Effective climate knowledge brokering in a world of urgent transitions

Effective climate knowledge brokering in a world of urgent transitions Lucia Scodanibbio, Georgina Cundill, Lisa McNamara & Michelle du Toit To cite this article: Lucia Scodanibbio, Georgina Cundill, Lisa McNamara & Michelle du Toit (2023): Effective climate knowledge brokering in a world of urgent transitions, Development in Practice, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2022.2159932 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2022.2159932

In reality, knowledge brokering has been understood as occurring along a spectrum, ranging from infomediaries on the one side, to innovation brokers on the other (Shaxson et al. 2012, see Figure 1). The Manifesto focused primarily on the left-hand side of this spectrum, identifying climate knowledge brokers with the first two categories. On the far left, information intermediaries, or infomediaries, guide stakeholders to access, identify and filter information that is relevant to their needs and create awareness of an issue. Knowledge translators help to summarise and synthesise research findings, translate these into more understandable language, ensure they are credible, and contextualise them to user needs. They may also assist stakeholders to interpret the information and make the knowledge legitimate and actionable.
When we move across this spectrum, new roles emerge: it is these that we want to highlight, since they have received less emphasis in definitions of climate knowledge brokers until now. In the middle of the spectrum, knowledge brokers identify, engage, and connect stakeholders to facilitate collaboration and the use of knowledge in decision-making. They may help to collectively make sense of and create knowledge, as well as facilitate feedback loops between producers and users of knowledge, to identify and address further knowledge gaps. Knowledge brokers also strengthen individual and institutional capacities, and maintain and mobilise social networks.
On the far right of the spectrum, innovation brokers seek to re-organise technical, social, and institutional relationships at different levels; they bridge divides (e.g. values, incentive structures, knowledge systems, power), and help to gain access to political support, capital, and services, including through their connections and championing activities (Klerkx et al. 2012). For innovation to happen, the authors go on to argue, pre-existing institutional frameworks need to be reshaped, with a focus on changing relationships, rather than on increasing knowledge access and use.

From brokering knowledge to brokering innovation
As the scale and urgency of the climate crisis has become more apparent in the past decadeand we have learned that a lack of information alone is not the only (or even the most important) barrier to climate actionwe increasingly see a need to shift the practice of knowledge brokering towards the right side of the spectrum. This means that to increase the impact of knowledge, we need to move beyond a focus on knowledge products (on the infomediary and knowledge translation end of the spectrum), to "knowledge activities" that revolve around the creation of strong, lasting, and reflexive relationships between the science and policy worlds (Bielak et al. 2008), and beyond.
Indeed, in the past, knowledge brokering has often been unsuccessful, not because of a knowledge transfer failure, but due to knowledge production not consisting of collaborative co-construction and synthesis processes (Bowen and Graham 2013). These are needed to identify and address the needs and perspectives of multiple audiences, a key to reaching sustainable and equitable adaptation solutions. A growing body of evidence points to the need for an engaged approach that sees knowledge users as partners in defining the questions, interpreting the answers, and contributing their expertise and learning (Bowen and Graham 2013).
Furthermore, the perception of climate change as a technical problem that can be fixed through technical solutions also needs to be shifted toward a more multifaceted appreciation of climate change in which relationships, power dynamics, trust, and conflict management are as important as access to accurate information in moving towards climate resilience. This shift is not occurring sufficiently fast in knowledge brokering practice. A review of 75 papers on knowledge brokering found that more than half made scant or no reference to politics, for instance, and those that did referred to policymakers as a homogeneous group (failing, for example, to recognise the difference between politicians and civil servants) (MacKillop, Quarmby, and Downe 2020). Further, they showed a simplistic understanding of the complexity of the policymaking process, the diversity of actors involved, and the role of interests, values, and power.
This focus on policymaking alone in knowledge brokering efforts is also a shortfall. As the climate adaptation imperative calls for more integrated, all-of-society responses that lead to systems-wide transitions, it is clear that it is not through additional knowledge alone that this will be achieved. The following section shares reflections from the Climate and Development Knowledge Network and underscores the urgent role that knowledge brokers are increasingly called to fulfil as they shift away from a linear view of the relationship between knowledge producers and users, towards innovation brokering.

