Knowledge systems for sustainable development

Cash, David W.; Clark, William C.; Alcock, Frank; Dickson, Nancy M.; Eckley, Noelle; Guston, David H.; Jäger, Jill; Mitchell, Ronald B.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100

Cited by 2,842 publications

(2,365 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,167

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has suggested that the concept of "boundary work" provides one potentially powerful leverage point for designing research programs that better link knowledge with action for sustainability (Cash et al 2003). "Boundary work" signifies the processes through which the "research community organizes its relations with the worlds of action and policy making" (Hellstrom and Jacob 2003, 235) on the one hand, and with practice-based and other forms of knowledge on the other.…”

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"Boundary work" signifies the processes through which the "research community organizes its relations with the worlds of action and policy making" (Hellstrom and Jacob 2003, 235) on the one hand, and with practice-based and other forms of knowledge on the other. Originally developed to help understand efforts to demarcate "science" from "non-science" (Gieryn 1983;Evans 2005), the idea of boundary work has since been applied to the interface between science and policy (Jasanoff 1990;Guston 2001) and, more broadly, to the activities of organizations that seek to mediate between knowledge and action (Cash et al 2003).…”

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on the determinants of effectiveness in knowledge systems seeking to support sustainable development has highlighted the importance of "boundary work" through which research communities organize their relations with other fields of science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of action and policymaking. A growing body of scholarship postulates specific attributes of boundary work that promote used and useful research. These propositions, however, are largely based on the experience of a few industrialized countries. We report here on an effort to evaluate their relevance for efforts to harness science in support of sustainability in the developing world. We carried out a multi-country comparative analysis of natural resource management programs conducted under the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). We discovered 6 distinctive kinds of boundary work contributing to successes of the CGIAR programs-a greater variety than has been documented in previous studies. We propose that these different kinds of boundary work can be understood as a dual response to the different uses for which the results of specific research programs are intended, and the different sources of knowledge drawn on by those programs. We show that these distinctive kinds of boundary work require distinctive strategies to organize them effectively. Especially important are arrangements regarding participation of stakeholders, governance, and the use of boundary objects. We conclude that improving the ability of research programs to produce useful knowledge for sustainable development will require both greater and differentiated support for multiple forms of boundary work.

show abstract

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Boundary Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, increasing attention is currently being paid to developing environmental governance systems that incorporate different perspectives of nature and forms of environmental knowledge. Environmental scholars and policymakers now explore processes of coproduction of knowledge (ICSU 2005, Berkes 2008), knowledge articulation (Galopin and Vessuri 2006), knowledge integration (Raymond et al 2010), knowledge systems (Cash et al 2003), and transdisciplinarity (Pregernig 2006), among others.…”

Section: Cognitive Justice Cultural Revitalization and Well-being Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking well-being with cultural revitalization for greater cognitive justice in conservation: lessons from Venezuela in Canaima National Park

Rodríguez¹

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Across the globe, conservation policies have often suppressed nonscientific forms of knowledge and ways of knowing nature, along with the social practices of the groups that are informed by such knowledge. Reversing this process of epistemic supremacy is crucial both for achieving greater cognitive justice in conservation areas and ensuring that conservation aims are achieved. Doing so, however, is not an easy task. In situations of cultural violence, hidden environmental knowledge is not easily made visible unless adequate conditions for it to emerge are created. I show that one way forward is by conservation engaging with the well-being agendas of indigenous people, in particular, with the construction of their life plans. This discussion is illustrated through a case study in Canaima National Park, Venezuela, where over the last 20 years, social-ecological research has been studying existing conflicts over the use of fire while supporting the development of Pemon (the indigenous peoples in this area) Life Plans. Assisting in the development of life plans through participatory historical reconstructions, territorial self-demarcation processes, and facilitation of community reflexivity about its social-ecological changes and desired future has been decisive for the Pemon, and has revealed fire management knowledge that challenges conventional explanations of landscape change that simplistically place the blame for such changes on the local use of fire. This local knowledge, combined with results from studies of Pemon fire regimes, fire behavior ecology, and paleoecological research, now informs a counter narrative of landscape change that is influencing a shift in environmental discourse and policy-making toward an intercultural fire management approach. By documenting how social-ecological research has engaged with the Pemon Life Plan processes, I show the important role that cultural revitalization plays in making hidden and silenced local environmental knowledge more visible, and hence, in achieving greater cognitive justice in conservation.

show abstract

“…Evidence from different environmental policy and governance settings indicates that these organizations can serve as clearing houses for information, foster conflict resolution, and, where supported by legislation, build the legitimacy and credibility needed to encourage behavioral change (Cash et al 2003;Huitema and Turnhout 2009;Crona and Parker 2012). To achieve these potential benefits, however, boundary organizations require cultivation, experience, and involvement from stakeholders at higher and lower levels of governance.…”

Section: Engage Boundary Organizations and Informal Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is now widely accepted that scientific knowledge alone is not sufficient for dealing with complex environmental issues (Lejano and Ingram 2009). At the same time, the gulf that often exists between ''decision makers'' and scientists can be wide (Cash et al 2003). Recognition of this fact accounts for the enormous amount that is being written about strategies to improve science-policy interaction (e.g., Roux et al 2006;Karl et al 2007;Pielke 2007;Ascher et al 2010;Kasperson and Berberian 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Armitage

Loë

Morris

et al. 2015

Ambio

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.

show abstract

Knowledge systems for sustainable development

Cited by 2,842 publications

References 26 publications

Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs

Toward a General Theory of Boundary Work: Insights from the CGIAR's Natural Resource Management Programs

Linking well-being with cultural revitalization for greater cognitive justice in conservation: lessons from Venezuela in Canaima National Park

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About