Abstract
Background The ontology of science-policy-practice interface and related interventions to ensure that evidence is used in social, economic and environmental policy development, has led to the emergence of a new cadre of bridging agents and organizations. Public policy making involves multiple actors, multiple sources of evidence and multiple interventions to achieve developmental goals. through collaborative partnerships, networks and other forms of engaged research, is widely advocated. However, effective strategies to positively influence the demand space between and within state agencies over the long term remain elusive for low-and-middle-income countries. This is due to limited evidence on the inner workings of policy and decision making in majority of these countries. South Africa (SA) represents a case in question.
Objective The study investigates the ontology of the science-policy-practice interface, to understand how coproduction, as an advanced form of knowledge brokering, enhances capacity of the SA state to use evidence in policy making. Coproduction theory is assessed against practice, focusing on the institutional context and locating a causal path from the varied coproduction practices in routine knowledge constitutive functions of government - to enhancing the role of government in public policy design, implementation and evaluation.
Methods A two-pronged research design was adopted. Firstly, a qualitative systematic review (secondary research) was undertaken to generate theoretical constructs (variables) from scientific and grey literature on coproduction and knowledge brokering (243 records). Secondly, a multiple, embedded case study design (primary research) was undertaken to understand coproduction in practice. Five case studies were identified with transparent criteria (multi-sectoral; multi-stakeholder; multi-levels) to assess the institutional context within which coproduction is practiced. Data sources for the five case studies included document reviews and thirty-one interviews of policy makers, public officials, managers, researchers and development partners.
Results Emergent themes from the review on coproduction reveal that the origin, motivation and drivers of coproduction encompass ‘state-society’ and ‘science-society’ relations, demonstrating pluralistic approaches to knowledge production, management and translation, where all three processes are inherent in public policy making. Evidence synthesis methods revealed six institutional factors influencing coproduction practice internationally. In SA, bureaucratic culture, weak management of public knowledge assets and neglect of the relational function of government, inhibits coproduction practice. The epistemology of collective reasoning and decision-making involve core coproduction capacities at the micro-meso and macro levels. However, while the issue of ‘methodological diversity’ was central to the challenges of coproduction practice, findings also demonstrate how coproduction strengthens the relational function of government, addresses knowledge governance through inclusivity, advances the think-tank role of government in public policy making, creates public value, builds public trust and generates local solutions.
Conclusions Coherence is the implicit knowledge constitutive arrangement behind coproduction and is characteristic of pluralistic relationships within social systems. However, coherence presents as a scientific enigma and therefore coproduction outcomes in the pursuit of coherence, are difficult to measure, due to the reciprocal relationship between coproduction and building of state capacity. Coproduction in the public sector is fundamentally the study of networked relationships, where patterns, levels of organization and management of social systems lead to changed behavior. Substantive theory about the subject matter, and methodological theory guiding appropriate measure of the subject must both be reviewed for effective coproduction practice.