,nationalpolicydocumentsorHighLevelPanelofExpertsreports)issharedforfeedback;therearesomeinstancesofradicalchangestodrafts,inothersnot,and(2)Opendiscussions,withopeningcommentsandkeyquestionsposed.Bothareparticipatoryprocessestoenhanceknowledgesharing/dissemination.Ingeneral,FSNbelieves50%ofparticipationisfortheinputitselfand50%isforknowledgesharingandlearningforthecommunity.

Consultations:Intheconsultationapproach,FAO(oranotherentity)producesadraft,forwhichfeedbackissought.Thesearesomeofthemostwidelyengagedwithprocesses,andspecificallythedraftsproducedbytheHighLevelPanelofExpertsonFoodSecurityandNutritionfortheUnitedNationsCommitteeonWorldFoodSecurity.Intheseinstances,participationislimitedtocommentingonaproposeddraft,afterwhichrevisionsareintegratedintothedraftbeforefinalization.ThesynthesisworkisconductedbytheFAO(orHLPEorotherwise),drawinguponthecommentsandfeedbackofferedbythecommunity.Thereareanaverageof60contributionsperdiscussion,whicharequitedetailed(1+pageeach),with~30countriescommonlyrepresented.ThemotivationofcommunitymembersisheightenedinthecaseoftheHLPEreports,sincetheaudienceofthefinalreportwillbeglobal,andthereforetheinput(althoughnotacknowledgedwithinthereport),mayreachabroadaudience.

OpenDiscussions:Thesecondapproacharediscussionsaroundaspecifictopic.ThesemayberaisedbymembersorbytheFSN,andcanberegionally-ornationally-specific.FAOstatesthatthediscussions“explorefoodsecurityandnutritiontopicsfromapractitioners’pointofview,canprovideinputtopolicyformulationprocessesandcanbeusedtovalidatetechnicalwork.”Topicsareintroducedbyafacilitator,whoisanexpertinthefield,whoalsoprovidesabackgroundandposeskeyquestions,which“helpstobuildasharedunderstandingongoalsforthediscussion.”Digestsarepreparedasthediscussionprogresses,whicharesharedviathemailinglist(theyfindsomeusersprefertouseemailoverthewebsite,sothedigestsareemailedaswellasposted).Specificindividualsmaybeidentifiedandinvitedtocontribute.Discussionsendwithconcludingremarksfromfacilitator.FAOFSNteampreparesasynthesissummary(English,French,Spanish,withtranslationprovided),whichissharedwithallmembers.

Intotal,morethan150discussionshavebeenheldto-date.Thesediscussionspromoteknowledgemanagementandsharing,andactasacommunityofsupportandsharingforthe7,000+members.Thereisalsoagreatdiversityofmembership,bothintermsofbackgroundandlocation:


41

PublicationoutliningFAOFSNapproach:http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap095e/ap095e00.pdf

DriversandchallengesEffective:TheFSNrepresentativeatFAOsuggestedthatthemostimportantdriverforsustainedandincreasingparticipationinthediscussionsisdrivenbyhigh-level,long-termsupportfromFAO,whichhetracedbackto2005,beforethelaunchoftheFSNnetwork(in2007).ThisprovidedcommitmentanddirectionfromFAO,andensuredsustainedsupportforparticipatoryprojectssuchasFSN.Havingestablishedthenetwork,oneofthemeansthroughwhichtheprojectwasmadeeffectivewasthestructure:topicsaredemanddriven,sothatideasandinterestsofthecommunityarereflectedinthediscussions.Additionally,thereisapurposefulefforttodiversifytopics,suchthatspecific,highly-detailedreports(e.g.soilconservation)arebalancedwithbroaderdiscussionsmoreapplicabletothecommunityasawhole(e.g.urbanizationandruraltransformation).Withparticipantsinterestedinthetopics,FSNensurestheprocessesareeasy-to-use,clearandengagingtoretainparticipation.Thisincludescontinuous,consistentandstrongfacilitation–occurringatmultiplelevels:theexpertfacilitatorofthetopic,theFSNteamfacilitatingpostingandprocessaswellastranslation,synthesisandsummary.AsaresultofFSN’sinternationalnetwork,thereisaverydiversegroupofparticipants(regionsaswellasbackgrounds,asshownabove),whichresultsindiscussionsthataredynamic(asopposedtoagroupofindividualswhoshareperspectivesattheoutsetandthediscussionssimplyconfirmtheideasthegroupalreadyshared).Thisdiversityiskeytosuccess,butachallengetofoster.ThedriverofthissuccesscanlargelybeattributedtotheFSNbeingaprojectoftheFAO(thenetworknowhasmorethan7000members).TwospecificinitiativesoftheFSNalsoenhancedtheeffectivenessofthediscussions:(1)translation:thisisnotlimitedtooutputs,butalsowithinthediscussionswhiletheyareon-going,enablingamuchbroaderopportunityforparticipation,and(2)participantscancontributeonthewebsiteorvia


42

email.ThesecontributionsrequiresignificantcontributionsfromFSN,sincethepostssubmittedviaemailareaddedbyFSNstaff.However,FSNhasfoundthatsomemembersprefertoengageviaemail,andthisislikelythecaseforindividualswhodonothaveconsistentinternetaccess,butcanwrite/respondonemailwhileoffline(whichwouldnotbepossibleifengagementwaslimitedtothewebsiteplatform).FSNalsodoesnotspecifywhattheoutputshouldlooklikeforalldiscussions,rathertheoutputisflexiblebasedonthetypeofdiscussion,fromproceedingstosynthesissummaries.

