Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Methodological evaluation reveals persistent power hierarchies in refugee-led urban agriculture, suggesting that collaborative research involves significant trade-offs rather than guaranteed...
Co-production of knowledge is identified by researchers and policy-makers as central to the advancement of scientific endeavors to address societal challenges, and as a process of empowerment which improves linkages between theory, knowledge, and action. We reflect on a nascent project we are developing that takes seriously the idea of co-producing knowledge and questions what the “co-” really means in the research development process, particularly with regard to research goals, sites, methods, and funding? Our interdisciplinary project investigates socio-ecological resilience and recovery in urban farms led by refugees, and integrates co-production from the inception of the project through a research collaboration with researchers, practitioners, and refugees involved in the International Rescue Committee’s New Roots Program. Through an exploration of the messiness that becomes manifest as the co-production process unfolds, especially the on-the-ground power dynamics that come with forming relationships with resettlement agency gatekeepers, this paper questions the often-idealized notion that co-production, and emergent methodologies, yields win-win situations. Rather, we posit that co-production incurs tentative alliances and significant trade-offs. So, while we embrace the theory behind co-production, we conclude that the key role of gatekeepers means that theory and reality collide as power hierarchies emerge and the process unfolds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gibbes et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: