Denis B. Karcher, Christopher Cvitanovic, Rebecca Colvin, Ingrid van Putten
{"title":"Enabling successful science-policy knowledge exchange between marine biodiversity research and management: An Australian case study","authors":"Denis B. Karcher, Christopher Cvitanovic, Rebecca Colvin, Ingrid van Putten","doi":"10.1002/eet.2078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Knowledge exchange (KE) between research and decision-making is increasingly demanded for tackling environmental challenges, yet there is still much to learn about how to enable that effectively. Here, we analyze a distributor of research funding (i.e., the Australian National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity Hub (‘the hub’)) which actively coordinated KE between researchers and state- and Commonwealth Government end-users. Through 30 in-depth qualitative interviews with researchers, hub executives and end-users we identify enablers of KE engagement, compare what researchers and decision-makers found most important, and highlight what research programs and funding organizations can learn from this case study. Through an evolution of programs, the hub had a strong governance structure, co-identified priority setting, and funding for emerging priorities. Additional enablers were a legacy of longstanding interpersonal working relationships, regular engagement, knowledge brokering roles, and the nationally trusted role of the hub. Researchers more so than end-users found trust, the focus on clear end-user needs as well as the hub's governance and progress-monitoring key to success. End-users more often indicated the early engagement, collaborative nature, and flexibility to adjust as important assets to effective interaction. Visions for future KE included better engagement of Traditional Owners, streamlining direct access to expertise, more accessible outputs, and earlier involvement of researchers in policy development. In sum, we find that time (e.g., pre-story, early engagement) and boundary roles (e.g., knowledge brokering individuals, engaged research funders or coordinators) are key to success underlining that there are substantial components to KE success that can be nurtured and planned for.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"34 3","pages":"291-306"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.2078","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2078","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Knowledge exchange (KE) between research and decision-making is increasingly demanded for tackling environmental challenges, yet there is still much to learn about how to enable that effectively. Here, we analyze a distributor of research funding (i.e., the Australian National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity Hub (‘the hub’)) which actively coordinated KE between researchers and state- and Commonwealth Government end-users. Through 30 in-depth qualitative interviews with researchers, hub executives and end-users we identify enablers of KE engagement, compare what researchers and decision-makers found most important, and highlight what research programs and funding organizations can learn from this case study. Through an evolution of programs, the hub had a strong governance structure, co-identified priority setting, and funding for emerging priorities. Additional enablers were a legacy of longstanding interpersonal working relationships, regular engagement, knowledge brokering roles, and the nationally trusted role of the hub. Researchers more so than end-users found trust, the focus on clear end-user needs as well as the hub's governance and progress-monitoring key to success. End-users more often indicated the early engagement, collaborative nature, and flexibility to adjust as important assets to effective interaction. Visions for future KE included better engagement of Traditional Owners, streamlining direct access to expertise, more accessible outputs, and earlier involvement of researchers in policy development. In sum, we find that time (e.g., pre-story, early engagement) and boundary roles (e.g., knowledge brokering individuals, engaged research funders or coordinators) are key to success underlining that there are substantial components to KE success that can be nurtured and planned for.
在应对环境挑战的过程中,研究与决策之间的知识交流(KE)需求与日俱增,然而在如何有效实现知识交流方面仍有许多问题需要解决。在此,我们分析了一个研究资金分配机构(即澳大利亚国家环境科学计划海洋生物多样性中心("中心")),该机构积极协调研究人员与州政府和联邦政府最终用户之间的知识交流。通过对研究人员、中心管理人员和最终用户进行 30 次深入的定性访谈,我们确定了 KE 参与的促进因素,比较了研究人员和决策者认为最重要的因素,并强调了研究项目和资助机构可以从本案例研究中学到的东西。通过项目的演变,该中心拥有了强大的管理结构、共同确定的优先事项设置,并为新出现的优先事项提供资金。其他促进因素还包括长期的人际工作关系、定期参与、知识中介角色以及中心在全国范围内的信任作用。与最终用户相比,研究人员更认为信任、对明确的最终用户需求的关注以及中心的管理和进度监测是成功的关键。最终用户则更多地表示,早期参与、合作性质和灵活调整是有效互动的重要资产。对未来知识共享中心的展望包括:让传统所有者更好地参与进来、简化直接获取专业知识的途径、更容易获得产出以及让研究人员更早地参与政策制定。总之,我们发现,时间(如前期故事、早期参与)和边界角色(如知识中介个人、参与研究的资助者或协调者)是成功的关键,这强调了知识交流成功的重要组成部分是可以培养和规划的。
期刊介绍:
Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.