Challenges:TheFSNfacesanumberofchallengesinensuringitscontinuedsuccessinthesesynthesisandfeedbackdiscussions.Onechallengeisthatthetopicstypicallyareproposedfrommembers,organizationsorotherthirdparties,andthenatureofthetopicsaswell,whichcanresultinperiodsofspecificdiscussionsoccurringwhereinbroaderparticipationislimited.FSNattemptstoaddressthistothebestofitsabilitybyencouragingnewtopicsfordiscussionandschedulingproposedonesaccordingly.Theschedulingandtypeofdiscussionsaffectstheinterestofthegeneralmembership,whomaynothaveknowledgeorinteresttoengageinhighlyspecializedconversationsthatareoutsideoftheirfieldofexpertise.FSNattemptstoensurearegularsetoftopicsthatarebroad,inclusiveandencourageadiverserangeofparticipation.AlthoughFSNplacesalotoftime,resourcesandeffortintotranslation,therearestilllinguisticbarriersthatpreventsomeparticipation.Indeed,oneoftheprimarychallengesFSNfacesisthecostandtimerequiredforexistingtranslationefforts.AchallengethatFSNencounteredearlyintheprocesswassomeusersfeelingoverwhelmedwithemailcommunications,sotheprocesswasrefinedandfewerdigestemailsaresenttomemberstopreventthis.

Advice:FSNofferssomeadviceforconsortiaandnetworksworkingonsynthesis:Ifyoucreateacommunity,youneedalong-termvision.FSNhastwostaffdedicatedtorunningdiscussions,totalingabout15peryear,whichhasbeenrunningsince2007.Thesestaffalsoputtogetherthesyntheses,summariesanddigests.FSNalsoprovidesthefinancialandtechnicalsupportfortranslation,sothecommitmenttotheseparticipatoryexercisesmustbesignificant,andnotcreatedasasideproject.Theentireactivityisparticipatory,butthesynthesisworkismostlydonebyFSNorotherpartners(nottheparticipants),whodonothaveareviewofthefinaldocument.TheFAObrandcertainlycontributestothesuccessofFSN,astheFAOisaplacewherepeoplelooktofindinformationontheFSNtopics.

ResultsOfthemorethan150discussionsthathavetakenplaceto-date,eachhaveresultedinoutputs,fromproceedingstosynthesissummaries.Alongwiththese,ahostofotherresourcesarecollected,sharedandpostedonFSNforfuturereferencebythecommunity,andgeneralaudience(theseareopentothepublic).Intermsofparticipation,theHLPECFSdiscussionsweresuggestedtobethemostsuccessful,andhadthelargestlevelofengagement–thesehadaslightlyuniqueformataswell,wherebythereweretwoonlinediscussionspartseach,thefirstonthescopingandthesecondonthedraft.Thediscussionshaveresultedinahighlevelofinformationsharing,whichhavedirectlycontributedto


43

policychangesandacademicoutputsthathavecreatednewknowledgeonthetopicsdiscussed.Inotherinstances,theoutputshaveresultedinglobalguidelines,whichareadoptedand/orfollowedbyahostoforganizations.Fewgeneralizationscanbemadebecausetheimpactsvaryaccordingtothetopics,objectivesandorganizationsinvolved.FSNalsonotedthatthefacilitatingpersonand/ororganizationgainsasignificantamountofvisibilityasahostofanFSNdiscussion,whichcanraiseawarenessaboutspecificprojectsorprograms,aswellaskeyissues.

Discussionsareavailablehere:http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum

Withineachdiscussiontherearelinkstothedocuments(e.g.drafts),keyquestionsandbackground.TheFSNalsoupdatesalistof“DiscussionDocuments”(e.g.topic,proceedings,aboutthefacilitators)anda“FurtherReading”section,withlinkstokeydocumentsonthetopicbeingdiscussed.

StatisticsofsomeoftheDiscussionsarelistedinadocument(linkbelow),whichincludethelocationoftheparticipantsforeachspecifictopic,theirgenderandaffiliation.Interestingly,thesevariedsignificantlybytopic.Foradiscussiononwomeninagriculture,46%ofcontributorswerewomen,whereasadiscussionon“currentfoodsecurityconcepts”hadonly12%.Inthefoodsecurityconceptsdiscussion,52%ofcontributorswereacademicsorresearchers,whereasadiscussionon“foodsecurityinprotractedcrisis”had45%ofcontributorsbeing“Independent/Other.”

