co-production facilitation research talks

Ambiguities in participatory processes

During the V Post-Normal Science Symposium I participated in a session chaired by Marcela Brugnach and Caroline van Bers entitled ‘Addressing ambiguity in participatory processes for sustainable resources management to support Integrated Assessment‘.

Ambiguity is a type of uncertainty that refers to the confusion or discrepancy in understanding that exist among actors in a group over the issues of concern and their solutions. Ambiguity reflects the many meanings and preferences in responding to change. It speaks for diversity and the unavoidable differences that exist in any social system. Ambiguity is increasingly recognised as an issue in the coproduction of knowledge, transdisciplinarity but is not yet fully recognised as such. Approaches to identify and address ambiguity are in their infancy. The issue of ambiguity is particularly important in the context of participatory processes and promoting the (re)democratization of science.

In this session we explored how ambiguity has been and could be more effectively addressed in the context of Integrated Assessment and co-production of knowledge on environmental issues. For this purpose, Marcela introduced the concept of ambiguity and its relevance for the democratization of knowledge. Caroline shared several experiences on addressing ambiguities and seeking for shared understanding in Integrated Assessment processes. Finally, I discussed the potential of narratives as epistemic tools to work with ambiguities in extended peer communities.

My talk and all others at the digital conference are available on the PNS5 Youtube channel

co-production facilitation research

Get involved in the EU Missions

Last summer I had the honor and the great pleasure to participate in the first European level experiment of citizen engagement for public policy making: the EU missions contributing to the design of the next Horizon Europe framework.

On July 28th, 50 participants from Spain took part in a digital citizen engagement event on the EU Mission on “Adaptation to climate change including societal transformation.” Following the mini-publics format, participants were selected randomly from different gender, age and employment situation groups to ensure a variety of views. I was part of the facilitation team together with members of Altekio and the leadership of

The engagement event took over 6 hours divided in 5 sessions. In each session, one ore more experts delivered a short presentation with key inputs to spark deliberation in groups of 10 people. After the event, participants had 48 hours to upload proposals in a set up and another day to vote for the 20 recommendations to the mission board.

Here you can find a summary of the outcomes of the process.

Hope to see a more socially engaged research programme 2021-2025!


Interdisciplinarity: reflections from practice

In the frame of the SWAN project (2012-2016), a group of different young scientists working on water issues from different fields was created last semester. Starting from discussions of our respective theoretical backgrounds (hydrology, climate modeling, ecosystems services, societal metabolism, water footprint, institutional analysis and water conflicts), we tried to understand our respective languages and exchange concepts and ideas. From there we decided to move towards a case study together in order to build a possible integration of methodologies in a common conceptual framework to assess water management in socio-ecological systems.


What started as a mere discussion has turn into a very deep and interesting process, questioning ourselves as individuals, as researchers and as a group. I would like to share here some reflections I made after the first 6 months working together:

– The process and outputs of conceptual modeling in a multidisciplinary group certainly follows different pathways depending on who leads the discussion and which are the backgrounds sitting on the table.

– The group is more weighted towards quantitative approaches, thus we mostly find ourselves comfortable talking about integration of variables and models, which is a kind of “physically biased” language. Dealing with inconmensurability implies dealing with those dimensions that can not be quantified and thus need qualitative research approaches to balanced the potential pathways of our process.

– Even among quantitative approaches lovers, we found epistemological obstacles in our discussions and case-study shaping. Not only our different languages and backgrounds but also different subjectivities. The question of which is our role as researchers is not irrelevant, responses are case-specific.

– So far we were unable to develop a common conceptual framework, partially because we come from very strong ones. As we start to produce scientific results we will be able to move our discussion from the abstract to the empirical – potential opportunities and obstacles for integration – and we attempt to produce the synthesis Esteban Castro mentioned as necessary step for interdisciplinarity, then come back to the conceptual.

– Since our group is a changing one, new people coming in, others leaving and each of us changing along its personal PhD, I think we need a sort of dynamic conceptual framework, semantically open not only to different context but also to different backgrounds.

– Considering that each of us sees something different when looking to the same reality and that we want to be consistent with our individual perceptions at the time build something together and with stakeholders, my feeling is that we need to find the overlapping areas of the flower: those points in which we agree and want to work together. At the same time we should explicitly recognize and respect those areas in which we prefer to work in our individual manners. This means honesty and commitment with the group and with ourselves.

On the other hand, I felt that it was actually disagreement what made us going forward in our discussions. So, even if we do not agree in some things, let’s keep talking!

– Finally, a point arosed by Carolyn Remick from the Water Center in Berkley: working on a problem oriented basis might not lead you to a cutting edge scientific paper. It is a real challenge to work with and from stakeholders, producing scientific relevant results at the time not becoming a sort of consultancy.