Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management

Abstract

This paper outlines five principles for effective practice of knowledge exchange, which when applied, have the potential to significantly enhance the impact of environmental management research, policy and practice. The paper is based on an empirical analysis of interviews with 32 researchers and stakeholders across 13 environmental management research projects, each of which included elements of knowledge co-creation and sharing in their design. The projects focused on a range of upland and catchment management issues across the UK, and included Research Council, Government and NGO funded projects. Preliminary findings were discussed with knowledge exchange professionals and academic experts to ensure the emerging principles were as broadly applicable as possible across multiple disciplines. The principles suggest that: knowledge exchange needs to be designed into research; the needs of likely research users and other stakeholders should be systematically represented in the research where possible; and long-term relationships must be built on trust and two-way dialogue between researchers and stakeholders in order to ensure effective co-generation of new knowledge. We found that the delivery of tangible benefits early on in the research process helps to ensure continued motivation and engagement of likely research users. Knowledge exchange is a flexible process that must be monitored, reflected on and continuously refined, and where possible, steps should be taken to ensure a legacy of ongoing knowledge exchange beyond initial research funding. The principles have been used to inform the design of knowledge exchange and stakeholder engagement guidelines for two international research programmes. They are able to assist researchers, decision-makers and other stakeholders working in contrasting environmental management settings to work together to co-produce new knowledge, and more effectively share and apply existing knowledge to manage environmental change.

Stakeholder Engagement in Community-based Malaria Studies in a Defined Setting in the Eastern Province, Rwanda

“…The MEPR deploys a bottom-up approach towards maximizing the use of available preventive malaria control tools to further reduce the local malarial burden and seeks to adapt its goals to the needs and priorities of likely users (Reed et al, 2014;Thomas & Palfrey, 1996). Two elements of engagement as described by Pretty (1995) were conceptually applied in this analysis.…”

“…Effective knowledge exchange has been highlighted as an important aspect to enhance the impact on policy and practice and foster positive relationships (McInnes et al, 2012;Reed et al, 2014). In this regard, the MEPR researchers held a series of results-dissemination and interpretation meetings as part of the stakeholder engagement strategy.…”

“…Stakeholder analysis aims to understand stakeholder behaviour, intentions, interests and interrelations and to assess the influence and resources stakeholders may bring to decision making or implementation and analysis processes (Ancker & Rechel, 2015;Freeman, 2001;. As part of a social assessment, stakeholder analysis serves to identify key stakeholders and, based on their degree of involvement, establish an appropriate framework for participation in project selection, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (Kansas, 2014;Luyet, Schlaepfer, Parlange, & Buttler, 2012;Narayan, 1998;Prell, Hubacek, & Reed, 2009;Reed et al, 2009;Reed, Stringer, Fazey, Evely, & Kruijsen, 2014). In health care, stakeholder analysis is a tool that an organization can use to achieve specific advantages in collaborating with other institutions .…”

“…The systematic identification of stakeholders in a research process has been reported as an effective way to increase the value and likelihood of community engagement (Reed et al, 2014), especially when tackling an issue recognized as a priority to the stakeholder audience and hence participation requires that all interests and/or concerns of stakeholders are addressed (Mallery C, 2012;Namazzi et al, 2013). The multi stakeholder-based approach in the early stage of the project facilitated MEPR team' s knowledge of who, when and how to engage and thus resulted in the support and agreement of malaria control related interventions and processes as also suggested elsewhere (Hyder et al, 2010;Namazzi et al, 2013;Reed et al, 2009).…”

Priorities for protected area research

“…Carefully planned research, undertaken in collaboration with protected area managers and local communities (Hockings et al, 2013), can yield important new information with immediate practical application to support management. On the other hand, undertaking research does not necessarily translate into better practice, highlighting the need for effective knowledge exchange (Reed et al, 2014). A concise overview of protected areas research priorities therefore has the opportunity for wide application within the academic and research community, including topics for future PhD research, and with results that can benefit actors operating in the practical field of conservation planning and protected area management.…”