Content uploaded by Sandra Van der Hel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Van der Hel on May 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
New
science
for
global
sustainability?
The
institutionalisation
of
knowledge
co-production
in
Future
Earth
Sandra
van
der
Hel
Copernicus
Institute
of
Sustainable
Development,
Utrecht
University
Heidelberglaan
2,
3584CS
Utrecht,
The
Netherlands
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Article
history:
Received
11
June
2015
Received
in
revised
form
5
February
2016
Accepted
22
March
2016
Available
online
xxx
Keywords:
Knowledge
co-production
Transdisciplinarity
Institutionalisation
Science-society
interface
Future
Earth
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
In
the
context
of
complex
and
unprecedented
issues
of
global
change,
calls
for
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
that
are
better
equipped
to
address
urgent
challenges
of
global
sustainability
are
increasingly
frequent.
This
paper
presents
a
case
study
of
the
new
major
research
programme
“Future
Earth”,
which
aims
to
bring
‘research
for
global
sustainability’
to
the
mainstream
of
global
change
research.
A
core
principle
of
Future
Earth
is
the
co-production
of
knowledge
with
extra-scientific
actors.
In
studying
how
the
principle
of
co-production
becomes
institutionalised
in
the
emerging
structure
of
Future
Earth,
this
paper
points
to
the
existence
of
three
distinct
rationales
(logics)
on
the
purpose
and
practice
of
co-
production.
Co-production
is
understood
as
a
way
to
enhance
scientific
accountability
to
society
(‘logic
of
accountability’),
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
scientific
knowledge
in
society
(‘logic
of
impact’),
and
to
include
the
knowledge,
perspectives
and
experiences
of
extra-scientific
actors
in
scientific
knowledge
production
(‘logic
of
humility’).
This
heterogeneous
conception
of
knowledge
co-production
provides
helpful
ambiguity
allowing
actors
with
different
perspectives
on
science
and
its
role
in
society
to
engage
in
Future
Earth.
However,
in
the
process
of
designing
an
institutional
structure
for
Future
Earth
tensions
between
the
different
logics
of
co-production
become
apparent.
This
research
shows
how
logics
of
accountability
and
impact
are
prominent
in
shaping
the
development
of
Future
Earth.
The
paper
concludes
by
pointing
to
an
essential
tension
between
being
inclusive
and
transformative
when
it
comes
to
institutionalising
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
in
large
research
programmes.
ã
2016
The
Author.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1.
Introduction
“The
magnitude
and
urgency
of
the
challenges
facing
humanity
requires
[
.
.
.
]
a
common
coherent
strategy
of
transdisciplinary
research
for
global
sustainability”
(Belmont
Forum,
ICSU
and
ISSC,
2011;
p.
1).
With
the
above
statement,
the
International
Council
for
Science
(ICSU),
the
International
Social
Science
Council
(ISSC)
and
the
funding
agencies
united
in
the
Belmont
Forum
announced
their
ambition
to
fundamentally
change
the
practice,
content
and
organization
of
global
change
research.
1
These
ambitions
have
materialized
in
the
major
new
global
change
research
programme
“Future
Earth:
Research
for
Global
Sustainability”.
Future
Earth
merges
three
international
research
programmes
–
the
International
Geosphere-Biosphere
Pro-
gramme
(IGBP),
the
International
Human
Dimensions
Pro-
gramme
on
Global
Environmental
Change
(IHDP),
and
DIVERSITAS:
a
programme
on
biodiversity
science
–
and
their
Earth
System
Science
Partnership
(ESSP),
bringing
together
scientists
from
a
wide
variety
of
disciplines
and
organisations
all
over
the
world.
The
programme
was
launched
at
the
United
Nations
Conference
on
Sustainable
Development
that
took
place
in
Rio
de
Janeiro,
Brazil
in
June
2012
and
intends
to
provide
“the
knowledge
and
support
to
accelerate
our
transformations
to
a
sustainable
world”
(Future
Earth,
n.d.).
In
doing
so,
Future
Earth
questions
and
potentially
reforms
commonly
held
perceptions
of
science
and
its
role
in
society.
In
particular,
the
programme
advocates
the
co-production
of
knowledge
with
societal
actors
as
a
new
mode
of
knowledge
production
that
is
essential
to
address
the
challenge
of
‘global
sustainability’.
The
development
of
Future
Earth
can
be
placed
in
a
larger
discourse
on
the
emergence
of
new
modes
of
knowledge
E-mail
addresses:
s.c.vanderhel@uu.nl,
sandra@vanderhel.com
(S.
van
der
Hel).
1
Global
change
research,
as
addressed
in
this
paper,
is
an
international
and
interdisciplinary
research
domain
focused
on
changes
in
the
human
environment.
Research
topics
range
from
climate
change,
to
land
use
change,
biodiversity
loss
and
urbanisation.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012
1462-9011/ã
2016
The
Author.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
61
(2016)
165–17 5
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
journal
homepage:
www.elsevier.com/locat
e/e
nvsci
production
2
(e.g.
Hessels
and
van
Lente,
2008)
and
the
changing
role
of
science
in
society
(e.g.
Luks
and
Siebenhüner,
2007).
Many
authors
have
commented
on
a
trend,
at
least
in
rhetoric,
from
curiosity-driven,
mono-disciplinary
modes
of
scientific
knowledge
production
towards
interdisciplinary,
participatory
and
solution-
oriented
approaches
(Funtowicz
and
Ravetz,
1993;
Klein,
2001;
Nowotny
et
al.,
2001).
New
modes
of
knowledge
production
are
proposed
and
advanced
in
a
variety
of
contexts
and
settings,
finding
support
as
well
as
resistance
among
the
scientific
community.
Yet,
academic
research
on
the
practices,
processes
and
particularities
of
this
kind
of
‘epistemic
work’
is
limited
(Felt
et
al.,
2012;
p.
10).
This
study
aims
to
make
a
contribution
by
investigating
the
process
by
which
a
new
mode
of
‘research
for
global
sustainability’
is
being
negotiated
and
institutionalized
in
Future
Earth.
The
paper
draws
attention
to
one
specific
principle
of
Future
Earth’s
‘research
for
global
sustainability’:
the
co-production
of
knowledge.
Co-production
3
is
presented
(in
documents
and
personal
communication)
as
the
most
innovative
aspect
of
Future
Earth
and
a
key
feature
distinguishing
the
new
research
programme
from
existing
initiatives
in
global
change
research.
In
the
next
section,
I
discuss
the
principle
of
co-production
in
the
context
of
related
accounts
of
participatory
knowledge
production.
Subsequently,
I
provide
a
brief
review
of
the
literature
on
intermediary
organisations
in
science,
and
their
role
in
supporting
new
modes
of
knowledge
production.
Then,
I
lay
out
my
methods
of
data
collection
and
analysis.
The
empirical
section
of
the
paper
discusses,
first,
three
co-existing
logics
that
support
a
different
interpretation
and
implementation
of
knowledge
co-production
in
Future
Earth
and,
subsequently,
investigates
how
these
different
logics
of
knowledge
co-production
shape
the
process
of
developing
an
institutional
structure
for
Future
Earth.
The
paper
concludes
by
pointing
to
the
tensions
between
different
logics
of
co-production
that
become
apparent
in
Future
Earth's
re-orientation
of
global
change
research
towards
‘research
for
global
sustainability’.
1.1.
The
principle
of
co-production
The
term
co-production
was
originally
coined
in
the
Science
and
Technology
Studies
(STS)
literature
to
account
for
the
relationship
between
science,
technology
and
society.
This
notion
of
co-production
draws
attention
to
co-evolvement
and
co-
shaping
of
knowledge
and
social
order,
recognizing
that
knowl-
edge
is
both
“a
product
of
social
work
and,
at
the
same
time,
constitutive
of
forms
of
social
life”
(Jasanoff,
2004;
p.
274).
In
the
context
of
Future
Earth,
however,
co-production
is
used
in
a
practical
rather
than
analytical
sense,
and
refers
to
the
intentional
act
of
engaging
extra-scientific
actors
in
the
process
of
scientific
knowledge
production.
4
Co-production,
in
its
practical
orientation,
is
not
a
new
idea.
Similar
ideas
and
objectives
as
captured
by
Future
Earth’s
notion
of
co-production
have
been
discussed
in
the
academic
literature
under
different
terms,
including
participatory
research
(e.g.
Lengwiller,
2007),
interactive
research
(e.g.
Lemos
and
Morehouse,
2005),
civic
science
(Bäckstrand,
2004),
transdisciplinarity
(e.g.
Klein,
2001)
and
joint
knowledge
production
(e.g.
Hegger
et
al.,
2012).
These
approaches
share
a
focus
on
the
participation
of
extra-scientific
actors
in
academic
knowledge
production.
Often,
participation
is
proposed
as
a
way
to
go
beyond
the
linear
relationship
between
science
and
society
in
which
science
is
communicated
to
society
after
its
production
towards
more
interactive
and
productive
arrangements
between
scientific
and
extra-scientific
actors.
However,
as
the
literature
points
out,
different
ideas
about
the
purpose
and
practices
of
engaging
extra-scientific
actors
in
scientific
knowledge
production
prevail.
Bäckstrand
(2004),
for
example,
distinguishes
between
participation
pursued
with
the
aim
to
restore
public
trust
in
science,
to
address
the
complexity
of
global
environmental
problems,
or
to
extend
the
principle
of
democracy
to
scientific
knowledge
production.
These
perspectives
build
on
different
epistemic
and
normative
understandings
of
science
and
its
role
in
society,
and
are
not
necessarily
compatible.
The
first
perspective
retains
the
traditional
model
of
top-down
scientific
expert
knowledge,
whereas
the
latter
two
perspectives
suggest
reforms
of
scientific
norms,
institutions
and
procedures,
albeit
in
different
ways
(Bäckstrand,
2004).
Similarly,
Lövbrand’s
(2011)
study
of
co-production
in
European
climate
science
reveals
a
tension
between
narratives
of
usefulness,
according
to
which
science
is
expected
to
respond
to
the
needs
of
decision-makers,
and
an
emancipatory,
critical
and
reflexive
objective
of
participa-
tion
in
scientific
knowledge
production.
Multiple
authors
have
observed
that
participatory
knowledge
production
tends
to
remain
rooted
in
traditional
structures
and
assumptions
of
science,
providing
an
attractive
label
and
legitimacy
for
scientific
knowledge
production
while
actual
practices
remain
unchanged
(e.g.
Felt
et
al.,
2012;
Turnhout
et
al.,
2013).
1.2.
The
role
of
research
programmes
Academic
reflections
on
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
oftenpoint to the
importanceof
theinstitutionalcontextof sciencein
supporting
and
encouraging
new
research
practices
(e.g.
Dedeur-
waerdere,
2013;
Kueffer
et
al.,
2012;
Yarime
et
al.,
2012).
