Organizational Influence on Knowledge Co-production

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are needed to effectively address the challenges facing our complex social-ecological systems. To meet this need, many approaches, including co-production, have been proposed to overcome the difficult relationship between science and governance, often termed a ‘gap’, which can continue to impede natural resource problem solving. Co-production is an iterative process that engages scientists, managers, and community members in knowledge creation and problem solving. Evidence indicates that participants are more likely to view co-produced knowledge as more salient, legitimate, and credible, and that they are more likely to use it. Evidence also indicates that this iterative and inclusive process can foster relationships between participants that enhance their ability to collaborate going forward. Despite these potential benefits, siloed and ‘static’ approaches to natural resource science and management can create organizational structures and cultures that are not conducive to collaborative research processes like co-production. This study focuses on seven co-production case studies to examine how organizational structures and cultures within the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) enable or constrain co-production processes and their subsequent outcomes. In-depth interviews with participants indicate that by adjusting performance evaluations to value the time and energy that collaborative work requires, as well as by adjusting funding to compensate for this additional time, RMRS could enhance their support of scientists’ engagement in collaborative process like co-production. However, participants also indicate that RMRS may have to invest in more scientists overall, especially those that focus on addressing management needs, to enhance their capacity as an organization to engage in co-production processes

Ten Considerations for Research Funders Seeking to Enhance Knowledge Exchange and the Impact of Marine Science on Policy and Practice

Research funders can play an important role in supporting the integration of marine science into policy and practice to enable evidence-informed decision-making. However, to date, there is a paucity of guidance available to help research funders understand the specific actions they can take to support knowledge exchange among the researchers that they fund and relevant stakeholders, particularly within marine contexts. This Brief Research Report aims to begin to fill this gap through an in-depth case study of the Lenfest Ocean Program (LOP). Specifically, through qualitative interviews with 32 participants across eight LOP funded research projects (i.e., case studies) we sought to: (i) understand the types of impacts that have resulted from the LOP funded research, (ii) determine which activities undertaken by the LOP enabled funded research projects to achieve these impacts, and (iii) synthesize findings to articulate the core lessons that have emerged from our examination of these research projects. Results show that the concept of “research impact” is complex and can be interpreted in a number of ways including: (i) raising awareness of research among end-users, (ii) development and expansion of social networks, (iii) the provision of information to decision-makers, (iv) the development of decision-support tools, and (v) a direct contribution to policy change. We highlight the ways by which the LOP has supported the attainment of these impacts, as well as 10 general considerations that research funders should consider when seeking to enhance the impact of the research that they fund on marine policy and practice.Funding for this research was provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts