Complex interrelated societal and environmental challenges, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the overexploitation of natural resources, cannot be dealt with by applying straightforward technical solutions. The complexities and uncertainties involved demand new ways of producing, interpreting and applying knowledge. Common traits in proposed approaches are the bridging of disciplinary boundaries and the active engagement of stakeholders in research processes. Co-production is seen to open the research process and makes stakeholder partners instead of mere recipients in the production of new knowledge. Thereby researchers are thought to gain deeper understanding of the issues to be tackled and stakeholders greater insights into the analysis and available options.

To the extent that co-production is successful it is worth considering how it can be institutionalised, i.e. how can co-production of knowledge obtain a rule-like status in social thought and action? Based on recent research on institutionalisation we pay attention to governance; standards and routinised processes; partnerships, collective action and support; leadership and commitment; resources; and culture. In our study we have examined how these have played out in research funded by the Strategic Research Council of Finland (SRC). The SRC is an interesting case because its funding criteria include close engagement with stakeholders and thus also an ambition to develop the science policy interface.

We found that the long-term (six year of funding) SRC research projects provided opportunities for researchers and stakeholders to develop partnerships, novel processes, reflections on governance, commitment and a elements for new culture of co-production. Our findings highlight the importance of active trust building in knowledge co-production between the researchers and the stakeholders. Well-designed co-production processes are a key in building trust.  Funders supporting transdisciplinary research and collaboration such as the SRC, can support the desired development through a combination of explicit funding criteria and the provision of sufficient tools and guidance for the projects.

We also observed a wide range of understandings of what co-production is or should be. For some it is an instrumental activity that aims at directly actionable findings in concrete problem solving, for others a process that leads to reflection and observations that are needed to introduce transformative change. When the focus is on  instrumental use  of knowledge co-production, the needs of the knowledge users are stressed more than in conventional researcher-led processes. The communication between stakeholders and researchers on the actual societal needs  can support a  culture of  transdisciplinarity by increasing the dialogues in the science-policy interfaces. However, a rigid  institutionalisation of a needs-based co-production which is dominated by stakeholders may reduce the co-production to a formal activity that stifles creativity and open dialogue. At the other end of the spectrum, the transformative approaches to co-production build on accepting complexity and uncertainty and even search for potentially radical societal changes. This  involves on one hand greater freedom for the research community in setting the agenda. On the other hand, some politicians have criticised the researchers for having tried to advance political rather than scientific goals. 

We argue that co-production serving immediate stakeholder needs can largely be institutionalised by creating funding instruments and processes for identifying the needs that co-produced knowledge should serve. Co-production that aims at supporting transformative societal change is more demanding in this respect. Its institutionalisation requires greater rethinking of governance, the establishment of standards and routinised processes, the building of long-term partnerships, practice in collective action, leadership and commitment and the emergence of a new culture. Moreover, it is important to be clear about the expectations vis-à-vis co-production. Disillusionment may arise if conflicting views are not recognised at the outset, potentially endangering the institutionalisation process. If the challenges are recognised and successfully dealt with, institutionalisation of co-production can contribute in important ways to sustainability research and the effectiveness of its findings.

(Photo Credits: Photo by Jason Goodman on Unsplash)