Stakeholder engagement does not guarantee impact: A co-productionist perspective on model-based drought research.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1177/03063127231199220
Catharina Landström, Eric Sarmiento, Sarah J Whatmore
{"title":"Stakeholder engagement does not guarantee impact: A co-productionist perspective on model-based drought research.","authors":"Catharina Landström, Eric Sarmiento, Sarah J Whatmore","doi":"10.1177/03063127231199220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stakeholder engagement has become a watchword for environmental scientists to assert the societal relevance of their projects to funding agencies. In water research based on computer simulation modelling, stakeholder engagement has attracted interest as a means to overcome low uptake of new tools for water management. An increasingly accepted view is that more and better stakeholder involvement in research projects will lead to increased adoption of the modelling tools created by scientists in water management. However, we cast doubt on this view by drawing attention to how the freedom of stakeholder organizations to adopt new scientific modelling tools in their regular practices is circumscribed by the societal context. We use a modified concept of co-production in an analysis of a case of scientific research on drought in the UK to show how relationships between actors in the drought governance space influence the uptake of scientific modelling tools. The analysis suggests an explanation of why stakeholder engagement with one scientific project led to one output (data) getting adopted by stakeholders while another output (modelling tools) attracted no discernible interest. Our main objective is to improve the understanding of the limitations to stakeholder engagement as a means of increasing societal uptake of scientific research outputs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"210-230"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10981195/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231199220","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement has become a watchword for environmental scientists to assert the societal relevance of their projects to funding agencies. In water research based on computer simulation modelling, stakeholder engagement has attracted interest as a means to overcome low uptake of new tools for water management. An increasingly accepted view is that more and better stakeholder involvement in research projects will lead to increased adoption of the modelling tools created by scientists in water management. However, we cast doubt on this view by drawing attention to how the freedom of stakeholder organizations to adopt new scientific modelling tools in their regular practices is circumscribed by the societal context. We use a modified concept of co-production in an analysis of a case of scientific research on drought in the UK to show how relationships between actors in the drought governance space influence the uptake of scientific modelling tools. The analysis suggests an explanation of why stakeholder engagement with one scientific project led to one output (data) getting adopted by stakeholders while another output (modelling tools) attracted no discernible interest. Our main objective is to improve the understanding of the limitations to stakeholder engagement as a means of increasing societal uptake of scientific research outputs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利益相关者的参与并不能保证影响:基于模型的干旱研究的共同生产主义观点。
利益相关者的参与已成为环境科学家断言其项目与资助机构的社会相关性的口号。在基于计算机模拟建模的水资源研究中,利益相关者的参与作为克服水资源管理新工具使用率低的一种手段引起了人们的兴趣。一种越来越被接受的观点是,利益相关者更多更好地参与研究项目,将导致科学家在水管理中创建的建模工具得到更多的采用。然而,我们对这一观点表示怀疑,因为我们提请注意利益相关者组织在其常规实践中采用新的科学建模工具的自由是如何受到社会背景的限制的。在对英国干旱科学研究案例的分析中,我们使用了一个修改后的共同生产概念,以展示干旱治理领域参与者之间的关系如何影响科学建模工具的使用。该分析解释了为什么利益相关者参与一个科学项目会导致一个产出(数据)被利益相关者采用,而另一个输出(建模工具)却没有引起明显的兴趣。我们的主要目标是提高对利益相关者参与的局限性的理解,以此提高社会对科学研究成果的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Virtual diversity and the value-ladenness of science Silence of the labs. The commercial roots of the genomic commons From the bench to public policy: Enhancing public trust in science. Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1