Knowledge Exchange in the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre: National scope with regional delivery

D’EonSteve,; MacAfeeKatalijn,

doi:10.5558/tfc2016-079

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The management of forests globally includes a complex interplay of resources, values, stakeholders and governments. Forest management policy and practice is often informed by scientific knowledge (D'Eon & MacAfee, 2016). Scientific knowledge is used to guide tangible outcomes in forest management such as designing silvicultural prescriptions (which determine the approach to harvesting and regeneration of trees; e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One concept that has been used in forest management to understand the nature of how scientific knowledge is shared between its producers and users is ‘knowledge exchange’ (e.g. D'Eon & MacAfee, 2016; Hamunen, 2013). For our purposes, knowledge exchange is the multi‐directional flow of ideas and information between producers and users of knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic map of knowledge exchange across the science‐policy interface for forest science: How can we improve consistency and effectiveness?

Westwood

Hutchen

Kapoor

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge produced by scientists is essential to the policy and practice of managing natural resources, including forests. However, there has never been systematic mapping of which techniques in knowledge exchange (KE) have been applied in the forest sciences, by whom, and to what effect. We examined KE techniques documented in the forest sciences globally. We used standardized search strings in English and French across two academic search engines (BASE and Scopus) and a specialist website (ResearchGate) to locate relevant items. We screened items, extracted data, conducted qualitative and quantitative analysis, and built a network visualization diagram to demonstrate knowledge flow. Our final map included 122 items published from 1998 to 2020, with most published after 2010. Items mentioned organizations from 66 countries as knowledge producers or users. The interactive network visualization diagram displays linkages between organizations, sectors and countries. We found that most of the KE activity involved the Global North (89%). Governments were the most common knowledge users, and industry was frequently reported as a user but rarely a producer. Academia was both producer and user. Indigenous, local, traditional or community knowledge was included in 24% of items, but these communities were not associated with any coauthor affiliations. Reported funders were universities, governments, non‐profits or foundations. We found 90 unique terms in the items related to KE with less than 25% of terms used in more than one item. Fifteen per cent of item keywords related to KE. The most commonly identified enabling conditions for KE were trust, funding and established relationships, while major barriers were challenges for translation of science and lack of time. To improve searchability of information related to KE and encourage a culture of considering KE in scientific research and forest management work, we recommend a common lexicon of ‘knowledge exchange’/‘échange de connaisances’. We recommend that more effort be given to forest science‐related KE connections between the Global North and South as well as a deliberate collection of evidence for the effectiveness of KE techniques. Researchers and practitioners can use our KE typology to identify their goals and design appropriate evaluation measures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic map of knowledge exchange across the science‐policy interface for forest science: How can we improve consistency and effectiveness?

Westwood

Hutchen

Kapoor

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Walsh et al 2019), health practices (e.g. Mitton et al 2007) and forest management (D'eon and MacAfee 2016). Recent studies of KE in wildland fire management have also taken place (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case-study of wildland fire management knowledge exchange: the barriers and facilitators in the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in Ontario, Canada

McFayden

George

Johnston

et al. 2022

Int. J. Wildland Fire

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Among the most successful examples of Knowledge Exchange (KE) between researchers and practitioners in Canadian wildland fire management is the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) into operational use. Aims Our aim was to identify key factors for this success. Methods Through a case study, we investigated historical KE of two CFFDRS components in Ontario, Canada. We held semi-structured interviews with principal Canadian Forest Service researchers and Ontario fire management practitioners active in development and implementation of CFFDRS from the late 1960s to 2010s. Key results The importance of both formal and informal facilitators to support KE was emphasised. Conclusion Participants were most likely to associate successful implementation with informal facilitators such as personal relationships, shared field-based experiences, and opportunities for dialogue between researchers and practitioners. Critical to success were the credibility and soft skills of the knowledge brokers, early engagement, and consideration of training needs for end users in the design of products. Implications This identification of factors that facilitated or hindered the development and implementation of CFFDRS can enhance the impact of research that will help wildland fire management deal with its present and future challenges.

show abstract

“…The needs and constraints felt by communities reliant on forest resources vary based on global and cultural context, norms, cultural values and the hierarchy of actors involved in forest management (Elliott, 2018). The complexity of resources, values, stakeholders and governments involved in forest management necessitates understanding into what evidence is used to make decisions and by whom as well as how knowledge about forests is transferred between actors (D'Eon & MacAfee, 2016). Knowledge exchange, generally, describes the interchange between producers of scientific knowledge (in our case, scientists) and users who apply this knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic mapping protocol for understanding knowledge exchange in forest science

Westwood

Hutchen

Kapoor

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. When making decisions about forest and environmental management, managers and policymakers often rely upon scientific knowledge. There is a well-documented 'knowledge-integration gap' where often the production of knowledge and its use are not aligned. Though there are several theoretical frameworks that conceptualize how knowledge is exchanged between producers of scientific knowledge and users of that information, there has been little attention to documenting knowledge exchange practices and their effectiveness, especially about forests.2. In the systematic map, we will examine the peer-reviewed academic and grey literature to document and classify the knowledge exchange techniques suggested and adopted by knowledge producers and users in the forest sciences globally. Characterizing this knowledge exchange landscape will provide new information about which techniques are used and their frequency, if there is evidence of effectiveness for particular techniques, and recommendations for best practices. This map will also show whether approaches to knowledge exchange differ between sectors (e.g. academia, government).3. We will create a systematic literature map as defined by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence to capture case studies of, or theories about, knowledge exchange related to forest science. The search of peer-reviewed academic and grey literature will be conducted in English and French in two academic databases (BASE and Scopus) and one specialist database (ResearchGate). Candidate search strings will be evaluated against a test list of documents to determine strings with maximum sensitivity and specificity. Eligibility criteria will be applied to items at two screening stages: (1) title and abstract and (2) full-text. All screening decisions will be recorded in a database with 15% of full-text screening decisions validated. Items retained for inclusion will have data extracted according to a standardized strategy.Each reviewer conducting data extraction will have at least three of their extractions validated.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Knowledge Exchange in the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre: National scope with regional delivery

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

A systematic map of knowledge exchange across the science‐policy interface for forest science: How can we improve consistency and effectiveness?

A systematic map of knowledge exchange across the science‐policy interface for forest science: How can we improve consistency and effectiveness?

A case-study of wildland fire management knowledge exchange: the barriers and facilitators in the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in Ontario, Canada

A systematic mapping protocol for understanding knowledge exchange in forest science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About