Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation

Abstract

The knowledge produced by conservation scientists must be actionable in order to address urgent conservation challenges. To understand the process of creating actionable science, we interviewed 71 conservation scientists who had participated in 1 of 3 fellowship programs focused on training scientists to become agents of change. Using a grounded theory approach, we identified 16 activities that these researchers employed to make their scientific products more actionable. Some activities were more common than others and, arguably, more foundational. We organized these activities into 3 nested categories (motivations, strategies, and tactics). Using a co‐occurrence matrix, we found that most activities were positively correlated. These correlations allowed us to identify 5 approaches, framed as profiles, to actionable science: the discloser, focused on open access; the educator, focused on science communication; the networker, focused on user needs and building relationships; the collaborator, focused on boundary spanning; and the pluralist, focused on knowledge coproduction resulting in valuable outcomes for all parties. These profiles build on one another in a hierarchy determined by their complexity and level of engagement, their potential to support actionable science, and their proximity to ideal coproduction with knowledge users. Our results provide clear guidance for conservation scientists to generate actionable science to address the global biodiversity conservation challenge.

Vulture poisoning in Sub-Saharan Africa and its implications for conservation planning: A systematic review

“…Previously, conservation scientists co-produced information that was never put in action, but nowadays useful guidance to creating actionable science aimed at addressing conservation challenges, such as African vulture crisis, exists, for instance Ref. [ 85 ].…”

Aligning the logics of inquiry and action to address the biodiversity crisis

“…Yet, historically much work has gone into delineating the borders of science and—albeit futilely—attempting to isolate it from politics and practical concern (Brown, 2015; Gieryn, 1995; Stokes, 1997). In recent decades, many have acknowledged that science, policy, and action are coproduced (Carr Kelman et al., 2022; Jasanoff, 2004; Van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2015; Wyborn et al., 2019) and that a distinction between them is artificial. However, this distinction persists as part of the environment in which many work., It manifests in concrete ways, such as the structure of federal science funding (Sarewitz, 2007), and in the overlooked and at times subliminal aspects of scientific and policy processes ‐ such as the logics under which these two communities operate).…”

“…Because they work in a so‐called "crisis discipline" with the longstanding goal of “of provid[ing] principles and tools for preserving biological diversity” (Soulé, 1985, p. 727), conservation researchers tend to be more attuned to the logic of action than many of their scientific peers. Our own research indicates that many conservation researchers desire to operate under the logic of action, but find themselves frustrated by working within institutions that operate under the logic of inquiry (Carr Kelman et al., 2022; Gerber et al., 2020). Moving conservation research under an NBS as described here would remove a significant barrier for logic synchronization in this field and unleash a pent‐up desire for closer collaboration between knowledge users and knowledge producers.…”

“…If we are to overcome this crisis, we must understand how to synchronize the logic that guides research with the logic that guides action. Here we apply lessons from our research on actionable science in conservation (Barton et al., 2021; Carr Kelman et al., 2022; Gerber et al., 2020) to shed light on how policy interventions can support the production of both actionable conservation science and informed conservation action and therefore avert further loss of biodiversity.…”

Practicing mindfulness in addressing the biodiversity crisis

“…Practicing empathy in particular can increase public tolerance and compassion toward wildlife, improve listening skills, and help resolve environmental conflicts more broadly or in conservation communication in general (Kansky & Maassarani, 2022). In addition, practices such as empathy and deep listening have been shown to support effective pathways of knowledge to action in conservation science, improve communication, and engender collaborative relationships (Carr Kelman et al, 2022; Gerber et al, 2020). These practices can also facilitate more meaningful, inclusive, and equitable conservation processes (Williams et al, 2021).…”