Reflections from the practice of climate knowledge brokering
Since 2010, the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) has partnered and collaborated with countries and key stakeholders from the Global South to design and deliver climate-resilient development. Our experience indicates that while communicating and disseminating credible, relevant knowledge outputs remains important, knowledge brokering must move beyond the knowledge translation process to actively engage with, and seek to shift, the broader decisionmaking, governance, cultural, and political context (at different scales) in which such findings can take root. In this section we share a growing body of lessons learned, drawing from CDKN's experience and the work of others. In so doing, we challenge knowledge brokers to increasingly focus on innovation brokering in order to facilitate change processes that achieve climate resilience.

It's not just about science
Many sources of knowledge (local, experience-based, indigenous, scientific) are relevant in adaptation decision-making and implementation contexts. The work of the knowledge broker thus becomes to create inclusive, safe spaces for these different types of knowledge to be recognised, learned from, and debated. They should further facilitate the process of weaving together these different types of knowledge, acknowledging the hierarchies that exist between them and the conflict that may ariseand needs to be embraced (as potentially productive)in order to challenge such asymmetries (Turnhout et al. 2020). The work of the Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) in Nepal 2 bears witness to the value of mobilising different types of knowledge, particularly in contexts where limited localised scientific data can be used as a reason to delay decision-making on addressing environmental issues. In this case, bringing together evidence from multiple knowledge systems opened the door for reviving and piloting local workable solutions to address urban water challenges, as a crucial complement to large-scale physical infrastructure measures.

It's not only about knowledge
Knowledge is just one component of any decision-making process, according to the Values-Rules-Knowledge framework (Gorddard et al. 2016). Here, knowledge refers to a range of sense-making systems, and interacts with rules and values to define the decision context. Rules may be formal, such as laws and regulations, or informal, such as social norms and behaviours. Values determine people's preferences and the way they select actions and evaluate events. To facilitate effective and appropriate change, the knowledge broker must consider these complex dynamics, including governance and institutional contexts that are riddled with societal rules, fragmentation, politics, and power asymmetries, as well as people's values, aspirations, and world views. They must furthermore navigate these, pushing boundaries where needed to help overcome silos, inequities, patterns of exclusion, etc. Indeed, for climate change adaptation to be transformativeas is currently urgently requiredthere is a need to challenge the status quo and thus existing power relations a process that is inherently political (Colloff et al. 2021). In Namibia, 3 CDKN colleagues from the University of Namibia and their partners used multiple strategies, tools, and approaches to contribute to the integration of climate and gender issues across sectors from the national to the local level. They showed that knowledge products are just one ingredient for evidence to inform decisions and practices and that creating strong relationships with diverse governmental and non-governmental partners was crucial to their success.

