根据具体情况调整研究成果的吸收:支持研究人员做出适合具体情况的研究成果吸收战略决策

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103822
Danick T. Trouwloon, Frank Van Laerhoven, Dries L.T. Hegger, Peter P.J. Driessen
{"title":"根据具体情况调整研究成果的吸收:支持研究人员做出适合具体情况的研究成果吸收战略决策","authors":"Danick T. Trouwloon,&nbsp;Frank Van Laerhoven,&nbsp;Dries L.T. Hegger,&nbsp;Peter P.J. Driessen","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Academic and non-academic societal actors alike are seeking to optimize the ways in which scientific research may contribute to sustainable development, for which a diverse range of research uptake strategies have been developed. Yet, while the literature emphasizes that the appropriateness of research uptake strategies depends on the context in which they are applied, designing appropriate research uptake strategies to fit a specific context remains a challenging decision-making task for many researchers. In this paper, we conceptualize appropriate research uptake strategies to be those that align with the research and societal sustainability contexts in which they are applied and account for the interactions that emerge between these two contexts. With the aim of supporting researchers in designing more appropriate research uptake strategies in a wide range of contexts, we then build on this conceptualization to propose an appropriateness-typology distinguishing between four broad research uptake approaches: the knowledge transfer approach; the commissioned research approach; the direct engagement approach; and the co-production approach. The typology matches each approach to the dynamic research and societal sustainability contexts in which it is most likely to be appropriate, while seeking to accommodate nuanced understandings of how researchers may approach uptake given different contexts and at the same time aiming at parsimony. By explicitly conceptualizing the role of context in research uptake decision-making and taking a first step towards an appropriateness-typology of research uptake, we hope to empower researchers to design more context-appropriate research uptake strategies such as to better contribute to sustainable development.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001564/pdfft?md5=29dcd533604d7d74042087dc5bc729e4&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124001564-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aligning research uptake with context: Supporting researchers’ decisions towards context-appropriate research uptake strategies\",\"authors\":\"Danick T. Trouwloon,&nbsp;Frank Van Laerhoven,&nbsp;Dries L.T. Hegger,&nbsp;Peter P.J. Driessen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Academic and non-academic societal actors alike are seeking to optimize the ways in which scientific research may contribute to sustainable development, for which a diverse range of research uptake strategies have been developed. Yet, while the literature emphasizes that the appropriateness of research uptake strategies depends on the context in which they are applied, designing appropriate research uptake strategies to fit a specific context remains a challenging decision-making task for many researchers. In this paper, we conceptualize appropriate research uptake strategies to be those that align with the research and societal sustainability contexts in which they are applied and account for the interactions that emerge between these two contexts. With the aim of supporting researchers in designing more appropriate research uptake strategies in a wide range of contexts, we then build on this conceptualization to propose an appropriateness-typology distinguishing between four broad research uptake approaches: the knowledge transfer approach; the commissioned research approach; the direct engagement approach; and the co-production approach. The typology matches each approach to the dynamic research and societal sustainability contexts in which it is most likely to be appropriate, while seeking to accommodate nuanced understandings of how researchers may approach uptake given different contexts and at the same time aiming at parsimony. By explicitly conceptualizing the role of context in research uptake decision-making and taking a first step towards an appropriateness-typology of research uptake, we hope to empower researchers to design more context-appropriate research uptake strategies such as to better contribute to sustainable development.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001564/pdfft?md5=29dcd533604d7d74042087dc5bc729e4&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124001564-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001564\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124001564","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术界和非学术界的社会行动者都在努力优化科学研究促进可持续发展的方式,并为此制定了各种研究吸收战略。然而,尽管文献强调研究吸收战略的适当性取决于其应用的环境,但对于许多研究人员来说,设计适合特定环境的适当研究吸收战略仍然是一项具有挑战性的决策任务。在本文中,我们将适当的研究吸收策略概念化为那些与研究和社会可持续性背景相一致的策略,并考虑到这两种背景之间出现的相互作用。为了支持研究人员在各种情况下设计更合适的研究吸收策略,我们在这一概念的基础上提出了一种合适性类型学,区分了四种广泛的研究吸收方法:知识转移方法、委托研究方法、直接参与方法和共同生产方法。该类型学将每种方法与它最有可能适合的动态研究和社会可持续性背景相匹配,同时寻求适应研究人员在不同背景下如何采用吸收方法的微妙理解,并同时力求简洁。通过明确概念化环境在研究成果吸收决策中的作用,并朝着研究成果吸收的适当性理论迈出第一步,我们希望能增强研究人员的能力,设计出更适合环境的研究成果吸收策略,从而更好地促进可持续发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Aligning research uptake with context: Supporting researchers’ decisions towards context-appropriate research uptake strategies

Academic and non-academic societal actors alike are seeking to optimize the ways in which scientific research may contribute to sustainable development, for which a diverse range of research uptake strategies have been developed. Yet, while the literature emphasizes that the appropriateness of research uptake strategies depends on the context in which they are applied, designing appropriate research uptake strategies to fit a specific context remains a challenging decision-making task for many researchers. In this paper, we conceptualize appropriate research uptake strategies to be those that align with the research and societal sustainability contexts in which they are applied and account for the interactions that emerge between these two contexts. With the aim of supporting researchers in designing more appropriate research uptake strategies in a wide range of contexts, we then build on this conceptualization to propose an appropriateness-typology distinguishing between four broad research uptake approaches: the knowledge transfer approach; the commissioned research approach; the direct engagement approach; and the co-production approach. The typology matches each approach to the dynamic research and societal sustainability contexts in which it is most likely to be appropriate, while seeking to accommodate nuanced understandings of how researchers may approach uptake given different contexts and at the same time aiming at parsimony. By explicitly conceptualizing the role of context in research uptake decision-making and taking a first step towards an appropriateness-typology of research uptake, we hope to empower researchers to design more context-appropriate research uptake strategies such as to better contribute to sustainable development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Attending to the unattended: Why and how do local governments plan for access and functional needs in climate risk reduction? Beyond Academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research Of heroes and villains – How coalitions shape their narratives and what the public conservation debate is actually about? Enhancing meaningful Indigenous leadership and collaboration in international environmental governance forums
×
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