Suchergebnisse

The idea of integration in research has risen rapidly in both environmental science and public environmental policy since the mid-1990s, and has encouraged innovative relationships between scientists and practitioners in a range of contexts. Yet the concept of integration is broad and ambiguous, which inhibits efforts to learn from these innovations. In this paper, I review the different concepts of integration that currently exist in international and Australian science and environmental policy contexts. Drawing on comprehensive examples, I identify 12 thematic categories of integration. The themes encompass integration within science, as well as integration between scientific and non-scientific partners. They also include integration focused on activities, and on the organisational or institutional structures that govern research activity. These groupings reflect significant differences in the ways science-policy relationships are understood, and the main problems integration is intended to overcome. They serve as a foundation for a framework that researchers, policy-makers and other partners can use to compare and learn from different integrative research approaches. This is a first step towards building a comprehensive understanding of how integration can contribute to better environmental outcomes.

The idea of integration in research has risen rapidly in both environmental science and public environmental policy since the mid-1990s, and has encouraged innovative relationships between scientists and practitioners in a range of contexts. Yet the concept of integration is broad and ambiguous, which inhibits efforts to learn from these innovations. In this paper, I review the different concepts of integration that currently exist in international and Australian science and environmental policy contexts. Drawing on comprehensive examples, I identify 12 thematic categories of integration. The themes encompass integration within science, as well as integration between scientific and non-scientific partners. They also include integration focused on activities, and on the organisational or institutional structures that govern research activity. These groupings reflect significant differences in the ways science-policy relationships are understood, and the main problems integration is intended to overcome. They serve as a foundation for a framework that researchers, policy-makers and other partners can use to compare and learn from different integrative research approaches. This is a first step towards building a comprehensive understanding of how integration can contribute to better environmental outcomes.

Designing an integrative research program requires that research leaders negotiate a balance between the scientific interest of research and the practical interests of non-scientific partners. This paper examines the ways integrated research is formally categorised, and analyses the tangible expressions of the practical politics involved in reconciling scientific and practical interests. Drawing on a comparative study of two Australian Cooperative Research Centres, I argue that categories used by the research leaders to describe the research programs embody three different strategies for structuring the relationships between researchers and their partners. These include matching research program categories to partners' implementation program categories, reproducing existing integrative partnership models, and filling gaps in understanding with new technical approaches. These strategies offer different advantages and disadvantages. The cases suggest that the integrative approach favoured by each Centre depended on issues such as the geographic scope of policy arenas, sources of scientific credibility, and the political risks facing partners. The practical politics of research organisation offers a new lens for understanding both the practice and theory of integrated research.

Designing an integrative research program requires that research leaders negotiate a balance between the scientific interest of research and the practical interests of non-scientific partners. This paper examines the ways integrated research is formally categorised, and analyses the tangible expressions of the practical politics involved in reconciling scientific and practical interests. Drawing on a comparative study of two Australian Cooperative Research Centres, I argue that categories used by the research leaders to describe the research programs embody three different strategies for structuring the relationships between researchers and their partners. These include matching research program categories to partners' implementation program categories, reproducing existing integrative partnership models, and filling gaps in understanding with new technical approaches. These strategies offer different advantages and disadvantages. The cases suggest that the integrative approach favoured by each Centre depended on issues such as the geographic scope of policy arenas, sources of scientific credibility, and the political risks facing partners. The practical politics of research organisation offers a new lens for understanding both the practice and theory of integrated research.

It is now commonplace to assert that actions toward sustainable development require a mix of scientific, economic, social and political knowledge, and judgments. The role of research-based knowledge in this complex setting is ambiguous and diverse, and it is undergoing rapid change both in theory and in practice. We review conventional views of the linkages between research-based knowledge and action, and the early response to concerns that these links could and should be improved, through efforts at translation and transfer. We then examine the range of critiques that challenge those conventional views by highlighting different aspects of the relationships between science and society, focusing on the implications for action toward sustainable development. We then review the theories and strategies that have emerged in the attempt to improve the linkages between research-based knowledge and action in the context of sustainability across four broad categories: participation, integration, learning, and negotiation. These form a hierarchy with respect to how deeply they engage with the various critiques. We propose that the relationships between research-based knowledge and action can be better understood as arenas of shared responsibility, embedded within larger systems of power and knowledge that evolve and change over time. The unique contribution of research-based knowledge needs to be understood in relation to actual or potential contributions from other forms of knowledge. We conclude with questions that may offer useful orientation to assessing or designing research-action arenas for sustainable development.

