Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks

(1)

Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks

Flurina Schneider

^1,17,18

, Theresa Tribaldos

¹

, Carolina Adler

²

, Reinette (Oonsie) Biggs

^3,9

, Ariane de Bremond

^4,15

,

Tobias Buser

⁵

, Cornelia Krug

⁶

, Marie-France Loutre

⁷

, Sarah Moore

⁸

, Albert V Norstro¨m

⁹

, Katsia Paulavets

¹⁰

, Davnah Urbach

¹¹

, Eva Spehn

¹²

, Gabriela Wu¨lser

¹³

and Ruben Zondervan

^14,16

Anincreasingnumberofvoiceshighlighttheneedforscience itselftotransformandtoengageintheco-productionof knowledgeandaction,inordertoenablethefundamental transformationsneededtoadvancetowardssustainable futures.Buthowcanglobalsustainability-orientedresearch networksengageinco-productionofknowledgeandaction?

Thepresentarticleintroducesastrategictoolcalledthe

‘networkcompass’whichhighlightsfourgeneric,interrelated fieldsofactionthroughwhichnetworkscanstrivetofosterco- production.Itisbasedonthenetworks’particularfunctions andhowthesecanbeengagedforco-productionprocesses.

Thistoolaimstofosterself-reflectionandlearningwithinand betweennetworksintheprocessof(re)developingstrategies andactivityplansandeffectivelycontributingtosustainability transformations.

Addresses

1CentreforDevelopmentandEnvironment,UniversityofBern,Mittel- strasse43,3012Bern,Switzerland

2MountainResearchInitiative(MRI),andCentreforDevelopmentand Environment,UniversityofBern,Mittelstrasse43,3012Bern, Switzerland

3SouthernAfricanProgramonEcosystemChangeandSociety (SAPECS),CentreforSustainabilityTransitions(CST),Stellenbosch University,SouthAfrica

4GlobalLandProgramme(GLP),andCentreforDevelopmentand Environment,UniversityofBern,Mittelstrasse43,3012Bern, Switzerland

5GlobalAllianceforInter-andTransdisciplinarity(ITD-Alliance),Swiss AcademyofSciences,P.O.Box,3001Bern,Switzerland

6bioDISCOVERYandURPPGlobalChangeandBiodiversity,

DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofZurich,Winterthurerstrasse190, 8057Zu¨rich,Switzerland

7PastGlobalChanges(PAGES),Hochschulstrasse4,3012Bern, Switzerland

8InternationalScienceCouncil(TransformationstoSustainability(T2S)), 5RueAugusteVacquerie,75116Paris,France

9ProgramonEcosystemChangeandSociety(PECS),Stockholm ResilienceCentreandGlobalResiliencePartnership,Stockholm University,Stockholm,Sweden

10InternationalScienceCouncil(LIRA2030inAfrica),5RueAuguste Vacquerie,75116Paris,France

11GlobalMountainBiodiversityAssessment(GMBA),UniversityofBern, Altenbergrain21,3013Bern,Switzerland

12GlobalMountainBiodiversityAssessment(GMBA),SwissAcademyof Sciences(SCNAT),HouseofAcademies,P.O.Box,3001Bern, Switzerland

13SwissAcademyofSciences(SCNAT),SteeringCommittee SustainabilityResearch,HouseofAcademies,P.O.Box,3001Bern, Switzerland

14EarthSystemGovernanceFoundation(ESG),Amsterdam,The Netherlands

15DepartmentofGeographicalSciences,UniversityofMaryland, CollegePark,MD20740,USA

16RZResearch.Management.Communication.Zaandam,The Netherlands

17InstituteforSocial-EcologicalResearch(ISOE),Frankfurt,Germany

18GoetheUniversityFrankfurt,FacultyofBiosciences,Frankfurt, Germany

Correspondingauthor:Schneider,Flurina(flurina.schneider@isoe.de)

CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2021,XX:127–142 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonThestateofknowledge onsocialtransformationstosustainability

EditedbySusiMoser,SarahMooreandLizzieSayer

Received:23September2020;Accepted:14April2021

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007

1877-3435/ã2021TheAuthor(s).PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

The recently published UNGlobal Sustainable Devel- opment Report 2019 identifies science as one of four levers — alongside governance, economy and finance, andindividualandcollectiveaction—thattogethercould bringaboutthetransformationsnecessarytoachievethe SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs).Globalsustain- ability-oriented researchnetworksaim to advancehigh- qualitysciencerelevantforunderstandingandsustaining the social and natural systemsof Earth and identifying solutionstosustainabilitychallengesconfrontingsociety.

(2)

Yetconsideringthe‘wickedness’ of manysustainability challenges[1,2],sustainabilityscholarsincreasinglyargue thatthesciencesystemitselfmusttransforminorderto fulfilitspotentialto fosterthefundamentaltransforma- tions needed to advance towards sustainable futures [3–7].¹⁹

Variousresearchinstitutions,fundingagenciesandglobal scienceorganizations,suchasFutureEarth,theBelmont ForumandtheInternationalScienceCouncil(ISC),have echoedthese callsfor changesin thewaythatscientific knowledgeisgenerated,sharedandgoverned.Inpartic- ular, they encourage the scientific community across diversedisciplinestobuildnewpartnershipswithsocietal actorsfromgovernment,businessandcivilsociety,andto engageintheco-productionofknowledgeandaction.Co- production is understood as ‘iterative and collaborative processesinvolvingdiversetypesofexpertise,knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways towards asustainable future’ [11]. Underthe premise that co-production processes generate new knowledge,capacities, networks,socialcapitalandjoint action,theyareexpectedtoleadtoamorerelevant,agile, inclusive, legitimate, impactful and innovative knowledge-actionsystem[11,12].

