Karcher, D.B., Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., Shellock, R., Stephenson, R.L., van Putten, I. (2025) Best bang for your buck: Considerations for cost-efficiency in knowledge co-production. Marine Policy. 180: 106769, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106769.
Abstract
Knowledge co-production is a key strategy of collaborative engagement between research and management to achieve better outcomes. Whereas the principles of knowledge co-production in support of evidence-informed policy-making are increasingly understood, our understanding of its cost-efficiency – putting benefits in relation to its cost – is in its infancy. Here, we approach this gap by exploring the key considerations for ensuring that the benefits of co-production processes outweigh the significant direct and indirect costs they can incur. We conceptualise a relationship between the costs and benefits of co-production, consider preconditions that affect those costs and benefits, and outline options for improving the cost-benefit relationship. Specifically, we explore how to maximise co-production efficiency for key principles underpinning effective knowledge co-production (context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented, interactive) and illustrate this with a hypothetical case study of co-production for the use and management of an emerging small-scale fishery. To this end, we conclude by providing a series of guiding questions that practitioners of co-production can use to help ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs. Our results provide researchers and practitioners with improved understanding of the costs and benefits of co-production and encourage the consideration of cost-efficiency in the planning of participatory research. Further, by considering the costs and benefits of co-production processes we provide critical insights into how to ensure effective and efficient science-policy engagement where expectations might exceed limited resources. This includes enabling more transparent and accountable funding and engagement decisions while engaging multiple context-specific streams of policy-relevant knowledge for evidence-informed policy.
I was first attracted to this article because I haven’t seen much about the costs of co-production. We talk about the benefits of co-production but not much about costs. This article doesn’t give a quick and easy return on investment metric – which I hoped for but knew we wouldn’t get – but it does present a different way of thinking about barriers and enablers. Because, at the end of the day, to get a cost:benefit ratio, we aren’t doing much more than thinking about “co production efficiency”. You want to maximize enablers and minimize barriers to enhance the efficiency of co production.
Again, not rocket science. But what is an enabler for me might not be an enabler for you. The article is predicated upon four principles of co production that transcend examples: context-based, pluralistic, goal-oriented, and interactive. Each of these are defined in the text and form the core of the conceptual work of the article. These four are good. How we implement them is dependent on the context. See this LinkedIn post about context and my commentary on context as part of the early incarnations of the PARIHS framework.
Your context is different than mine so we start from scratch each time.
Of interest: check out the project timeline in Figure 2. Actually co producing research knowledge is steps 4 and 5 of a 7-step process. There is a lot to do before the research starts. This is part of the cost of co production that this article is addressing.
There is a list of 12 guiding questions in section 6.2 to help us as we consider a co production project. These are excellent questions to think about before jumping into the work. Again, this pre-work is an example of the cost of co production.
What the article leaves unsaid but implicit is discussion of enablers. But then, what is an enabler if not the answer to a barrier? By answering these 12 guiding questions you are addressing barriers by doing the work. It’s up to you to figure out if this effort (the cost) will make your co production more efficient (contributing to the benefit).
Questions for brokers:
- One of the 12 guiding questions is “What type(s) of co-production are best suited to the question/ problem?” What types of co production can you think of?
- Compare and contrast barriers and costs. What about enablers and benefits?
- The article calls for empirical research “to examine the conceptual ideas developed in this paper.” Why is so much knowledge mobilization literature conceptual and not empirical?
Research Impact Canada is producing this journal club series to make evidence on KMb more accessible to knowledge brokers and to create online discussion about research on knowledge mobilization. It is designed for knowledge brokers and other people interested in knowledge mobilization. Read this open access article. Then come back to this post and join the journal club by posting your comments on our LinkedIn.