Producing actionable science in conservation: Best practices for organizations and individuals

Abstract

Many researchers working in conservation aspire to produce "actionable science" to inform conservation practice. In order to understand what it takes to produce actionable science, we interviewed 71 researchers who have worked on producing actionable science in conservation. We asked about the attributes of actionable science and the various factors that, in their experience, aid or hinder its production. We focused specifically on factors that correspond to individual behaviors and those that relate to organizational level policies and practices. Six best practices associated with the production of actionable science emerged from our interviews: four at the individual level and two at the organizational level. Best practices for individual behaviors include: (a) engaging in collaboration; (b) practicing empathy; (c) building trusting relationships; and (d) employing diverse communication methods. Best practices for organizations include: (a) incentivizing actionable science and (b) providing resources for actionable science to early-career researchers. Our analyses provide useful guidelines for conservation researchers and practitioners who are interested in producing actionable science.

The six dimensions of collective leadership that advance sustainability objectives: rethinking what it means to be an academic leader

“…Our collective leadership model focuses on developing the relationships needed to mobilize knowledge that is salient, credible, and legitimate for action (Cash et al 2003, Gerber et al 2020) and builds on leadership research, knowledge-to-action models, and other efforts to advance sustainability initiatives that underpin the Earth Leadership Program (ELP). The ELP [1] was founded in 1998 as the Leopold Leadership Program (LLP) to train environmental scientists to become effective at integrating https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss3/art9/ their scientific knowledge and expertise into strategies for communication to diverse stakeholders (Lubchenco 1998).…”

Integrated SDM database: Enhancing the relevance and utility of species distribution models in conservation management

“…The most successful conservation outcomes from research build trust, collaborate, embrace different perspectives and diversify communication with stakeholders (Gerber et al., 2020). Our iSDMdb inherently requires engagement with rangers and decision‐makers through multiple steps in the database‐building process.…”

Opening learning spaces to create actionable knowledge for conservation

“…This can ready the group to take on the next challenge in a new way (further internalization). Recognition that actionable knowledge is a social outcome of the SECI cycle, implemented within effective learning spaces, may contribute to the expansion of what is considered valid science in conservation and associated natural resource management disciplines (Gerber et al, 2020).…”

“…This is why scientific evidence, in the absence of interpersonal relationships and social contexts, is insufficient to produce action (Levin, 2013). Making knowledge actionable within the realm of conservation, or any other sphere of decision making, requires several related processes: inclusion of diverse perspectives on the problem and potential solutions to address a range of needs and interests and illuminate blindspots; agreement among those stakeholders who have the power to facilitate or block action; and ongoing evaluation of its usefulness to keep pace with environmental, social, and political changes (Gerber, Barton, Cheng, & Anderson, 2020). Developing actionable knowledge is thus undeniably a social enterprise, akin to what is often termed “social learning” (e.g., Reed et al, 2010).…”

“…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.…”