Similarly, arguing for more effective knowledge-action systems for sustainable futures, the benefits of global research networks are increasingly highlighted. Benefits achieved or enabled by these networks include better researchcoordination,moreinternationalandinterdisci- plinary collaboration, enhanced learning through the sharing of problem understandings and solution approaches, joint value creation, more efficient use of resources,increasedcapacitytotacklecomplexproblems, greatercompetitivenessandscholarlyproductivity,better linkagetopolicyprocessesandemergenceofcoordinated convergentaction [13–19,20,21].

But how can global research networks engage in or advance theco-production of knowledgeand action for sustainabledevelopment?Inthisreview,weaddressthis questionand proposeastrategic toolfor (re)developing networkstrategies.

Co-productionprocesses inglobal

sustainability-oriented researchnetworks Whenreferringtoglobalsustainability-orientedresearch networks,we meanformally establishedentitieslinking researchers and other societal actors across scales to promoteresearchandtostrengthentheircommoneffec- tivenessincontributingtosustainablefutures[18,21,22].

These networks are usually organized around support

entities, such as a secretariat, coordination office, and/

orsteeringcommittee[16].

Future Earth is a prominent example of such a global network today (www.futureearth.org). The various projects,programmesandpartnerorganizationsbelongingto theFutureEarthcommunitycanalsobeviewedasglobal networks themselves (see Table 1 for examples). In recentyears,thesenetworksbeganto addresstheques- tion of how to engage in co-producing knowledge and actionand beganto searchforinnovativeco-production approaches.However,severalfactorsrelatedtoboth,the evolution of the field and the characteristics of global researchnetworkscurrentlyhinder furthergains.

First,existingapproachestotheco-productionof knowledge andaction, such as transdisciplinary research[23], action research[3] or post-normal science [24], primarily tackle sustainability challenges in local, place-specific contexts (e.g.inneighbourhoods,citiesorruralareas)[25].Butmany sustainabilitychallenges,suchasglobalchange,povertyand migration, are increasingly interconnected, scale beyond particularplacesandcanonlybetackledthroughlearning and concertedaction acrossdifferent contexts and ona global scale.²⁰While global research networks are considered useful and effective in coordinating and governing knowledge generation across actors, places and scales [18,26–

29,30,32], muchless isknown about how co-production ofknowledgeandactioncaneffectivelybefosteredacross differentcontextsandonaglobalscale.

Second,the purposes, functions,and contexts of global researchnetworksdiffersubstantiallytolocal,place-spe- cificresearch[30].Forexample,researchnetworksgen- erallydonotconductresearchthemselves,butratheraim atpromotingknowledgegenerationbylinkingdifferent typesof actorsacross distinct scales[18,21,22].Hence, engagementwithco-productionofknowledgeandaction atthenetworklevelrequiresanentirelynewtoolbox of methodsand approachesthatreflectsthese differences.

Butguidelines, documentedexperiencesand spacesfor knowledgeexchangeandlearningonhowco-production ofknowledgecanbefosteredatthislevelare generally lacking. This absenceof clear roadmapsfor ‘upscaling’

co-productioncanmakeitchallengingforglobalresearch networkstoengagewithco-productionandtointegrateit intotheirnetwork processes.

Third, global research networks are highly heteroge- neous, featuring diverse missions, compositions, gover- nancephilosophiesandactivities.Somehaveexistedfor severaldecades;othershavejustrecentlybeenfounded.

Manyoftheoldernetworksstartedas(inter)disciplinary scienceassociations aimingto enhancebasicscienceon

128 Thestateofknowledgeonsocialtransformationstosustainability

19Sustainabilitytransformationsareunderstoodasdeliberate,systemic changesinworldviews,practices,institutionsandresourceflows[8–10]

towardsmoresustainablefutures.

20Byglobalscale,wemeanstructuresandprocessesencompassingthe entireworld.

CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2021,49:127–142 www.sciencedirect.com

(3)

StrategiccompassforglobalresearchnetworksSchneideretal.129

Networks Main mission Network structure Size

(Individual/

organizational members)

Resources (Personnel in

%/operating funds per year in Euro (without personnel)

Founding year

Role and history of co-production

bioDISCOVERY Advancing interdisciplinary collaborative research on biodiversity and ecosystem change and establishing the role of biodiversity and ecosystem function (conservation) in sustainability transformation.

Community of individual researchers and representatives of key organizations such as intergovernmental assessment bodies;

governed by central hub;

collaboration with societal actors mainly via interactions with intergovernmental assessment bodies.

100–1000/0 100%/<50 000 2009 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (mainly natural sciences) aiming to foster co-production of knowledge with international organizations. Some members are experienced in co-production.

Earth System Governance Project (ESG)

Better understanding and improving governance of/for sustainability.

Community of individual researchers and research institutions; governed by central hub; collaboration with societal actors via research projects, interactions with UN processes and boundary organizations (established science–society interface).

100–1000/15 200%/<50 000 2009 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (mainly social sciences). Co- production is seen as relevant for specific research questions. Many members are experienced in co-production.

Global Land Programme (GLP)

Fostering the study of land systems and the co-design of solutions for global sustainability.

Community of individual researchers; managed by central hub and partly autonomous regional subnetworks; collaboration with societal actors via research projects and boundary organizations (established science–society interface).

1000–5000/0 160%/50 000–

500 000

2006 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (natural and social sciences) involving co-production of knowledge with societal actors, mainly in regional contexts. Co-production is seen as contributing to achieve the network’s mission. Many members are experienced in co-production.

Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA)

Fostering research on the conservation, management, and sustainable use of mountain biodiversity in a changing world and facilitating dialogue between communities of researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers.

Community of individual researchers; governed by central hub; collaboration with societal and policy actors via certain research projects.

1000–5000/0 140%/<50 000 2000 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (mainly natural sciences). Co- production is seen as key to achieve the network’s mission, therefore it gradually opens up to societal actors, mainly at the global scale. Some members are experienced in co-production.

cedirect.comCurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2021,49:127–142

(4)

130Thestateofknowledgeonsocialtransformationstosustainability Table 1 (Continued)

Networks Main mission Network structure Size

(Individual/

organizational members)

Resources (Personnel in

%/operating funds per year in Euro (without personnel)

Founding year

Role and history of co-production

Global Alliance for Inter-and Transdisciplinarity (ITD- Alliance)

Strengthening and promoting the global capacity and calibre of collaborative modes of research and practice.

Alliance of individual researchers, research institutions and networks;

governed by central hub with autonomy by subnetworks;

collaboration with societal actors mainly via research projects.

<100/40 20%/<50 000 2019 Founded to foster co-production of knowledge with societal actors in regional contexts and with international

organizations. Co-production is seen as key to achieve the network’s mission.

Many members are experienced in co- production.

LIRA 2030 in Africa Building the capacity of next-generation scientists for transdisciplinary research on global sustainability in Africa.

Community of individual researchers belonging to research projects; governed by central hub; collaboration with societal actors mainly via research projects.

<100/4 300%/>500 000 2016 Founded to foster co-production of knowledge with societal actors, mainly in regional contexts. Co-production is seen as key to achieve the network’s mission.

Many members are experienced in co- production.

Mountain Research Initiative (MRI)

Generate knowledge that enables decisions, actions and transformations towards sustainable development in mountains.

Community of individual researchers; governed by central hub and partly autonomous regional subnetworks; collaboration with societal actors via research projects, interactions with UN processes and boundary organizations (established science–policy interface).

>5000/10 270%/50 000–

500 000

2001 Founded as (inter)disciplinary science association (mainly natural sciences). Co- production is seen as key to achieve the network’s mission, therefore it gradually opened up to societal actors, mainly at the global scale. Some members are experienced in co-production.

Past Global Changes (PAGES)

Supporting research and scientific community development, in order to obtain better predictions of the future climate and environment and to inform strategies for sustainability.

Community of individual researchers; governed by central hub with partly autonomous thematic communities; collaboration with societal actors via certain research projects.

>5000/0 315%/ 50 000 500 000

1991 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (mainly natural sciences). Co- production is seen as relevant for specific research questions. Some members are experienced in co-production.

Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS)

Generating the scientific and policy- relevant knowledge of social ecological dynamics needed to enable a world where human actions have transformed to achieve sustainable stewardship.

Community of individual researchers representing projects; governed by central hub; collaboration with societal actors mainly via research projects.

100–1000/20 120%/<50 000 2010 Founded as an (inter)disciplinary science association (natural and social sciences) involving co-production of knowledge with societal actors, mainly in regional contexts. Co-production is seen as key to achieve the network’s mission. Most members are experienced in co- production.

CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2021,49:127–142www.sciencedirect.com

(5)

sustainabilitytopics.Overtheyears,someofthemgrad- ually opened up to co-production processes with other disciplinesorsocietalactorsbecausetheyfounditimpor- tant forachievingtheir mission,whileotherskept their focus onbasicscience.Someof thenewernetworks,in turn,wereexplicitlyfoundedforthepurposeoffostering co-productionofknowledgeandactionforsustainability transformations.Considering theirdiversepurposesand history, all thesenetworks havedifferent strengthsand facedifferentchallengeswith regardsto co-production.

Scholarship on research networks has only recently turnedtoissuesofknowledgeco-productionforsustain- ability[21,31].Forexample,Keeleretal.[21]identified differentmodelsofcollaborationthatcansupportaccel- eratedlearningregardingco-productionprocesseswithin anetwork:(1)solutionadoption;(2)solutionconsultation;

(3) joint research on different problems; and (4) joint research onsimilar problems.

Atthesametime,researchonknowledge-actionnetworks [20,33]andresearch-policynetworks[34]formarelevant bodyofliteratureonwhichtodraw.Thesealliednetworks are constructedaroundsocietal actorsfromgovernment, business,andcivilsocietythataimatjointleadershipfor systemicchangetowardssustainablefutures.Hence,while theyfocuslessonacademicknowledgeproductionthanthe researchnetworks investigated in ourstudy[15,20,33], much canbelearned fromthemabout the capacitiesof networkstofosterco-productionprocesses.

Studiesapplyingafunctionalperspectivethathighlights whatanetworkmustorcandotoachieveitsownaspira- tionsareparticularlyinsightfulforthispurpose.Identified functionsincludevisioning,organizing,resourcing,learning/researchcapacitydevelopment,assessing,advocating andprototyping[20],aswellasknowledgemanagement, amplification and advocacy, community building, con- veningandmobilizingresources[16].Inadditiontothese genericfunctions,networks canadoptdifferentrolesor strategiestofostersustainabilitytransformations.Exam- plesincludetherolesofknowledgebrokersversusentre- preneurs[33]or thesupportofmembersversusjoining forcesforjointagency[16].Thesestrategiesdifferintheir basicassumptionsregardingwhattypeofchangeagency isstrivenforandwhereitisconsideredtounfold.Which- ever strategy is chosen, these agencies usually do not emerge automatically, but networksupport entities can facilitate their creation[16]. Careful boundary management(withmultidimensionalaccountabilitytowardsdif- ferent actors involved), communication, translationand mediationare key[18,35,36].

Learningto enhancethe capacityof global research networksfor co-production

Toaddresstheabove-mentionedlackofknowledgeand experience with co-production at the network level,

Table1(Continued) NetworksMainmissionNetworkstructureSize (Individual/ organizational members) Resources (Personnelin %/operating fundsperyearin Euro(without personnel)

Founding yearRoleandhistoryofco-production SouthernAfrican ProgrammeonEcosystem ChangeandSociety (SAPECS)

Advancingstewardshipofsocial- ecologicalsystemsandecosystem servicesinsouthernAfrica

Communityofindividual researchersrepresenting projects;governedby networkconvenor; collaborationwithsocietal actorsmainlyviaresearch projects.

<100/010%/<500002012Foundedas(inter)disciplinaryscience association(naturalandsocialsciences) involvingco-productionofknowledge withsocietalactors,mainlyinregional contexts.Co-productionisseenaskeyto achievethenetwork’smission.Most membersareexperiencedinco- production. Transformationsto Sustainability(T2S)Enhancingthecontributionofthesocial sciencestofindingsolutionsto environmentalchallenges.

Communityofindividual researchersthatbelongto researchprojects;governed bycentralhub;collaboration withsocietalactorsmainly viaresearchprojects.

<100/15250%/>5000002014Foundedtofosterco-productionof solution-orientedknowledgewithsocietal actors,mainlyincross-regionalcontexts. Co-productionisseenaskeytoachieve thenetwork’smission.Mostmembersare experiencedinco-production.

(6)

representatives of eleven global sustainability-oriented researchnetworksvolunteeredtoengageinajointreflec- tion and learning process reinforced by systematic research. The overallgoalof this joint research process was to investigate how global research networks can effectively contribute to co-production of knowledge and action towards sustainability transformations. The focuswasonexploringthenetworks’particularfunctions andhowthesecanbebroughttofruition forco-production processes. In particular, we asked the following questions:

- What action fields regarding co-production of knowledge are relevant for global sustainability-oriented research networks?

- Whatspecificactivitiesdothesenetworksimplementin theseactionfields?

- Whatarepotentials andchallenges?

Through this effort, we generated a strategic tool designedto fosterself-reflection and learningregarding the development of promising network strategies and

Figure1

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Conceptualdefinitionofthefourfieldsofactionandtherespectivelocationofco-production.

(7)

actionplanstomoreeffectivelycontributetosustainabil- itytransformations.Thetoolenablesthecharacterization of anetwork, to create joint understanding among net- workmembersaboutthepotentialsandlimitationsofthe existing strategies and, finally, to identify priorities for furtherstrategicdevelopmentbyconsideringthepartic- ular functionsnetworkshavefor co-production[37].

While allnetworks involved in this study aim to foster knowledgeproductionforsustainablefutures,theirmis- sions, composition, governance philosophies, activities and commitment to co-production are very diverse. An overview of theeleven networks involvedin this study can be found in Table 1 and Figure 3. Details on the applied methodarepresentedinAppendix A.

Action fieldsforfostering co-productionin global researchnetworks

Comparison of the eleven networks, while taking into accounttheinsightsoftheliteraturereview,allowedusto identify four generic and interrelated fields of action through which networks seek to foster co-production

(for aconceptual definition, seeFigure 1, and the text below). Each field of action highlights aparticular net- workfunctionwithspecificchangeagencyandlocationof co-production[16,33]:

1 Connectingactorsandscalestoenableco-production 2 Supporting thenetwork communityinco-production 3 Fosteringco-productiontoleveragethenetworkcom-

munity’stransformativepower

4 Innovatingthenetworkto strengthenco-production

Eachfieldofactionisdividedintofivesubfieldsembrac- ingthedifferentactivitiesoftheheterogeneousnetworks.

Specific activities (e.g. organisation of a conference), however,cancontributetoseveralfields(e.g.connecting actorsfromtheglobalNorthandSouth(actionfield1)and create a place of belonging for the community (action field2)).Somenetworksemphasizeequallyallfouraction fields,othershaveaspecificfocus(seeFigures2and3).

Figure2

‘TheNetworkCompass’:fourgenericfieldsofaction,eachwithfivesubfields,throughwhichnetworksseektofosterco-productionofknowledge forsustainabilitytransformations.

(8)

Connectingactorsandscalestoenableco-production Characteristics

The first field of action highlights thefunction of con- veningactorsacrossdisciplines,sectorsofsociety,places andscales[16]andbuildingacommunitythatengagesin

co-production of knowledge and action. The network itselfisthesiteoftheco-productionprocessesandagency emerges among thedifferent membersin thenetwork.

The networksupport entity actsas abroker [33], connecting and organizing interested actors around

Figure3

Thestudiedglobalresearchnetworks’strategicemphasesonthefieldsofactionoftheNetworkCompass(1=noemphasis[centerofcircle];7= highemphasis[outerperimeterofcircle]).

(9)

sustainability-related topics and creating conditions favourable for co-production processes to emerge. This fieldofactionisapreconditionfortheotherthreeaction fields.

Activities

All networks in this study undertook these kinds of activities, but they differed in their perception of who should be involved in co-production and what theout- comeshouldbe.Someprioritizedintra-academicknowl- edge co-production between researchers from different disciplines (e.g. socialand natural scientists) or distinct geographicregions(e.g.globalNorthandSouth);others prioritized theinvolvementof societalactors(e.g. deci- sion-makers, practitioners,civilsociety)and thegenera- tion of joint action. Establishment of connections between differentscales(e.g. global andregional agendas) was also frequently mentioned. Finally, several viewed thevery evolutionof thenetwork itselfto bea resultof theco-productionprocess.

