
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Six modes of co-production for sustainability

handle: 1887/3249881
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.
- James Cook University Australia
- University of Colorado Boulder United States
- Utrecht University Netherlands
- UNIVERSITE GUSTAVE EIFFEL France
- University of Leeds United Kingdom
/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3300/3305; name=Geography, Planning and Development, Economics, Co-production of knowledge, Knowledge management, FOS: Political science, Diversity (politics), Macroeconomics, Social Sciences, Sustainability Transitions, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2100/2105; name=Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, Social psychology, Biochemistry, System Dynamics Modeling and Applications, Decision Sciences, Agency (philosophy), Sociology, Sustainable development, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2303; name=Ecology, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/1100/1106; name=Food Science, Psychology, Business, Production (economics), /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/partnerships; name=SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals, Environmental resource management, Political science, Global and Planetary Change, Factors Influencing Pro-environmental Behavior, Ecology, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2306; name=Global and Planetary Change, sustainability, Social science, FOS: Sociology, Transdisciplinarity, FOS: Psychology, Chemistry, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2308; name=Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Sustainability, Physical Sciences, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2309; name=Nature and Landscape Conservation, /dk/atira/pure/core/keywords/557265479; name=Environmental planning, FOS: Law, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Management Science and Operations Research, 333, /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/affordable_and_clean_energy; name=SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy, Life Science, Sustainability Transitions and Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, Biology, Cognitive reframing, Computer science, 300, society, 306, CLARITY, FOS: Biological sciences, Environmental Science, Law, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3300/3322; name=Urban Studies
/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3300/3305; name=Geography, Planning and Development, Economics, Co-production of knowledge, Knowledge management, FOS: Political science, Diversity (politics), Macroeconomics, Social Sciences, Sustainability Transitions, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2100/2105; name=Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment, Social psychology, Biochemistry, System Dynamics Modeling and Applications, Decision Sciences, Agency (philosophy), Sociology, Sustainable development, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2303; name=Ecology, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/1100/1106; name=Food Science, Psychology, Business, Production (economics), /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/partnerships; name=SDG 17 - Partnerships for the Goals, Environmental resource management, Political science, Global and Planetary Change, Factors Influencing Pro-environmental Behavior, Ecology, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2306; name=Global and Planetary Change, sustainability, Social science, FOS: Sociology, Transdisciplinarity, FOS: Psychology, Chemistry, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2308; name=Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Sustainability, Physical Sciences, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300/2309; name=Nature and Landscape Conservation, /dk/atira/pure/core/keywords/557265479; name=Environmental planning, FOS: Law, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Management Science and Operations Research, 333, /dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/affordable_and_clean_energy; name=SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy, Life Science, Sustainability Transitions and Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems, Biology, Cognitive reframing, Computer science, 300, society, 306, CLARITY, FOS: Biological sciences, Environmental Science, Law, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/3300/3322; name=Urban Studies
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).296 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 0.1% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Top 10% impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Top 0.1%
