• Energy Research
• DE close

La promesse d'une coproduction pour relever des défis complexes en matière de durabilité est convaincante. Pourtant, la coproduction, le tissage collaboratif de la recherche et de la pratique, englobe divers objectifs, terminologies et pratiques, avec peu de clarté sur leurs implications. Pour explorer cette diversité, nous avons systématiquement cartographié les différences dans la façon dont 32 initiatives de 6 continents coproduisent divers résultats pour le développement durable des écosystèmes à l'échelle locale et mondiale. Nous avons constaté des variations dans leur objectif d'utilisation de la coproduction, de compréhension du pouvoir, d'approche de la politique et de voies d'impact. Une analyse par grappes a identifié six modes de coproduction : (1) la recherche de solutions ; (2) l'autonomisation des voix ; (3) le pouvoir de courtage ; (4) le pouvoir de recadrage ; (5) la gestion des différences et (6) l'agence de recadrage. Aucun mode n'est idéal ; chacun possède un potentiel unique pour atteindre des résultats particuliers, mais pose également des défis et des risques uniques. Notre analyse fournit un outil heuristique aux chercheurs et aux acteurs de la société pour explorer de manière critique cette diversité et naviguer efficacement dans les compromis lors de la coproduction de la durabilité. La coproduction comprend divers objectifs, terminologies et pratiques. Cette étude explore cette diversité en cartographiant les différences dans la façon dont 32 initiatives de 6 continents coproduisent divers résultats pour le développement durable des écosystèmes à l'échelle locale et mondiale. La promesa de la coproducción para abordar los complejos desafíos de sostenibilidad es convincente. Sin embargo, la coproducción, el tejido colaborativo de la investigación y la práctica, abarca diversos objetivos, terminologías y prácticas, con poca claridad sobre sus implicaciones. Para explorar esta diversidad, mapeamos sistemáticamente las diferencias en cómo 32 iniciativas de 6 continentes coproducen diversos resultados para el desarrollo sostenible de los ecosistemas a escala local y global. Encontramos variaciones en su propósito de utilizar la coproducción, la comprensión del poder, el enfoque de la política y los caminos hacia el impacto. Un análisis de clústeres identificó seis modos de coproducción: (1) investigar soluciones; (2) empoderar las voces; (3) poder de intermediación; (4) poder de replanteamiento; (5) navegar las diferencias y (6) replantear la agencia. Ningún modo es ideal; cada uno tiene un potencial único para lograr resultados particulares, pero también plantea desafíos y riesgos únicos. Nuestro análisis proporciona una herramienta heurística para que los investigadores y los actores sociales exploren críticamente esta diversidad y naveguen eficazmente por las compensaciones al coproducir sostenibilidad. La coproducción incluye diversos objetivos, terminologías y prácticas. Este estudio explora dicha diversidad mediante el mapeo de las diferencias en la forma en que 32 iniciativas de 6 continentes coproducen diversos resultados para el desarrollo sostenible de los ecosistemas a escala local y global. The promise of co-production to address complex sustainability challenges is compelling. Yet, co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice, encompasses diverse aims, terminologies and practices, with poor clarity over their implications. To explore this diversity, we systematically mapped differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. We found variation in their purpose for utilizing co-production, understanding of power, approach to politics and pathways to impact. A cluster analysis identified six modes of co-production: (1) researching solutions; (2) empowering voices; (3) brokering power; (4) reframing power; (5) navigating differences and (6) reframing agency. No mode is ideal; each holds unique potential to achieve particular outcomes, but also poses unique challenges and risks. Our analysis provides a heuristic tool for researchers and societal actors to critically explore this diversity and effectively navigate trade-offs when co-producing sustainability. Co-production includes diverse aims, terminologies and practices. This study explores such diversity by mapping differences in how 32 initiatives from 6 continents co-produce diverse outcomes for the sustainable development of ecosystems at local to global scales. إن الوعد بالإنتاج المشترك لمواجهة تحديات الاستدامة المعقدة أمر مقنع. ومع ذلك، فإن الإنتاج المشترك، وهو النسيج التعاوني للبحث والممارسة، يشمل أهدافًا ومصطلحات وممارسات متنوعة، مع ضعف الوضوح بشأن آثارها. لاستكشاف هذا التنوع، قمنا بشكل منهجي بتحديد الاختلافات في كيفية مشاركة 32 مبادرة من 6 قارات في إنتاج نتائج متنوعة للتنمية المستدامة للنظم الإيكولوجية على المستويات المحلية إلى العالمية. وجدنا تباينًا في غرضهم من استخدام الإنتاج المشترك وفهم القوة ونهج السياسة ومسارات التأثير. حدد تحليل عنقودي ستة أنماط للإنتاج المشترك: (1) حلول البحث ؛ (2) تمكين الأصوات ؛ (3) قوة الوساطة ؛ (4) قوة إعادة الصياغة ؛ (5) التنقل في الاختلافات و (6) وكالة إعادة الصياغة. لا يوجد وضع مثالي ؛ يحمل كل منها إمكانات فريدة لتحقيق نتائج معينة، ولكنه يشكل أيضًا تحديات ومخاطر فريدة. يوفر تحليلنا أداة إرشادية للباحثين والجهات الفاعلة المجتمعية لاستكشاف هذا التنوع بشكل نقدي والتنقل بفعالية في المفاضلات عند المشاركة في إنتاج الاستدامة. يتضمن الإنتاج المشترك أهدافًا ومصطلحات وممارسات متنوعة. تستكشف هذه الدراسة هذا التنوع من خلال تحديد الاختلافات في كيفية مشاركة 32 مبادرة من 6 قارات في إنتاج نتائج متنوعة للتنمية المستدامة للنظم الإيكولوجية على المستويات المحلية إلى العالمية.

