For the political scientist, Maria Carmen Lemos, co-production is not just a method—it’s a transformative process where science and policy evolve together, shaping more effective solutions for complex global challenges

Maria Carmen Lemos, a “mineira” from Juiz de Fora, Brazil, is a prominent voice in the field of co-production of knowledge, a topic gaining increasing attention among those committed to bridging science and decision-making. “My interest is to understand what drives the use of scientific knowledge by decision makers, from the farmer, the household, the city, the state, the globe,” explains the researcher.

An economist trained at the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, with a brief stint at the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Lemos built her academic career in the United States. After earning a master’s and PhD in Political Science from MIT, she joined the University of Michigan in 2002, where she continues to teach and is now approaching retirement.

Throughout her career, Lemos has made significant contributions as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR5) and the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA4). She has served on numerous committees of the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, further cementing her influence in the field. In 2023, Lemos was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, a recognition of her impactful contributions to science and society.

In Brazil, her research has focused on the complex interactions between institutions, communities, and researchers, particularly in addressing climate change challenges in the Northeast and investigating the environmental impacts of the mid 1980’s Cubatão (SP) industrial disaster. Her work has helped illuminate the socio-environmental dynamics at the intersection of science and decision-making.

Maria Carmen was interviewed on October 30th, by SPSAS Co-designing Biodiversity Assessments in São Pedro (SP).

SPSAS Biodiversity – How would you define the concept of co-production of knowledge, and what distinguishes it from traditional approaches to the relationship between science and decision-making?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Co-production, in its broadest definition, is the meaningful relationship between scientists and non-scientists to collaboratively produce both knowledge and action. In its traditional form, scientists are seen as the producers of knowledge, while decision-makers are responsible for taking action based on that knowledge.

In the co-production model, however, these roles are not separate. Instead, knowledge and action are created simultaneously through an iterative process of interaction between the two. This relationship fosters several important outcomes: it increases the ownership of the knowledge, improves how well the data fits the decision-making context, and builds trust between the actors. This trust, in turn, strengthens their commitment to advancing action together.

In traditional models, science produces knowledge, and decision-makers use that knowledge to take action. This model assumes a clear separation: scientists conduct their research, publish it, and decision-makers read it to inform their actions, with no direct interaction between the two.

The co-production model, however, intertwines these processes. Scientists adjust their knowledge based on the ongoing interaction, and decision-makers may also adjust their decisions. The process aims to produce both new knowledge and new action as a result of this collaborative effort.

SPSAS Biodiversity – When did coproduction start to gain the attention of scientists and decision-makers?  

Maria Carmen Lemos – Let me start with coproduction in climate science because it gained traction there earlier than in other fields when I started. Now it has spread across sustainability, including ecology and engineering. It began in the late 1980s with efforts like the IPCC, but by the early 2000s, there was more focus on how usable this science was. For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program used the term “usable science” in its mandate, but nobody really knew what that meant at the time.  

This sparked both research and practice on making knowledge usable, opening up a new area of understanding. There was already literature on how science is produced and its connections with participatory and action research, but these ideas hadn’t yet come together. The focus shifted to understanding why people weren’t using science and what could be done to change that.  

Over the last 20 to 30 years, this research has expanded significantly. For me, it started with a NOAA grant to study climate forecasting, which has parallels with broader climate information. My goal has always been to understand what drives or limits the use of scientific knowledge. A major finding was that interaction between scientists and users increases the likelihood that knowledge will be applied, compared to traditional models of science.  

SPSAS Biodiversity – How can interactions between scientists and decision-makers improve the use of scientific knowledge?

Maria Carmen Lemos – I think there is compelling evidence that meaningful interactions between users and producers of science make a difference. These relationships increase the chances of two key outcomes: the scientist gains a better understanding of the decision-making context, and the decision-maker better grasps both the opportunities and the limits of science.

For this to be truly effective, though, both sides must be willing to change. It can’t be a situation where one says, ‘I want this,’ and the other responds, ‘Well, this is all I have for you.’ In these conversations, you may not always get exactly what you want, but you often get what you need. Because through dialogue, both sides can figure out how science fits the context and what can be done to make it fit better.

So, how do we make science fit better? Better communication is one way—it improves alignment. Customization is another. Improved comprehension also plays a role. And sometimes, it’s not even about better comprehension but simply providing more relevant information to bridge the gap.

SPSAS Biodiversity – Can you share an example of how scientists and decision-makers navigate through this process?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Sure. Climate models are notorious for being very uncertain. Often, users want to know exactly how uncertain they are, but it’s very difficult to quantify that precisely. Scientists are increasingly working on ways to better communicate uncertainty so that decision-makers can still make informed choices even with incomplete information. By understanding the risks involved, people will still make decisions with uncertain information. That’s exactly the kind of work I focus on.

SPSAS Biodiversity – How do participation, engagement, and co-production differ in research?

Maria Carmen Lemos – Co-production, as we know it today, emerged after the U.S. government emphasized the need for usable science. Before that, there were earlier forms, like community involvement in public services, such as Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs), where parents help teachers with tasks, effectively co-producing a service. Similarly, communities monitoring ecological data is another example, where collaboration occurs without necessarily producing immediate action.

Participatory research, in contrast, is more interactive, where the subjects of research are involved in the process, like through focus groups or workshops. The goal, however, is still to gather data, not co-produce knowledge or action.

Engagement is a broader concept and can overlap with co-production and participatory research. In practice, these approaches often intertwine, and that’s perfectly fine. When these terms become too rigid, they can limit the potential of what can be achieved. Co-production ideally starts at the proposal stage, with stakeholders helping to shape research questions and gather data, but it can also evolve after the research, such as when policymakers contribute to creating a policy brief. It’s about the process, not just the definition.

SPSAS Biodiversity – How do you assess the effectiveness of co-production in research and decision-making?

Maria Carmen Lemos – You have to evaluate it. I often say that if I had a dollar for every time I mention evaluation, I’d be rich! It’s essential to evaluate because without it, you can’t guide others or avoid repeating mistakes. Having relationships with stakeholders, farmers, or communities is never a waste of time; it’s valuable, but there’s an opportunity cost in terms of time and resources.

For any change you want to implement, you need to critically assess what you’re doing and be strategic in your design. If you love working with communities, that’s important, but you also need to recognize the challenges of scaling up. You can’t expect to work with a few communities and then apply that model worldwide. To scale, you must co-produce with decision-makers at higher levels.

Researchers tackling global challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change, poverty, or food security need to collaborate more and understand that each scale—community or government—plays a crucial role. Loving one doesn’t mean abandoning the other. We should learn from each other, not criticize or judge.

SPSAS Biodiversity – What advice would you offer to scientists considering the use of co-production processes in their research?

Maria Carmen Lemos – There are many reasons to do research, but it starts with identifying the change you want to make and the system or actors you want to influence. Understand what you want to achieve, then look at the literature for guidance—there’s a wealth of experience to learn from. Be brutally honest about what’s realistic and where to start. You have to think of co-production not just as a method, but as an integral part of your research and the discovery process. It’s not an appendix to your work—it’s central to it. Because just as important as identifying the causes of beach pollution or environmental degradation, is figuring out the best ways to address them. And co-production is a key part of that solution.

So, always think about evaluation from the beginning—data collection is essential for later assessment. Passion is key, but so is rationality. If you’re not passionate about engaging with others, co-production might not be for you. It’s about finding a balance between your passion and the practicalities of making a real impact.