Knowledge coproduction is a process with a purpose

Coproduction processes can encompass diverse meanings and ends, underlying motives that are numerous and diverse (Lepenies and others, Reference Lepenies, Hüesker, Beck and Brugnach2018; Norström and others, Reference Norström2020; Maas and others, Reference Maas, Pauwelussen and Turnhout2022; Honeybun-Arnolda and others, Reference Honeybun-Arnolda, Mahony and Chilvers2024). The coproduction of public services, the codevelopment of knowledge to support decision-making, or the cocreation of solutions to common challenges, are a few common examples. The purpose of a coproduction process is what determines who gets to participate, what resources are needed, and how a process is organised. In glaciology, some frequent purposes of coproduction are the development of adaptation strategies for local communities, protection against cryospheric hazards, support of decision-making for governance, and improvement of sustainable and responsible research (Bravo, Reference Bravo2006; Hughes and others, Reference Hughes2018; Chown and Brooks, Reference Chown and Brooks2019; Abdel-Fattah and others, Reference Abdel-Fattah, Trainor, Hood, Hock and Kienholz2021).

Coproduction of adaptation strategies and protection against cryospheric hazards refers to the processes that are carried out at a regional scale with the objective of developing, jointly with various actors, forms of adaptation in the context of hazards related to cryospheric climate change. In mountain regions, not only are the cryospheric components such as ice, snow, and permafrost at direct risk of melting and disappearing (IPCC, 2019) but also the local communities who are dependent on these elements. While the vulnerability of these communities varies geographically and to different degrees, effects on water supply and economic dependence seem to be of particular importance. High-mountain communities and downstream users worldwide rely on the seasonal supply of water from melting snow and glaciers, and the impacts of climate change on these elements will consequently have effects on the water availability for drinking, irrigation, and hydroelectricity (Immerzeel and others, Reference Immerzeel2020; Lutz and others, Reference Lutz2022). Risks of glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs) are also increasing (Harrison and others, Reference Harrison2018; Bazai and others, Reference Bazai2021). In the Alps and other European high mountains, the impacts of decreasing snow cover, melting glaciers, and increased risk of ice and rock avalanches are observed in the tourism sectors that depend heavily on winter and mountaineering activities (Bruley and others, Reference Bruley, Locatelli and Lavorel2021; Salim and others, Reference Salim, Ravanel, Bourdeau and Deline2021). With rapid changes occurring in the cryosphere, ecosystem services across the world are inevitably affected, which makes it imperative for different actors to create and implement effective adaptation plans (Moors and others, Reference Moors2011; Huggel and others, Reference Huggel2020; Drenkhan and others, Reference Drenkhan2023).

The objective of improving decision support for governance and for sustainable and responsible research is twofold: (i) to minimise the impacts of glaciological research activities upon natural environments and local communities (Hughes and others, Reference Hughes2018; Kettle and others, Reference Kettle2019), and (ii) to adapt the existing ecosystem and climate services surrounding glaciology to the specific needs and interests of local users (Bravo, Reference Bravo2006; Abdel-Fattah and others, Reference Abdel-Fattah, Trainor, Hood, Hock and Kienholz2021). Decision support tools encompass resources that help support decisions at different scales including information gathering, data analysis and modelling, and decision implementation (Bhargava and others, Reference Bhargava, Power and Sun2007). Such tools have historically utilised technological and analytical approaches but equally important are social communication, local observations, and voices that provide information beyond data and numbers (Cruikshank, Reference Cruikshank2005; Bravo, Reference Bravo2009; Sandré and others, Reference Sandré, Wardekker, Gherardi, Bremer and Wardekker2024).

For example, in the Alaskan Arctic, the development of collective decision support tools has been particularly important as vast resources and ecosystem services related to sea ice and wildlife are shared and used by many actors including traditional hunters, local communities, scientists, and offshore industry operators. Local communities and subsistence hunters have generations of experience and knowledge on their local conditions and environment that are useful for purposes such as understanding sea-ice safety for travel and expeditions (Albert, Reference Albert and Norton2000; Mahoney and others, Reference Mahoney, Eicken and Shapiro2007; Kettle and others, Reference Kettle2019), conservation of wildlife and protection of their habitat, risk, and benefit assessment for consumption of subsistence food (Moses and others, Reference Moses, Whiting, Bratton, Taylor and O'Hara2009; Babu, Reference Babu2023), and minimising offshore oil and gas as well as shipping traffic (Davis and others, Reference Davis2021).

Decision support to minimise the impacts of glaciological research activities is also crucial for inhabited regions. For instance, Antarctica is identified by international law as one of the four global commons (together with the High Seas, the Atmosphere, and Outer Space), defined as those parts of the planet that fall outside national jurisdictions and to which all nations have access (UNTT, 2013; Dodds and others, Reference Dodds, Hemmings and Roberts2017). As such, the Antarctic environment and its resources are protected by the principle of the common heritage of humankind (Joyner, Reference Joyner1986), which guides also the planning of Antarctic research and governance (see e.g. the scientific advice to the Antarctic Treaty System and the codes of conduct for scientists working in Antarctica provided by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, SCAR: https://www.scar.org/).

Knowledge coproduction includes and excludes

The coproduction of knowledge involves creative processes that notably differ from the traditional production of scientific knowledge through the scientific method. Instead of having a main knowledge holder (i.e. a scientist) observing and describing an external reality, during a coproduction process, there are networks of actors holding diverse forms of knowledge, which come together to create yet new blended knowledge forms collectively. These actors define the issues of concern, determine what needs to be known and done to address them and identify the type of knowledge that needs to be developed. Attention should be given to the fact that the inclusion of certain actors inherently determines who is excluded.

In a coproduction process, actors are knowledge holders who can be involved in several different ways (Davis and others, Reference Davis2021). Considering involvement from the perspective of power, Arnstein (Reference Arnstein1969) distinguished between different roles, from nonparticipation (manipulation, treatment), tokenism (informing, consultation, placation), and citizen control as inclusive forms of self-mobilisation and auto-determination. Being aware of the type of actor engagement helps align individual and collective expectations regarding roles and responsibilities in the creation of the new knowledge, making the process more transparent and also asserting that the people who need to be involved are actually involved, so as to mobilise the knowledge that is needed.

In glaciology, the question of who produces glaciological knowledge, and how such knowledge is used or shared is not usually emphasised. Systems of domination and structures of power and patriarchy have long fed the production of glaciological knowledge (Bravo and Triscott, Reference Bravo and Triscott2011; Carey and Moulton, Reference Carey and Moulton2023; Robel and others, Reference Robel, Ultee, Ranganathan and Nash2024) and this has set the standard where the ‘who’ has predominantly been the Western scientists. Other forms of cryospheric knowledge, such as folk and grass-roots glaciology, which have been produced at different times and places by diverse peoples, cultures, and social groups (Cruikshank, Reference Cruikshank2005; Carey and others, Reference Carey, Jackson, Antonello and Rushing2016; Munir and others, Reference Munir, Bano, Adil and Khayyam2021), have remained marginalised. Here, we suggest that knowledge coproduction can provide an opportunity to decentralise this ‘who’, amplifying the voices and narratives of those whose glaciological knowledge has been systematically dismissed.

Knowledge coproduction builds on relationships

Coproduction processes that support the creation of new knowledge go in tandem with developing high-quality relationships among actors, based on mutual understanding and trust (Brugnach, Reference Brugnach2017; Fleming and others, Reference Fleming2023). That allows advocates for supportive dialogical settings, where mutual listening, debate, learning, and negotiation are encouraged, to communicate their expectations and presumptions. Through these exchanges, they collaborate to generate new blended knowledge forms. It also implies paying close attention to the interaction among knowledge holders, and the relationships of production and power underlying the exchange of knowledge among them.

Coproduction procedures must pay special attention to ‘what is going on’ while the actors are interacting. It is critical to take into account not only who is engaging and who is missing, but also what happens when different actors interact: how people communicate, what is said, and what is not said. It is conceivable for powerful individuals to impose their opinions in order to further their own agendas (Zingraff-Hamed and others, Reference Zingraff-Hamed2020). Well-performed coproduction processes must consider empowerment programs and operational and structural support instruments (such as legal aid, information access, and capacity building) that restore the balance of power among participants (Gerlak and others, Reference Gerlak2023). They also call for a continuing review of the participation rules (Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Craps and Dewulf2017). In short, setting a coproduction process to work demands much more than merely bringing knowledge holders to a table: it requires the capacity for dialogue among knowledge holders, even when power asymmetries, identity issues, differential access, or control over resources or information is at play.

