Evolution of the Concept of Co-Production

Co-Production for Economic Development in International Relations by Maurice Byé and Henri Bourguinat

The concept of co-production is not new; since the beginning of the twentieth century, the term is used to refer to the industrial production of chemicals, armaments or films. In the economic aspect, it probably began to be used with the work of Maurice Byé, in 1965, which points out co-production as an essential element of international relations, since international co-production means producing in common and, therefore,

It was also in France that the term continued to be used in the economic sense of international relations for developing countries with the work of Henri Bourguinat (1968, 1969). The author argued that the concept of co-production is the bedrock of regional markets, and only when co-productions have multiplied, when irreversible links between partners have been built, can real integration be considered to exist.

Co-Production in Public Service Compiled by Jeffrey Brudney and Robert England

In the late 1970s until the mid–1990s, the term appeared in the United States associated with the Public Service, for example, in the works of Percy (1978), Whitaker (1980), Sharp (1980), Kiser and Percy (1980) and Brudney and England (1983), among others. Clearly, there are two perspectives in these two decades: in the first, ‘the concept of co-production is based on the recognition that public services are the joint product of the activities of citizens and government officials’ (Whitaker 1980, p. 242).

Brudney and England (1983) pointed to another perspective, that of economic relevance, particularly by Kiser and Percy (1980), who reopened the discussion about the distinction between ‘regular producers’ and ‘consumer producers’ introduced by Parks et al. (1981). While the former group is responsible for producing goods and services for the purpose of exchange (usually money), the latter group is responsible for producing services to consume the resulting production.

This book intended to discuss the fundamentals of transdisciplinarity and the concept of transdisciplinary co-production research, and propose the Knowledge Acquisition Design Framework, aimed at integrative research in the theoretical-practical body of knowledge governance and organizational learning (KLGov), in compliance with the conceptual framework of knowledge governance, an important construct for organizations that learn and innovate.

Throughout the chapters, some contributions and theoretical choices are noteworthy. The first is the use of the term co-production, which can take on several specific meanings; here, it is based on Sheila Jasanoff's studies of science and technology in 2004. The author described the co-production of scientific knowledge with society. She discussed the issue in more detail and pointed out that a significant goal of co-production is to generate knowledge on the basis of governance practices and to shed light on how governance practices influence the production and use of knowledge. With the meaning given by the author, the issue is qualified as transdisciplinarity of co-production or transdisciplinary co-production, with the research studies of Robert Frodeman (2014) and Merrit Polk (2015). The second important contribution, by Polk, is the perception that situated knowledge and scientific knowledge share the responsibility in the search for the solution to relevant problems. The author defined transdisciplinary co-production research, derived from integration processes for knowledge creation, as the combination of scientific perspectives with other types of relevant perspectives, which include co-production from the joint formulation of problems to quality control after implementation.

Another very relevant contribution of this book to the researchers who have read it is the description of the conceptual frameworks, as they were useful for defining the KAD framework itself. The frameworks are rich in detail, which makes it difficult to choose the most suitable one, or the one that will be the basis of a framework for research in the organizational field. Each one is suitable for a specific situation; all of them have in-depth and well-defined theoretical ties and an excellent methodological basis. The contributions of this book extend to the definitions of unity of knowledge, transdisciplinarity, transdisciplinary co-production, and transdisciplinary research, as shown in Table 6.1.

These definitions were developed in response to the challenges of transdisciplinary co-production research on knowledge governance and organizational learning; they may as well be suitable for other contexts.

Reflections on the unity of knowledge were widely expressed at different times in history. They started with the philosophers of antiquity, and then continued in the Middle Ages, during the Enlightenment, in the theoretical foundations of the mereology of systemic thought and also throughout the philosophy of science. Debate on the theme was intensified in the sixteenth century and later with the revolutionary ideas of German, French, English and Italian thinkers about knowledge and the scientific method that will give rise to modern science; for example, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Gottfried W. Leibniz, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. Table 1.1 shows how the ideas of such thinkers intersect throughout time.

In the wake of modern science, however, the issue of disciplinary specialization has emerged, causing a profound change in the search for scientific knowledge. The new order of increasingly specialized disciplines negatively affected the integrated view of science and knowledge, as it kept a distance from the various realities found in the same problem or circumstance and even disregarding the necessary integration between different types of knowledge. Upon realization of this trend, numerous movements and initiatives emerged out of the concern for the breakdown of the unity of knowledge. The Enlightenment philosophers, for example, organized the Encyclopédie or Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers (Diderot and D’Alembert 1751–1772; Encyclopedia, or a Systematic Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Crafts), a collection of 17 volumes, released between 1751 and 1772 in order to gather, organize and disseminate the knowledge available. Despite this grand undertaking, science has been fragmented, and this situation remains until today.

In the 1990s, however, the debate on the importance of pursuing the unity of knowledge was rekindled, enhanced by the concept of transdisciplinarity, introduced in the 1970s. It was argued that the traditional mode of knowledge production (Mode 1) gave way to a new way (Mode 2) that was more suited to capturing the complexity of reality through scientific research.

