Exploring Co-Production of Knowledge at the Science-Society Nexus: A Case Study on the Cascadia CoPes Hub

• In Event: AI and Educational Innovation Ecosystems

Abstract

Science policymakers and government funding agencies are increasingly calling on university scholars to collaborate with non-academic social actors to collectively address critical public problems (Arnott et al., 2020; Steger et al., 2021). For example, coastal communities are facing rising sea levels, erosion, and other hazard challenges that demand science-informed and community-oriented solutions. In this context, academic collaboration with non-academics in co-producing knowledge inspired by societal needs is considered a promising approach to enhancing public values of research (Gerber et al., 2023; McNie et al., 2016). Yet, universities and scholars are also challenged by traditional academic norms, cultural differences, and capacity constraints that complicate such co-production efforts (Wyborn et al., 2019; Yua et al., 2022). These tensions make it unclear what co-production practice works, what does not, and under what conditions to realize desired research outcomes that meet societal needs. Guided by the theoretical frameworks of Public Value Governance (PVG; Bryson et al., 2017) and Public Value Mapping (PVM; Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2011), this study aims to explore different co-production models to examine this question: How do academic scientists co-produce knowledge with non-academic partners to achieve public value outcomes?

The data are drawn from a single in-depth case study of the Cascadia Coastlines and Peoples Hazards Research (CoPes) Hub—a five-year, NSF-funded project incorporating multidisciplinary teams that collaborate with non-academic partners to enhance coastal hazard resilience in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. To delve into the dynamics of co-production processes, data for this study include three primary sources: (1) 25 semi-structured interviews—each approximately 45 minutes in length and conducted at multiple time points over years—with academic and non-academic participants from universities, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and local communities; (2) a review of project documents; and (3) annual evaluation survey responses. Together, these data enable a comprehensive analysis of how co-production functions differently in various research settings, and how well CoPes Hub research outputs and expected outcomes align with its public mission to address Cascadia coastal hazard problems.

Preliminary findings suggest that while CoPes Hub researchers are engaged in various community-focused activities, the depth and consistency of engagement vary across teams. Data show that different co-production models exist within the CoPes Hub. For example, over half of the Hub researchers reported adapting their research to better align with community needs, which is a promising indicator of co-production in action. Results also reveal variations in the integration of non-academic partners into the research processes: some teams have developed and sustained collaborations from the outset, whereas others face challenges related to role clarity, time constraints, and differing norms.

In conclusion, the study findings will uncover how different co-production models may (or may not) lead to the generation of actionable knowledge in achieving public value outcomes. This study also contributes to the long journey of public value theorizing in public administration scholarship by empirically integrating the PVM tool into the PVG framework, which will help identify potential public value successes and/or failures in the knowledge co-production practices.

Author

• Luyu Du, Arizona State University
  Presenting Author