At a global scale, the IPCC provides a notable example. Until the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Indigenous Peoples were largely overlooked as holders of valid knowledge, and their contributions were neglected (Ford and others, Reference Ford2016; Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Craps and Dewulf2017; Mahony and Hulme, Reference Mahony and Hulme2018). Since then, the IPCC has made significant efforts to include Indigenous knowledge, however effectively integrating nonscientific perspectives with scientific literature remains a significant challenge (Chen and others, Reference Chen and Masson-Delmotte2021). Critics argue that the IPCC engagement with Indigenous knowledge frequently is superficial and tokenistic, prioritising scientific epistemologies, thereby perpetuating power dynamics that marginalise and sideline nonscientific knowledge forms, particularly those rooted in Indigenous traditions (Hernandez and others, Reference Hernandez, Meisner, Jacobs and Rabinowitz2022; Carmona and others, Reference Carmona2023; Rashidi, Reference Rashidi2024). These dynamics are further exacerbated by institutional structures, which often exclude Indigenous Peoples from meaningful participation (Asayama and others, Reference Asayama2023).

In knowledge coproduction ambiguity is unavoidable

Often hidden within assumptions, the coproduction of knowledge among multiple holders also entails handling ambiguity. Ambiguity arises when diverse WoKs are brought together, leading to confusion and differing interpretations within a group (Brugnach and Ingram, Reference Brugnach and Ingram2012). It reflects the differences in understanding among knowledge holders regarding a particular situation. Inherent in any coproduction process that involves diverse actor groups, ambiguity highlights that WoKs may not always align.

Ambiguity can manifest in various ways, pointing out discrepancies that may be substantive (such as differing views on the significance of a melting glacier), procedural (involving rules, formal agreements, regulations, or laws, such as measures to mitigate landslide, avalanche, and glacial-flooding risks), or process-related (concerning informal relationships, interactions, and participation, such as the roles played by scientists, boundary organisations, and local actors).

While ambiguity can be a valuable source of creativity and innovation, it can also lead to contradictions and even conflicts among knowledge holders, hindering the group's ability to work collaboratively toward a common goal. These differences may create confusion about the primary issues of concern, the relevant sources of knowledge, how to integrate different WoKs, or what actions need to be taken. In the process of coproducing knowledge, it is crucial to recognise and address these differences in a way that constructively harnesses the diversity of WoKs rather than diminishing it. In such contexts, dialogical forms of coproduction are particularly effective (see Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Dewulf, Henricksen and van der Keur2011, for various strategies to navigate ambiguity).

When working in polar or high-mountain regions, ambiguity becomes also an inevitable consequence of knowledge coproduction between glaciologists and local communities, as those actors hold different WoKs, values, practices, and systems. As a result, discrepancies arise in the framing of the glaciological issue and its relevant solution, be it a loss of glacier mass from a geophysical perspective or the loss of a cultural monument and water resource through the eyes of local communities (Cruikshank, Reference Cruikshank2005; Bravo, Reference Bravo2009; Carey and Moulton, Reference Carey and Moulton2023). This ambiguity then has implications for the management, conservation, and adaptation plans, and often results in disagreements, misalignments, and tensions among people (Brugnach, Reference Brugnach2017).