Historically
developed
institutional
structures
of
modern
science
–
such
as
the
academic
publishing
system,
career
trajectories,
department
struc-
turesand criteria
forevaluationand
funding–
are
oftenunsupportive
of
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
(Rip,
2011).
Increasingly,
though,
research
programmes,
at
national,
regional
and
internation-
al
level
bringnew
modesof
knowledge
productionto the
core
of
their
research
strategies.
Hessels
(2013)
identifies
research
programmes
as
‘intermediary
organizations
with
a
coordinating
mission’,
that
is,
organisations
that
aim
to
coordinate
research
practices
in
a
specific
research
domain,
possibly
steering
research
in
new
directions.
These
programmes
operate
between
the
macro
structures
of
the
science
system
and
the
micro
level
of
daily
research
practices,
thus
providing
a
context
for
institutional
support
of
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
within
a
research
system
that
is
organized
based
on
traditional
values
of
science.
Studies
of
existing
research
pro-
grammes
and
formal
research
networks
have
pointed
out
that,
to
support
the
engagement
of
extra-scientific
actors
in
scientific
knowledge
production,
it
isimportantto
“purposefully
put
into
place
structures
and
process”
(Klenk
and
Hickey,
2012;
p.
370).
Engage-
ment
of
extra-scientific
actors
in
the
early
stages
of
programme
design
is
considered
particularly
promising
(Garrett-Jones
et
al.,
2005;Hessels,2013; Klenk and Hickey,
2013),sincethese
earlystages
provide
the
opportunity
to
engage
multiple
actors
in
shaping
the
research
programme
and
structure,
and
tend
to
give
an
indication
of
the
way
in
which
these
actors
participate
in
the
coordination
of
research
during
later
stages
of
the
programme’s
development
(Hessels
et
al.,
2014).
Moreover,
funding
agencies
are
identified
as
important
actors
in
stimulating
and
supporting
research
2
I
use
the
phrase
‘new
modes
of
knowledge
production’
to
refer
to
a
set
of
ideas
and
approaches
that
divert
from
disciplinary
and
curiosity-driven
science,
and
are
discussed
in
the
literature
in
terms
of
mode-2
knowledge
production,
post-normal
science,
triple-helix,
etc.
3
A
distinction
is
sometimes
made
between
the
‘co-design
of
research
agendas’,
the
‘co-production
of
knowledge’
and
the
‘co-dissemination
of
findings’.
In
this
paper,
the
term
co-production
is
used
to
refer
to
the
underlying
principle
of
including
extra-scientific
actors
in
the
process
of
scientific
knowledge
production,
this
may
include
co-design,
co-production
and
co-dissemination.
4
On
the
difference
between
the
analytical
understanding
of
co-production,
and
the
more
utilitarian
interpretation
of
co-production
in
practical
terms,
see
Kerkhoff
and
Lebel,
2015;
Lövbrand,
2011.
166
S.
van
der
Hel
/
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
61
(2016)
165 –175
programmes
based
on
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
(Lyall
et
al.,
2013).
Intermediary
organisations
thus
provide
an
opportunity
to
support
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
in
the
context
of
institutionalized
macro-level
structures
of
science.
At
the
same
time,
these
research
programmes
face
the
challenge
of
fitting
organisa-
tional
structures
and
governance
models
to
the
wide
diversity
of
objectives
and
expectations
that
exist
in
a
research
community
(Turpin
et
al.,
2011).
1.3.
Institutionalizing
co-production
in
Future
Earth
It
seems
plausible
to
assume
that
the
principle
of
co-production
gained
prominence
in
the
international
institutional
domain
of
global
change
research
precisely
because
it
allows
for
multiple
interpretations,
including
more
traditional
perception
of
science-
society
relations
and
scientific
practices
(Turnhout
et
al.,
2013).
A
flexible
concept
like
knowledge
co-production
can
provide
a
possibility
to
overcome
conflict
between
different
value
positions
as
it
is
adaptable
to
multiple
contexts,
visions
and
perspectives
(Bensaude
Vincent,
2014).
In
the
process
of
institutional
change,
however,
such
multiple
understandings
might
prove
problematic
as
different
notions
of
the
purpose
and
practice
of
participation
in
scientific
knowledge
production
may
link
to
different
ideas
on
the
preferred
form
of
institutionalisation
(Turnhout
et
al.,
2013).
Institutional
settings
are
not
neutral
instruments,
but
“embody
certain
intentions,
aspirations
and
purposes”
(Pinheiro
and
Stensaker,
2013).
This
raises
the
question
why
institutional
arrangements
are
established
in
a
particular
way,
and
how
particular
organisational
structures
and
institutional
rules
are
promoted
and
legitimised
(ibid.).
Moreover,
we
can
expect
that
changes
in
the
institutional
structure
of
research
will
be
“the
subject
of
considerable
debate
and
negotiation”
(Turpin,
1997;
p.
265),
as
particular
knowledge
producing
practices
may
become
supported
at
the
expense
of
others.
Studies
on
the
institutional
aspects
of
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
have
mainly
focussed
on
institutions
at
the
national
or
sub-national
level;
global
networks
of
knowledge
production
–
although
promoted
as
appropriate
institutional
arrangements
to
support
new
modes
of
knowledge
production
in
research
for
sustainability
(e.g.
Yarime
et
al.,
2012)
–
have
yet
to
be
investigated
sufficiently.
This
study
asks
how
the
principle
of
knowledge
co-
production
becomes
institutionalised
in
the
new
research
pro-
gramme
Future
Earth.
