Institutionalizing co‐production diplomacy in contexts of long‐term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance

Abstract Knowledge co‐production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co‐production requires that researchers, decision‐makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co‐production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision‐making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision‐makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co‐production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co‐production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod ( Gadus morhua ) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long‐standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co‐production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co‐production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict‐ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co‐production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision‐making as the primary goal of the co‐production process.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Policy and Governance
Published
2024-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2138
Citations
4
Primary Topic
International Science and Diplomacy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.92

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Institutionalizing co‐production diplomacy in contexts of long‐term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance

Nicole Lisa Klenk, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Brian Pentz
4 citations
Environmental Policy and Governance
International Science and Diplomacy
8.92
article

Institutionalizing co‐production diplomacy in contexts of long‐term epistemological conflict: A case study of cod fisheries governance

Nicole Lisa Klenk, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Brian Pentz
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Knowledge co‐production is a collaborative approach to research that seeks to enable transformative societal change and improve outcomes in natural resource management and sustainable development. Instituting knowledge co‐production requires that researchers, decision‐makers, and stakeholders be willing to work together towards shared goals. In the context of fisheries management, co‐production represents a significant departure from the technocratic discourses and governance practices that have characterized decision‐making for decades. Moreover, some fisheries contexts have been plagued by persistent and seemingly intractable epistemological conflicts between stakeholders and decision‐makers. Such situations complicate the implementation of co‐production and raise questions about the extent to which researchers can achieve the aims of co‐production in situations of distrust, amenity, and entrenched positions. We use the case study of Northern Cod, a stock of Atlantic Cod ( Gadus morhua ) governance in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, a case of long‐standing conflict between the regulator, fishers, Indigenous peoples, and industry parties, to explore whether and how co‐production can enable collaborative research leading to “transformative societal change.” We find five factors complicating uptake of co‐production in the governance of Northern Cod: (i) competing perspectives exist regarding the relative worth of different types of knowledge; (ii) links between epistemic preferences and interests; (iii) barriers related to access and inclusion in governance spaces; (iv) barriers related to institutional design; and, (v) conflict‐ridden stakeholder relations. In a context of persistent epistemological conflict and distrust, we propose that knowledge co‐production focus on diplomacy through science with an aim to repair relationships rather than produce new knowledge that can serve as evidence in decision‐making as the primary goal of the co‐production process.

Environmental Policy and GovernanceVol. 35(2)
The Nature Conservancy (US), University of Toronto (CA), Scarborough Health Network (CA)
Royal Canadian Geographical Society, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
International Science and Diplomacy
8.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.