Exemplary instances of ambiguities arise when the geophysical view of glaciologists is confronted with the cultural and symbolic values of glaciers for the local communities living near them (Orlove and others, Reference Orlove, Wiegandt, Luckman, Orlove, Wiegandt and Luckman2008). In the Canadian Arctic, for instance, Cruikshank (Reference Cruikshank2005) reports local narratives of sentient glaciers that become offended by the smells of cooking with grease, sometimes reacting with great danger, for example, through glacier surges. In the Karakoram, local understanding assigns genders to the glaciers, which can be combined through the Indigenous practice of glacier grafting to generate new ice (Gioli and others, Reference Gioli, Khan and Scheffran2014; Munir and others, Reference Munir, Bano, Adil and Khayyam2021). While climate change projections warn of drastic glacier retreats globally (IPCC, 2019), the current climatic anomaly in the Karakoram results in relative glacier stability (Hewitt, Reference Hewitt2005; Farinotti and others, Reference Farinotti, Immerzeel, de Kok, Quincey and Dehecq2020), which may spark peculiar expectations of glacier and hydrological security among the local people. Here, acknowledging and addressing ambiguities in knowledge and future climate projections become key issues in the adaptation to climate change. On the one hand, because their absence would rather entail that other forms of knowledge outside the dominant one have been dismissed or invalidated. On the other hand, because local knowledge forms can offer alternative venues for adaptation that are not foreseen with science alone.

Knowledge coproduction demands clear ethical boundaries

Creating blended knowledge that goes beyond scientific understanding and includes different WoKs raises ethical implications regarding the participatory processes underlying knowledge development and its substantial output, bringing up fundamental questions about property rights, knowledge sharing, and use. Several authors have argued that knowledge coproduction between scientific and nonscientific actors (e.g. local communities) can lead to the emergence of a participation paradox (Craps and others, Reference Craps, Dewulf, Mancero, Santos and Bouwen2004; Quaghebeur and others, Reference Quaghebeur, Masschelein and Nguyen2004); where local knowledge holders may find themselves excluded by the knowledge, structures, and procedures that are meant to involve them, reinforcing even more the relationships of power and the legitimisation of scientific knowledge (Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Craps and Dewulf2017). Notably, there are issues concerning:

1. (1) Self-determination: It raises questions regarding the process underlying coproduction, if, for example, it is voluntary and informed, and regarding the influence or authority granted to the nonscientific actors. In knowledge coproduction and collaborative partnership among different knowledge holders, there should be a consensual agreement on their ‘knowledge sharing process’. This requires ‘cultural safety’, an inclusive environment fostering a trusting and reciprocal working relationship with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds (Bourassa and others, Reference Bourassa2020). When knowledge is sacred, this process becomes increasingly important as it is not necessarily sharable or accessible without special rituals or practices (Fung, Reference Fung2006; Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Craps and Dewulf2017).

2. (2) Property rights and transparency: Taking into account property rights and transparency involves examining the legitimacy of the representation of knowledge holders, questioning who is being credited for the coproduced knowledge and if the use of local knowledge forms is used with the proper consent of its legitimate owners. In climate-change-related projects, it is not uncommon a lack of transparency and accountability, and as a result, elite groups, including scientists, are able to capture the benefits, sometimes even to the prejudice of Indigenous communities (Turner and Clifton, Reference Turner and Clifton2009; Brugnach and others, Reference Brugnach, Craps and Dewulf2017; Klenk and others, Reference Klenk, Fiume, Meehan and Gibbes2017; Jull and others, Reference Jull, Morton-Ninomiya, Compton and Picard2018).

3. (3) Knowledge appropriation: Issues of appropriation involve assessing whether nonscientific knowledge is appreciated in its entirely or fragmented into data to conform to the standards of Western science. It is important that the coproduction process does not discount and local and indigenous knowledge by treating them merely as an extractive source available for scientific research. The appropriation of local knowledge systems out of their original context to fit into the epistemological and ontological framework of Western science not only marginalises local WoKs, but also breaks the ties that bind local knowledge to their local interests, governance, and social practices (Smith and Sharp, Reference Smith and Sharp2012; Latulippe and Klenk, Reference Latulippe and Klenk2020).

In sum, in glaciology, as in any other complex multidisciplinary field, knowledge coproduction can be viewed as a process that connects different WoKs by bringing together the expertise and skills of a wide range of actors in ways that are fair and inclusive of their needs and concerns. Its essence lies in creating opportunities for the development of novel forms of knowledge, study, and action that are capable of delving into the knowledge and wisdom of people and places (Muhl and others, Reference Muhl2023). It is a process that involves working together with humans, and also nonhumans-others, towards a common end, where science, even though essential, is not privileged as the sole legitimate way of knowing.