Environmental Management

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 896–907 | Cite as

Knowledge that Acts: Evaluating the Outcomes of a Knowledge Brokering Intervention in Western Australia’s Ningaloo Region

  • Kelly Chapman
  • Fabio Boschetti
  • Elizabeth Fulton
  • Pierre Horwitz
  • Tod Jones
  • Pascal Scherrer
  • Geoff Syme
Article

Abstract

Knowledge exchange involves a suite of strategies used to bridge the divides between research, policy and practice. The literature is increasingly focused on the notion that knowledge generated by research is more useful when there is significant interaction and knowledge sharing between researchers and research recipients (i.e., stakeholders). This is exemplified by increasing calls for the use of knowledge brokers to facilitate interaction and flow of information between scientists and stakeholder groups, and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. However, most of the environmental management literature focuses on explicit forms of knowledge, leaving unmeasured the tacit relational and reflective forms of knowledge that lead people to change their behaviour. In addition, despite the high transaction costs of knowledge brokering and related stakeholder engagement, there is little research on its effectiveness. We apply Park’s Manag Learn 30(2), 141–157 (1999); Knowledge and Participatory Research, London: SAGE Publications (2006) tri-partite knowledge typology as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in the context of a large multi-agency research programme in Australia’s Ningaloo coastal region, and for testing the assumption that higher levels of interaction between scientists and stakeholders lead to improved knowledge exchange. While the knowledge brokering intervention substantively increased relational networks between scientists and stakeholders, it did not generate anticipated increases in stakeholder knowledge or research application, indicating that more prolonged stakeholder engagement was required, and/or that there was a flaw in the assumptions underpinning our conceptual framework.

Keywords

Knowledge exchange Stakeholder engagement Research-implementation gap Tacit knowledge Environmental management 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Arlettaz R, Mathevet R, Arlettaz R (2010a) Biodiversity conservation: from research to action. Nat Sci Soc 18(4):452–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JE et al. (2010b) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60(10):835–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environ Change 21(3):995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird J, Plummer R, Bodin Ö (2016) Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive co-management. Reg Environ Change 16(3):747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90(5):1692–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braunisch V, Home R, Pellet J, Arlettaz R (2012) Conservation science relevant to action: A research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biol Conserv 153:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown VA, Lambert JA (2012) Collective learning for transformational change: A guide to collaborative action. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell A, Schofield N (2007) The Getting of Knowledge-a guide to funding and managing applied research. Land & Water Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH et al. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman K (2016) Complexity and Creative Capacity: Rethinking knowledge transfer, adaptive management and wicked environmental problems. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC (2016a) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(17):4570–4578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark WC, Tomich TP, Van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM et al. (2016b) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(17):4615–4622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins K, Ison R (2009) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environ Policy Governance 19(6):358–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I et al. (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cundill G, Rodela R (2012) A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage 113:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dagenais C, Laurendeau M-C, Briand-Lamarche M (2015) Knowledge brokering in public health: a critical analysis of the results of a qualitative evaluation. Eval Program Plann 53:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environ Change 21(2):680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC et al. (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environ Change 25:204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PC et al. (2012) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv 40(01):19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer J, Dyball R, Fazey I, Gross C, Dovers S, Ehrlich PR et al. (2012) Human behavior and sustainability. Front Ecol Environ 10(3):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fulton E, Gray R, Sporcic M, Scott M, LIttle R, Hepburn M et al. (2011) Ningaloo Collaboration Cluster: Adaptive Futures for Ningaloo. CSIRO, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  22. Fulton EA, Jones T, Boschetti F, Chapman K, Little RL, Syme G et al. (2013) Assessing the impact of stakeholder engagement in management strategy evaluation. Int J Econ Manage Eng 3(2):82–98Google Scholar
  23. Gardner S (2015) Course materials. MBS568, Organisational Change Management and Consulting. School of Management and Governance. Murdoch University, Perth, WAGoogle Scholar
  24. Gergen KJ (1997) Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  25. Haas PM (2004) When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 11(4):569–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K (2006) Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol 34(4):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris F, Lyon F (2013) Transdisciplinary environmental research: building trust across professional cultures. Environ Sci Policy 31:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Healy M-A, Forrest K, Bastin G (2016) The role of a knowledge broker in improving knowledge and understanding of climate change in the Australian rangelands. Rangeland J 37(6):541–554Google Scholar
  29. Innes JE, Booher DE (2010) Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones R, Ingram C, KIngham A (2007) Waltzing the Heritage icons: ‘Swagmen’, ‘Squatters’ and ‘Troopers’ at North West Cape and Ningaloo Reef. In: Jones R, Shaw BJ (eds) Geographies of Australian heritages: Loving a sunburnt country? Ashgate Publishing, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones T, Hughes M, Wood D, Lewis A, Chandler P (2009) Ningaloo Coast region visitor statistics: collected for the Ningaloo Destination Modelling Project. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre, Gold CoastGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones T, Wood D, Hughes M, Deery M, Fredline L, Jones R et al. (2011) Ningaloo Collaboration Cluster: Socio-economics of tourism. CSIRO, Western AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  33. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al. (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sust Sci 7:25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. Br Med J 334(7585):129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maturana H, Varela FJ (1992) The Tree of Knowledge: the Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Shambhala, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  36. McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10(1):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaels S (2009) Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 12(7):994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mobjörk M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42(8):866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore M-L, Westley F (2011) Surmountable chasms: networks and social innovation for resilient systems. Ecol Soc 16(1):5, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nel JL, Roux DJ, Driver A, Hill L, Maherry AC, Snaddon K et al. (2016) Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv Biol 30(1):176–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Northcote J, Macbeth J (2008a) Socio-economic impacts of sanctuary zone changes in Ningaloo Marine Park: A Preliminary Investigation of Effects on Visitation Patterns and Human Usage. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd, Gold CoastGoogle Scholar
  43. Northcote J, Macbeth J (2008b) Threshold of tolerability: the impact of management changes to recreational fishing in Ningaloo Marine Park. Tourism Rev 1:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nykvist B (2014) Does social learning lead to better natural resource management? A case study of the modern farming community of practice in Sweden. Soc Nat Resour 27(4):436–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tabara D (2008) The growing impotance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecol Soc 13(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Park P (1999) People, knowledge, and change in participatory research. Manag Learn 30(2):141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park P (2006) Knowledge and Participatory Research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of Action Research: Concise Paperback Edition. SAGE Publications, London, p 83–92Google Scholar
  48. Parker J, Crona B (2012) On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Soc Stud Sci 42(2):262–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J Environ Manage 95(1):56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F et al. (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polanyi M (1967) The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Quirke B (1996) Communicating Corporate Change. McGraw Hill, UKGoogle Scholar
  53. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 91(8):1766–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A et al. (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4): r1. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/
  55. Reed M, Stringer L, Fazey I, Evely A, Kruijsen J (2014) Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. J Environ Manage 146:337–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC, Ashton PJ, Sergeant A (2006) Bridging the science–management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11(1):4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/
  58. Scholz G, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C (2014) An analytical framework of social learning facilitated by participatory methods. Systemic Pract Action Res 27(6):575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shotter J (1994) Conversational Realities: Constructing Life through Language. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Stacey R (2001) Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Stacey RD (2010) The Emergence of Knowledge in Organizations. In: Tait A, Richardson KA (eds) Complexity and Knowledge Management: Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, p 41–56Google Scholar
  62. Sterling EJ, Betley E, Sigouin A, Gomez A, Toomey A, Cullman G et al. (2017) Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 209:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vacik H, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Khadka C, Haara A, Pykäläinen J et al. (2014) Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programme-based planning in natural resource management. J Environ Manage 144:304–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vogler D, Macey S, Sigouin A (2017) Stakeholder analysis in environmental and conservation planningGoogle Scholar
  65. Western Australia Planning Commission (2004) Ningaloo Coast Regional Strategy: Carnarvon to Exmouth. Western Australia Planning Commission, PerthGoogle Scholar
  66. Westley F, Tjornbo O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Crona B, et al. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(3)Google Scholar
  67. Wood DS (2003) Tourism on the Carnarvon-Ningaloo Coast between Quobba Station and Exmouth and its Implications for Sustainability of the Coast. Curtin University of Technology, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, PerthGoogle Scholar
  68. Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S, Albon S, Bainbridge I, Balian E, et al. (2014). Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23(2):387Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Chapman
    • 1
    • 6
  • Fabio Boschetti
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Fulton
    • 3
  • Pierre Horwitz
    • 1
  • Tod Jones
    • 4
    • 7
  • Pascal Scherrer
    • 1
    • 8
  • Geoff Syme
    • 5
    • 9
  1. 1.School of Science, Edith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  2. 2.CSIRO Oceans and AtmosphereFloreatAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Oceans and AtmosphereBattery PointAustralia
  4. 4.Geography, School of Built Environment, Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Planning, Edith Cowan UniversityJoondalupAustralia
  6. 6.Department of GeographyVancouver Island UniversityNanaimoCanada
  7. 7.Department of Planning and GeographyCurtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  8. 8.School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  9. 9.12 Virginia CourtSandy BayAustralia

Personalised recommendations