Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Environment, University of Dundee, Perth Road, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK;2. The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK;3. Project MAYA CIC, 54 Tetherdown, London N10 1NG, UK;4. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK;5. Centre for Environment & Society Research, Birmingham School of the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Millennium Point, Curzon Street, Birmingham B4 7XG, UK;1. National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture (IRSTEA), AgroParisTech, The Australian National University (ANU), Fenner School of Environment and Society, 48 Linnaeus Way, Acton ACT 2601, Australia;2. Mekong Region Futures Institute, Asoke 1655/340 Petchaburi Rd Makkasan, Radjadewi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand;3. Mekong Region Futures Institute, Naga House, House 87, Unit 7, Mixay Village, Chantabouly District, Vientiane Capital City, People''s Democratic Republic of Lao;1. Thule institute, University of Oulu, PO Box 7300, 90014 Oulu, Finland;2. Median SCP, Carrer Vista Alegre, 20, 08197 Valldoreix, Spain;3. Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, PO Box 65, 00014 Helsinki, Finland;4. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Department of Conservation Biology, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;5. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Cragiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK;6. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, EH26 0QB Midlothian, UK;7. Institute of Science and Environmental Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain;1. Warwick Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK;2. Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK;1. School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada;2. Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive,Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada;3. Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada;1. University Stefan cel Mare Suceava, Faculty of Forestry, Suceava 720225, Romania;2. Transilvania University of Brasov, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Brasov 500123 Romania |
| |
| Abstract: | Interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research is increasingly being promoted and implemented to enhance understanding of global environment change, identify holistic policy solutions, and assist implementation. These research activities are social processes aiming to enhance the exchange and translation of knowledge. Emphasis on the design and management of knowledge exchange is increasing, but learning about how to do this better is hampered by lack of conceptual development and appropriate methods to evaluate complex and multifaceted knowledge exchange processes. This paper therefore develops principles for the evaluation of knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder environmental change research. The paper is based on an analysis of 135 peer-reviewed evaluations of knowledge exchange from diverse disciplines. The results indicate strong relationships between the field of study (e.g. health care, environmental management), the way knowledge and knowledge exchange were conceptualised and implemented, the approach used for the evaluation, and the outcomes being evaluated. A typology of seven knowledge exchange evaluations is presented to guide discussions about the underlying assumptions of different approaches to knowledge exchange and its evaluation. Five principles for knowledge exchange evaluation are also identified: (i) design for multiple end users; (ii) be explicit about why a particular approach to knowledge exchange is expected to deliver its outcomes; (iii) evaluate diverse outcomes; (iv) use evaluations as part of the process of delivering knowledge exchange; and (v) use mixed methods to evaluate knowledge exchange. We conclude that a catch-all approach to evaluation is neither appropriate nor desirable. Instead, approaches that focus on understanding the underlying processes of knowledge exchange, assess the relative contribution of other factors in shaping outcomes in addition to knowledge exchange, and that involve multiple stakeholders in implementing evaluations, will be the most appropriate for evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary global environmental change research. |
| |
| Keywords: | Interdisciplinary research Participatory research Co-management Co-production Knowledge transfer Co-design |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
