Search

Reflexive and deliberative knowledge co-production processes are increasingly used in dealing with contemporary sustainability challenges. These processes come with the need to develop ways to properly assess and understand their impact. In our case study, a three-year-long knowledge co-production process aimed at evaluating the Dutch nature policy, we observed that the actors involved valued and understood the impact of the process differently. Actors’ understandings of impact were also affected by political developments in the context surrounding the co-production process. Our empirical analysis focused on three dimensions of impact assessment (function of knowledge co-production, perceived pathway to impact, and problem identification) and identified four coexisting ‘rationales’ that actors used in their valuations of impact: accountability, instrumental, network and transformative rationales. Although the rationales appear incompatible, each emphasizing different ideas on how impact is achieved, in practice, individual actors drew on multiple rationales simultaneously in their assessment of the co-production process’ impact. Specific national and provincial political dynamics, related to goal achievement of the nature policy, influenced how actors used the rationales. Actors increased the use of the accountability and transformative rationales as policy deadlines drew near. Our findings have implications for designing knowledge co-production processes. The coexistence of impact rationales complicates a responsive approach to process design that aims to consider the knowledge demands of diverse actors. Nevertheless, we argue that combining impact rationales is desirable, given the nature of and reasons for knowledge co-production, and provide recommendations for dealing with their coexistence in practice.

Despite increased popularity of knowledge co-production as a research approach to address contemporary environmental issues, its implementation in science–policy contexts is not self-evident. In this paper, we illustrate how researchers at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (in Dutch: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL)) ensured a fit between key features of knowledge co-production and conventional norms and customs for knowledge production processes at the science–policy interface while simultaneously challenging those norms to create space for knowledge co-production. Drawing on implementation science, we analyzed two types of alignment activities: negotiation of normative and relational norms and modification of co-production features. Based on three policy evaluation cases, we show that PBL researchers developed co-production capacity over time. They became more skilled at recognizing (un)conducive structures to knowledge co-production, negotiating such structures, and modifying co-production features without compromising co-production integrity. We argue that investment in these skills is required to negotiate space for knowledge co-production in science–policy settings.

While hybrid evaluation practices are increasingly common, many Western countries continue to favor modernist evaluation logics focused on performance management—hampering the normalization of reflexive logics revolving around system change. We use Normalization Process Theory to analyze the work evaluators from a policy assessment agency undertook to accomplish the alignment between the prevailing and proposed logics guiding evaluation practice, while implementing a reflexive evaluation approach. Ad hoc alignment strategies and insufficient investment in mutual sense-making regarding reflexive evaluation hindered normalization. We conclude that alignment requires developing reflexive evaluation legitimacy in the context of application and guarding reflexive evaluation integrity, while contextual structures and cultures and reflexive evaluation components are being negotiated. Elasticity (of contextual structures and cultures) and plasticity (of reflexive evaluation components) are introduced as helpful concepts to further understand how reflexive evaluation practices can become normalized. We reflect on the use of Normalization Process Theory for studying the normalization of reflexive evaluation.

Insect species display a large range of inter- and intraspecific variation in learning and memory retention. Variation in associative learning ability has also been reported for three species in the parasitoid wasp genus Nasonia, most notably between Nasonia vitripennis and Nasonia giraulti, for which inbred isogenic strains have been established and studied intensively. We addressed the question how learning and memory of such isogenic strains compare to the phenotypes found in genetically diverse strains of these species. We recorded memory retention of both isogenic and genetically diverse strains of two species at 4–120 h after either olfactory or visual conditioning. Memory retention typically declined over time, but the pattern of decline differed consistently between strains. The isogenic N. vitripennis strain formed long-lasting (>5 days) memory, whereas the isogenic N. giraulti strain lost its memory after 48 h. Yet, genetically diverse strains of both species formed long-lasting memory. Memory retention patterns of strains were independent of sensory modality of the conditioned stimulus for all strains. These results show that there is variation for associative learning and memory within the two species, but not clear interspecies differences in memory retention. Without a better overview of the natural variation in learning abilities within a species, individual strains, especially isogenic strains with low genetic variability, are not necessarily representative of the species in general.

Participation of relevant stakeholders, knowledge integration, responsive and emergent design and effective boundary management are four key features of transdisciplinary research (TDR). These features pose significant challenges to both undertaking TDR and evaluating its societal impact. We argue that TDR’s context specificity and complexity warrant an evaluation approach that supports the coordinating team in developing these key features. In light of this, this article aims to reconcile two distinct foci of TDR evaluation, namely supporting transdisciplinary capacity building and impact evaluation. We share the results from a combined approach in which the authors acted both as facilitators and evaluators of a TDR project, to conduct an embedded, formative evaluation. Our findings show that the approach allowed for better access to the participants and sensitivity to their perspectives on impact, and for enhanced understanding of complex internal and external project dynamics and how these shaped the project. This resulted in a meaningful assessment of TDR’s societal impacts and enabled attributing these to specific process elements. Moreover, the approach supported the coordinating TDR team’s capacities for developing key TDR features. Four TDR capacities were identified: building TDR ownership, openness and transparency for integrating divergent TDR needs, purposeful responsiveness to emergent TDR needs and navigating institutional realities and TDR ambitions. The approach presented may serve as stepping stone for the TDR community to further the conversation on (the impact of) inclusive, reflexive and responsive research.