Evaluating knowledge co-production for transformative change

When scientists try to solve massive problems like climate change or the loss of nature, they have long realized that working alone in a lab is not enough. They need to work alongside the people who live with these issues every day. This approach, where researchers and community members create knowledge together, is called co-production. However, a difficult question remains: how do you know if this messy, human process is actually leading to real, lasting change? It is not enough to simply count how many meetings were held or how many new parks were built. True transformation requires shifts in how people think, how power is shared, and how decisions are made. To understand this, a team of researchers looked at the process not just as a series of tasks, but as a journey that happens in three connected areas: the personal (what people value and believe), the political (how rules and power work), and the practical (the physical actions and solutions taken).

A group of scientists from across Europe set out to build a better way to measure this kind of change. They worked on a project called Integrative Labs, which brought together researchers and local communities in five different places: two in Sweden, one in Norway, one in Spain, and one in Poland. Their goal was to design nature-based solutions, which are practical ways to use the natural world to solve problems like flooding or heat, while ensuring these solutions were fair and inclusive. Instead of waiting until the end to see if they succeeded, the team created a new system to evaluate their work as it happened. They wanted to know if their methods were helping people feel more empowered, if they were changing how decisions were made, and if they were fostering a deeper sense of care for both people and the environment.

The researchers developed a toolkit that guided them through the entire process, from the very first conversation to the final reflection. At the start, they did not just decide what to study; they negotiated the purpose of the work with local partners. They used a method called a "Theory of Change," which is essentially a map that helps a group agree on what they want to achieve and what steps are needed to get there. This map was not static; it was updated regularly as the team learned more. Throughout the project, they used surveys and interviews to check in with participants, asking not just what they learned, but how they felt about the process. They paid close attention to whether everyone had a voice, whether power imbalances were being addressed, and whether the relationships between people were improving.

One of the most significant contributions of this work was the creation of eleven specific "catalyst indicators." Think of these as signs that a transformation is taking root. These signs cover a wide range of human experiences, from whether people feel a stronger sense of agency and ability to act, to whether they have developed a deeper awareness of their own values and the values of others. The indicators also look at whether the group has managed to reframe how they see a problem, moving from a narrow view to a broader understanding that includes social justice. Crucially, these indicators are not just about the final result, like a new garden or a policy change. They measure the quality of the journey itself, such as the trust built between strangers or the willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints. The team found that these shifts in personal and political spheres were just as important as the physical changes in the landscape.

The study revealed that evaluating transformative change is possible, but it requires a different mindset than traditional science. The researchers found that when they focused on practical wisdom—a blend of humility, care, and a commitment to justice—their evaluations became much more meaningful. They discovered that even in short-term projects, meaningful shifts could occur. For instance, in some locations, the process helped marginalized groups find a stronger voice in local planning. In others, it helped officials understand that the most effective solutions were those designed with the community, not just for them. The team noted that while the physical results, like new green spaces, were visible, the deeper changes in how people related to one another and to nature were the true drivers of long-term success.

However, the researchers were careful to note the limits of their work. They acknowledged that this kind of deep, reflective evaluation is time-consuming and can be a heavy burden for already busy teams. They also pointed out that while they could measure changes in personal values and group dynamics, it is harder to pin down exactly how those values translated into specific policy changes or long-term ecological outcomes. The study suggests that while their framework is a powerful tool for learning and adaptation, it is not a perfect scorecard that can capture every nuance of human interaction.

Ultimately, this paper offers a roadmap for anyone trying to create change through collaboration. It argues that the best way to know if a project is working is to look at the quality of the relationships and the shifts in thinking that happen along the way. By using a structured yet flexible approach, researchers and communities can ensure that their work does not just produce a report or a physical object, but fosters a genuine transformation in how society addresses its most pressing challenges. The work demonstrates that when science and society work together with care and humility, the path to a more sustainable future becomes clearer, not just for the experts, but for everyone involved.