Studying
a
research
programme
‘in
the
making’
allows
for
explicit
consideration
on
the
vision,
aims
and
purposes
that
guide
the
development
of
a
new
research
programme,
the
tensions
between
different
positions
that
become
apparent
in
negotiating
new
institutional
arrangements,
and
the
processes
through
which
new
organisational
structures
and
institutional
rules
are
eventually
established.
2.
Data
collection
and
analysis
The
empirical
part
of
this
paper
presents
a
qualitative
case
study
of
the
emergence
and
development
of
the
new
major
research
programme
Future
Earth.
The
results
presented
reflect
events
from
early
2009
(with
the
start
of
the
ICSU-ISSC
Visioning
Process,
see
below)
until
December
2015.
I
base
my
analysis
on
documentary
material
and
interviews.
The
documentary
material
consists
of
1)
key
documents
of
the
organizations
involved
in
global
change
research,
including
vision
documents,
strategic
plans,
annual
reports,
review
documents,
meeting
minutes
and
newsletters;
and
2)
academic
publications
reflecting
on
epistemic
and
institutional
developments
in
global
change
research,
and
often
advocating
particular
future
directions
(listed
in
supple-
mentary
material).
Together,
this
documentary
material
provides
and
overview
of
the
main
events
in
global
change
research
leading
up
to
the
development
of
Future
Earth,
as
well
as
insights
in
the
visions
and
rationales
that
shaped
these
developments.
The
documentary
material
is
complemented
with
18
in-depth
expert
interviews
with
senior
scientists
and
managers
affiliated
with
different
organizations
involved
in
the
global
change
community
(see
Appendix
A).
A
first
set
of
questions
in
these
semi-structured
interviews
concentrated
on
the
interviewees’
perceptions
of
the
new
‘science
for
global
sustainability’
proposed
by
Future
Earth,
and
specifically
the
principle
of
co-production.
Interviewees
were
asked
about
their
understanding
of
the
principles,
purposes
and
practices
of
this
‘mode
of
knowledge
production’,
and
the
way
it
differs
from
‘traditional’
modes
of
knowledge
production
in
global
change
research.
A
second
set
of
questions
was
directed
at
the
process
of
negotiating
and
establish-
ing
a
new
institutional
structure
for
global
change
research.
Here
I
invited
interviewees
to
reflect
on
their
participation
in
this
process,
the
challenges
they
encountered,
and
the
eventual
decisions
that
were
made.
Interviews
were
conducted
in
person
or
via
Skype
and
lasted
between
45
min
and
2
h.
All
interviews
were
recorded
and
transcribed.
In
my
analysis
of
documentary
materials
and
transcribed
interviews,
I
draw
on
the
concept
of
‘logics’
as
an
analytical
tool
(Barry
and
Born,
2013;
Barry
et
al.,
2008).
Barry
and
colleagues
employ
the
concept
of
logics
to
point
to
“a
set
of
contemporary
rationales
about
what
the
purposes
of
interdisciplinarity
are
and
how
it
should
be
guided
and
justified”
(Barry
et
al.,
2008;
p.
24).
5
Here,
I
direct
this
analytical
tool
to
the
principle
of
co-production,
focussing
on
different
understandings
of
the
purpose
and
practices
of
knowledge
co-production
as
they
are
expressed
in
the
context
of
Future
Earth.
The
focus
on
logics
allows
me
to
disentangle
different
rationales
of
knowledge
co-production
in
Future
Earth,
and
asses
how
these
logics
shape
the
process
of
institutional
design.
My
analysis
proceeded
in
two
steps.
First,
I
coded
the
empirical
material
focussing
on
the
different
understandings
of
the
principle
of
knowledge
co-production,
based
on
the
attributes
listed
in
Table
1
(‘Coding
scheme’).
Subsequently,
I
categorized
the
interview
quotes
and
texts
fragments
according
to
the
different
interpretations
of
these
five
attributes
of
co-production.
This
allowed
me
to
distinguish
three
rationales
for
knowledge
co-
Table
1
Coding
scheme.
Attribute
Description
Why
co-produce?
Reasons
given
for
co-producing
scientific
knowledge
with
extra-scientific
actors
How
to
co-produce?
Description
of
co-producing
practices
With
whom
to
co-produce?
Actors,
institutions,
categories
or
sectors
mentioned
as
potential
partners
in
the
co-producing
process
Roles
of
scientists
Roles
and
responsibilities
attributed
to
scientists
in
knowledge
co-production
Roles
of
non-scientists
Roles
and
responsibilities
attributed
to
extra-scientific
actors
in
knowledge
co-production
5
Barry
et
al.,
(2008)
and
Barry
and
Born
(2013)
distinguish
three
logics
for
the
pursuit
of
interdisciplinarity,
namely
the
logic
of
accountability,
the
logic
of
innovation
and
the
logic
of
ontology.
Although
related,
the
logics
identified
by
Barry
et
al.
are
not
directly
transferable
to
the
case
of
knowledge
co-production
and
the
specific
context
of
Future
Earth.
Instead,
through
an
inductive
process,
I
distinguish
three
logics
that
feature
prominently
in
the
text
and
talk
on
knowledge
co-
production
in
the
context
of
Future
Earth.
S.
van
der
Hel
/
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
61
(2016)
165 –175
167
production
in
Future
Earth
which
provide
different
interpretations
with
respect
to
the
purpose
and
practice
of
co-production.
I
refer
to
these
three
rationales
as
‘logics
of
co-production’.
This
part
of
the
analysis
is
presented
in
section
3
(‘Logics
of
co-production
in
Future
Earth’).
Second,
I
used
this
framework
of
three
logics
to
analyse
the
institutionalisation
of
the
principle
of
co-production
in
Future
Earth.
Based
on
the
collected
documents
and
interview
material,
I
examined
the
process
by
which
the
institutional
design
for
Future
Earth
came
into
being,
focussing
in
particular
on
the
rationales
and
justifications
given
for
particular
decisions
and
events,
as
well
as
the
tensions
between
positions
that
surfaced
during
several
moments
in
this
process.
The
framework
of
three
logics
was
used
to
identify
different
rationales
shaping
the
process
of
institutional
design,
and
to
assess
which
understandings
of
science
and
its
role
in
society
find
support
in
the
emerging
institutional
structure
of
Future
Earth.
I
distinguish
four
phases
in
the
development
of
Future
Earth’s
institutional
structure,
where
different
combina-
tions
of
logics
are
at
play.
This
part
of
the
analysis
is
presented
in
section
4
(‘Institutionalising
co-production
in
Future
Earth’).
3.
Logics
of
co-production
in
Future
Earth
In
the
following,
I
introduce
the
three
logics
of
knowledge
co-
production
that
I
distinguish
in
the
text
and
talk
on
co-production
in
Future
Earth.
All
three
logics
support
Future
Earth’s
central
aim
of
a
science
that
is
firmly
rooted
in
society
and
contributes
to
societal
goals,
yet
differ
in
understanding
of
the
purpose
and
practices
of
knowledge
co-production,
the
type
of
societal
actors
that
scientists
are
expected
to
engage
with,
and
the
roles
attributed
to
societal
actors
as
well
as
scientists
themselves
in
the
process
of
knowledge
co-production
(see
also
Table
2).
These
three
logics
of
knowledge
co-production
are
not
mutually
exclusive;
they
are
sometimes
combined
in
a
single
storyline
and
can
be
seen
as
interdependent.
Nevertheless,
it
is
useful
to
make
a
distinction
between
the
logics
of
co-production
as
they
represent
different
underlying
motivations
for
knowledge
co-
production,
imply
different
modes
of
practicing
co-production,
and
potentially
lead
to
different
institutionalisations
of
co-
production
in
Future
Earth.
3.1.
Logic
of
accountability
The
first
logic
of
co-production
that
I
distinguish
is
centred
on
the
objective
for
science
to
be
relevant
and
responsive
to
the
needs
of
society.
This
‘logic
of
accountability’
6
;
builds
on
the
narrative
of
a
social
contract
between
science
and
society:
science
provides
useful
knowledge
to
society
in
return
for
the
resources
it
receives.
In
contrast
with
earlier
interpretations
of
the
science-society
contract
in
which
science
was
expected
to
deliver
societal
returns
through
self-governance,
the
accountability
logic
of
co-production
Table
2
Logics
of
co-production.
Logic
of
accountability
Logic
of
impact
Logic
of
humility
Purpose
of
co-production
To
be
responsive
to
the
needs
of
society
To
ensure
implementation
of
scientific
knowledge
in
society
To
be
humble
and
reflexive
about
the
role
of
science
in
society
Motivation
to
engage
in
co-production
Living
up
to
societal
needs
and
demands;
to
justify
public
spending
on
research
(and
possibly
increase
funding
by
demonstrating
utility
of
research)
Having
an
impact
in
society;
supporting
transformations
towards
global
sustainability
Acknowledging
different
ways
of
knowing;
taking
into
account
different
values,
norms,
understandings
in
dealing
with
uncertain
and
complex
issues
How
to
co-produce
Engaging
extra-scientific
actors
in
the
research
process,
particularly
in
deciding
on
research
priorities,
to
ensure
that
research
responds
to
societal
needs
Engaging
extra-scientific
actors
throughout
the
research
process
to
increase
legitimacy,
reduce
scepticism
and
create
ownership.
Recognising
extra-scientific
actors
as
legitimate
knowledge
holders;
creating
knowledge
together
With
whom
to
co-produce
Those
that
provide
funding
for
scientific
knowledge
production
(directly:
funding
agencies;
indirectly:
governments
and
tax
payers;
possibly
private
sector)
Actors
that
can
make
a
difference
in
society
(often
interpreted
as
private
sector
and
high-level
decision-makers)
Actors
who
bring
in
different
knowledges,
perspectives
and
experiences
than
scientific
actors
Role
and
responsibility
of
science
Providing
the
knowledge
that
society
needs;
providing
useful
knowledge
Inform
and
guide
transition
to
global
sustainability;
co-producing
sustainable
futures
Facilitating
knowledge
production
and
stakeholder
cooperation;
engage
in
reflexive
learning
process
Roles
and
responsibility
of
societal
actors
Informing
research
directions
and
research
agendas
Implementing
scientific
knowledge
in
society
Epistemic
partner
in
knowledge
production
process
Illustrative
quotes
“
.
.
.
governments
and
society
want
a
bigger
say
in
the
formulation
of
the
research
questions
and
issues
that
they
want
science
to
investigate
and
explore.
Because
governments
are
making
the
investment,
they
want
to
have
more
say
in
what
the
science
priorities
are
and
look
like”
[4]
a
“[Answering
to
major
societal
concerns]
is
the
only
way
to
justify
the
money
we
have,
and
if
we
want
to
get
some
more
into
our
science,
this
is
the
only
way
to
go.”
[11]
“
.
.
.
you
have
to
give
[stakeholders]
a
role
in
the
beginning
so
that
your
questions
are
framed
in
the
right
way.
But
also
during
the
research,
you
actually
have
to
check
if
their
needs
aren’t
changing,
if
your
insights
aren’t
changing.