It is now commonplace to assert that actions toward sustainable development require a mix of scientific, economic, social and political knowledge, and judgments. The role of research-based knowledge in this complex setting is ambiguous and diverse, and it is undergoing rapid change both in theory and in practice. We review conventional views of the linkages between research-based knowledge and action, and the early response to concerns that these links could and should be improved, through efforts at translation and transfer. We then examine the range of critiques that challenge those conventional views by highlighting different aspects of the relationships between science and society, focusing on the implications for action toward sustainable development. We then review the theories and strategies that have emerged in the attempt to improve the linkages between research-based knowledge and action in the context of sustainability across four broad categories: participation, integration, learning, and negotiation. These form a hierarchy with respect to how deeply they engage with the various critiques. We propose that the relationships between research-based knowledge and action can be better understood as arenas of shared responsibility, embedded within larger systems of power and knowledge that evolve and change over time. The unique contribution of research-based knowledge needs to be understood in relation to actual or potential contributions from other forms of knowledge. We conclude with questions that may offer useful orientation to assessing or designing research-action arenas for sustainable development.

Tackling major environmental change issues requires effective partnerships between science and governance, but relatively little work in this area has examined the diversity of settings from which such partnerships may, or may not, emerge. In this special feature we draw on experiences from around the world to demonstrate and investigate the consequences of diverse capacities and capabilities in bringing science and governance together. We propose the concept of coproductive capacities as a useful new lens through which to examine these relations. Coproductive capacity is "the combination of scientific resources and governance capability that shapes the extent to which a society, at various levels, can operationalize relationships between scientific and public, private, and civil society institutions and actors to effect scientifically-informed social change." This recasts the relationships between science and society from notions of "gaps" to notions of interconnectedness and interplay (coproduction); alongside the societal foundations that shape what is or is not possible in that dynamic connection (capacities). The articles in this special feature apply this concept to reveal social, political, and institutional conditions that both support and inhibit high-quality environmental governance as global issues are tackled in particular places. Across these articles we suggest that five themes emerge as important to understanding coproductive capacity: history, experience, and perceptions; quality of relationships (especially in suboptimal settings); disjunct across scales; power, interests, and legitimacy; and alternative pathways for environmental governance. Taking a coproductive capacities perspective can help us identify which interventions may best enable scientifically informed, but locally sensitive approaches to environmental governance.

Tackling major environmental change issues requires effective partnerships between science and governance, but relatively little work in this area has examined the diversity of settings from which such partnerships may, or may not, emerge. In this special feature we draw on experiences from around the world to demonstrate and investigate the consequences of diverse capacities and capabilities in bringing science and governance together. We propose the concept of coproductive capacities as a useful new lens through which to examine these relations. Coproductive capacity is "the combination of scientific resources and governance capability that shapes the extent to which a society, at various levels, can operationalize relationships between scientific and public, private, and civil society institutions and actors to effect scientifically-informed social change." This recasts the relationships between science and society from notions of "gaps" to notions of interconnectedness and interplay (coproduction); alongside the societal foundations that shape what is or is not possible in that dynamic connection (capacities). The articles in this special feature apply this concept to reveal social, political, and institutional conditions that both support and inhibit high-quality environmental governance as global issues are tackled in particular places. Across these articles we suggest that five themes emerge as important to understanding coproductive capacity: history, experience, and perceptions; quality of relationships (especially in suboptimal settings); disjunct across scales; power, interests, and legitimacy; and alternative pathways for environmental governance. Taking a coproductive capacities perspective can help us identify which interventions may best enable scientifically informed, but locally sensitive approaches to environmental governance.