The Changing Role of Scientists in Supporting Collaborative Land and Water Policy in Canterbury, New Zealand

Abstract

In this case study, we examine the role of science and scientists in community-led collaborative policy processes. We outline the shift from science-led linear policy processes to community-led science-informed policy processes. This case study illustrates how practice evolved to ensure that scientists provided reliable, credible, and salient evidence to help community decision-makers. From this experience, a set of principles for scientists working in these environments was created. These principles include scientists recognising their changing role, scientists sharing the burden of uncertainty, scientists speaking in the communities’ language, and scientists creating fit for purpose assessment frameworks.

A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making

“…This involved seeking to operate as a detached actor that was opening-up rather than closing down options. Also, the Cash et al (2003; salience, credibility and legitimacy framework provided valuable principles for guiding practice (see Robson-Williams et al, 2018). However, to foster the knowledge attributes of Cash et al (2003Cash et al ( , 2006 and keep them in balance, brokering practices extended well beyond packaging or bridging a gap between purportedly disconnected spheres of science and policy (Bennett and Jessani, 2011;Gluckman, 2014Gluckman, , 2017aGluckman, , 2017bGluckman, , 2017cWHO, 2004).…”

“…In the midst of this upheaval, and the institutional shift that limited merit appeals to the Environment Court, an opportunity arose to change the way science was used in policy. ECan created leadership roles that brought together interdisciplinary technical teams to support planning processes (see Robson, 2014;Robson-Williams et al, 2018). It is the leaders of these technical teams and the brokering activities they engaged in that are the focus of this study.…”

Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research

“…Projects that were considered most successful in managing unknowns deliberately built adaptation into their project design. They recognised that impactful research must embrace uncertainty [8,47] and emergence [2]. They used reflection [4,77] and adaptive management [78] to respond to emergent situations or circumstances and serendipitous discoveries.…”

“…In complex socioenvironmental problems, all decisions have to deal with uncertainty, and as the issues become more complex, the different dimensions of uncertainty become more apparent [46]. As decisions still need to be made, this means that an understanding of the inevitable uncertainty of the science is integral to the decisions being made [47]. In contrast to many research traditions where the unknown is seen only as the substrate that is converted into knowledge, the i2S signals a different approach to understanding and managing unknowns through bringing together different approaches to provide a rich understanding and ways of dealing with unknowns [11].…”

Assessing research impact potential: using the transdisciplinary Outcome Spaces Framework with New Zealand’s National Science Challenges

“…Knowledge brokers need to walk multiple paths with multiple actors to co-produce knowledge that has utility and legitimacy with multiple audiences. This takes time, empathy, intuition, commitment, navigating politics and long conversations (Thompson et al 2017;Turner et al 2017;Vereijssen et al 2017;Fielke et al 2018;Robson-Williams et al 2018;Duncan et al forthcoming). Importantly, the best people and approaches for achieving excellence might not be the same as those for achieving impact.…”