Abstract
Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge
and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an
emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and
ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have
been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to
constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas.
This project and paper were supported by the Luc Hoffmann Institute
and MAVA Foundation. We acknowledge the Center for Collaborative
Conservation, the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS),
the Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), and The Pew Charitable
Trusts for hosting our workshops. J.M.C. received additional support
from the Economic and Social Research Council (grant RG97777). J.J.C.
was funded by a Rhodes University Postdoctoral Fellowship, and acknowledges the contributions of Preshnee Singh and Smiso Behngu to
analysing the Durban Research Action Partnership case. H.O. ¨ was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (grant 2018-1371), The David and
Lucile Packard Foundation (grant 2019-68336), and The Gordon and
Betty Moore Foundation (grant GBMF5668.02). J.G. was supported by
the UK Research and Innovation’s Global Challenges Research Fund
(UKRI GCRF) through the Trade, Development and the Environment
Hub project (project ES/S008160/1). A.I.H.M. was supported from a
Volkswagen Stiftung and the Niedersachsisches ¨ Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur grant (A112269) followed by a Marie Sklodowska–Curie grant (840207). A.I.H.M also acknowledges support from
the Leverage Points project practice partners and all project team
members. J.M. was supported by the Leverhulme Trust. J.G.Z. was
funded by the r4d programme of the Swiss Programme for Research on
Global Issues for Development (grant 400440 152167). Elements of this
work were undertaken whilst J.G.Z. was a visiting scholar at the
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge (May 2018–April
2019), supported through Scientific Exchange funding from the Swiss
National Science Foundation (grant IZSEZ0_180391).
