actionable science; boundary spanning; boundary work; conservation science; coproduction; engaged scholarship; knowledge to action; science communication; Nature and Landscape Conservation; Ecology; Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Abstract :
[en] The knowledge produced by conservation scientists must be actionable in order to address urgent conservation challenges. To understand the process of creating actionable science, we interviewed 71 conservation scientists who had participated in 1 of 3 fellowship programs focused on training scientists to become agents of change. Using a grounded theory approach, we identified 16 activities that these researchers employed to make their scientific products more actionable. Some activities were more common than others and, arguably, more foundational. We organized these activities into 3 nested categories (motivations, strategies, and tactics). Using a co-occurrence matrix, we found that most activities were positively correlated. These correlations allowed us to identify 5 approaches, framed as profiles, to actionable science: the discloser, focused on open access; the educator, focused on science communication; the networker, focused on user needs and building relationships; the collaborator, focused on boundary spanning; and the pluralist, focused on knowledge coproduction resulting in valuable outcomes for all parties. These profiles build on one another in a hierarchy determined by their complexity and level of engagement, their potential to support actionable science, and their proximity to ideal coproduction with knowledge users. Our results provide clear guidance for conservation scientists to generate actionable science to address the global biodiversity conservation challenge. [es] Cinco estrategias para producir ciencia práctica en la conservación Resumen El conocimiento producido por los científicos de la conservación debe ser práctico para poder abordar los obstáculos urgentes que enfrenta la conservación. Entrevistamos a 71 científicos de la conservación que participaron en uno de los tres programas de becas enfocados en la formación de científicos como agentes de cambio para entender el proceso de creación de la ciencia práctica. Usamos una estrategia de teoría fundamentada para identificar 16 actividades empleadas por estos investigadores para hacer más prácticos sus productos científicos. Algunas actividades fueron más comunes que otras y, probablemente, más fundamentales. Organizamos estas actividades en tres categorías anidadas: motivaciones, estrategias y tácticas. Con una matriz de co-ocurrencia, encontramos que la mayoría de las actividades estaban correlacionadas positivamente. Estas correlaciones nos permitieron identificar cinco estrategias, encuadradas como perfiles, para la ciencia práctica: la reveladora, enfocada en el acceso abierto; la educativa, enfocada en la comunicación de la ciencia; la interconectora, enfocada en las necesidades del usuario y en construir relaciones; la colaborativa, enfocada en la expansión de las fronteras; y la pluralista, enfocada en la coproducción del conocimiento como el origen de resultados valiosos para todas las partes. Estas estrategias se apoyan entre sí en una jerarquía determinada por su complejidad y el nivel de compromiso, su potencial para apoyar la ciencia práctica y su proximidad a la coproducción ideal con los usuarios del conocimiento. Nuestros resultados proporcionan directrices claras para que los científicos de la conservación generen ciencia práctica para abordar los retos de conservación que enfrenta la biodiversidad mundial. [zh] 保护科学家必须产出可操作的知识, 才能应对紧迫的保护挑战。为了解创造可操作科学的过程, 我们采访了71位保护科学家, 他们参与了培养科学家成为变革者的三项奖金项目中的一项。基于扎根理论方法, 我们确定了这些研究者为创造可操作的科学产出而开展的16项活动。有些活动比其他活动更为常见, 并且可以说是更为基础。我们将这些活动分为三个嵌套的类别(动机、策略和战术)。利用共生矩阵, 我们发现大多数活动是正相关的, 且基于这些相关性可以确定出五种方法, 作为可操作科学的框架:专注于开放存取的公开者;专注于科学交流的教育者;专注于使用者需求和建立关系的网络者;专注于跨越边界的合作者;以及专注于知识协同生产、为各方带来有价值结果的多元主义者。这些特征相互建立在一个层级结构上, 而这个层级结构由其复杂性和参与度、支持可操作科学的潜力, 以及与知识使用者理想的协同生产的接近度决定。本研究的结果为保护科学家产出可操作科学以应对全球生物多样性保护挑战提供了明确的指导。 【胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.
Disciplines :
Library & information sciences Life sciences: Multidisciplinary, general & others Social & behavioral sciences, psychology: Multidisciplinary, general & others
Author, co-author :
Carr Kelman, Candice ; Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ; School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Barton, Chris J ; Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ; School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Whitman, Kyle; Office of University Affairs, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Lhoest, Simon ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département GxABT > Gestion des ressources forestières et des milieux naturels ; Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Anderson, Derrick M; Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ; ASU School of Public Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Gerber, Leah R ; Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ; School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
Language :
English
Title :
Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation.