Selectionofspecificdiscussions:http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap095e/ap095e00.pdf

AnalysisIfCARIAAplanstohavereportsabouttheentireprogramwrittenbytheIDRCteam,orbyaselectfewindividuals,the“Consultation”processusedbyFAOFSNprovidesaworkingmodelforhowfeedbackcanbeobtained,whilealsoincreasingbuy-inbecauseallmembershadtheopportunitytocontributeinthedraftphase.

CARIAAmayusethediscussionformat(andevenusetheFAOFSNexistingplatform,ifthetopicisconnected)tohaveastructuredconversationaboutatopic.ForCARIAA,thismightincludediscussionsabouttheme-basedsynthesiswork(e.g.aroundmigration).Thiscouldoccurinanearlystage,asaknowledgesharingactivity.ItmayalsooccurasanactivityseekingtoanswerspecificquestionswiththestatedobjectiveofcreatingaCARIAAsynthesisdocumentonthatsubject.


44

Case 5: Potato Park-International Potato Center-ANDES Agreement for the Repatriation of Native Potatoes

Authors:TammyStenner,AlejandroArgumedo,DavidEllis,KrystynaSwiderska,ReneGomezandMarissaVanEpp

Overview• ThiscasestudyexplorescollaborativeresearchbetweentheInternationalPotato

Center(CIP)andindigenouscommunitiesinthePeruvianAndesduringaten-yearagreementfornativepotatorepatriation,inrelationtotheagreement’simpactonfoodsecurity,climateadaptationandsustainabledevelopment.

• Theagreementisanexampleofasuccessfulprogram-basedefforttofostertheco-productionofresearchbystakeholdergroupswithsignificantculturaldifferences.Tenyearsofactivitiesundertheagreementhaveledtotransformationalchangesinthevaluesandpracticesofbothscientistsandlocalcommunities,andtoawiderangeofpositivedevelopmentoutcomesthatwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithadifferentapproachtotheresearch.

• Driversofcollaborationincludetwo-waycapacitybuilding,facilitation,andtrustbuilding.Emergentoutcomeswereenabledbyflexibleplanning.Challengesfacedincludedevelopingadequatesystemsfordocumentingandsharingresearchresults,aswellasspreadingtransformationalchangeinvaluesinpracticetowidergroups.

ContextThiscasestudyexplorescollaborativeresearchbetweentheInternationalPotatoCenter(CIP)andindigenouscommunitiesinthePeruvianAndesduringaten-yearagreementfornativepotatorepatriation,inrelationtotheagreement’simpactonfoodsecurity,climateadaptationandsustainabledevelopment.

TheAgreementfortheRepatriation,RestorationandMonitoringofAgrobiodiversityofNativePotatoandAssociatedCommunityKnowledgeSystemsbetweenCIP,ANDESandtheAssociationofPotatoParkCommunities(inPisac,Cusco,Peru),wasfirstsignedinDecember2004.Throughthishistoricfive-yearagreement,theCIPgenebankhasreturned410disease-freenativepotatolandracestothesixPotatoPark(PP)communitiesforfoodsecurityandin-situconservationofgeneticresources.ThesevarietieswerecollectedbyCIPscientistsfromcommunitiesintheareainthe1960s,buthadsincebeenlostfromthecommunitiesthroughgeneticerosion.Thisisoneofthefirstsuchrepatriationfromagenebanktocommunities,recognisingtheimportanceofin-situ-ex-situlinksforfoodsecurityandclimateadaptation.

Asecondfive-yearagreementwassignedin2010,whichinvolvedcollaborativeresearchactivitiestomonitorandtesttherepatriatedpotatovarieties.Knowledgesharinganddirect


45

researchcollaborationbetweenscientistsandindigenousfarmers,twogroupsthatdonotnormallyinteractasco-researchers,tookplaceduringthissecondphase.AsociacionANDES,anNGOthatworkscloselywiththePotatoParkcommunities,isalsopartytotheagreementandhasplayedanimportantroleincapacitybuildingandfacilitationtoenabletheindigenousfarmerstoengageincollaborativeresearchwithCIPscientists.

Theagreementisoneofthefewexampleswheretheusuallyseparateformalandinformalseedsystemsarecollaboratingdirectlyformutualbenefit,withactivecommunityparticipationinresearchprocesses,fromdesigntoanalysis.Thisequitableresearchpartnershipbetweenindigenousfarmersandscientistshaslinkedscienceandtraditionalknowledge,andglobalandlocalknowledge,forabetterunderstandingofclimatechangeandfoodsecurityproblemsandsolutions.Activeparticipationoffarmershasalsoensuredahighlevelofcommitmenttoreachingtheprojectgoals,akeyfactorinensuringtheproject’ssuccess.Sociallearninghasbeenaninherentandnecessarypartofthisprocess.

Theagreementishistoricallysignificantbecauseforthepast200yearsormore,theflowofgeneticmaterialhaslargelybeenfromcommunitiestoprivatecollectors,commercialentities,botanicalgardensandgenebanks;oncetransferred,communitieshavehadverylittleaccesstothetraditionalvarietiestheyhavedomesticated,improvedandconservedovercenturies.Thus,forthePotatoParkcommunities,akeyobjectivewastoenableareciprocal(i.e.two-way)exchange,andenhancetherecognitionoftheirrightsovernativepotatoescollectedfromtheircommunities.

