Knowledge Dissemination vs. Knowledge Co-Creation: Why Co-Creation Leads to Stronger Impact
In community and environmental work, people often talk about “sharing knowledge” with farmers, rural communities, youth, or policymakers. This is usually described as knowledge dissemination. Although dissemination is useful, many researchers and practitioners now argue that knowledge co-creation leads to deeper learning, stronger community ownership, and more sustainable change. This shift is supported by a growing body of peer-reviewed research across development studies, environmental management, and participatory action research.
Below is a clear explanation of the difference and why co-creation is more powerful.
What Is Knowledge Dissemination?
Knowledge dissemination means that experts generate knowledge and then deliver it to others. For example:
- Researchers conduct a study then publish a policy brief.
- Extension agents teach farmers new practices.
- Universities produce reports and distribute them to communities.
Dissemination relies on a one-way flow of information. It assumes that experts hold the knowledge and community members receive it. This model has been widely used in agricultural extension, public health, and environmental management.
Key characteristics
- One directional communication
- Expert driven
- Community positioned mainly as receivers of information
- Often uses formal outputs like reports, workshops, lectures
What research says
Scholars note that dissemination can raise awareness but often fails to change behavior because it does not address local realities, social norms, or community knowledge systems.
For example, Cash et al. (2003) show that information that is only disseminated is often not considered credible, relevant, or legitimate by local stakeholders, which reduces uptake.
What Is Knowledge Co-Creation?
Knowledge co-creation means that knowledge is produced collaboratively between researchers, practitioners, and community members. Instead of delivering information, it involves joint learning, shared decision making, and mutual respect for different forms of expertise.
Examples include:
- Co designing research questions with communities.
- PRA and participatory mapping.
- Farmers and scientists testing climate adaptation practices together.
- Indigenous and academic knowledge systems informing environmental decisions.
Co-creation treats community members as knowledge holders, not passive recipients.
Key characteristics
- Two directional or multi directional communication
- Community actively shapes the process
- Builds trust and local ownership
- Integrates scientific, experiential, and Indigenous knowledge
- Emphasizes reflection, dialogue, and action
What research says
Peer reviewed studies show that co creation improves both the quality and impact of knowledge:
- Fazey et al. (2014) argue that co-creation leads to more socially robust and usable knowledge because it responds to real needs identified by communities.
- Wyborn et al. (2019) show that co-production is essential for tackling complex environmental and climate challenges because no single actor holds all the necessary knowledge.
- Chambers (1994, 1997) demonstrates that participatory approaches give voice to marginalized groups and result in solutions that are more practical and equitable.
Why Knowledge Co-Creation Is More Powerful
- It produces knowledge that is trusted and legitimate
Communities trust information more when they help create it. Research shows legitimacy increases when local knowledge holders participate directly (Cash et al. 2003).
- It increases the likelihood of real action
Co created solutions fit better with daily realities. Several studies find that co production leads to higher adoption of environmental practices and climate adaptation strategies (Fazey et al. 2014).
- It values diverse ways of knowing
Co creation respects scientific, experiential, and Indigenous knowledge. According to Tengö et al. (2014), integrating knowledge systems creates more comprehensive environmental solutions.
- It empowers communities
Participatory approaches reinforce community agency, build leadership, and strengthen collective problem solving. This is supported by foundational work on participatory rural appraisal by Chambers (1994).
- It creates long term relationships
Co-creation builds trust between universities, communities, NGOs, and local governments, which is essential for sustainable development outcomes.
Conclusion
Knowledge dissemination remains useful, especially for sharing results widely. However, research shows that knowledge co-creation is far more effective for generating meaningful, lasting change. Co-creation respects the reality that communities hold valuable expertise. It transforms research from a one way transfer into a collaborative process that builds trust, strengthens agency, and improves environmental and social outcomes.
Reference:
Cash, D. et al. 2003. “Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development.” PNAS.
Fazey, I. et al. 2014. “Knowledge Exchange: A Review and Research Agenda.” Environmental Conservation.
Wyborn, C. et al. 2019. “Co Production and Co Design in Climate Research.” Nature Climate Change.
Chambers, R. 1994; 1997. Practical Action Publishing.
Tengö, M. et al. 2014. “Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.