Benchmarks

The Disciplinary Relations of Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz in the 1970s

The contribution of Jean Piaget and André Lichnerowicz to transdisciplinarity began with the 1970 event and extended for some time until each one of them embraced their main areas of interest, for which they became known. Biologist Piaget dedicated his whole life to studying the process of knowledge acquisition, especially by children. Lichnerowicz was dedicated to the study of differential geometry and was recognized for his contribution in the field, for example, he chaired the Lichnerowicz Commission, established to analyse the pedagogical project of teaching mathematics.

In the early 1970s, they were both involved in teaching and learning issues of science, and Piaget, in particular, was aware of initiatives in the scientific community for the debate on disciplinarity, including the Unity of Science movement from the first half of the twentieth century (1922–1936), founded by a group of scientists and philosophers who met regularly at the University of Vienna (hence it was called the Vienna Circle, also known as the ‘Ernst Mach Society’). The movement argued that there should be a unitary set of physical premises from which the regularities of all reality could be derived.

During the 1970 event, this vision was contained in the reflections of his work ‘L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires’, as well as in the necessary distinctions between interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, the results of which led him, in fact, to coin the term and the first concept of transdisciplinarity:

Throughout the Conference, it is evident that the educator saw transdisciplinarity as a new form of disciplinary relations, more integrative than interdisciplinarity, going beyond and even being the result of interdisciplinarity. Nicolescu (2006) pointed out that ‘this description is vague, but has the merit of pointing to a new space of knowledge “without stable boundaries between the disciplines” ‘ (p. 1).

The Integrative Approach

Integration is central to all phases of transdisciplinary research, from problem identification and structuring to implementation. Pohl et al. (2018) argued that integration is not a value in itself, but a necessary methodology to meet society's demands for knowledge. Some authors, such as Bergmann et al. (2012), classified interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research as integrative research, based on the degree of interaction between academic and non-academic participants. A specific feature of this classification is precisely the fact that it acknowledges the involvement of interested parties in integrative approaches, and this characteristic also poses the greatest challenge.

Disciplinary interactions, which evolve into interdisciplinary research, refer, in this continuum, to the degree of cooperation and integration of the various disciplines for resolution of the research problem. When the involvement of non-academic actors is added to this scenario, the continuum flows into transdisciplinary research (Tress et al. 2005). It is a trend that does not emphasize differentiation and specialization, but rather the need to unite various fields of knowledge and work experiences that can result in new specialties and types of socialization and, in the end, in more robust, resistant and healthier institutions.

Genuine transdisciplinary integrative research is concerned with coordinating different bodies of knowledge, after identifying gaps in the science, technology and society tripod, and understanding how to fill these gaps with appropriate scientific methodology and theoretical frameworks. It is the recognition that the bases of specialized knowledge are dispersed in the very heterogeneity of reality and that, therefore, only an integrative approach can possibly capture essential features of the context where the problem lies. It is about bringing to the scientific framework relevant social problems that need a solution and take science to the relevant problems that need a solution, wherever they are. It is about emphasizing the contextuality of transdisciplinary research, whose roots are founded on the needs of affected social actors, the inclusion of the participants involved and the commitment to mutual learning, and whose highest quality is ‘to have a practical effect on the world beyond science’ (p. 43).

Governance of Knowledge (GovK) and of Organizational Learning (GovL)

Since the mid-twentieth century, knowledge and organizational learning have taken a leading role in public and private organizations, since their value has been acknowledged for building and maintaining competitive advantage and for effective implementation of innovation. Knowledge management monitors, facilitates and manages the processes of creation and internalization of knowledge at the levels of individuals, as well as the sharing, storage, dissemination and institutionalization at the level of groups and organizations, in order to help overcome knowledge-dependent organizational challenges and promote transformation. According to Freire et al. (2021):

Transdisciplinarity is a relatively recent term: it emerged in 1970 in France during an event held to discuss the role of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in university settings, entitled ‘L’interdisciplinarité: problémes d'enseignement et de recherche dans les universités’. During the event, three participants presented and discussed the new concept of transdisciplinarity. Jean Piaget and Andre Lichnerowicz focused on disciplinary relations, while Erich Jantsch addressed the concept from the perspective of social purpose.

The event proceedings (Apostel et al. 1970), with more than 300 pages, were the most important source of reference in the field for a long time, until two other theoretical frameworks were published (Klein 2013): Mode 2 Knowledge Production of Michael Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow (1994) and Basarab Nicolescu's Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity (1993).

All perspectives, moreover, sought to understand the multidimensionality of reality and the inclusion of social values that dismantle the division into academics (i.e., the experts) and non-academics, fostering new partnerships between university and society. The valorization and increment of these forms of interaction in the pursuit of the unity of knowledge signalled a new form of integration between society and academia, especially for the conduct of scientific research.

The pursuit of the unity of knowledge, in fact, is the epistemological problem highlighted by transdisciplinarity. It dates back to the time of ancient philosophers and has never ceased to be a relevant topic of study. In Morin's words, it flows through time:

In this context, transdisciplinarity is involved in a series of changes that have become necessary to transcend and integrate disciplinary paradigms.