TheinitiativeDesignandimplementationoftheagreement:Thepre-agreementactivitiesinvolvedallpartiesindevelopingtheidea,contentandformatoftheagreement.Theagreementincludesobjectivesonconservation,protectionofcommunityresourcesandknowledge,collaborativeresearch,andruraldevelopment.

FivePotatoParkcommunitieswereactivelyengagedindesigningandimplementingactivities,withtechnicalsupportandtrainingfromANDESandCIP.Intotal49indigenousfarmersweredirectlyinvolved,includingwomenandyouth.

Throughtheagreement,CIPandthePParejointlyresponsiblefordynamicconservation,combiningactivitiesinsituandexsitu.Bothorganisationsrecognisedthecontributionsofscientificandtraditionalknowledge(TK)topotatodiversitycharacterization,conservation,climatechangeresearch,andtotherelatedlearningprocesses.FieldworkwasconductedinQuechua,asanimportantcarrierofTK.

Co-productionofresearch:CIP’smicro-levelapproachtogeneticresourcesconservation,potatobreedingandcultivationwascomplementedbytheholisticapproachtakeninthePP,wherethespiritual,natural,socialandeconomicaspectsoffoodsystemsareconsideredimportant.Similarly,CIP’sscientificcharacterisationofpotatoeswascomplementedbyTKofnames,mythology,rituals,uses,agriculturalpractices,soilandclimateconditions.


46

Two-waycapacitybuildinghasbeenanimportantelementofthecollaborativeresearchprocess.CIPhasprovidedscientifictrainingtothefarmers(onpotatoconservation,characterisation,pollination,integratedpestmanagement,naturalfertilisers,botanicalseedproductionandseedstorage).FarmershavetaughtCIPscientistsabouttheAndeanholisticworldviewandtheimportanceofmacro-levelfactors,conceptsofreciprocity,andculturalaspectsofpotatocultivation.

ANDESplayedanimportantroleinensuringactivecommunityparticipation.TheorganisationprovidedcapacitybuildingtothePPcommunitiesfornegotiatingtheagreementandonassociatedconservation,rightsandeconomicdevelopmentaspects.ANDESdidthisbyusingindigenousresearchmethodologies,andcommunicationssystemsandformatscompatiblewithindigenousknowledge.Forinstance,oralandvisualapproaches—suchasstorytelling,songs,poemsandlegendsthatreflectcustomarylawsanddonotseparatetheartisticfromthefunctional—wereusedtoidentifyconceptsandvaluesassociatedwithequity,whichwerethenusedasthebasisofthedevelopmentoftheagreement.


Drivers:• Sociallearning-orientedapproach:Inthedevelopmentofthefirstphaseofthe

agreement,sociallearningwasintendedtobeakeycomponentofthedynamicconservationandcollaborativeresearchprocesses.Thissetthesceneformutuallearning.

• Language:TheabilityofaCIPscientisttospeakQuechuawascrucialforintegratingtraditionalknowledge.

• Capacitybuilding:InvestmentincapacitybuildingbybothCIPandANDESandthetimingofthecapacitybuildingforPotatoParkcommunities,whichbeganbeforetheagreementwasnegotiated,toenablecommunitymemberstoparticipateinthedesignoftheagreementitselffromaninformed,equalfooting.ANDESalsosupportedpreviousandparallelfarmer-ledaction-researchprocesses,whichstrengthenedfarmers’capacitytoengageinco-researchwithCIPscientists.

• Facilitation:ThefacilitationroleofANDESensuredactivefarmerparticipationandanequitablepartnershipthroughouttheimplementationoftheagreement.

• Flexibleplanningandreview:Yearlynewchallengesarisewhichwereeithernotthoughtaboutorwerearesultofexchangesfromthepreviousyear.PPcommunities,ANDESandCIPcommittoprojectsannually,buttheprojectsareneversofixedindesignthattheycannotaccommodatenewideasorinterests.Throughtheagreement,thepartiesjointlylearnedtobetterappreciatethevalueofusinganideaasasparktobuildaprojectratherthandevelopinganideaintoa


47

projectandpresentingthistothecommunities;andtotakeabroaderlandscapeapproach.

Challenges:• Facilitationofprocessesforco-learning,informationsharing,andjointdecision

making:Whiletheagreementhasincreasedunderstandingbetweenscientistsandfarmersoftheirdifferentneedsandperspectives,therearestillsomechallenges.Regularcommunicationthroughmonthlymeetings,andworkingtogether,supportsinformationsharingandincreasedunderstanding,althoughCIP’stimeinthefieldisquitelimited.Amoresystematicprocessfordocumenting,storingandsharinginformationandresultsofcollaborativeresearchisneeded.ThePPfarmersfeelthatmoreeffortsareneededtoensuretraditionalknowledgeisclearlydocumentedandaccessible,aswellasscientificknowledge.Thefarmersalsofeelthataccesstoinformation,especiallyonthepurposeandresultsofcollaborativeresearchmanagedbyCIP,couldbeimproved,andthatthiswouldstrengthensociallearningandenableresearchresultstobemorebroadlytestedandimplemented.