Network support entities convene diverse actorsacross scales through various means, such as international or regionalface-to-facemeetings(e.g.conferences,working groups),onlinegatherings(e.g.webinars,interactiveplat- forms), the establishment of science–policy interfaces (e.g. via boundary organizations), member/expert data- bases and by enabling inclusive participation (e.g.

through selection of committee members and targeted fundingtolesswell-resourcedparticipants).Theseactiv- itiesrequirecareful planningand facilitation,as wellas accountability towards the interests of differentparties (e.g.conferenceformatsthataremadeaccessibletonon- scientists or non-native English speakers) [18, see also Refs.30,38](seealsoAppendixB).

Potentialandchallenges

Allnetworksinthisstudyestablishedvibrantcommuni- tiesofpracticeengaginginco-productionprocesseswith various outcomes, including facilitation of new knowl- edgeandideas,socialrelations,learningtoolsandcurric- ula, standardizedmonitoringand evaluationapproaches as well as institutionalized forms of collaboration with boundaryorganizations,suchasinternationalNGOs,UN organizations andintergovernmental assessment bodies, as forexampletheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).Buttheestablishmentandmaintenanceofinclu- sivepartnershipsbetweenpreviouslydisconnectedactors wasamajorchallengeforallnetworks.Dependingonthe network history,thisconcernedinclusionof furtherdis- ciplines,societalactorsorgeographicregions.Forexam- ple,despitestronglyprioritizingtheinclusionofresearch- ersfromtheGlobalSouth,—for instancebyorganizing conferences in different parts of the world and by

attending to issues of diversity when choosingkeynote speakersormembersofcommittees,—researchersfrom theGlobalNorthremainoverrepresented,likelybecause the academic field is more firmly established at their universities and because of the greater availability of funding[26,39].

These findings are in line with existingliterature, sug- gesting that formal networks can mainly identify, enhance, add value to, expand or otherwise transform existingorpotentialrelationships,buttheycannoteasily imposesuchrelationships[16,18].

Supportingthenetworkcommunityinco-production Characteristics

The second field of action focuses on the function of strengtheningtheagencyof itsmembersforco-production.Inthiscase,theindividualnetworkmembersimple- ment co-production processes in their contexts (also called place-basedco-production).Thenetworksupport entity providesservicestothemembers[16,20].

Activities

All networks studied provided such support services, thoughtodifferingdegrees.Someencouragedtheirmem- bers to practice co-production (e.g. by highlighting its valueintheirscienceplans)andtoshareguidelinesand best practiceson how to operationalize it. Others organized learningopportunities, such as webinars, massive open onlinecourses,practicaltraining courses,coaching workshops or working groups to foster co-production competences. The provision of funding for working groupsortransdisciplinaryresearchprojectswasanother important service.Finally, thecreationof a‘home’and placeofbelongingforresearchersengagedinco-produc- tionwasanotherfrequentlymentionedwayofsupporting networkmembers(seealsoAppendix B).

Networks that are heavily engaged in supporting co- production processes among their members generally appearverysatisfiedwiththeresults.Inparticular,oppor- tunities offered for competence development, peer-to- peer learning and implementation of transdisciplinary research are usually very well attended and received.

As co-production approaches still represent a niche in many universities,network membersalso highlyappre- ciatedtheempowermenttheyexperiencedwhenfeeling part ofa community of like-minded people. However, providing such services requires considerable financial meansandisthereforemostlyspecifictonetworkswhich succeed in attracting larger donors for this purpose.

Moreover,itrequiresanetworkcommunitythatiskeen to learn and implement co-production approaches.

Hence, networks with amore academic tradition and a focusonmoredisciplinaryorglobalquestionsoftenfindit

(10)

harder to motivate members and identify appropriate supportmeasures.

Fosteringco-productiontoleveragethenetwork community’stransformativepower

Characteristics

Thethirdfieldofactionrelatestothefunctionofcoordi- nating the efforts of its members and of acting as a collective agent [16,20,33]. Networks aim to be more thanthesum oftheirparts: bycombiningtheexpertise andconnectionsofalltheirmembers,theycanspeakwith onevoiceandwieldmore influencethananyindividual [15]. Co-production can be a key ingredient in this process.First,co-productionactivitiesareneededwithin thenetworkcommunitytoenablethenetworktobecome a collective agent and to permit the network support entity—or otherrepresentatives —to speakonbehalf of the community. Second, as a collective agent, the supportentitycanengageinorcoordinateco-production withadditionalsocietalactors.

Activities

Requiredco-productionwithinthenetworkcommunityis achieved through activities related to synthesis of and capitalization on multiple research findings and experi- ences. The network support entities support this by mobilizingmembers,developingconceptualframeworks andsynthesismethods,coordinatingcross-scalecollabo- ration and involving societal actors to ensure societal relevance. Engagement and coordination of co-production with additional actors is performed based on this consolidated knowledge and the global community of expertise.Specific activities organized by network sup- portentitiesincludegeneratingvisibilityviacommunica- tionoffindingsthroughco-producedwebsites,magazines and policy briefs; participation in policy events; use of common weight to access ‘big tables’ (e.g. events with powerful economic actors); advocacy; and lobbying for their interests(e.g. with sciencefunders, UN organizations or national governments). In this respect, several networksmentionedactivitieshavingthegoaloffostering shiftsinacademiccultureasawhole(e.g.rewardsystems, fundingstructures,career paths andinstitutions favourable for co-production). Mediating between scales is another key dimension (e.g. helping to upscale and out-scalecontextualizedresearchinsightsanddownscale globalfindings) (seealsoAppendix B).