This paper outlines climate emergencies facing universities and, by drawing on research on system transition, provides insights about how change to overcome the challenges might be stewarded. Climate change brings three interconnected and urgent emergencies for universities: (1) Manifest emergencies such as risks to operations and business models; (2) Conceptual emergencies that arise because assumptions, ideologies, systems, and structures cannot match the scale of the manifest challenges; and (3) Existential emergencies where current identities and sense of purpose are incapable of supporting the changes needed to overcome the conceptual challenges. To be viable leaders in the world, universities will need to renew their commitments to serving the public good, be dedicated to an unwavering challenge-orientation, create post-disciplinary structures, and be the change one seeks to see in the world. Importantly, universities will need to overcome the emergencies on the inside if they are to help society address the scale of the challenges on the outside, to which both universities and human capacity are seriously cognitively and emotionally ill-prepared. Fortunately, new insights from research on system transition provide helpful advice on how to steward transformational change. This work highlights that successful transformation requires strong adherence to transformational intent and, in the case of universities, working with all three emergencies simultaneously. Successful transformation will also require harnessing opportunities to disrupt the status quo; supporting an interplay of different forms of management and orientations to the future; developing appropriate infrastructure to support transformation; and rapidly accelerating the development of capacities for transformational change. By actively developing capacities for transformation on the inside universities will then be in a much better position to help and lead others beyond the halls of the academy.

The most critical question for climate research is no longer about the problem, but about how to facilitate the transformative changes necessary to avoid catastrophic climate-induced change. Addressing this question, however, will require massive upscaling of research that can rapidly enhance learning about transformations. Ten essentials for guiding action-oriented transformation and energy research are therefore presented, framed in relation to second-order science. They include: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on 'how to' practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge. At present, however, the practice of such approaches is limited and constrained by dominance of other approaches. For wider transformations to low carbon living and energy systems to occur, transformations will therefore also be needed in the way in which knowledge is produced and used.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent. Energy Research & Social Science, 70 ISSN:2214-6296