• Funding:Thereisnoinstitutionalfundingfortheagreement,whichisanobstacletopromotinginstitutionalchangewithinCIP.

ResultsThroughtheagreement,CIP,ANDESandthePotatoParkcommunitieshavecontributeddirectlytodevelopmentoutcomes,byenhancingfoodsecurity,climatechangeadaptation,economicopportunities,scientificandculturalunderstanding,andsocialcohesionofpoorindigenousfarmersinthehighAndes.Anumberofimportantconservationanddevelopmentoutcomesinclude:

• Preservationofgeneticdiversity:Theagreementestablishedanevolvinggenebankforadaptation,withabout650differentpotatovarieties(orabout1344varietiesaccordingtotraditionalmorphologicalclassification).

• Biodiversityandin-situconservation:Thereintroductionof410repatriatedvarietieshasincreasedpotatodiversityinthePotatoParkfromaround240to650varieties(orasabove,toabout1344varietiesaccordingtotraditionalmorphologicalclassification),creatingoneofthehighestlevelsofpotatodiversityanywhereintheworld,whichhasbeenconservedbythecommunities.

• Bestpractices:Co-managementofnativepotatoeshasgeneratedbestpracticesforin-situconservation,sustainableuse,increasingproductivityanddiversity,in-situ-ex-situlinksanddynamicconservation.

• Increasedyields:CIPreportsa30-40percentincreaseinyieldduetorepatriatedvarietiesandproductionbasedoncleanseeds,whilefarmersestimateasmuchasa50percentincrease.


48

• Foodsecurityandclimateadaptation:Theagreementhasestablishedalargeevolvinggenepoolforclimateadaptation,andenabledfarmerstoincreaseon-farmcropdiversitytoreducetheriskofcropfailureinthefaceofincreasedpestinfestation,andotherchangingclimateconditions.ItalsofacilitatedseedproductionfordepositingthePotatoPark’sseedcollectionintheSvalbardGlobalSeedvault,forfoodsecurityofthecommunitiesandtheworldasawhole.ThisconcreteoutcomehasalsoenabledrecognitionofthePPcommunitiesintheglobalstageofconservationofgeneticresources.

• Traditionalknowledgeandculturalpractices:Thereturnoftraditionalpotatovarietiesthatthecommunitieshadlosthasledtoarevivalofthetraditionalknowledge,beliefsandpracticesassociatedwiththerepatriatedpotatoes,throughthememoryoftheelders.Ithasalsopromotedtraditionalagriculturebydiversifyingthenativevarietiesavailable.TheuseoflocalresearchersasleadersandQuechualanguageintheactivitieshashelpedtomaintaintraditionalknowledgeandlanguage.

• Economicdevelopment:Sixty-onerepatriatedpotatovarietiesarebeingusedtodevelop11new‘biocultural’products:chocopapa(chocolatewithpotatoflour),starch,papasour,preparedfoodanddrinks,andnaturalproducts(includingpotatoshampoo).Theagreementhasalsocontributedtoenhancedrevenuesfromtourism,thePotatoPark’slargestandgrowingrevenuestream.TheseeconomicimpactsarereflectedinarecentsurveyoffourPotatoParkcommunities,whichfoundasteadyincreaseinincomebetween2003and2012,whenincomeexceededexpenditureforthefirsttime.

• Rightsandbenefitsharing:EnsuringgeneticresourcesandknowledgeremainunderthecustodyofthecommunitiesanddonotbecomesubjecttoIPRsinanyformisanobjectiveoftheagreement.TheagreementhasincreasedthePotatoParkcommunities’understandingoftheirrightstogeneticresourcesandtraditionalknowledgeandrelatedpolicies;theircapacitytoprotecttheirrightsthroughcommunityregisterdatabasesofTKdevelopedbyANDES;andledtoaninter-communityagreementforbenefitsharing.

• Trustandsocialcohesion:TheagreementhashelpedtobuildtrustbetweenCIPscientistsandindigenousfarmersandledtogreaterawarenessandvaluingoftheknowledgeandpracticesoffarmersbyCIPscientistsandviceversa.Italsoledtostrongercohesion,knowledgesharingandcollaborationamongthePPcommunitiesthroughanewinter-communitygroupofpotatoexpertstomanagethepotatocollection;andwithothercommunitiesinLares,Vilcanota,LamayandParuro,throughsharingofpotatoes.


49

AnalysisTheagreementisanexampleofasuccessfulprogram-basedefforttofostertheco-productionofresearchbystakeholdergroupswithsignificantculturaldifferences.Tenyearsofactivitiesundertheagreementhaveledtotransformationalchangesinthevaluesandpracticesofbothamajorscientificinstitutionandlocalcommunities,andtoawiderangeofpositivedevelopmentoutcomesthatwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithadifferentapproachtotheresearch.

TakeawaysforCARIAApertainprimarilytotheco-productionofresearchwithlocalcommunitiesintheclimatechangehotspotsthatCARIAAconsortiaoperatein,ratherthantotheco-productionofresearchbetweenmultiplescientificinstitutions:

• Two-waycapacitybuilding,facilitationandtrusthavebeenkeytotheresultsachieved.OnenotablefactoristheinvolvementofPPcommunitiesinthedesignoftheagreementitself,andthecapacitybuildingprovidedbyathirdpartyorganization(ANDES)tothecommunitiesthatallowedthemtoparticipateinthisstageoftheprocessonequalfootingwithCIPscientists.ANDES’facilitationwasalsocrucialtomaintainingtheactiveparticipationofcommunitiesthroughouttheimplementationoftheagreement,andinenablingtwo-wayknowledgesharingandcollectivelearning.Trustbetweenthestakeholdergroups,developedfrompreviousengagementbetweenthePPcommunitiesandANDES,andoverthecourseoftheagreementbetweenthePPcommunitiesandCIP—wasalsoanimportantingredientofsuccess.

• Flexibilityintheplanningoftheresearchenabledoutcomestobeemergent,ratherthanpre-determined.ItalsoenabledCIPscientiststoworktogetherwithPPcommunitiesinamorefluidmanner.

• Thechallengestheagreementhasfaceddemonstratethedifficultyofspreadingtransformationalchangetowidergroups.Thoughtheagreementhasbeguntochallengeinstitutionsandnormsofstakeholdergroupsbeyondthedirectparticipants,throughawarenessraising,exchangevisits,andthesharingofknowledgeandresources,itisclearthatlong-terminvestmentofeffortandfinancialresourcesisneededtomakechangesachievedtransformationalonalargerscale.Earlierengagementofwidergroups,throughoutreachandwell-designedcommunicationmaterials,maybeonepartofthesolution.


50

Case 6: Red Cross Climate Centre Writeshop Process

Contributor:MargotSteenbergen(RedCrossClimateCentre)

Editedby:BlaneHarvey

Overview• TheRedCrossClimateCentrewriteshopprocessisanintensive,participatory

workshopthathelpsparticipantsdocumentandsharelearningwhilequicklygeneratingknowledgeproductsthatcanbesharedmorewidely.

• Writeshopsallowteamsworkingonrelatedissuestouseapeerreviewprocessestoclarifyandrefinetheirdocumentationthroughafacilitatedmulti-stepprocessthatissupportedbyskilledwritersandeditors.

• Whilewriteshopsareverytime-intensiveoncetheybegin,theyarereasonablyshortinduration.ThiskindofprocesscouldprovideCARIAApartnerswiththeopportunitytoundertakesynthesisandco-productionworkthathasclearstartandendpointsandisthereforeeasiertoplanandmanage.

Context“Themethodologyisreallygood.Receivingfeedbackfromsomanydifferentpeoplewithdifferentbackgroundsisinvaluableanditreducesanyriskofmisunderstandingand‘defensiveness’.Atthesametimeitisagoodwaytolearnwhatotherprojectsaredoing.”-Writeshopparticipant

Awriteshopisanintensive,participatoryworkshopthataimstoproduceawrittenoutput.Thismaybeasetofshortcasestudiesorevenaboundbook.Participantsincludeauthors,editorsandexternalreviewers.Thesemayincluderesearchers,NGOstaff,extensionagents,farmersandotherlocalstakeholders:anyonewhohas,inonewayoranother,beeninvolvedintheexperiencestobedocumentedorwhocanconstructivelycommentontheseexperiences.Ateamoffacilitatorsandlogisticsstaffassiststheseparticipants.

ThewriteshopprocesswaspioneeredbytheInternationalInstituteofRuralReconstructionandhasbeenadaptedbymanyinstitutions,includingtheRedCrossRedCrescentClimateCentre.Since2013,theClimateCentrehasorganisedovereightwriteshopsforover130participants,producingover55casestudies.

Tworeasonsnormallyassociatedfordoingwriteshopsare11:

1) Forprojectororganisationallearningtoimproveperformance,resultsandimpact;

11TheInternationalInstituteofRuralReconstructionhasdevelopedthewriteshopmethodologyanddeveloped“GuidelinesforWriteshops-2010”.


51

2) Forwidersharingormainstreamingofexperiencesandknowledgeandinnetworkingandcooperationamongthedifferentdevelopmentstakeholdergroupsbeyondthelocalorprojectsetting.

Itisusefultoconductthewriteshopsonceyouhavegatheredexperiencesandhavestoriestoshare–inthecourseoftheprojectortowardstheend.

TheinitiativeThewriteshophadtwomainphases:preparationandimplementation.Thesearedescribedbelowwithapproximatetimelinesforeach.

PhaseOne–Preparation(2-3months):Duringthepreparationphase,thefollowingstepsaretaken:

1) Organiserssharedetailsofthewriteshopmethodologyandconfirmparticipants,includingauthors,editorsandexternalreviewers;andorganisers,includingfacilitator(s)andlogisticalstaff.Awriteshopcanbeanopportunitytobringarangeofstakeholderstogether-themorediversethegroupthemoreinterestingthestoriesbecome.Itisimportanttoincludepersonswhohavetechnicalexpertiseorpersonalexperienceinthetopicaswellasanexperiencedwriteshopfacilitator.Typically,therearebetween10and20participantsatawriteshop.

