By: Lucia Scodanibbio, Suzanne Carter, Karen Hildahl, Stanley Mburu, Adele Hosken

The CDKN and CLARE teams have recently held a number of meetings with diverse participants from Africa, Asia and Latin America, aimed at discussing different experiences and approaches to overcome challenges faced in co-creation processes. Here we share some of this collective knowledge, particularly when it comes to surfacing and addressing power dynamics.  

Have you ever taken part in a meeting with very diverse attendees? Were there junior professionals alongside senior experienced managers? Participants speaking mother tongue English with others for whom English may be a second or even third language? People of different ages, genders, cultures, socio-economic status, educational level, caste or ethnic group…? 

Have you ever experienced a workshop where conflict emerged because participants had different worldviews, agendas or interests? Have you ever noticed a situation where one source of evidence – perhaps more quantitative or professionally presented – appeared to be superior to another – maybe based on experience or observation? Did you ever notice how access to certain forms of knowledge, information or training may influence people’s ability to take part in a conversation? Have you grappled with any of these issues in meetings you convened and how did you overcome the challenges brought about by such imbalances?

How do you deal with power differentials? 

This is a question that all those involved in co-creation processes grapple with. 

Co-creation exercises allow different knowledge types, stakeholders and sectors to come together to develop the responses and interventions required to address the complex factors surrounding the climate crisis. Yet as soon as one convenes a diversity of actors, power imbalances arise and often come to be recognised as one of the biggest challenges to successful co-creation. These may manifest themselves in several ways. 

To start with, the act of convening a co-creation space lends power itself, through each decision regarding who to invite, what to include in the agenda, how to facilitate the process or share responsibilities. Those included in the room and the way they act as conduits for the needs and concerns of those who are not present as well as the way they provide (or do not provide) feedback to those constituencies can be fraught with bias, agendas or motivations. The diversity of participants itself can act as an embodiment of power imbalances as a result of different features of their identity, and can be seen in instances where a senior male invalidates a point made by a younger woman, or when a city government official dismisses or ridicules the concern of a rural fisherfolk.

The dominance of certain elite voices (often male, white, educated individuals) – and often characterised by a particular communication style – can result in a lack of engagement from other attendees who become mere recipients of information. This can lead more marginalised groups to believe that others hold all the solutions and can make their inclusion seem like a tick-box exercise if they are not given the opportunity to really contribute.

Researchers and academics are often culpable of being information gatekeepers, through the use of complex language, content and graphics that exclude others and prevent a genuine, equitable exchange between participants. Yet, some people feel uncomfortable challenging the power dynamics that are present and often lack the tools and facilitation skills required to address deep-seated issues of inequality (that often are structural in nature). This reticence to acknowledge power can ultimately undermine their good intentions as well as the development of sustainable, co-owned outcomes.  

What can we do?

This year, the CDKN and CLARE teams have held a number of meetings with diverse participants from Africa, Asia and Latin America, aimed at discussing different experiences and approaches to overcome challenges faced in co-creation processes. Here we share the collective knowledge that emerged when we shared experiences around surfacing and addressing power dynamics. 

Throughout our conversations, we heard that the starting point for all co-creation processes needs to be the generation of a common conceptual understanding about the issues to be addressed, the identification of a joint objective – to the extent possible – and continuously bringing conversations back to that point. Reaching such agreement can of course be stifled by power hierarchies in the room and differences in values, assumptions, priorities or beliefs. 

Processes that help participants stand in each others’ shoes to better understand each other’s perspectives and where these may stem from (such as this exercise or this one, where the key questions or process can be modified to better tie to the content of the co-creation workshop) can help to create empathy and understanding among participants. A modified version of the cynics and believers exercise (where participants either support or argue strongly against the issues around which the co-creation process is convened) can also be used to both raise awareness about different communication styles and to gather and air out participants’ extreme views (particularly where participants are intentionally selected to argue for or against a view they do not hold, forcing them to step into others’ shoes). While transdisciplinary research approaches like the Toolbox dialogue approach can help to uncover people’s deep-seated values and perspectives, an exercise using the Power wheel can surface different forms of privilege or marginalisation in the room. Importantly, a power mapping exercise (such as this) may be required before embarking on a co-creation process to identify stakeholders’ interests and levels of influence at the outset. 

