Co-creation across knowledge systems: Problem-framing, research questions, solutions, and assessment methods

Integrating diverse knowledge systems is far from straightforward. The FIRI project confronted this challenge by testing, adapting, and applying a range of methodologies—from Indigenous storywork to the Three Horizons Framework—to co-create shared visions of the future and develop concrete, action-oriented, protocols (aka guiding principles), practices (aka what we do), and methods (aka how we do it). This blog post presents the main approaches that guided this process of knowledge co-creation.

Critical Social Sciences  

One of the main goals of the project is to operationalize critical social theory and to center holistic worldviews. Critical Social Sciences (CSS), those that engage critical social theory to tackle fundamental questions about power dynamics in societies, informed different approaches taken during the planning and implementation of the project, meetings, and workshops. By basing approaches in CSS, we can examine power relations and mitigate uneven power dynamics on the team, as well as consider these while discussing societal change.

Multiple Evidence-Based Approach (MBE) 

This is an approach where Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge generate parallel knowledge. Encouraging different ways of assessing evidence to complement one another enriches the overall outcome in comparison to approaches that privilege one specific knowledge system. MBE informed many discussions and exercises held throughout the workshops, as we worked towards the deliberate inclusion of expertise from all three knowledge teams. 

Indigenous storywork and Conversational Method  

These refer to Indigenous methods that emphasize relationality, accountability, and multidirectional knowledge exchange. The Indigenous fellows were well-versed in these types of methods, and their inclusion contributed substantially towards a sense of cross-cultural understanding. Different aspects of Indigenous worldviews, including the role of protocols, were approached through storywork.

Three Horizons Framework 

The Three Horizons (3-H) Framework (Sharpe et al., 2016) is an exercise used to develop concrete visions of the future. The exercise follows the steps below (fig 1). The third horizon is the goal and represents concrete aspects of the future. The first horizon represents concrete aspects of the present that need to be reduced or eliminated in order to get to the third horizon. Finally, the second horizon represents disruptive innovation, or those things that can support the acceleration of the defined future. Using this method for each case study, we identified concrete aspects of each horizon for each case study.

Figure 1. The Three Horizons Framework used in the first workshop (adapted from Sharpe et al. 2016 & Pereira et al. 2018). 

Co-designed Indicators and assessment methods  

Once we identified concrete aspects of the desired future for each case study (for positive human-wolf interactions and for enhanced wilderness education), we used this vision of the future to identify concrete measurable/identifiable indicators that such a future had been reached. Inspired by Two-Eyed Seeing (Reid et al., 2021; Littlechild & Sutherland, 2021), which emphasizes the different strengths of Western and Indigenous sciences, each “knowledge team” (Indigenous stewardship specialists, Swiss nature conservation practitioners, and university researchers) was asked “How will you know that we have reached the future you identified? What would the indicators be?”. For example, indicators for wilderness education included the integration of wilderness topics into school curricula, increased access to uncultivated or fallow land, and shifts in public perception toward valuing wilderness. For human-wolf interactions, indicators included lower livestock damage, a focus on relationality in herding training, and changes in public and political discourses. Once we identified concrete indicators, each knowledge team defined assessment methods for detecting the indicators.

Based on this exercise, we co-produced concrete research questions and follow-up initiatives aimed at fostering positive human-wolf interactions and enhanced wilderness education. This task proved especially challenging in relation to the latter, as the team felt they needed more time to familiarize themselves with existing research in order to identify knowledge and research gaps.