What Does Equitable Co-Production Entail? Three Perspectives

K. L. Akerlof, K. M. F. Timm, A. Chase, E. T. Cloyd, E. Heath, B. A. McGhghy, A. Bamzai-Dodson, G. Bogard, S. Carter, J. Garron, M. Gavazzi, N. Kettle, M. Labriole, J. S. Littell, M. Madajewicz, J. Reyes, L. Rivers III, J. L. Sheats, C. F. Simpson, R. C. Toohey
{"title":"What Does Equitable Co-Production Entail? Three Perspectives","authors":"K. L. Akerlof,&nbsp;K. M. F. Timm,&nbsp;A. Chase,&nbsp;E. T. Cloyd,&nbsp;E. Heath,&nbsp;B. A. McGhghy,&nbsp;A. Bamzai-Dodson,&nbsp;G. Bogard,&nbsp;S. Carter,&nbsp;J. Garron,&nbsp;M. Gavazzi,&nbsp;N. Kettle,&nbsp;M. Labriole,&nbsp;J. S. Littell,&nbsp;M. Madajewicz,&nbsp;J. Reyes,&nbsp;L. Rivers III,&nbsp;J. L. Sheats,&nbsp;C. F. Simpson,&nbsp;R. C. Toohey","doi":"10.1029/2022CSJ000021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Co-production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co-production is conducted can perpetuate long-standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co-production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision-relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co-production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co-production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place-based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co-production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co-production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable.</p>","PeriodicalId":93639,"journal":{"name":"Community science","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2022CSJ000021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022CSJ000021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Co-production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co-production is conducted can perpetuate long-standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co-production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision-relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co-production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co-production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place-based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co-production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co-production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公平的合作生产需要什么?三个角度
在以社会影响为目的进行的研究中,越来越多地采用了合作生产做法。然而,合作生产的方式可能会使长期存在的不平等和不平等现象长期存在。本研究根据美国资助的三个项目的参与者的经验,调查了哪些共同生产设计原则被认为可以促进更公平的过程和结果
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information “They Say the Water Is Perfectly Safe but…”: A Mixed-Methods Participatory Study of Factors Influencing Trust in Tap Water Safety in a Great Lakes City Validation of Traditional Pastoralist Practices Based on Ecological Observations of a Camel Herding Community and Coastal Mangrove Forests of Kutch, Gujarat, India A First Step in the Co-Production of a Climate Resilience Research Agenda for the Philadelphia Region A Co-Produced Workflow for Addressing Inequities in Cooling Center Access
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1