Out of the Loop: Why Research Rarely Reaches Policy Makers and the Public and What Can be Done

Abstract

Most of the world's population that derives their livelihoods or part of their livelihoods from forests are out of the information loop. Exclusion of public users of natural resources from access to scientific research results is not an oversight; it is a systemic problem that has costly ramifications for conservation and development. Results of a survey of 268 researchers from 29 countries indicate that institutional incentives support the linear, top-down communication of results through peer-reviewed journal articles, which often guarantees positive performance measurement. While the largest percentage of respondents (34%) ranked scientists as the most important audience for their work, only 15 percent of respondents considered peer-reviewed journals effective in promoting conservation and/or development. Respondents perceived that local initiatives (27%) and training (16%) were likely to lead to success in conservation and development; but few scientists invest in these activities. Engagement with the media (5%), production of training and educational materials (4%) and popular publications (5%) as outlets for scientific findings was perceived as inconsequential ( o 14%) in measuring scientific performance. Less than 3 percent of respondents ranked corporate actors as an important audience for their work. To ensure science is shared with those who need it, a shift in incentive structures is needed that rewards actual impact rather than only 'high-impact' journals. Widely used approaches and theoretical underpinnings from the social sciences, which underlie popular education and communication for social change, could enhance communication by linking knowledge and action in conservation biology.Abstract in Spanish is available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/btp.

The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science

“…However this literature is not systematically accessible (Knight et al, 2008) and it can be difficult to assess the reliability of the data (Parr & Chown, 2003). As a result, researchers mainly use the peer-reviewed literature and rarely seek out the literature in which practitioners communicate their own work (Shanley & López, 2009). The fact that researchers do not use the information produced by practitioners may contribute to the lack of relevance of their research, and therefore more recognition of, but also more access to, the science led by practitioners is necessary to facilitate its uptake by researchers, who could in turn develop research projects relevant to practitioners' needs.…”

“…We also examine whether, and if so why, researchers and practitioners in developing countries consider a journal's Impact Factor (Web of Science, 2014) in deciding which scientific research to use in their work. The Impact Factor may be irrelevant in determining whether published research has a conservation impact (Shanley & López, 2009) but there is pressure on researchers to publish their work in high-impact journals (Milner-Gulland et al, 2012). Finally, we consider the responses of practitioners when asked what would make the peer-reviewed literature more useful for them.…”

“…One explanation for this lack of success is that conservation researchers are failing to communicate their findings to inform conservation practice (Possingham, 2009;Sunderland et al, 2009). The failure of researchers to work collaboratively with policy-makers, practitioners and local people to define, implement and communicate their research means that decisions about the management of natural resources are made without the benefit of scientific data (Shanley & López, 2009). …”

Toxicity of neem's oil, a potential biocide against the invasive mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker 1857)

“…stakeholders, the company, the community) has been observed in other areas of NIS control (e.g. Donlan et al 2003, Gardener et al 2010, Shanley and López 2009, and represents another problem to be solved in order to achieve effective control programs of the golden mussel. …”

Publishing for the protected area community: A vision for PARKS from its Editorial Board

“…A survey in 2009 of 268 ecological scientists found that although 43 per cent reported that scientific papers were the most important factor in assessing their academic performance, only 15 per cent believed that peerreviewed journals were effective in promoting conservation (Shanley & Lopez, 2009 This situation is hopefully set to change soon as many academic journals have or are moving from a model where authors publish for free and readers pay for access to a model where authors will pay a fee to publish and access will be free. This change will be a huge improvement in terms of access to the academic literature, but of course the downside is that it will create a new barrier to publication by practitioners, because the fees for publication are likely to be substantial.…”