Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy

Cvitanovic, Christopher; Shellock, Rebecca; Mackay, Mary; Putten, E. Ingrid van; Karcher, Denis B.; Dickey‐Collas, Mark; Ballesteros, Marta

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.020

Cited by 82 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous work has illustrated how scientists can operate as brokers between science and policy to achieve outcomes associated with sustainability 9 , 10 , 28 . This literature often assumes that there are cooperative organisations and institutions to work with and that challenges are primarily associated with knowledge exchange.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cooperation requires trust, which implies that there is a mutual belief that expressed intentions are also reflected in attitudes and behaviour 28,[45][46][47] . Our long-term, face-to-face interaction resulted in the emergence of collaborative norms of reciprocity and trust 2,45 , which facilitated a cultural evolution 37 where new insights, norms, and practice benefitted all participants.…”

Section: Scientists As Enablers Of Cultural Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientific mobilization of keystone actors for biosphere stewardship

Österblom

Folke

Rocha

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biosphere crisis requires changes to existing business practices. We ask how corporations can become sustainability leaders, when constrained by multiple barriers to collaboration for biosphere stewardship. We describe how scientists motivated, inspired and engaged with ten of the world’s largest seafood companies, in a collaborative process aimed to enable science-based and systemic transformations (2015–2021). CEOs faced multiple industry crises in 2015 that incentivized novel approaches. New scientific insights, an invitation to collaborate, and a bold vision of transformative change towards ocean stewardship, created new opportunities and direction. Co-creation of solutions resulted in new knowledge and trust, a joint agenda for action, new capacities, international recognition, formalization of an organization, increased policy influence, time-bound goals, and convergence of corporate change. Independently funded scientists helped remove barriers to cooperation, provided means for reflection, and guided corporate strategies and actions toward ocean stewardship. By 2021, multiple individuals exercised leadership and the initiative had transitioned from preliminary and uncomfortable conversations, to a dynamic, operational organization, with capacity to perform global leadership in the seafood industry. Mobilizing transformational agency through learning, collaboration, and innovation represents a cultural evolution with potential to redirect and accelerate corporate action, to the benefit of business, people and the planet.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientists As Enablers Of Cultural Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific mobilization of keystone actors for biosphere stewardship

Österblom

Folke

Rocha

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In-person, face-to-face interactions are deemed to be one of the most effective means of building trust (e.g. Cvitanovic et al 2021); however, they are also costly. The significant financial costs associated with KE and all forms of participatory research are well-recognized (Cvitanovic et al 2019).…”

Section: Being Grounded Is Not So Bad: Benefits Of No Travelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promises and pitfalls of digital knowledge exchange resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic

Nguyen

Bell

Berseth

et al. 2021

Socio Ecol Pract Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we integrate our authorship experiences with insights from nine interviews of knowledge exchange practitioners at the Canadian Forest Service about challenges and opportunities of digital knowledge exchange (KE) brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to inform how best to maintain effective KE practices and processes in a digital-first world. Interpersonal trust and relationships are pivotal to effective knowledge exchange; thus, removing these dimensions risks losing aspects of social learning, informal and meaningful discussions, and personal connections that affect how we interpret and respond to subtle affective and social cues. For KE practitioners, lack of in-person interactions risks internal KE coordination and relevance of KE work, and diminished ability to predict and respond to user needs. However, the accelerated digital adoption has increased reach and accessibility for diverse people to exchange knowledge, and enables more frequent and rapid response to issues and events by virtually gathering diverse people almost instantly. The acceleration in digital innovation and culture has thus resulted in new tools and diversified approaches for the KE toolbox to inform decisions and practices. The long-term sustainability and effectiveness of digital KE depend on two interconnected factors: addressing the persistence of the digital divide and people's abilities to make and maintain meaningful social connections in the absence of regular face-to-face contact. We thus offer three considerations to guide KE efforts and initiative in a digital-first world: (1) consider both digital divide and equity; (2) revisit user needs and preferences for KE to address the diversity of users, and (3) leverage the diversification of KE approaches and innovations.

show abstract

“…Cvitanovic et al 45 present fourteen trust-building strategies along with a stepwise process for repairing damaged relationships at the interface of science and policy. At the very top of this list sits transparency; a fundamental characteristic acknowledged by others to be of foundational importance, particularly when combined with honesty and dignity.…”

Section: Trust and Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If we consider the trust-building strategies suggested by Cvitanovic et al 45 in the context of the UNFSS, we hit the first stumbling block straight away: 'ensure process transparency'. Transparency is a key component of good governance.…”

Section: Cautionary Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and responsibility in food systems transformation. Engaging with Big Food: marriage or mirage?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concentration of power among transnational ‘Big Food’ companies has contributed to food systems that are unsustainable, unhealthy and inequitable for people and planet. Given these commercial determinants of health, if ‘food systems transformation’ is to be authentic—more than a passing narrative—then leveraging Big Food is paramount. To this end, researchers, practitioners and policy-makers are increasingly encouraged to engage with these powerful entities. However, given the conflicts of interest at stake, engagement relies on trust and transparency, that all stakeholders take responsibility for their actions and demonstrate commitment to do no harm. Given Big Food’s track record in influencing policy, shifting costs and responsibility for their harms—and while profit primarily drives business decision making—we question whether it is logical to expect trust.This analysis explores concepts of responsibility and trust in relation to food systems transformation involving public-private partnerships. Through short cautionary case studies—looking at the United Nations Food Systems Summit, and Big Food’s plastic burden—it argues that unless such companies take responsibility for their cross-cutting effects and earn authentic trust through demonstrably doing no harm, their participation in evidence generation and policy processes should be limited to responding to information requests and adhering to regulation. Any involvement in research agenda-setting or formulating policy solutions introduces conflicts of interest, legitimises corporate irresponsibility and jeopardises scientific integrity. Big Food has dynamism and power to address food system problems, but while it contributes to so many of these problems it should follow—not formulate—transformational evidence, policies and regulations.

show abstract

Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy

Cited by 82 publications

References 80 publications

Scientific mobilization of keystone actors for biosphere stewardship

Scientific mobilization of keystone actors for biosphere stewardship

Promises and pitfalls of digital knowledge exchange resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic

Trust and responsibility in food systems transformation. Engaging with Big Food: marriage or mirage?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About