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.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.