A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers

Abstract

Although most wildlife professionals agree that science should inform wildlife management decisions, disconnect still exists between researchers and managers. If researchers are not striving to incorporate their findings into management decisions, support for research programs by managers can wane. If managers are not using research findings to inform management decisions, those decisions may be less effective or more vulnerable to legal challenges. Both of these situations can have negative consequences for wildlife conservation. We outline a collaborative research‐management approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers. We describe differences in perspectives, perceptions, and priorities between managers and researchers; outline how and why the divide between researchers and managers has likely occurred and continues to grow; and present specific strategies and recommendations to foster stronger collaborations between managers and researchers. We advocate increased synergy between managers and researchers based on a shared vision of conservation and a collaborative structure that rewards researchers and managers. Most importantly, we suggest that relationships and communication between managers and researchers must be established early in research development and decision‐making processes, fostering the trust needed for collaboration. Institutions and agencies can facilitate these relationships by creating opportunities and incentives for integrating collaborative research into management decisions. We suggest this approach will strengthen ties between researchers and managers, increase relevance of research to management decisions, promote effectiveness of management decisions, reduce legal challenges, and ultimately produce positive, tangible, and lasting effects on wildlife conservation. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Research–management partnerships: An opportunity to integrate genetics in conservation actions

“…This will enable researchers and managers to identify the scope of the project, clearly state assumptions and limitations of the chosen approach, and ensure that genetic research can be integrated in management practices. Ideally, this process should be collaborative from early on in the project design phase (Flanagan, Forester, Latch, Aitken, & Hoban, 2017; Merkle et al, 2019). Identifying the needs and goals of managers and the roles and responsibilities of each party at the beginning of the effort will facilitate successful collaborations.…”

“…Identifying the needs and goals of managers and the roles and responsibilities of each party at the beginning of the effort will facilitate successful collaborations. Managers have specific tasks and often baseline questions to be addressed, thus, when projects are developed solely by academics, genetic assessments may require too much time or might not be designed to address their specific questions (Merkle et al, 2019). Where data is shared, expectations regarding data usage (for those who want to publish) need to be clearly established.…”

Pathways to impact for aquatic conservation science via multi‐modal communication and stakeholder engagement

“…Researcher expectations for impacts arising from their science need to be mindful of the time‐scales and barriers to certain types of interventions, especially in the policy and management sphere (Singh et al, 2014; Walsh, Dicks, Raymond, & Sutherland, 2019). Enabling key stakeholders in public and private sectors through continuing discussion and information sharing can be an extremely effective way to see practical impacts arise from their research (Merkle et al, 2019). Indeed, early and regular efforts to brief relevant government contacts saw the installation of new public signage, and updated information leaflets for public recognition and awareness of the threatened status of Murray crayfish (NSW Government, 2019a) within 2 years of research article publication (Figure 1; Table 1).…”

“…Barriers to conservation intervention require researchers to calibrate where their efforts should be directed (Merkle et al, 2019; Singh et al, 2014; Walsh et al, 2019), and where other key people or boundary‐crossing organizations are better placed to drive meaningful change (Bednarek et al, 2018; Nguyen et al, 2017). Limited resourcing is a common barrier to conservation interventions, and researchers can assist private stakeholders to win resources via grants and other competitive allocation processes that require solid evidence to make a winning case.…”

“…Translation of scientific findings into real‐world impacts is a primary goal of conservation scientists, and a necessary part of evidence‐based policy development and decision‐making (Merkle et al, 2019; Singh et al, 2014). Although publishing a peer‐reviewed article is a fundamental step in reporting new findings, more needs to be done to ensure scientific evidence is translated into actions that will benefit the species or community of concern (Cooke, 2019; Nguyen, Young, & Cooke, 2017; Singh et al, 2014).…”