The innovation broker
Based on these reflections, CDKN understands the role of the climate knowledge broker as a facilitator of change, to ensure better decisions are taken (based on evidence, including multiple perspectives) and that these are effectively implemented for a more climate-resilient world. Given that the process of facilitating change requires working on contested issues, where governance arrangements are complex, a knowledge broker must deliberately engage with decision-making processes, multiple stakeholders and their varied goals, values and degrees of power (Colloff et al. 2021). Knowledge brokers thus navigate challenges such as limited political will, competing priorities, bureaucracy, and various types of asymmetries. Not only does this mean overcoming barriers ranging from limited awareness and capacities to tackle climate change issues, but also assisting to overcome fragmentation and lack of collaboration between actors, sectors, and levels.
In the context of today's urgent climate crisis, some of the key roles and approaches that innovation brokers are therefore increasingly called to perform include the following: . Create bridges and foster a mutual understandingand over time, trustacross a plurality of perspectives and actors. In so doing, encourage the identification of shared interests and agendas, and promote a broader understanding of these complex dynamics so they can be embraced as part of reality, rather than ignoredgiven that this work is often naively seen as occurring in a political vacuum (MacKillop, Quarmby, and Downe 2020; Turnhout et al. 2020). . Nurture and create space for more collaborative and transdisciplinary decision-making processes, grounded in political and social realities. Deliberately acknowledge and address power dynamics, and consider the empowerment of more marginalised actors as a core goal (Turnhout et al. 2020). . Develop, utilise and facilitate the use of interactive, experiential, solutions-oriented approaches.
Apply these approaches and associated tools to create dynamic and safe spaces where multiple knowledge holdersincluding the most marginalisedplay a part in the development of responses to the climate change adaptation challenge. . Undertake a suite of related, complementary activities to encourage change, evidence-based decision making and action. For example, combine strengthening capacities with networking, partnerships, formal and informal engagements, among others. . Continuously reflect and learn about what is working well and less well, and modify accordingly.
Understand that any given context is unique and that failure is an acceptable outcome, as it can promote the exploration of different, potentially successful solutions moving forward. Approach knowledge brokering as an adaptive, circular process that needs to be strongly driven by reflection and learning. . Challenge the constant drive toward disciplinary refinement as the only goal of research. Create broader awareness, especially among the climate change academic community, that understanding and working with and within one's governance, social and political context is as crucial (if not more) as developing and communicatingpost factoever-more refined disciplinary knowledge. Going further, promote a systems perspective. . Showcase the importance of collaborative decision-making spaces as places that can lead to the cocreation of more sustainable, inclusive and effective solutions than those developed top-down (Butler et al. 2022). At the same time, avoid being idealistic, and recognise the limitations of co-production spaces, which, within a project context alone, are still insufficient to bring about broader societal change (Turnhout et al. 2020).
It follows that to be effective, knowledge and innovation brokers need to: . Work at the interface of different knowledge types, sectors, disciplines and fields, and develop a suite of skills and capabilities that cut across a number of these: from political economy to psychology, from climate to communications science, from conflict management to business acumen. . Work as part of a team, as it is unlikely that any one individual can possess such a range of skills and expertise. This could mean partnering with other brokers from outside the climate field, for example, or with a range of actors that can open doors.
At an individual level, knowledge brokering is made easier by some key personality traits (e.g. adaptability, humility, openness, reliability, listening skills, tirelessness, and enthusiasm for this type of work), as well as other intangible characteristics like authenticity, empathy, courage, tact, trust, honesty, and morals (Phipps and Morton 2013;Butler et al. 2017). While some task-specific training (e.g. on communications or facilitation) exists, cultivating intangible personality traits is neither the focus of university curricula, nor easily developed through training programs within educational organisations. As recognised by Butler et al. (2017), "a cultural shift in how science values and supports these skills" is needed. Having communities of practice for practitioners to exchange lessons learned may be one way to do this (Phipps and Morton 2013). Undoubtedly, more emphasis is needed to understand how to strengthen the range of knowledge brokering capacities (e.g. how to facilitate change, resolve conflicts, foster learning, and build thriving partnerships), including in developing country settings and across diverse cultural contexts (Butler et al. 2017).
As a last point, we wish to encourage those working in the knowledge brokering field (including its funders) to understand that successfully facilitating collaboration across diverse actors and addressing barriers in the innovation brokering arena requires time and often shows limited concrete, measurable outcomes in the short term. Bounded project timescales with inflexible monitoring and evaluation systems are thus unfit for the purposes of capturing impacts from innovative knowledge brokering and transformative climate change adaptation. Such investment and "faith" has been shown to be worthwhile, however. Once stakeholders are given an opportunity to better understand the climate-related problem and solution space through transdisciplinary dialogue and action at multiple scales, often the process of developing responses is unleashed, agency is engendered and change starts to take place (Butler et al. 2022).
Knowledge brokers thus have a crucial responsibility to contribute to shifting the discourse away from the linear production of (broad, untailored) scientific-only knowledge (e.g. on the climate problem) to understanding, navigating and "acting" in this complex decision-making and implementation reality. In this space, they will be increasingly required to broker relationships alongside information, be comfortable engaging with politics, cultural and governance issues, and challenge the very idea of whose knowledge and voice counts in climate action. Nevertheless, all actors along this spectrum need to remember that there are no clear answers yet as to how to do this "right" and so we need to be continuously exploring different approaches and tools, learning and reflecting, and sharing lessons as we go along. Notes 1. https://www.reeep.org/sites/default/files/CKB-Manifesto.pdf. 2. https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/CDKN%20Nepal%20Learning%20Story%20DIGITAL.pdf. 3. https://cdkn.org/resource/inside-story-lessons-from-mainstreaming-climate-change-in-namibia.