Manyofthe networksin thisstudysuccessfullycoordi- natedinterdisciplinaryco-productionprocesses, oftenin collaborationwithsocietal actors. The mostwidespread example here is collaboration with intergovernmental assessment bodies and boundary organizations, such as the IPCC, IPBES and CBD. Several networks co- designed respective analytical frameworks with these bodies, communicated them to their communities to

channelassessment-relevantresearchefforts,coordinated synthesisprocesseswithintargetedworkinggroups(the- maticallyandgeographically)and,finally,fedthegener- atedsynthesisproductsbackintotheseglobalassessment processes.However,allnetworksfounditchallengingto engagein co-production processeswith powerful actors capable of effectively initiating wider societal transformation processes towards sustainability. Challenges involveidentification of societal partners; finding joint, knowledge-related interests; harmonization of working processes;andgenerationofsufficientfinancialandper- sonnelcapacitiestoimplementtheactivities.

Innovatingthenetworktostrengthenco-production Characteristics

The fourth field of action relates to the need to foster innovationwithinthenetworktostrengthenitscapacity toperformco-productioninallthreeotherfieldsofaction.

The network support entity acts as an entrepreneur aimingtotransformthenetworkitself[20,33].

Activities

Means to fosterconceptual, theoretical, methodological and practical innovation include the development of novelvisionsandstrategiesthatdetailanetwork’stheory ofchange,pathwaystoimpactandtheroleofco-produc- tionfortheresearchfield.Co-designingresearchagendas togetherwithsocietalactorsatdifferentscalescanfocus researcheffortsonkeyquestionsrelevantforsustainabil- ity. Investment in conceptual and methodological advancement to integrate co-production is also often stressed(e.g.writingstate-of-the-artpapersonthecom- munity’sco-productionapproachesorsustainability-relevant insights). A few networks are setting up novel approaches to experiment with and create models of co-production at the network level together with key societal partners (prototyping). For example,some net- workstestednewscience–societyinterfacesviaboundary organizations, such as INGOs, to find a better way to bridgeknowledgeandactionatdifferentscales[seealso Refs.26,28]. Finally, regular self-reflection and evalua- tionexercisestoenhanceadaptivemonitoringandlearn- ing for improvement are considered key (e.g. regular retreatswiththesteeringcommittee,learningexchanges amongcoordinatorsofdifferentnetworks,learningstud- ies)(seealsoAppendixB).

Networks with different co-production histories have different potentialities and face different challenges when attempting to innovate. Networks founded for thepurposeof fosteringco-productionfor sustainability typicallybenefitfromthefactthatthey alreadyinclude researchers from many different disciplines as well as societal actorsand thattheseshare fundamentalepiste- mologicalassumptions regarding the significance of co- production. Hence, their co-production approaches are

(11)

innovativeandthought–throughfromthestart;theentire networkcanberegardedasaprototype.Thesenetworks are challenged to execute this pioneering role without havingrolemodelsthatcouldprovideguidancefor suit- ablestructuresandprocesseswhilesimultaneouslybeing underpressuretoreshapewidersciencesystemsinorder to improvetheconditionsforthistype ofresearch.

Networks which started as (inter)disciplinary science associations havefosteredinnovations byadaptingtheir science plans, research agendas and governance. How- ever,as theirindividualmembershavediverseperspec- tives on the value of co-production — ranging from enthusiastic to sceptical, — these networks face challenges in promoting co-production innovations while simultaneously navigating a mix of epistemological assumptions. In addition, determining what the added value of co-production can be for their research and finding joint interests with societal actors can be challenging.

Regardlessofhowpromisinginnovationsaredefined,all the research networks expressed difficulties in deliber- ately fostering fundamental innovations (see also Refs.

[29]and[18]).Thismaybebecauseinnovationsfavouring co-productionoftenrequirefundamentaltransformations of values, social relations, competencies, routines and existing research infrastructures. Hesitant action lacks transformative power,but pushingtoohardcanquickly become counterproductive when it provokes resistance from members and other actors representing different epistemologicalvaluesandinterests.Thisposesariskto the network, as the introduction of new functions can hamperanetwork’scapacitytofulfilitsoriginalfunctions [34] and to meet the expectations of its members. In addition,globalresearchnetworksareusuallyratherloose structures with limited fundsand,absent strong hierar- chies, unabletofullycontrolnetwork activities[17].

Concludingremarks

Inthisreview,weexploredhowglobalresearchnetworks engage withco-production of knowledgeand actionfor sustainability by studying their specific functions. By doingso,weidentifiedfourfieldsofaction,eachcharac- terized byfivesubfields.

The fourfieldsofaction revealthatincorporationof co- production at the level of global research networks requires a different perspective on co-production processes than is usually applied in individual research projects. In a research network, co-production can be facilitated by individual network members in specific research contexts, by thecommunity of network mem- berstogether,and/orbythenetworksupportentityitself.

Fundamental innovation in thescience system maybe necessary to enable co-productionto fulfil itspotential.

Hence,tofostereffectiveco-productioninsuchsettings,

global research networks need to think about: how the networksupportentitiescansupportthemembersinco- production(action field2);how theycanconvene these membersandenableco-productionamongthem(action field1);howtheycanengageinco-productionthemselves to leverage their community’s transformative power (action field 3); and how they can foster innovation to improvetheconditionsforco-production(actionfield4).

Although networks can fruitfully set priorities only in some fields of action (e.g. supporting their membersor leveragingmembers’ activities), tensionscanemerge in somesituationswhennetworkmembersdonotagreeon priorities. For example, conflicts canemerge when the network support entity pushes for innovations in co- production(actionfield4)whileneglectingco-evolution ofthenetwork(actionfield1),orsupportingcommunity needs (actionfield2).