Therolesoftheparticipantsareasfollows:

• Authors:Theauthorswillpreparethefirstdraftandarethekeyresourcepeopleduringthewriteshop.Ifthewrittenoutputisacasestudy,theauthorsshouldhavefirst-handexperienceofthecase.

• Editors:Duringthewriteshop,editors(ideallyjournalists)areresponsibleforsubmittinghighqualityoutputsinatimelymanner.Theywillsupporttheauthorsincreatingeachconsecutiveversionoftheirjointwork.Thisprocesswillinvolvecorrection,condensation,structuring,andmanyotherrevisionstothetext,withtheaimofproducinganinteresting,accurate,consistent,wellorganisedandcompletecasestudy.Attentiontodetail,theabilitytobefocusedwhileworkingthroughthetext,tactindealingwithwriters,andexcellentcommunicationskillsareamust.

• Externalreviewers:Inadditiontopeoplewithexcellentwritingskills,itisrecommendedtoinviteafewresourcepersons,offeringoutsideperspectives.Theycanbesubject-matterexpertswhoareabletovalidateandenrichthequalityofthecasestudies,or,conversely,lay-personswhocanensurethatthecasestudyisunderstandablefornon-experts,therebymakingitaccessibleforawideraudience.


52

2) Theorganisingorfacilitatingteamagreesontheanticipatedformatofthefinalproductsandthenprovidesauthorswithguidanceandsupportfortheirfirstdraftwrite-up.Thewriteshopstartswithparticipantsreadingandcommentingonthefirstdraftofauthors’writtenoutputs.Thismeansthattheauthorswillhavetofinalisetheirfirstdraftbeforearriving.Clearguidance,bothintheformofawrittenoutlineandsubsequente-mailorverbalfollow-up,willlikelyleadtoahigherqualityoutputandwillreducedelaysduringtheevent.

3) Ensurealllogisticsareinplace,includinglogisticsstafftobeonhandduringthewriteshop.

4) Organisebriefingmeetingspriortothestartofthewriteshoptofamiliariseeveryonewiththeirrespectiveroles.

PhaseTwo–Implementation(4-5days):Attheoutsetofthewriteshopeachparticipantpresentsthefirstdraftofhis,herortheir(inthecaseofauthorteams)paper.Theotherparticipantsprovidefeedbackverballyandinwrittenform(directlyontothefirstdraftcopies).Thefacilitatorallowsasmuchdiscussionaspossiblesothateveryonecancontributehisorherownknowledgeonthetopic.Theaimisnottocriticizethemanuscript,buttoimproveit,addtoit-andoftentoremoveunnecessaryinformation-sothatitfitstheendproductandisappropriateforthetargetaudience.

Afterhisorherpresentation,eachpresenterwillworkwiththeirassignededitor,whohasalsobeentakingnotesofthediscussion.Theeditorhelpstoreviseandeditthedraftinthehoursthatfollows.Thereviseddraftsofeachparticipantarethenpresentedagainandtheaudiencecanprovidecommentsandsuggestionsforasecondtime.Afterthissecondseriesofpresentations,aneditoragainhelpstorevisethedrafts.Thisreviewprocessisrepeatedatotalofthreetimesforeachcasestudyoverthecourseofthenextdays,beforeeachcasestudyisfinalised.Thefinalversioncanbecompleted,printedanddistributedsoonafterthewriteshop.

Overalltheprocessisverystraightforwardandfacilitatorled.Theroleofthefacilitatoristoprovidestructureduringtheprocess,settingandupdatinganagendawithclearlydefineddeadlinesforeachauthor/editorpair.Thefacilitatoralsostructurestheamountoftimegivenforfeedback,whichdecreaseswitheachroundoffeedback.Typically,feedbackonthefirstversionwillbemorestructuralinnature,whereasfeedbackonthelaterversionsismoredetail-orientedasauthorsandeditorsgetnearertoafinishedproduct.


Drivers:“Everyonehascontributed.Ihavereallyappreciatedthateachparticipantbroughtadditionalvalue.Allofthiswasbasedonveryspecificguidance.Thiswillallowustocreatebriefingnotesthatcanbeappreciatedanywhereintheworld.Also,Ihavelearnedabouttheotherinnovations.”-Writeshopparticipant


53

• Thewriteshopprocessisafastandefficientwayofdocumentingexperience.Theactualwriteshopitselftypicallylasts4-5days.Bygeneratingseveralfeedbackloopsinthespaceofafewdays’time,youavoiddrawn-oute-mailconversationsandinevitabledelaysasteamscollaborateoverlongdistancesamidstcompetingpriorities.

• Itcombinesvarioustypesofexpertise,forexamplebybringingtogetherpractitioners,technicalexpertsandprofessionaleditors.Ontheonehand,writeshopsareanexcellentwaytodocumenttacit“experiential”knowledgethatmayonlyexistintheheadsofpractitioners.Ontheotherhand,theyhavebeenusefulforenhancingtherelevanceof“expert”knowledge,bymakingitunderstandableandthus,moreeasilyusable(IIRRWriteshopGuidelines).

