Designing Knowledge Co- production for Climate and...

Post on 30-May-2020

4 views 0 download

Transcript of 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: cariaa@idrc.ca 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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

iii

About the authors

BlaneHarveyisanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofIntegratedStudiesinEducationatMcGillUniversityinMontreal,Canada,andaResearchAssociateattheOverseasDevelopmentInstituteinLondon,UK.

Contact:blane.l.harvey@gmail.com

LoganCochraneisaBantingFellowatCarletonUniversityinOttawa,Canada.

Contact:logan.cochrane@gmail.com

MarissaVanEppisanindependentconsultantbasedinNewYork.

Contact:msvanepp@gmail.com

PeteCranstonisaCo-DirectorofEuforicServicesbasedintheUK.

Contact:pete.euforic@gmail.com

PierAndreaPiraniisaCo-DirectorofEuforicServicesbasedintheUK.

Contact:pier.euforic@gmail.com

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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,

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

8

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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,

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

33

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

38

Itisworthnoting,howeverthattherearesomeclearpre-conditionsforsuccessinthiskindofendeavour:

1) Theselectionofathemethatgenuinelyresonateswithparticipantsiscriticaltogainingandsustainingbuy-intotheprocess.

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

3) Participantsmustbewillingtohavedegreeoftoleranceforuncertaintyandfluidityastheprocessevolves.Aswithmanyco-productionprocesses,theendpointiscollectivelydefinedandthereforepeoplemustbewillingtosurrendersomecontrolofbothprocessandoutcomes.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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:

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

Driversandchallenges

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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”.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.

Driversandchallenges

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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

CARIAA Working Paper #21

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.