Barge, J. K., & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2008). Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 251–265.
Barton, C. J., Wang, Q., Anderson, D. M., & Callow, D. A. (2021). Synchronizing the logic of inquiry with the logic of action: The case of urban climate policy. Sustainability, 13(19), 10625.
Bednarek, A. T., Shouse, B., Hudson, C. G., & Goldburg, R. (2016). Science-policy intermediaries from a practitioner's perspective: The Lenfest Ocean Program experience. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 291–300.
Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., & Hart, D. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1175–1183.
Beier, P., Hansen, L. J., Helbrecht, L., & Behar, D. (2017). A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 288–296.
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. SAGE.
Brown, M. B., & Benedetti, J. K. (1977). Sampling behavior of tests for correlation in two-way contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(358), 309–315.
Brugger, J., Meadow, A., & Horangic, A. (2016). Lessons from first-generation climate science integrators, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 97(3), 355–365.
Buschke, F. T., Botts, E. A., & Sinclair, S. P. (2019). Post-normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(8), e73.
Carrera, J., Key, K., Bailey, S., Hamm, J., Cuthbertson, C., Lewis, E., Woolford, S., DeLoney, E., Greene-Moton, E., Wallace, K., Robinson, D., Byers, I., Piechowski, P., Evans, L., McKay, A., Vereen, D., Sparks, A., & Calhoun, K. (2019). Community science as a pathway for resilience in response to a public health crisis in Flint, Michigan. Social Sciences, 8(3), 94.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086–8091.
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8.
Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C., & Patt, A. G. (2006). Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision-making: Comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(4), 465–494.
Chen, P. Y., Smithson, M., & Popovich, P. M. (2002). Correlation: Parametric and nonparametric measures (No. 139). SAGE.
Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 31–38.
Clark, W. C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., & Gallopin, G. C. (2016). Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4570–4578.
Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge–action boundary. Conservation Biology, 27(4), 669–678.
Cook, C. N., Beever, E. A., Thurman, L. L., Thompson, L. M., Gross, J. E., Whiteley, A. R., Nicotra, A. B., Szymanski, J. A., Botero, C. A., Hall, K. R., Hoffmann, A. A., Schuurman, G. W., & Sgrò, C. M. (2021). Supporting the adaptive capacity of species through more effective knowledge exchange with conservation practitioners. Evolutionary Applications, 14, 1969–1979.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 680–689.
Demirtas, H. (2016). A note on the relationship between the phi coefficient and the tetrachoric correlation under nonnormal underlying distributions. The American Statistician, 70(2), 143–148.
Djenontin, I. N. S., & Meadow, A. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: Lessons from international practice. Environmental Management, 61, 885–903.
Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 14081–14087.
Enquist, C. A., Jackson, S. T., Garfin, G. M., Davis, F. W., Gerber, L. R., Littell, J. A., Tank, J. L., Terando, A. J., Wall, T. U., Halpern, B., & Hiers, J. K. (2017). Foundations of translational ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(10), 541–550.
Fabian, Y., Bollmann, K., Brang, P., Heiri, C., Olschewski, R., Rigling, A., Stofer, S., & Holderegger, R. (2019). How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? Information sources used by practitioners. Biological Conservation, 235, 93–101.
Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Kruijsen, J., White, P. C., Newsham, A., Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., & Phillipson, J. (2013). Knowledge exchange: A review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation, 40, 19–36.
Fazey, I., Bunse, L., Msika, J., Pinke, M., Preedy, K., Evely, A. C., Lambert, E., Hastings, E., Morris, S., & Reed, M. S. (2014). Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental Change, 25, 204–220.
Feldman, D. L., & Ingram, H. (2009). Multiple ways of knowing water resources: Enhancing the status of water ethics. Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 7(1), 1–22.
Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International.
Gerber, L. R., Barton, C. J., Cheng, S. H., & Anderson, D. (2020). Producing actionable science in conservation: Best practices for organizations and individuals. Conservation Science and Practice, 2, e295.
Goodrich, K. A., Sjostrom, K. D., Vaughan, C., Nichols, L., Bednarek, A., & Lemos, M. C. (2020). Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 45–51.
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. SAGE.