Thefouractionfieldsprovedtobehelpfulforstructuring the studied networks’ very diverse approaches to co- productionofknowledgeandaction,butalsoasaheuris- ticforfosteringself-reflection,knowledgeexchangeand learning within and between the networks. Learning withinand betweenglobal researchnetworks iscrucial, asincorporationofco-productionprocessesisachalleng- ing task that requires novel, untested strategies and fundamentaltransformationsoftheverynetworksthem- selvesand/ortherelevantsciencesystems.Applicationof theheuristicforlearningdoesnotresolvewhethergiven activitiesarebetterorworse thanothersorhowspecific activitiesshouldbeimplemented.Thisdependsoneach network’senvisionedgoals,co-productionhistory,mem- bercomposition,epistemological assumptionsandaddi- tional context-specific conditions. However, it does aid systematicreflectiononthespecific potentialsandchal- lengesrelatedto thefunctionsof anetwork.

Hence,thedesignandimplementationofco-production processesforsustainabilitycanonlybeachievedthrough carefully designed, step-by-step approaches, while acknowledging thementioned variationsand functions.

To identify promising processes, global research net- worksmustdevelopnetwork-specifictheoriesofchange that specify how activities related to the four fields of actionmightbestbecombinedtoachievetheenvisioned goals.Thisinvolvesreflectionsonthesignificanceofco- productionin relationto theself-conceptionof thenetwork,itsspecificscientifictopicsandsocietaltransforma- tiongoals,thebasicnetworkstructuresandprocessesin placeaswellaspossibleconflictsandsynergieswithinand betweendifferentactionfields.Guidelinesto applythe frameworkasastrategictoolarepresentedinSchneider andTribaldos[37].

The NetworkCompassrepresentsanimportantstarting pointforstructuringaprocesstosystematicallyreflecton

(12)

how global research networks can contributeto co-production and sustainability transformations. But several open questions remainregardingwhich approachesand theoriesofchangearemostpromising[40].Hence,more reflexiveresearchisneededthatplaceskeysociallearn- ingprocessesatthecoretoelucidatepreciselywhatkind ofco-production activitiesandorganizational formats of networks contribute most effectively to sustainability transformationsandensuretheseareoperationalized.

Funding

F.S and T.T acknowledge support from the Mercator FoundationSwitzerland(GrantNo.2015-0629).M.F.L.

received support by the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT)and theChineseAcademy ofSciences(CAS).

C.A.receivedsupportprovidedtotheMRIbySCNAT.

D.U.and E.S. receivedsupport provided to GMBAby SCNAT.K.P.andS.M.weresupportedthroughfunding fromthe SwedishInternational Development Coopera- tionAgency (Sida, GrantNo. 54100034).R.B. received supportfromtheSouthAfricanResearchChairsInitiative (SARChI)oftheDepartmentofScienceandTechnology andNationalResearchFoundationofSouthAfrica(Grant 98766);theGuidanceforResilienceintheAnthropocene:

InvestmentsforDevelopment (GRAID)project funded bytheSwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperation Agency(Sida);andaYoungResearchersGrantfromthe Vetenskapsra˚detinSweden(Grant621-2014-5137).T.B.

receivedsupportfromtheSwissNationalScienceFoun- dation(SNSF,GrantNo.IZCNZ0-174583).

Conflictofintereststatement Nothingdeclared.

Acknowledgements

WewouldliketothankAnuLannenforlanguageeditingandtwo anonymousreviewersfortheirconstructivefeedback.

AppendixA. Methodological approach

Caseselection

Ourstudyis based onaninvestigation of eleven global researchnetworks belongingto theFuture Earthinitia- tive.FutureEarthisanetworkofnetworksandindivid- ualswhoarecollaboratingforamoresustainableplanet.It wascreatedin2015asaglobalinitiativetostrengthenthe interfacebetweenpolicyandscienceandbuildsonmore than three decades of global environmental change research.Sixoftheinvestigatedglobalresearchnetworks areofficiallyendorsedGlobalResearchProjectsofFuture Earth (GLP, GMBA, PAGES, biodiscovery, PECS, ESG); one is a regional network of one of them (SAPECS); one is a partner of Future Earth (MRI);

twoare specialinitiatives of theFutureEarthfounding membersICSUandISSCthatareaimedatstrengthening theFutureEarthinitiative(LIRA2030,T2S);andoneis anindependentnetworkcollaboratingwithFutureEarth (ITD Alliance). While all of these networks have

different structures, epistemological assumptions, aims andhistories,theyallsharethegeneralgoaloffostering sciencerelevantforsustainabledevelopment.Moreover, theyareallresearchcentredandspanactorsfromaround theglobe.

To selectthe networks, we used apurposive sampling strategy, combined with convenience elements. It focusedonthefollowingtwomaincriteria:(a)maximum variationofnetworktypesintermsofnetworkstructure, durationandaimsanddifferingco-productionapproaches andhistories(seeTable1andFigure3);(b)willingnessof network representatives to contribute to the study and engageinreflectionontheirapproachestoco-production ofknowledge.

The study began with four networks that have their headquartersinSwitzerland.Basedonpreliminaryanal- yses of these networks, we gradually involved further networkswithalternativestructuresandapproaches.For example,asthefourinitialnetworkswerestronglynatu- ral-science based and mostly included members with relativelylittleco-productionexperience,welooked for networks dominated by social scientists and/or with extensiveco-productionexperience. Wecontinuedadd- ingnewnetworksuntilwereachedconceptualsaturation.

Thismeansthat introductionof new networks intothe analysis generated new insights into possible network activities, but it did not generate insights requiring us torevise ouremergingconceptualframework.

