12 Knowledge Management for Sustainability: The Spatial Dimension …
231
as organisations that “facilitate a recipient’s measurement of the intangible value of
knowledge received” (ibid.: 269). One function of the knowledge intermediary is to
provide firms and/or knowledge producers with technology and knowledge transfer
processes in the context of regional innovation systems (Parker and Hine 2013).
The findings about intermediaries provide helpful information for determining who
is responsible for knowledge management. Recent approaches often refer to the
changing role of knowledge professionals. This role may even disappear completely,
such as in the case where the question is asked: “Does a class need a teacher?”
(Köhler and Kahnwald 2005). Indeed, greater emphasis is placed on sharing interests
in practice than on following a predefined curriculum (Kahnwald and Köhler 2007).
Regarding the transfer of knowledge, the use of a unidirectional or one-way
transfer from knowledge producers to knowledge consumers (also called “mode
1”) to deal with information and knowledge flows cannot adequately reflect the
challenges of a decision-making process or of a planning support process in a
complex multi-stakeholder environment. This mode of science-policy interaction
can be described as the “science push” and/or the “demand pull” model (Dilling
and Lemos 2011). The new focus of knowledge transfer activities also considers
the communication, translation and mediation of knowledge (Cash et al. 2003).
Gibbons et al. (1994) call this focus “mode 2 knowledge” in the context of transdisciplinary research. The experiences of transdisciplinary research, primarily characterised by the cooperation of scientists and practitioner stakeholders, confirm the
barriers and disadvantages of “mode-1” versus “mode-2” knowledge production
(cf. Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008). Thus, assembling different stakeholders in various
groups throughout the planning process is one of the crucial conditions for a sustainable decision-making process and a key pillar of the currently consolidating concept
of transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al. 1994; Pohl 2011; Opdam et al. 2015). From
this point of view, mutual collaboration of the stakeholders concerned is required in
order to support knowledge production, transfer and implementation—this is the idea
behind the concept of the co-production of knowledge (Pohl et al. 2010; Enengel et al.
2012). Lemos and Morehouse (2005) argue that an iterative and interactive model
for the co-production of science and policy requires interdisciplinarity, stakeholder
participation and the production of usable knowledge, which can be incorporated into
all stakeholders’ decision-making processes. They also acknowledge in this context
that usable knowledge “not only must be tailored to fit stakeholders’ needs and uses,
but must also be made accessible to those users” (ibid.: 62).
Usability, accessibility and transferability depend in many ways on “producers”
and “producing processes”. Perspectives on challenges and problems define the
starting points of agenda processes. Co-design processes are essential, followed by
the co-production of knowledge, accompanied by exchange and interaction (Mauser
et al. 2013: 427). In consequence, one of the most important questions at the beginning
of the process is whom to define as an important actor. In addition, actor networks
and organisational units are highly relevant, because single actors are embedded,
231
as organisations that “facilitate a recipient’s measurement of the intangible value of
knowledge received” (ibid.: 269). One function of the knowledge intermediary is to
provide firms and/or knowledge producers with technology and knowledge transfer
processes in the context of regional innovation systems (Parker and Hine 2013).
The findings about intermediaries provide helpful information for determining who
is responsible for knowledge management. Recent approaches often refer to the
changing role of knowledge professionals. This role may even disappear completely,
such as in the case where the question is asked: “Does a class need a teacher?”
(Köhler and Kahnwald 2005). Indeed, greater emphasis is placed on sharing interests
in practice than on following a predefined curriculum (Kahnwald and Köhler 2007).
Regarding the transfer of knowledge, the use of a unidirectional or one-way
transfer from knowledge producers to knowledge consumers (also called “mode
1”) to deal with information and knowledge flows cannot adequately reflect the
challenges of a decision-making process or of a planning support process in a
complex multi-stakeholder environment. This mode of science-policy interaction
can be described as the “science push” and/or the “demand pull” model (Dilling
and Lemos 2011). The new focus of knowledge transfer activities also considers
the communication, translation and mediation of knowledge (Cash et al. 2003).
Gibbons et al. (1994) call this focus “mode 2 knowledge” in the context of transdisciplinary research. The experiences of transdisciplinary research, primarily characterised by the cooperation of scientists and practitioner stakeholders, confirm the
barriers and disadvantages of “mode-1” versus “mode-2” knowledge production
(cf. Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008). Thus, assembling different stakeholders in various
groups throughout the planning process is one of the crucial conditions for a sustainable decision-making process and a key pillar of the currently consolidating concept
of transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al. 1994; Pohl 2011; Opdam et al. 2015). From
this point of view, mutual collaboration of the stakeholders concerned is required in
order to support knowledge production, transfer and implementation—this is the idea
behind the concept of the co-production of knowledge (Pohl et al. 2010; Enengel et al.
2012). Lemos and Morehouse (2005) argue that an iterative and interactive model
for the co-production of science and policy requires interdisciplinarity, stakeholder
participation and the production of usable knowledge, which can be incorporated into
all stakeholders’ decision-making processes. They also acknowledge in this context
that usable knowledge “not only must be tailored to fit stakeholders’ needs and uses,
but must also be made accessible to those users” (ibid.: 62).
Usability, accessibility and transferability depend in many ways on “producers”
and “producing processes”. Perspectives on challenges and problems define the
starting points of agenda processes. Co-design processes are essential, followed by
the co-production of knowledge, accompanied by exchange and interaction (Mauser
et al. 2013: 427). In consequence, one of the most important questions at the beginning
of the process is whom to define as an important actor. In addition, actor networks
and organisational units are highly relevant, because single actors are embedded,