Jagannathan, K., Arnott, J. C., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Mach, K. J., Moss, R. H., & Sjostrom, K. D. (2020). Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and possibility of co-production. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 22–29.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
Karlin, B., Carr Kelman, C., Goodrich, K. A., & Lowerson Bredow, V. (2016). The role of the university: Engaged scholarship in the Anthropocene. In R. A. Mathew (Ed.), The WSPC reference on natural resources and environmental policy in the era of global change (pp. 143–172). World Scientific.
Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35, 665–668.
Lemos, M. C., & Morehouse, B. J. (2005). The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 15, 57–68.
Lemos, M. C., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Baja, K., Bednarek, A. T., Dewulf, A., Fieseler, C., Goodrich, K. A., Jagannathan, K., & Klenk, N. (2018). To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability, 1, 722–724.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Mach, K. J., Lemos, M. C., Meadow, A. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Arnott, J. C., Ardoin, N. M., Fieseler, C., Moss, R. H., Nichols, L., Stults, M., Vaughan, C., & Wong-Parodi, G. (2020). Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 30–37.
Manning, J. (2017). In vivo coding. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0270
McNie, E. C., Parris, A., & Sarewitz, D. (2016). Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Research Policy, 45, 884–895.
Meadow, A. M., Ferguson, D. B., Guido, Z., Horangic, A., Owen, G., & Wall, T. (2015). Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society, 7(2), 179–191.
Miller, C. A., & Wyborn, C. (2020). Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environmental Science & Policy, 113, 88–95.
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., … Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3, 182–190.
Nguyen, V. M., Young, N., & Cooke, S. J. (2017). A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management: Knowledge Movement. Conservation Biology, 31, 789–798.
Posner, S. M., & Cvitanovic, C. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of boundary-spanning activities at the interface of environmental science and policy: A review of progress and future research needs. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 141–151.
Rainie, L., Funk, C., Anderson, M., & Page, D. (2015). How scientists engage the public. Pew Research Center.
Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Fazey, I., Evely, A. C., & Kruijsen, J. H. (2014). Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 146, 337–345.
Roche, D. G., O'Dea, R. E., Kerr, K. A., Rytwinski, T., Schuster, R., Nguyen, V. M., Young, N., Bennett, J. R., & Cooke, S. J. (2022). Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science. Conservation Biology, 36, e13835.
Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., Robertson, R. J., Simmons, B. I., Wauchope, H. S., Kovacs, E., Durán, A. P., & Vadrot, A. B. (2018). The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions. Conservation Letters, 11, e12564.
Roux, D. J., Rogers, K. H., Biggs, H. C., Ashton, P. J., & Sergeant, A. (2006). Bridging the science–management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 4.
Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 5–16.
Scharp, K. M. (2021). Thematic co-occurrence analysis: Advancing a theory and qualitative method to illuminate ambivalent experiences. Journal of Communication, 71(4), 545–571.
Schwartz, M. W., Belhabib, D., Biggs, D., Cook, C., Fitzsimons, J., Giordano, A. J., Glew, L., Gottlieb, S., Kattan, G., Knight, A. T., Lundquist, C. J., Lynam, A. J., Masuda, Y. J., Mwampamba, T. H., Nuno, A., Plumptre, A. J., Ray, J. C., Reddy, S. M., & Runge, M. C. (2019). A vision for documenting and sharing knowledge in conservation. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(1), e1.
Shackleton, C. M., Cundill, G., & Knight, A. T. (2009). Beyond just research: Experiences from Southern Africa in developing social learning partnerships for resource conservation initiatives. Biotropica, 41, 563–570.
Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414.
Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727–734.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Stocklmayer, S. M., & Bryant, C. (2012). Science and the public—What should people know? International Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 81–101.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Suryanarayanan, S., & Kleinman, D. L. (2013). Be(e)coming experts: The controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder. Social Studies of Science, 43, 215–240.
Toomey, A. H., Knight, A. T., & Barlow, J. (2017). Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation: Research-implementation spaces. Conservation Letters, 10(5), 619–625.
Van Kerkhoff, L., & Lebel, L. (2015). Coproductive capacities: Rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society, 20(1), art14.
Vogel, J., McNie, E., & Behar, D. (2016). Co-producing actionable science for water utilities. Climate Services, 2, 30–40.
Wall, T. U., Meadow, A. M., & Horganic, A. (2017). Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(1), 95–107.
