Four guiding principles for choosing frameworks and indicators to assess research impact

Selecting a framework for assessing research impact can be difficult, especially for interdisciplinary studies and research in fields that do not have established forms impact assessment. In this post, Elena Louder, Carina Wyborn, Christopher Cvitanovic, Angela T. Bednarek, outline four principles for researchers designing impact assessment criteria for their work and suggest how a closer appreciation of how assessment frameworks are dependent on particular forms of knowledge production and dissemination is critical to making the right choice

Four principles for practising and evaluating co-production - a view from sustainability research.

The co-production paradigm has become commonplace across many disciplines as a means of orchestrating the production of useful knowledge aligned to different social needs. Drawing on the expertise of 36 co-production practitioners in the field of sustainability research, Dr Albert Norström, Dr Chris Cvitanovic, Dr Marie F. Löf, Dr Simon West and Dr Carina Wyborn, present a new working definition of co-produced research and suggest how different elements of successfully co-produced knowledge can be understood and evaluated

How Methods for Navigating Uncertainty Connect Science and Policy at the Water-Energy-Food Nexus

As the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus becomes an increasingly common framework for bridging science and policy, there is a growing need to unpack and make explicit many of the methods and assumptions being used to operationalize the nexus. In this paper, we focus on two common approaches to nexus research, quantitative modeling and futures thinking, and the ways that each set of methodological tools address uncertainty. We first review the underlying assumptions of each approach with a focus on sources of and ability to measure uncertainty, and potential complementarities. Quantitative modeling takes a probabilistic approach to predicting the likelihood of a specific outcome or future state based on estimates of current system dynamics. In contrast, futures thinking approaches, such as scenario processes, explore novel changes that cannot be fully predicted or even anticipated based on current understandings of the nexus. We then examine a set of applied nexus projects that bridge science and policy-making contexts to better understand practitioner experiences with different methodological tools and how they are utilized to navigate uncertainty. We explore one nexus case study, LIVES Cambodia, in-depth, to better understand the opportunities and challenges associated with participatory modeling and stakeholder engagement with uncertainty in a policy-making context. Across the cases, practitioners identify the complementarity between modeling and futures thinking approaches, and those projects that integrated both into the planning process experienced benefits from having multiple angles on uncertainty within the nexus. In particular, stakeholder engagement provided critical opportunities to address some types of uncertainties (e.g., data gaps) through the use of local knowledge. Explicit discussions of model uncertainty and use of scenario processes also enabled stakeholders to deepen their understandings of uncertainties and envision policy pathways that would be robust to uncertainty. In many senses, models became boundary objects that encouraged critical thinking and questioning of assumptions across diverse stakeholders. And, for some nexus projects, confronting uncertainty in explicit and transparent ways build capacity for policy flexibility and adaptiveness. We conclude with a discussion of when and how these benefits can be fully realized through the strategic use of appropriate approaches to characterizing and navigating nexus uncertainty

Understanding Effectiveness in its Broader Context: Assessing Case Study Methodologies for Evaluating Collaborative Conservation Governance

Collaborative forms of governance are increasingly favored in conservation and potentially offer a range of practical and outcome-based benefits. However, tools for critically assessing whether and how collaboration enhances the attainment of conservation objectives are lagging behind the enthusiasm. We use a framework that considers effectiveness in relation to capacity of key actors and institutions to achieve outcomes and respond to emergent problems, robustness over time (i.e. adapting to changes while still achieving objectives), context-specific drivers of change, and the structure of networks and institutions to assess common approaches for evaluating effectiveness. Network analysis performs well in terms of structure, while action research and the diagnostic method offer deep insights into capacity and context. Scenario planning performs well in understanding robustness and context but performs better when combined with a diagnostic. The evaluation reveals important insights for approaching and standardizing investigations of collaborative governance regimes and their effectiveness

Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy

Aichi Target 11 has galvanized expansion of the global protected area network, but there is little evidence that this brings real biodiversity gains. We argue that area-based prioritization risks unintended perverse consequences and that the focus of protected area target development should shift from quantity to quality

The hitchhiker’s guide to co-production: six ways to link knowledge and action for sustainability

By directly linking research processes to change makers, co-production promises to create more impactful knowledge and actions. However, what co-production means in practice is not always clear or consistent. Drawing on the experiences of 32 co-production initiatives from around the world that aim to enhance sustainability, Josephine Chambers, Carina Wyborn, Henrik Österblom, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph, Jessica Cockburn, Rosemary Hill, Ruth Brennan, Chris Cvitanovic and their many co-authors, present a scheme for understanding different kinds of co-production, and the different tradeoffs they entail. In so doing, they highlight 6 modes of co-production that emerge when particular design choices are made

Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives

Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to “span the boundaries” between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface (“boundary spanning”) and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.Support for the workshop was provided by Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies and The Pew Charitable Trusts. PFEA is supported by the U.K. Natural Environment Research Council (NE/N005457/1)

2014 Future Earth Young Scientists Conference on Integrated Science and Knowledge Co-Production for Ecosystems and Human Well-Being

Effective integration in science and knowledge co-production is a challenge that crosses research boundaries, climate regions, languages and cultures. Early career scientists are crucial in the identification of, and engagement with, obstacles and opportunities in the development of innovative solutions to complex and interconnected problems. On 25-31 May 2014, International Council for Science and International Social Science Council, in collaboration with the International Network of Next-Generation Ecologists and Institute for New Economic Thinking: Young Scholars Initiative, assembled a group of early career researchers with diverse backgrounds and research perspectives to reflect on and debate relevant issues around ecosystems and human wellbeing in the transition towards green economy, funded by the German Research Foundation, at Villa Vigoni, Italy. As a group of young scientists, we have come to a consensus that collaboration and communication among a diverse group of peers from different geographic regions could break down the barriers to multi-disciplinary research designed to solve complex global-scale problems. We also propose to establish a global systematic thinking to monitor global socio-ecological systems and to develop criteria for a “good” anthropocene. Finally, we aim to bridge gaps among research, the media, and education from a governance perspective linking with “sustainable development goals”

Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research and Citizen Science: Options for Mutual Learning.

Both citizen science and transdisciplinary sustainability research involve non-academic actors in the production of knowledge while seeking to contribute to sustainability transitions, albeit in different ways. From citizen science, transdisciplinary researchers can learn about the multiple ways of engaging knowledge holders, and producing and sharing knowledge

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