And
in
the
end
the
big
advantage
is
that,
if
you
have
still
their
buy
in,
they
will
actually
communicate
your
results."
[1]
“There
is
[
.
.
.
]
a
greater
chance
of
creating
durable,
effective
interventions
if
decision
makers
and
other
users
of
the
research
are
appropriately
involved
in
the
process
of
designing
and
producing
knowledge.”
(ISSC
and
Belmont
Forum,
2011,
p.
21)
“
.
.
.
.
like
academics,
non-academics
are
knowledge
producers
as
well
as
users,
[and]
they
hold
valid
knowledge
that
has
to
be
part
of
framing
the
agenda
and
of
research”
[6]
[Co-production
of
knowledge
is
a
process]
.
.
.
by
which
scientific
and
societal
actors
negotiate
how
different
sources
of
knowledge
can
be
brought
together
into
new
and
mutual
understandings.
Sustainable
development
requires
knowledge
that
is
integrated
in
appropriate
ways
with
scientific
and
other
forms
of
knowledge.”
(ISSC
and
UNESCO,
2013,
p.
607)
a
The
numbers
between
brackets
refer
to
the
number
of
the
interview.
Experts
interviewed
for
this
study
are
listed
in
Appendix
A.
6
Accountability
in
science
can
take
many
different
forms,
ranging
from
mere
legitimation
of
existing
scientific
practices
to
radical
reorientation
of
science
(Barry
et
al.,
2008).
Here,
I
focus
on
the
way
accountability
is
expressed
and
institutionalized
in
the
context
of
Future
Earth,
which
is
shaped
by
the
central
role
of
funding
agencies
in
the
development
of
the
programme
(see
also
Section
4).
168
S.
van
der
Hel
/
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
61
(2016)
165 –175
assumes
that
active
involvement
of
‘users’
is
required
for
science
to
provide
useful
insights
and
products
for
society.
Co-production
is
thus
proposed
as
a
way
to
ensure
societal
benefits
of
science.
Public
funding
agencies
are
perceived
as
forming
the
link
between
societal
demands
and
scientific
knowledge
production,
and
their
involvement
in
science
governance
is
expected
to
steer
science
towards
improved
accountability.
In
extension,
the
business
community
is
indentified
as
potential
beneficiary
of
science
and
partner
in
co-production,
with
the
expectation
that
a
better
response
to
the
needs
of
the
business
community
might
increase
private
sector
funding
for
science.
Based
on
this
logic,
scientists
are
expected
to
be
responsive
to
the
needs
of
societal
actors
in
setting
research
agendas
and
formulating
research
questions,
yet
remain
in
control
of
scientific
knowledge
production
and
in
this
respect
maintain
a
certain
level
of
separation
from
society,
which
is
considered
essential
to
safeguard
scientific
credibility.
3.2.
Logic
of
impact
A
second
logic
that
shapes
the
discourse
of
knowledge
co-
production
in
Future
Earth
proposes
co-production
as
a
practice
to
remedy
the
perceived
gap
between
scientific
knowledge
and
its
implementation
in
society.
This
logic
stresses
that
co-production
is
important
“
.
.
.
to
ensure
that
proposed
and
established
solutions
are
acceptable
in
actual
societal
contexts”
(Future
Earth,
2013,
p.
51).
The
assumption
is
that
engaging
‘users’
or
‘stake-
holders’
throughout
the
research
process
will
increase
legitimacy
of
and
reduce
scepticism
towards
research
and
research
results,
thus
enhancing
the
likelihood
that
scientific
knowledge
will
contribute
to
societal
change.
The
societal
actors
identified
as
possible
partner
in
knowledge
co-production
are
those
actors
that
are
in
a
position
to
‘make
a
difference
in
society’.
The
private
sector
in
particular
is
often
recognised
as
an
engagement
partner
that
has
the
potential
to
implement
science-based
solutions
for
a
transition
to
global
sustainability.
Similar
to
the
logic
of
accountability,
the
roles
of
scientific
and
extra-scientific
actors
in
the
various
stages
of
scientific
knowledge
production
are
clearly
differentiated.
Scientists
take
the
lead
in
the
production
of
scientific
knowledge,
whereas
the
role
of
‘stakeholders’
is
to
ensure
that
research
questions
are
relevant
to
societal
needs
and
that
scientific
knowledge
finds
implementation
in
society.
3.3.
Logic
of
humility
A
third
logic
that
shapes
the
discourse
of
knowledge
co-
production
in
Future
Earth
builds
on
the
position
that
scientists
need
“to
be
humble
and
reflective
about
their
own
positions,
recognizing
that
their
own
views
of
the
world
and
of
what
kinds
of
science
and
knowledge
are
appropriate
are
always
positioned
and
partial”
(Prof.
Melissa
Leach,
Vice-Chair
of
the
Future
Earth
Science
Committee,
as
quoted
in
Sayer,
2014).
This
‘logic
of
humility’
7
;
emphasizes
the
relevance
of
societal
norms,
values
and
concerns
in
addressing
issues
of
sustainability,
and
maintains
that
scientific
knowledge
production
should
not
close
down
questions
of
meaning
and
value,
but
rather
allow
for
inclusive
and
open
deliberation
of
issues
of
societal
concern.
The
assumption
is
that
taking
societal
complexities
into
account
in
producing
scientific
knowledge
for
global
sustainability
will
enhance
the
value
of
research
in
addressing
issues
of
global
change.
Hence,
co-
production
of
knowledge
is
called
for
as
an
approach
that
includes
the
knowledge,
perspectives
and
experiences
of
extra-scientific
actors
in
scientific
knowledge
production.
