Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement

Mach, Katharine J.; Lemos, Maria Carmen; Meadow, Alison M.; Wyborn, Carina; Klenk, Nicole; Arnott, James; Ardoin, Nicole M.; Fieseler, Clare; Moss, Richard H.; Nichols, Leah; Stults, Missy; Vaughan, Catherine; Wong‐Parodi, Gabrielle

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

Cited by 201 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Increased reciprocity motivates collective action by influencing social norms and individual decision-making (Ostrom 1990). In Indigenous communities, participatory research is more than a research practice, it is a political and ethical undertaking; Indigenous knowledge is rooted in a holistic knowledge system that is inseparable from the socio-cultural, political, legal, and relational structure (Mach et al 2020). Diver (2018) contends that reciprocal relations are important in communities "seeking to regain not simply benefits, but rather mutually beneficial relationships and responsibilities to land, water, and resources" (p. 406).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One such barrier is the challenge of documenting outcomes for research where measures of success are embedded in the process. Participatory research provides limited guidance for best practices in evaluating participatory research outcomes (Mach et al 2020, Turnhout et al 2020. While important, monitoring and evaluating outcomes is both a logistically challenge and can compromise the iterative nature of a participatory process (Anticona et al 2013).…”

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether participatory research has a positive impact is ultimately a subjective judgement made by the people involved in the research projects (Martenson et al 2012). Focusing on outcomes can lead to unidirectional knowledge exchange that detracts from the goals of participatory research and shifts power back to the researchers (Mach et al 2020).…”

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once space for knowledge exchange emerges, it is possible to understand how research outcomes can be more equitably evaluated. Systematically monitoring decisions in open forums is ideal for building understanding of outcomes but such monitoring must be implemented in ways that do not compromise the organic nature of knowledge production (Mukherjee et al 2018, Mach et al 2020. Future participatory research should continue to develop methods for participatory research that include clear, flexible, and minimally intrusive methods for monitoring and evaluating project outcomes.…”

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is a lack of clear direction on how to design equitable and inclusive interdisciplinary research that addresses traditional power imbalances in communities and between researchers and communities (Jepson et al 2017, Wutich et al 2019. Scholars have advocated for replacing linear models of knowledge production, where knowledge has a unidirectional flow from researchers to communities, with participatory research where knowledge is co-created (Mach et al 2020). While participatory research approaches are more often discussed in hydrosocial research, they are also important to researchers in sociohydrology (Wesselink et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Participatory research approaches in mining-impacted hydrosocial systems

Torso

Cooper

Helkey

et al. 2020

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As demonstrated by Indigenous and rural scholars, participatory research approaches can facilitate capacity building, promote data accessibility, and accomplish community goals within complex hydrosocial systems. To demonstrate challenges and opportunities for participatory research, we describe hydrosocial territories in a mining-impact region in northern Idaho. We then compare two communityuniversity partnerships in the study region, which included Tribal and non-Tribal rural communities. We find that the Participatory Action Research and Indigenous Research Methodologies frameworks provide a robust set of practices and methods for conducting more equitable and inclusive research. Further, participatory research approaches in research involving mining-impacted hydrosocial systems should: (1) build from established programs, goals, and practices; (2) identify respectful levels of partnership engagement, and (3) recognize partnership limitations. Future inquiry in complex hydrosocial systems should continue to build from the existing collection of participatory scholarship to address power imbalances and cultural differences and implement non-intrusive approaches to evaluate outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recognizing Partnership Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Participatory research approaches in mining-impacted hydrosocial systems

Torso

Cooper

Helkey

et al. 2020

Hydrological Sciences Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Boundary spanning increases knowledge and action on invasive species in a changing climate

Evans,

Colberg,

Allen

et al. 2024

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Challenges associated with global change stressors on ecosystems have prompted calls to improve actionable science, including through boundary‐spanning activities, which aim to build connections and communication between researchers and natural resource practitioners. By synthesizing and translating research and practitioner knowledge, boundary‐spanning activities could support proactive, research‐informed conservation practice, but the success of these efforts is rarely evaluated. Using repeat survey data from the Northeast Regional Invasive Species and Climate Change (NE RISCC) Management Network, a boundary‐spanning organization, we evaluate whether participating in NE RISCC affected practitioners' knowledge, actions and priorities related to invasive species management under a changing climate. Our survey results suggest that practitioners who participate in NE RISCC have greater knowledge about invasive species and climate change and are incorporating climate change in more ways into their invasive species management. We also found NE RISCC membership affected the perceived usefulness of informational resources, with NE RISCC members more frequently identifying research syntheses and targeted workshops (both are common products used by NE RISCC to translate science into practice and share manager knowledge) as useful compared to non‐members. Practitioners who participate in NE RISCC also identified somewhat different research priorities, with non‐members and short‐term members more frequently identifying range‐shifting neonative species and their impacts on native communities as higher priorities compared to long‐term NE RISCC members. NE RISCC research activities and outreach materials have consistently framed range‐shifting neonative species as comparatively low risk, suggesting that this information has influenced practitioner's perception of risk. Practical implication: Although real‐world impacts of applied ecology are notoriously difficult to quantify, this analysis illustrates that if research results are actively translated, they can affect the knowledge and actions of natural resource practitioners. These impacts illustrate the potential for boundary‐spanning efforts to address other global change challenges to conservation.

show abstract