“Consulted to death”: Personal stress as a major barrier to environmental co-management

Young, Nathan; Cooke, Steven J.; Hinch, Scott G.; Digiovanni, Celeste; Corriveau, Marianne; Fortin, Samuel; Nguyen, Vivian M.; Solås, Ann-Magnhild

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109820

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to these “trained incapacities” (Merton, 1968), new information originating from outside one's own important reference group—groups(s) with whom we share common cultural or normative commitments, personal or professional—can be quickly dismissed as wrong or irrelevant (Merton, 1968; Stern, 2018). Third, the substantive social interactions that the process requires can be both time and resource intensive, and stakeholders (community members, practitioners, and scientists) are rarely adequately skilled, compensated, or recognized for their participation in these processes (Gerber et al, 2020; Young et al, 2020). Finally, the social process of developing actionable knowledge requires that participants must be willing to share and receive ideas openly.…”

Section: The Social Enterprise Of Producing Actionable Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation

Stern

Briske

Meadow

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limited application of science to environmental management has been termed the "science-management knowledge gap." This gap is widely assumed to be a consequence of inefficient knowledge transfer from science to application.However, this metaphor misrepresents knowledge as a "thing" that can be readily exchanged in complex systems, rather than a "process of relating" that involves negotiation and dialogue among stakeholders. We advocate for development of a more explicit alternative model of knowledge creation founded on Nonaka's Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, which emphasizes how knowledge is converted into more usable forms through socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization within "learning spaces."Effective learning spaces require sufficient trust to enable open, honest, and receptive interactions among stakeholders. We advocate that greater emphasis on knowledge conversions within effectively designed learning spaces will accelerate development of actionable knowledge beyond that of existing models.

show abstract

Section: The Social Enterprise Of Producing Actionable Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation

Stern

Briske

Meadow

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such individuals often lack diverse networks of collaborators outside of academia and have not yet established track records of successful collaboration with Indigenous groups, policy advisors/practitioners, or other end-users (Chapman et al, 2015;Kelly et al, 2019). In addition, there are several barriers to working in complex teams that have been discussed at length in other studies [see Lemos et al (2018), Oliver et al (2019), Rose et al (2019), Young et al (2020)]. Internal changes to funding agencies that support and encourage co-production can lower such barriers (Figure 2, expanded in section Reconfigure the award adjudication processes), but mentoring of ECRs and MCRs by more experienced researchers and practitioners can facilitate relationship building and expand/maintain productive partnerships [see Haider et al (2018) and Kelly et al (2019) for further discussion].…”

Section: A Research Team Comprises Diverse Perspectives and Expertise Appropriate To The Problem At Handmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Actionable Science for Environmental Policy: Advice for Funding Agencies From Decision Makers

Nyboer¹,

Nguyen²,

Young³

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful incorporation of scientific knowledge into environmental policy and decisions is a significant challenge. Although studies on how to bridge the knowledge-action gap have proliferated over the last decade, few have investigated the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for funding bodies to meet this challenge. In this study we present a set of criteria gleaned from interviews with experts across Canada that can be used by funding bodies to evaluate the potential for proposed research to produce actionable knowledge for environmental policy and practice. We also provide recommendations for how funding bodies can design funding calls and foster the skills required to bridge the knowledge-action gap. We interviewed 84 individuals with extensive experience as knowledge users at the science-policy interface who work for environmentally-focused federal and provincial/territorial government bodies and non-governmental organizations. Respondents were asked to describe elements of research proposals that indicate that the resulting research is likely to be useful in a policy context, and what advice they would give to funding bodies to increase the potential impact of sponsored research. Twenty-five individuals also completed a closed-ended survey that followed up on these questions. Research proposals that demonstrated (1) a team with diverse expertise and experience in co-production, (2) a flexible research plan that aligns timelines and spatial scale with policy needs, (3) a clear and demonstrable link to a policy issue, and (4) a detailed and diverse knowledge exchange plan for reaching relevant stakeholders were seen as more promising for producing actionable knowledge. Suggested changes to funding models to enhance utility of funded research included (1) using diverse expertise to adjudicate awards, (2) supporting co-production and interdisciplinary research through longer grant durations and integrated reward structures, and (3) following-up on and rewarding knowledge exchange by conducting impact evaluation. The set of recommendations presented here can guide both funding agencies and research teams who wish to change how applied environmental science is conducted and improve its connection to policy and practice.

show abstract

“…This can certainly be done, but takes care and effort (Chapman and Schott 2020). Co-production can also be unexpectedly costly to knowledge users or stakeholders given that they may feel pressure from their respective communities to represent their groups interests in a specifi c way (Young et al 2020 ). In addition, we know that women are under-represented in fi sheries research (Moffi tt 2012 ; Arismendi and Penaluna 2016 ), and this can contribute to power imbalances between researchers and knowledge holders or users.…”

Section: Challenges Of Co-productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fisheries Volume 46 Number 2 February 2021

2021

Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“Consulted to death”: Personal stress as a major barrier to environmental co-management

Cited by 19 publications

References 40 publications

Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation

Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation

Supporting Actionable Science for Environmental Policy: Advice for Funding Agencies From Decision Makers

Fisheries Volume 46 Number 2 February 2021

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About