On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

Abstract

Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared, and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success including: quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences, training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.

Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research

“…It is also inherently interdisciplinary (Dick et al., 2016). We have learned much in the past several decades about what leads to actionable knowledge that is used by decision makers (Cook et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2019), and it has become apparent that the process by which the research is conducted can be as important as its findings (Cooke et al., 2020; Norström et al., 2020; Simpson, 2004; Tuhiwai‐Smith, 1999). To further complicate decisions about authorship, environmental research, if it ever was, is no longer recognized as being only the domain of those with advanced degrees.…”

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

“…Having a research team with diverse perspectives and expertise is crucial because the team provides the foundation for success in all aspects of the research (Figure 2). For example, having varied sectoral and cultural representation has been shown to facilitate knowledge exchange with end users (Howarth and Monasterolo, 2016), and having team members with in-depth knowledge of pertinent policy issues helps to keep policy-related information needs in focus (Cooke et al, 2020). Network maps can be used to identify groups (e.g., local resource users, practitioners, Indigenous groups) that are important to include on a research team, and to identify representatives from each group that are able and willing to participate in the research activities (Cooke et al, 2020).…”

“…For example, having varied sectoral and cultural representation has been shown to facilitate knowledge exchange with end users (Howarth and Monasterolo, 2016), and having team members with in-depth knowledge of pertinent policy issues helps to keep policy-related information needs in focus (Cooke et al, 2020). Network maps can be used to identify groups (e.g., local resource users, practitioners, Indigenous groups) that are important to include on a research team, and to identify representatives from each group that are able and willing to participate in the research activities (Cooke et al, 2020). Networks maps could be integrated into proposals to demonstrate that the team has the right composition to effectively carry out the proposed research.…”

“…However, the frequency at which support letters at the application stage lead to lasting relationships among partners has not been formally quantified. Even though support letters can be useful to indicate the possibility of partnerships, it might be the case that requests for letters of support happen at the last minute (Cooke et al, 2020), and that when the time comes for the research to begin, the demanding schedules of partners or the lack of inclusion by the researchers prevents long-term engagement. Thus, participants in this study recommended that letters of support should be required for proposal evaluation only if there is a plan by the funding agency to follow-up on and support relationships among research partners (Figure 2, expanded in section Reconfigure the award adjudication processes).…”

Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: Advice for funding agencies from decision makers

“…However, the degree to which such requirements have led to lasting relationships among partners has not been formally quantified. Even though such documents might be useful to indicate partnerships at the proposal stage, it often happens that letters of support are requested just days before application deadlines (Cooke et al, 2020), and the demanding schedules of most practitioners presents challenges to their long-term engagement. Thus, participants recommended that such letters should be required for proposal evaluation only if follow-ups and support of these relationships by funders are planned (Figure 2, expanded in Section 2A).…”