During the workshops themselves, it is critical to facilitate such processes with care to ensure participants feel safe and that the issues that are raised can be handled in a sensitive and constructive manner. Ultimately, when it comes to reaching a common objective and agreement, decisions may need to be taken regarding the need for consensus (or not), using voting (or not), and the use of negotiation approaches as an alternative or complement to the process. 

Identifying rules of engagement and common guiding principles for the co-creation exercise may also be useful. These could include an agreement and emphasis on valuing minority views; recognising the value of local structures, identities and leadership; cultivating an ability to let go of one’s ideas and nurturing “hospitality of thought”, as one Mexican participant shared, where we agree to be a good host to different ideas and perspectives, among our own. Recognising the diverse strengths brought by different knowledge holders and participants – going beyond superficial impressions associated with who speaks more eloquently – can also further the case for more just co-creation processes.   

On the tricky issue of representation and decisions about who is invited and who is not, it seems there is no easy answer. Going through local community structures (e.g. water user committees, village savings and loan associations, women’s groups) and organising community meetings to gather input and identify both the issues and possible representatives can be one way to increase the opportunity for broader, more equitable participation. Using quotas (e.g. regarding the number of women, young people or disabled participants to be invited) to ensure fairer representation of interests could also be an approach, although it is important to avoid this becoming a tick-box exercise. In particular, undertaking thorough intersectional analyses that go beyond the obvious factors of gender and age, may help to truly identify the most marginalised voices, which may bring to the fore other aspects of one’s identity such as ethnic group, marital status or geographic location that will help to ensure their voices are sought, and needs and interests can be recognised and met.

To address researcher-community asymmetries and information gatekeeping, a shift is needed in the way research is conducted. This involves tackling exclusive language (like jargon), disseminating research findings and results in accessible ways (including through different means like storytelling or photo-voice), along with feedback sessions to share research results with communities, which can go a long way to strengthen trust and address knowledge gaps. It also requires a paradigm shift, going beyond seeing local stakeholders as either data points or information recipients, but as experts in their own right. Local and Indigenous knowledge and contextual understanding from a diversity of actors are key to ensuring appropriate outcomes emerge. Ideally, processes are led by or co-created with these actors.

Processes that level the playing field to ensure more equitable engagement can include strengthening participants’ capacities to engage with different types of knowledge, having access to facilities to ease participation (e.g. transport to a venue, technology, childcare facilities) and appropriate knowledge- and information-sharing through transparent communication and dissemination of the co-creation process’s progress and results. The creation of safe, separate spaces to hear more vulnerable participants’ views in advance of or alongside the main co-creation workshops can increase their comfort level and enable them to communicate their concerns openly, without fear of invalidation by other, more powerful voices. Separating participants into men only and women only conversations can also help where there are cultural norms inhibiting conversations across genders. Similarly, other techniques that can help avoid overly dominating voices is to mix up interactions in small groups and plenary settings, as well as giving everyone equal time to speak, such as through the use of the Time to Think technique. 

Finally, a core question for knowledge brokers or other conveners of co-creation spaces, is to honestly reflect on our role. To what extent are we prepared to let go of some of our power? Do we feel comfortable to relinquish our thoroughly-planned agendas? Would we be happy to rotate responsibilities and surrender our leadership roles? Are horizontal structures something we would contemplate? How emergent and flexible can we (perhaps due to donor requirements) or do we (because of our own egos and positions) want to be? To what extent do we use or abuse our own privilege? How transparent are we, about our ultimate aims for co-creation? We still have a long way to go along this journey, with much to learn…