Co-production of knowledge

Co-design and co-production of knowledge is one of the most sophisticated exercises in implementation-oriented research, and is still not very widespread. In the BMBF-SLM programme, which forms the background to this book, it has only partially been achieved. Most on-the-ground work was conducted by PhD can-didates running their own research work. For real co-design and co-production – starting with developing the design of the project altogether – there was little prior experience compounded by a lack of time and funding; similar to the large majority of research programmes worldwide.

However, some remedial steps have been taken. As will become clear with the examples in this chapter, considerable effort was taken later on to involve local stakeholders, know better about their problems and challenges, and to communicate results in a way that they could be taken on board by land users, administra-tors, or members of local communities. For better contacts and involvement with members of local communities an approach was chosen that has been tested before in another research pro-gramme (BIOTA/ also BMBF funded, see Christiaan et al. 2009;

Schmiedel et al. 2010).

Figure 5.35: Stakeholder workshop project Kulunda, November 2015, Russia.

(Ladislav Jelinek)

Chapter 5     Bridging gaps between research and practice 125 Direct involvement of members of the local community

A straightforward method to involve people from local communi-ties where the research is taking place is to employ them as part of the research teams. Members of rural land user communities are holders of local knowledge on the natural environment and local land use. To access, understand and incorporate this knowledge into research is perceived as intrinsically important, but also as very challenging by academic scientists. It requires special skills and sufficient time for interaction, exchange and mutual understand-ing. Para-ecologists can help to fill this gap and act as facilita-tors for transdisciplinary research. By being members of both land user and researcher communities, para-ecologists have insight into the perceptions and knowledge of communities, and can facilitate mutual understanding and knowledge exchange between land users and scientists. Para-ecologists assist natural and social scien-tists to collect and document environmental and household data, and simultaneously support implementation activities.

Through close interaction and exchange with the para-ecologists from Angola, Botswana and Namibia, researchers who were active in the Okavango Basin, developed closer contacts with the land user communities and a better understanding of land user deci-sions and environmental processes. Communication with, and learning from, the para-ecologists avoided pitfalls and intercul-tural misunderstanding (Schmiedel et al. 2016). Furthermore the members of the land user communities benefited from the pres-ence of the para-ecologists by having a local contact person or

‘intermediary’, who they can approach to enquire about the pro-ject obpro-jectives, activities and outcomes and with whom they can share their concerns about, and expectations from, the project.

On the Mahafaly Plateau of Madagascar, early involvement of local individuals and communities allowed – to a certain degree – the combination of scientific know-how with traditional knowledge, and helped identifying solutions that not only focused on short-term relief aid, but had good prospects for continuation in the long-term. The role of para-ecologists however, was not only the fostering of mutual trust between researchers and local communi-ties. It also was important for the communication of results, better understanding and acceptance of possible alternative strategies by the local population. In the longer term, through monitoring of the impacts of different management practices, para-ecologists can also play a central role, for example in regular monitoring of biodiversity within a national park (see Apprpoach ‘Participatory M&E’ page 243).

This approach has been chosen by several of the projects involved in the BMBF-SLM programme; altogether with a good success rate. The employment of, and interaction with, para-ecologists certainly opens doors to all involved. Doors that otherwise would have stayed closed.

Figure 5.36: Stakeholder workshop project Kulunda, April 2016, Russia. (Altai State University press department)

Conclusions

This chapter has presented, and discussed, approaches to imple-mentation oriented research (IOR). It has shown that IOR can work – but there are a number of support measures that need to be put in place to make it truly effective. In summary, the main conclusions are:

Implementation-oriented research (IOR) is possible – and can be rewarding

Implementation-oriented and transdisciplinary research is cer-tainly possible. It can be used to produce results that other kinds of research cannot achieve. Implementation-oriented research is being carried out in many locations, supported by many research funding programmes worldwide.

IOR requires support from all involved

Implementation-oriented work needs the support of research institutions from the partner countries where the research takes place. It is a great help if funding is available to cover this coop-eration, and funds that supports both young and experienced sci-entists from the countries of the studies. The success of IOR also depends on the support and ingenuity of members of local com-munities, of advisory capacities available for the topics, the imple-mentation challenges at stake, and on successful involvements of regional and national decision-makers. For cooperation on all these levels, adequate timeframes, working in good partnerships, as well as diplomatic support (with recommendation letters from the funding organisation, GIZ, the Federal Foreign Office or oth-ers) can be very useful; indeed often essential.

Involve people from practice from day one

Local people from the practical, on-the-ground, element have to be involved from day one of the overall project work. They are needed because of their contributions to understanding of local conditions, observational skills, knowledge creation, and practi-cal experience. If concrete results and recommendations emanat-ing from the implementation-orientation of a project are to be relevant, then the researchers need to sit together with ‘people from practice’ as early as possible. The challenge here is to not only define the research objectives and research questions but also the implementation-oriented objectives of the project. This can only be done together with those who know what is being talked about and who in the end can act on decision-making tools, SLM planning, and the design of potential new land management tech-nologies.

Needed: highly experienced coordinators and knowledge managers

IOR also needs strong competences from experienced coordina-tors of the individual research projects: they face challenges of science management and science communication, that go far beyond the normal; ‘normal’ being the coordination of a discipli-nary project with exclusive participation of researchers. Coordina-tion in IOR does not concern only, or even foremost, management tasks. The most precious coordination covers knowledge manage-ment and the facilitation of joint learning. For projects with many heterogeneous partners from science and practice, at least one

coordinating post dealing with project management (managing meetings, conferences, joint reporting) and another post of scien-tific coordination for bringing together and synthesizing the dif-ferent kinds of knowledge (practice-oriented, target and/or profit oriented, academic/ scientific, strategic, indigenous/local knowl-edge) are required. Universities should be given strong financial incentives to systematically build-up competences for knowledge management and facilitation of inter- and transdisciplinary learn-ing, as people able to meet such requirements are few and far between: but more and more urgently needed.

Enable and empower intermediaries

People in the participating study regions can be enabled and empowered. Sharing knowledge and understanding, and com-municating it in a way that it supplies clear choices for decision-making is meaningful for all involved. Successful cooperation and communication methods such as farmer field visits, educa-tion days for school children, awareness videos and TV series best succeed in close cooperation between research and intermediar-ies such as river basin committees or inter-ministerial units. The work to be attempted with these partners can be challenging but achievements can also be surprisingly successful when bringing about unexpected new experience and knowledge. And it can be satisfying for all involved.

Involve professional communicators/ change managers

The involvement of professionals for tasks such as communication, project management, coordination and facilitation of meetings, reporting for internal and external evaluations, or stakeholder anal-ysis and stakeholder involvement needs to be carefully considered.

There are two options for coordinating research partners: either to build up these competences with a long-term commitment in-house, or to outsource (at least some of) the required manage-ment and communication skills. With either option, universities and other research partners would be able to better focus on their key competence of conducting the required research.

Methodology mix and the value of experience

Tools and methods for communication in IOR contexts have been available now for some 25 years from experience with inter- and transdisciplinary research as well as from other areas such as development cooperation, media sciences, or journalism. Here an open and flexible approach is important: analysing what is par-ticularly needed for the individual project and to utilise what anal-ysis and communication tools fit best. Furthermore, it can be of great help if prior experience such as ‘awareness filming’ with the help of para-ecologists (members of local communities working as research assistants) can be integrated. Not all approaches for fruit-ful cooperation need to be designed from scratch.

Chapter 5     Bridging gaps between research and practice 127

Openness to listen and learn

Irrespective of what ‘approaches’ are taken, openness to listen and learn about formerly undiscovered areas is fundamentally important:

• openness to other cultures and other walks of life, ‘their’ and

‘our’ often very different ways of dealing with problems and challenges, and the different possible solutions;

• preparedness to carefully listen, and try to understand other experiences and interests;

• development of mutual understanding and acceptance of dif-ferent kinds of knowledge;

• flexibility with planning of meetings, visits or workshops, con-cerning the participation of key partners, patience with very dif-ferent time horizons and approaches to work; and last but not least;

• flexible expectations of results, and preparedness to be sur-prised also in this respect.

Co-design, co-production, co-delivery: new career paths for scientists required

At present there remain conflicts of interest between what is required from the perspective of the funders and the interests of scientists themselves when working in IOR programmes. The funders require stakeholder involvement and work towards prac-tical implementation. The scientists involved need to finish their PhDs or want to publish in – predominantly disciplinary – academic journals. This conflict of interests becomes obvious when it comes to tangible stakeholder integration. With local stakeholders, there are multiple other elements of importance:  their own specific interests, commitments, expectations, and time horizons.

But co-designing research work and co-defining implementation-oriented objectives is a key pre-requisite for successful joint work when practice-oriented results are aimed at. For such co-design of IOR it is necessary to give up the hierarchy of interpretation and established traditions of designing topics from scientific per-spectives alone. If PhD candidates have to write disciplinary doc-torates, then IOR, basically speaking, is not really attractive for universities and many other academic partners. Here it is only new career paths for IOR in which young scientists can safely make a long-term scientific career that could help to change the name of the game. With all these challenges, supported by experience, it is time to think again – and more thoroughly – about what is needed for truly effective IOR.