Co-productionmethod

Ourstudywasitselfbasedonaco-productionprocess.Co- production is an appropriate approach for developinga framework that aims to support networks in enhancing their effectiveness to contribute to co-production and sustainability transformations, as it combines rigorous scientific thinking and analysis with theexperiences of thetargeted actors [41,42].The actors involved canbe grouped as follows: ‘core team’ (the first and second author of this article); official representatives of the elevenselected globalresearchnetworks(e.g. coordina- tors,managingdirectorsandsoon, allco-authorsof this article);andmembersofsomeof thesenetworks(GLP, ESG,Lira2030).Theyallcontributedtotheco-produc- tionprocessthroughaniterative,four-stepapproach.

First, the networks’ co-production-related strategies, approachesandactivitieswereassessed.Toachievethis, thecoreteamconductedinterviewswiththecoordinators of the networks and analysed their websites, strategy documentsandother availableresources,suchas scientific papers. In addition, to gather the perspectives of networkmembersthemselves,thecore-teamandrepre- sentatives of some networks organized workshops at network gatherings where various members discussed potentials and limitations of co-production at network

(13)

level.Datawereanalysedwithproceduresofqualitative content analysis [43]. Insights of these analyses were summarized andsharedwith theactorsinvolved.

Second, todeepentheanalysisand enablelearningand co-production between the different networks, several workshops were organized (four workshops in Switzerland with GLP, BioDiscovery, GMBA, PAGES and MRI; one workshop in South Africa with GLP, SAPECS,Lira2030,ITDAlliance,T2S).Inthesework- shops, we used different dialogue methods that help structuregroupconversationprocessesaimedatenhanc- ing self-reflection and jointly creating meaning and shared understandings [44]. Further, the empirical research insights generated in step one were used to nurture thediscussions.

Third,basedontheinsightsofthetwoprevioussteps,the coreteamdevelopedadraftoftheframework.Theyfirst summarized the collected data in table form and then analysed the networks’ co-production approachesin an

iterativeprocessofconceptidentificationandcomparison to identify recurrent patterns of similarities and differences. This analytic process was enriched by insights gainedthroughtheliteraturereview,namelyonnetwork functions. The identified four fields of action highlight four different network functions with specific change agencyandlocationofco-production.Thefivesubfields covermainactivitiesimplementedbytheanalysednet- works.While theycovermostaspectsmentionedin the literature,inclusionofadditionalnetworkstotheanalysis mightrevealfurthersubfields.Fourth,thetoolwasvali- dated and refined in a workshop with the Swiss-based networks,andinasubsequentweb-basedexchangewith allinvolvednetworks.Thisstepinvolvedreattributionof thenetworks’co-productionactivitiesto thefouraction fieldsand theirsubfields.

Appendix B. Activities conductedbythe 11globalresearchnetworkstotacklethefour fields ofaction

Fieldsofaction Subfields Activities

Connectingactorsand scalestoenableco- productionfor sustainability

Globalandregional agendas

Organizeeventsintheregionstodiscussglobalagendas,suchasthe2030Agenda,Paris Agreement,andSendaiframework;fosterresearchinspecificregionsrelatedtotheseglobal agendas;bringtheregionalagendasandinsightsintoglobalpolicyprocessesand internationalconferences.

Northandsouth OrganizeconferencesincountriesoftheglobalSouth;providefundingforparticipantsofthe globalSouth;invitepeoplefromtheglobalSouthaskeynotespeakersaswellasworking groupandsteeringgroupmembers;strengthencapacitiesofresearchersoftheglobalSouth;

collaboratewithSouth-basedorganizations/networks;employopen-accessstrategies enablingSouth-basedresearcherstoaccessinformationandresearch.

Science,societyand policy

Invitedecision-makers,artistsandothersocietalactorstoconferences,makeconferences attractiveforthem(e.g.letthemsuggesttopicsandformats,givingthemrolesandspaces, interactivesessions,localstakeholderevents,TDprocessesaroundugentsocietalissues);

organizeshort-termandlong-term(regional)science–policyinterfaces,e.g.bycollaborating withboundaryorganizationssuchasStakeholderForum;participateinconferencesand policyprocessesorganizedbysocietalactors;enableinteractionswithUNor

intergovernmentalprocesses(e.g.IPPC,IPBES);connectwithsciencepolicyactors(e.g.

funders).

Socialandnatural sciences

Encourage/selectinterdisciplinaryconferencethemesandworkinggroups;establish member/expertdatabases.

Co-evolutionnetwork Developstrategies/scienceplansinaparticipatoryandinclusiveway;involveavarietyof actorsacrossscalesinthesteeringcommittee;conductsurveystoidentifymemberneeds;

demonstratecommitmenttointegratemembers’needs/feedbacksinnetworkmanagement.

Supportingthenetwork communityinco- production

Encourage Highlightthesignificanceofco-productioninnetworkvisions,scienceplansand/oron website;encourageworkinggroupstodevelopco-productionplansfortheirwork;showcase co-productionexamples.

Fosterlearning Organizewebinars,onlinecourses(MOOCs),trainings,coaching/mentoring,self-reflection workshopsand/orconferencesessions/workinggroupsonco-production(basic competencesandexperienceexchanges);developguidelinesonhowandwhentodoco- production;enablelearningbydoing.

Shareinformation Publishnewsletters/websiteinfotosharefundingopportunities,calls,specialissues,policy reports,andsoon.

Providefunding Fundco-productionresearchprojects(seedmoneyandfullprojects),learningopportunities and/orparticipationinscience–policyinteractionsorconferences.

Createplaceof belonging

Enablecommunitybuildingoflike-mindedpeopleinterestedinworkinginco-productive ways.