The co-production of knowledge is increasingly recognized as an approach to conducting research intended to achieve a societal impact. In this study, we used a broad definition of co-production, defining it as “a process that brings together diverse groups to iteratively create new knowledge and practices (1).” However, co-production has been defined and conceptualized in a variety of ways (2,3), across multiple domains, including public administration, conservation, health, education, and climate change. Theoretical definitions have been introduced by scholars like Jasanoff (4) and Ostrom (5), but definitions can also be grounded in practice (6). For example, unique definitions of co-production have been advanced for work with Arctic Indigenous Peoples (7), in the context of resource management (8), and for a specific program (9). Other similar processes of engagement, such as community-based participatory research (10), action research (11), civic science (12), community science (13), and post-normal science (14) may have overlap with the concept of co-production and have been used to describe similar processes of collaboration. These distinctions and varying definitions have been discussed extensively elsewhere (see Mach et al. 2020, Wyborn et al. 2019). 

In the context of co-production, power plays a crucial role in shaping interactions and outcomes. Some scholars and practitioners explicitly consider power dynamics as a central element in their definitions of co-production, recognizing how power imbalances can affect participation, decision-making, and the distribution of benefits. Others, however, might not emphasize power as prominently, focusing more on the collaborative aspects without explicitly addressing the underlying power structures. This leads to divergent objectives and priorities among projects claiming to be co-produced (2,3, 6). Chambers and colleagues (2) discussed how co-production projects in the context of sustainability usually emphasize one or more of six different goals, including: researching solutions, empowering voices, brokering power, reframing power, navigating differences, and reframing agency. 

Because power dynamics are inherent in co-production (15), equity dimensions should be considered in these definitions and conceptualizations. Yet, in the context of government or academically led climate change research and programs, equity is a relatively new focus, even among programs that have been engaging a co-production approach for decades (9). Alternatively, in some recent work the concept of equity in co-production is explicit, but it has only been considered in a limited context (7). Here, we present a discussion about co-production that is informed by research, practice, and community perspectives across partnerships from a range of regions and topics. We are specifically interested in how different actors in these projects think about equity and work towards more equitable approaches in the context of their co-production work. 

This understanding is needed, as the federal government has increasingly focused on co-production approaches in the design of their programs and funding calls, and most recently the Biden administration has called on federal agencies to more intentionally center equity for underserved groups of people in their work (16). Furthermore, with the Biden administration’s focus on environmental and climate justice, the opportunity for researchers and their societal partners to engage in co-production is expanding. Numerous programs within federal agencies have embraced a co-production approach, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Adaptation Partnerships (CAP; formerly called the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments or RISA program) (9,17), Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs)(18), and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Climate Hubs. 

However, the actual implementation of co-production processes varies significantly (1,19), with multiple implications for the design of equitable partnerships. Researchers, their partners, and funders have frequently cited many tensions and challenges in the successful implementation of co-production, including higher resource demands and few systemic structures for support (20). Practically implementing co-production, especially with people who have been underrepresented in or historically excluded from research activities, must consider fairness and the accessibility of co-production processes. While co-production is often cited as important for environmental governance, issues like power and equity are infrequently addressed (15). To explore this topic, we identified and studied three projects that centered on equity in co-production from three federal climate programs (CASC, CAP, USDA Climate Hubs) in three different regions of the U.S. (Alaska, Northeast, Southeast). We aimed to identify consensus or divergence in perspectives related to equitable co-production processes to elevate effective practices and link co-production research and practice. 

Findings from interviews and a survey (explained further in Akerlof et al., 2023) informed a twoday hybrid workshop involving participants from the three case studies, as well as individuals representing research, governmental, non-governmental, and community organizations across the United States. Participants also included scholars of co-production, program coordinators, and people who participated in co-production projects on behalf of their communities. Several boundary spanners, those practitioners who work at the intersection of the production and use of science (21,22), also attended the workshop. The goals of the workshop were to discuss and build on what was learned from the three case studies, discuss the three distinct perspectives on equitable co-production that emerged from the pre-workshop research, and draft a framework for equitable co-production processes. During the workshop, participants considered the three perspectives on equitable co-production, defining equitable co-production for each and discussing the practical implications of each, including barriers and priorities for overcoming them. We aimed to address the question: How can federal climate programs support equitable co-production processes?