Extra-scientific
actors
are
perceived
as
legitimate
knowledge
holders
and
partners
in
the
full
process
of
scientific
knowledge
production.
This
means
that
the
boundaries
between
science
and
other
societal
subsystems
are
blurred
in
the
common
pursuit
of
knowledge
for
global
sustain-
ability.
4.
Institutionalising
co-production
in
Future
Earth
The
three
logics
that
shape
the
discourse
on
co-production
in
Future
Earth
imply
different
forms
of
institutionalising
this
principle
in
the
structures,
rules
and
procedures
of
the
programme.
In
this
section,
I
discuss
the
development
of
Future
Earth
and
analyse
which
logics
we
see
‘at
work’
in
the
process
of
designing
and
negotiating
a
new
institutional
context
of
‘research
for
global
sustainability’.
The
section
is
structured
along
four
phases
in
the
development
of
Future
Earth
in
which
different
combinations
of
logics
shape
the
process
of
designing
an
institutional
structure
for
the
programme.
4.1.
The
formation
of
an
alliance
Early
2009,
following
reviews
of
existing
international
research
programmes
in
the
global
change
community
which
pointed
out
that
these
programmes,
although
generally
successful
in
their
scientific
objectives,
had
limited
societal
impact
(ICSU
and
IGFA,
2008,
2009),
the
International
Council
for
Science
(ICSU)
and
the
International
Social
Science
Council
(ISSC)
engaged
in
a
‘Visioning
Process’
to
explore
research
priorities
and
new
institutional
frameworks
for
the
next
decade
of
global
change
research.
The
report
that
resulted
from
this
process
stresses
that:
There
is
an
“urgent
need
for
the
international
scientific
community
to
develop
the
knowledge
that
can
inform
and
shape
effective
responses
to
.
.
.
threats
[resulting
from
human-induced
global
environmental
change]”
(ICSU,
2010,
p.
5)
This
statement
illustrates
the
strong
emphasis
in
the
ICSU-ISSC
Visioning
Process
on
the
societal
role
of
global
change
research
community.
It
is
argued
that,
while
the
global
change
community
has
already
played
an
important
role
in
understanding
the
functioning
of
the
Earth
system,
it
now
needs
to
step
up
to
the
challenges
of
‘informing
and
shaping’
the
societal
response
to
global
change.
The
report
continues
by
stating
that:
“Research
will
often
be
most
useful,
and
the
results
most
readily
accepted
by
users,
if
priorities
are
shaped
with
the
active
involvement
of
potential
users
of
research
results
and
if
the
research
is
carried
out
in
the
context
of
a
bi-directional
flow
of
information
between
scientists
and
users.
An
effective
response
to
global
environmental
change
will
be
aided
by
the
co-creation
of
new
knowledge
with
a
broad
range
of
stakeholders
through
participatory
practices”
(ICSU,
2010,
p.
6)
Here,
again,
the
focus
is
on
an
effective
response
to
global
environmental
change
requiring
effective
interactions
with
stake-
holders.
Illustrating
that,
in
this
initial
visioning
process,
objectives
of
scientific
impact
in
society
were
central
to
the
developments
towards
a
new
type
of
research
and
a
new
institutional
framework.
Parallel
to
the
ICSU-ISSC
Visioning
Process,
some
of
the
major
funders
of
global
change
research,
among
them
the
US’
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF)
and
the
UK’s
Environmental
Research
Council
(NERC),
created
a
new
platform
for
international
cooperation
among
national
funding
agencies:
the
Belmont
Forum.
The
Belmont
Forum
intends
to
coordinate
across
national
funding
agencies
in
the
domain
of
global
change
with
the
overarching
aim
7
The
name
is
inspired
by
Jasanoff’s
(2003)
work
on
‘technologies
of
humility’,
in
which
she
argues
that
coming
to
grips
with
the
limits
of
scientific
knowledge
requires
an
“intellectual
environment
in
which
citizens
are
encouraged
to
bring
their
knowledge
and
skills
to
bear
on
the
resolution
of
common
problems”
(p.227).
S.
van
der
Hel
/
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
61
(2016)
165 –175
169
“[t]o
deliver
knowledge
needed
for
action”
(Belmont
Forum,
2011,
p.
7).
Here,
again,
we
find
that
the
objective
of
societal
impact
is
strongly
represented.
The
constitutional
White
Paper
of
the
Belmont
Forum
states
the
following:
“To
maximise
benefit
to
policy
and
business,
provision
of
this
information
[i.e.
the
information
that
society
needs
to
respond
to
the
challenges
of
global
environmental
change]
will
need
to
be
co-designed
in
partnership
with
influential
societal
deci-
sion-making
systems,
internationally
and
at
regional
scales.”
(Belmont
Forum,
2011,
p.
4)
The
above
statement
emphasizes
the
benefit
of
research
for
particular
societal
actors
(policy
and
business)
rather
than
societal
effectiveness
in
general,
and,
to
maximize
benefit,
the
need
to
engage
‘influential
societal
decision-making
systems’
in
processes
of
co-design.
Within
the
Belmont
Forum
and
its
constitutional
White
Paper
there
is
a
strong
sense
that
the
global
change
community
needs
to
increase
its
accountability
to
its
societal
sponsors
by
stepping
up
to
the
challenge
of
providing
the
knowledge
needed
by
governments
and
businesses.
Finding
similarities
in
their
missions,
ICSU,
ISSC
and
the
Belmont
Forum
decided
to
join
forces
in
the
process
of
initiating
a
new
research
programme
for
global
change
research.
