For climate research, the premise of co-production is simple: more usable science can be created when the actual users, like decision-makers, resource managers, and community members, participate. However, the process of co-production can be more complicated, and many decisions that are made and engagement approaches that are taken during the process can unintentionally perpetuate social inequities. 

Addressing equity in climate adaptation science is important because socially vulnerable groups like low-income, and marginalized communities face higher climate-related hazards. For example, a project that relies solely on “community participation” without considering equity may inadvertently worsen social inequities by overlooking marginalized voices who face high barriers to entering the co-production process due to constraints on their time and other resources. 

But do co-production projects that consider equity achieve it? 

A team of researchers, including staff from the National, Alaska, and North Central CASCs, address the challenges and unintended consequences of the co-production process in a study called “What does equitable co-production entail? Three Perspectives,” published in the journal Community Science.  

Because the concept of “equitable co-production” has different definitions for different people, the researchers wondered whether they could find universal aspects of the concept, as defined by people who had participated in the process. They focused on three federally funded climate projects, chosen because each intentionally included elements of co-production and equity. Through interviews and surveys, the researchers gathered a variety of statements and opinions from participants, including researchers, boundary organization staff, and community members, about what constitutes equitable co-production. 

Participants assigned varying levels of importance to statements about general ideas related to co-production including project outcomes, power to design project goals and approaches, place-based community rights and respect, audiences and participation, and interactions. 

The research revealed that participants held three distinct perspectives: (1) “ways of knowing and power,” a perspective that emphasizes respect for various knowledge systems and that communities should drive the goals and outcomes of a project; (2) “participants and interactions,” a perspective that emphasizes engagement through clear communication and providing resources to help communities participate; and (3) “science as capacity building,” a perspective that emphasizes project outcomes such as building lasting connections, making useful science, and empowering action. 

Participants from all three projects held all three perspectives to varying degrees, and holding one perspective or another did not depend on the participant’s organizational affiliation (e.g., academia, government, community). 

In the absence of a single definition of “equitable co-production,” this study emphasizes the need for projects to set clear rules of engagement among participants before the project begins. Acknowledging and discussing varying perspectives at the start of a project can help foster a more fair and inclusive process, facilitate communication among participants throughout the duration of the project, and leave room for future collaborations.  

This study provides a broader understanding of the multi-dimensional perspectives on “equitable co-production” and can serve as a valuable resource for those co-developing projects.  

The full citation for the study: Akerlof, K. L., Timm, K. M. F., Chase, A., Cloyd, E. T., Heath, E., McGhghy, B. A., et al. (2023). What does equitable co-production entail? Three perspectives. Community Science, 2, e2022CSJ000021. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022CSJ000021