• Itdeliversaproduct.Thoughwriteshopscomeinmanyshapesandforms,oneofthenon-negotiableelementsisthatby“closeofbusinesss”ofthefinalday,afinalversionofallwrittenoutputissubmittedtotheorganisers.Theproductenablesthewriteshopparticipantstosharetheirideasandexperiencemorebroadly.

• Itencouragestheexchangeofknowledge,whileprovidingaconstructiveplatformforfeedback,andapleasantenvironmentofco-creation.Byreviewingseveralcasestudies,writeshopparticipantsgetanin-depthunderstandingofeachofthecases.

Challenges:• Sufficientpreparationtimeandclearguidanceforauthorsarecriticalforagood

starttotheprocess.Missingoutoneitherofthesecanleadtoapoorqualityfirstdraft,whichinturnmeanstheprocessduringthewriteshopismorerushedandstressfulthanitneedstobe.Toremedythis,clearandsuccinctguidelines,includingagoodexampleofacasestudy,shouldbesenttotheauthorsatleasttwomonthsinadvance.Theorganisersandfacilitatorshouldfollowupwiththeauthorstwoweekspriortothewriteshop,toensurethefirstdraftsfollowtheoutline.

• Itischallengingwhencasestudiesarenotwrittenbystaffmemberswithdirectexperienceofthesubjectmatter.Twoexamplesfollow:Inonecase,atechnicalstaffmemberwhodidnothavetimetowriteacasestudy,wasreplacedbyacolleague.Inanothercase,externalconsultantswerecontractedtowriteacasestudy.Inbothcases,thisledtomissingandincorrectinformation.Toovercomethis,itshouldbemadeclearthatallcasestudiesmustbewrittenbypeoplewhoaredirectlyinvolvedintheimplementationofactivitiesbeingdescribed(e.g.technicalstaff).

• Alackofcompetenteditorsisaseriouschallengeforthesuccessofawriteshop.Inordertoovercomethis,experiencedwritersneedtobeidentifiedwellbeforeawriteshop.Beforebeingselected,samplesoftheirwritingofcasestudiesorsimilardocumentsshouldbeevaluatedtoassesstheirwritingskills.Additionally,before


54

thewriteshop,thereshouldbealistofqualificationsforthefollowingtechnicalstaff:a)authors,b)editors,andc)externalreviewers.

• Thewriteshopprocessdemandsthatparticipantsbepresentthroughoutthefullduration.Thiscanpresentchallengestosecuringtherightparticipantsamidstcompetingprioritiesandbusyschedules.

ResultsSince2013,theRedCrossClimateCentrehasorganisedovereightwriteshopsforover130participantsproducingover55casestudies.Aspecificexampleisa2015writeshop,whichproducedfourcasestudiesthataddressedthegenderandresiliencenexusinprojectsinBurkinaFaso,Myanmar,Chad,SudanandUganda,aswellastheoutlineforasynthesisreport.ThiswasproducedaspartoftheBRACEDprogramme.Outputscanbefoundat:http://www.odi.org/publications/9967-braced-gender-equality.

Awriteshopisessentiallyadraftingandpeer-reviewsysteminacondensedperiodoftime.Bycombiningvarioustypesofexpertise,thefinalproductbecomesmorerelevantandaccessible.Asoneparticipantmentioned:“Itwasextremelyusefultoreceiveinputfrompeoplewithadifferentbackground,tohelpmeshapemyargumentsinaccessiblelanguage”.Assuch,thesynthesisaspectofthiscaseisprimarilyprovidingaplatformforteamstoundertaketheirownsynthesisactivitiesviathewriteshop,whiletheco-productionisalsoprimarilyviatheparticipatingteams.AstheexampleoftheBRACEDGenderandResiliencethemeabovehighlighted,however,itcanalsoprovidetheopportunityforwidersynthesisandco-productionamongallparticipants.

Analysis

ThewriteshopapproachdescribedhereoffersCARIAAconsortiaanopportunitytoengageinverytargetedandtime-boundsynthesisandco-productionactivitiesthatgeneratetangibleoutputs.Theseoutputsareorganisedaroundacommonthemebutarestillentirelybasedonexperiencesofthespecificteamsthattakepartinthewriteshop.Furtherco-productionandsynthesisoffindingsfromacrossthesedifferentexperiencesandoutputscanthenbeundertakentogenerateajointoutput.Thisapproachcouldallowforaprocessthatmeetsbothconsortiumandprogrammeobjectives.

Whilethewriteshopapproachdescribedhereisn’tlikelytobeappropriateforproducingarticlesforpeerreviewedpublications,itcanbeavaluabletoolforworkingacrosstheresearch-policy-practicenexus,forexamplegeneratingpolicybriefs,orguidancefortheuseofresearchfindingsinpractice.Assuch,ifCARIAApartnersareinterestedinpilotingapproachesthatcanshowshort-termresultsbutarenotlikelytoprovidescopehighlytechnicalcollectiveanalysis,thisapproachmaybesuitable.