In
a
joint
statement
of
intent,
the
science
councils
and
funders
of
global
change
research
stated
that:
“A
step
change
in
coordination
and
collaboration
is
required
that
will
.
.
.
[e]ndeavour
to
collectively
identify
priorities,
co-
design
research
strategies
and
co-produce
knowledge
with
users
and
key
drivers
of
innovation
and
change,
including
the
policy
and
business
communities.”
(Belmont
Forum,
ICSU
and
ISSC,
2011;
p.1)
Whereas
the
notion
of
engagement
and
participation
had
been
mentioned
in
both
the
ICSU/ISSC
and
Belmont
Forum
process,
co-
production
now
took
centre
stage
as
the
principle
where
the
science
councils
and
funding
agencies
found
common
ground.
Co-
production
was
made
a
core
objective
of
the
new
research
initiative,
as
well
as
a
principle
for
the
design
of
the
initiative
itself
(ICSU,
2011a).
Together
with
the
other
institutional
sponsors
of
global
change
research
(UNESCO,
UNU
and
UNEP),
ICSU,
ISSC
and
the
Belmont
Forum
formed
an
alliance
which
was
formalized
as
the
Science
and
Technology
Alliance
for
Global
Sustainability
(in
short:
‘The
Alliance’).
This
alliance
is
identified
as
a
‘strategic
alliance’,
bringing
together
the
relevant
partners
to
co-produce
the
new
research
programme
and
to
encourage
and
facilitate
the
co-production
of
knowledge
in
Future
Earth
[4,11,13].
Within
this
strategic
alliance,
the
international
science
councils
(ICSU
and
ISSC)
represent
the
scientific
community.
A
strong
link
to
national
funders
of
global
change
research
is
provided
by
the
Belmont
Forum,
which
is
expected
to
ensure
that
Future
Earth
responds
to
the
knowledge
needs
of
its
sponsors.
This
central
role
of
the
funding
agencies
with
respect
to
co-production
in
Future
Earth
reflects
the
logic
of
accountability,
with
the
funding
agencies
identified
as
key
actors
in
ensuring
the
accountability
of
the
new
research
programme
to
society.
The
presence
of
UN
bodies
in
the
Alliance
(UNESCO,
UNU
and
UNEP)
is
also
justified
through
the
logic
of
accountability,
with
these
international
agencies
(indi-
rectly)
representing
the
‘users’
of
Future
Earth.
At
the
same
time,
including
UN
organizations
as
institutional
sponsors
is
anticipat-
ed
to
provide
the
initiative
with
“political
convening
power”
and
to
“build
visibility
and
capacity
for
Future
Earth
at
a
global
level
[and]
directly
with
governments”
[13],
thus
supporting
the
societal
influence
of
Future
Earth
and
reflecting
the
logic
of
impact.
The
Alliance
became
the
initiator
and
interim-Governing
Council
of
Future
Earth,
taking
responsibility
for
setting-up
governance
structures,
appointing
committees
and
running
the
secretariat
in
the
early
stages
of
Future
Earth’s
development.
In
sum,
in
this
initial
phase
in
the
development
of
Future
Earth,
the
principle
of
co-production
acts
as
a
bridging
concept
bringing
together
multiple
actors
in
a
common
alliance
to
develop
a
new
research
initiative.
Shared
logics
of
impact
and
accountability
shape
and
justify
the
establishment
of
the
Alliance
and
the
role
of
its
members
in
co-producing
Future
Earth.
The
objective
to
enhance
the
effectiveness
of
global
change
knowledge
in
society
features
prominently
in
both
the
ICSU-ISSC
Visioning
Process
and
the
Belmont
Forum
White
Paper,
and
the
formation
of
a
strategic
alliance
between
science
councils,
funding
agencies
and
UN
organizations,
co-producing
the
new
initiative
Future
Earth,
is
expected
to
contribute
to
this
objective
(logic
of
impact).
At
the
same
time,
the
funding
agencies
bring
in
a
focus
on
the
‘users’
of
global
change
research
(at
this
stage
mostly
simplified
as
policy
and
business
communities)
and
the
responsibility
to
respond
to
their
needs
(logic
of
accountability).
4.2.
Negotiating
Future
Earth’s
initial
design
The
Alliance
established
a
“Transition
Team”
tasked
with
the
development
of
an
initial
research
strategy
and
organisational
design
for
Future
Earth.
Members
of
the
Transition
Team
were
selected
to
represent
different
scientific
communities
as
well
as
the
science
councils,
funders
and
‘users’
of
global
change
research
(ICSU,
2011b),
reflecting
the
objective
to
build
the
new
initiative
through
a
process
of
co-production.
8
The
Transi-
tion
Team
agreed
that
an
institutional
innovation
was
necessary
to
support
the
principle
of
knowledge
co-production
in
Future
Earth.
Yet ,
how
to
internalize
the
principles
of
co-production
in
the
institutional
design
of
Future
Earth
proved
to
be
a
point
of
disagreement.
One
way
in
which
the
Transition
Team
decided
to
incorporate
the
principle
of
co-production
in
the
institutional
design
of
Future
Earth
was
by
complementing
the
Science
Committee
–
an
established
component
of
the
governance
structure
of
interna-
tional
research
programmes
–
with
an
Engagement
Committee.
Where
the
Science
Committee
traditionally
consists
of
respected
members
of
the
scientific
community
tasked
with
steering
the
research
directions
of
a
research
programme,
an
Engagement
Committee
was
considered
an
appropriate
way