Considerations for Research Funders and Managers to Facilitate the Translation of Scientific Knowledge into Practice.

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so.

Confronting a post-pandemic new-normal-threats and opportunities to trust-based relationships in natural resource science and management.

Natural resource governance is inherently complex owing to the socio-ecological systems in which it is embedded. Working arrangements have been fundamentally transformed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic with potential negative impacts on trust-based social networks foundational to resource management and transboundary governance. To inform development of a post-pandemic new-normal in resource management, we examined trust relationships using the Laurentian Great Lakes of North America as a case study. 82.9% (n = 97/117) of Great Lakes fishery managers and scientists surveyed indicated that virtual engagement was effective for maintaining well-established relationships during the pandemic; however, 76.7% (n = 89/116) of respondents indicated in-person engagement to be more effective than virtual engagement for building and maintaining trust. Despite some shortcomings, virtual or remote engagement presents opportunities, such as: (1) care and nurturing of well-established long-term relationships; (2) short-term (1-3 years) trust maintenance; (3) peer-peer or mentor-mentee coordination; (4) supplemental communications; (5) producer-push knowledge dissemination; and, if done thoughtfully, (6) enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion. Without change, pre-pandemic trust-based relationships foundational to cooperative, multinational, resource management are under threat.

From science to action: Principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making.

Effective conservation requires knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to enable learning and support evidence-based decision-making. Efforts to improve knowledge exchange have been hindered by a paucity of empirically-grounded guidance to help scientists and practitioners design and implement research programs that actively facilitate knowledge exchange. To address this, we evaluated the Ningaloo Research Program (NRP), which was designed to generate new scientific knowledge to support evidence-based decisions about the management of the Ningaloo Marine Park in north-western Australia. Specifically, we evaluated (1) outcomes of the NRP, including the extent to which new knowledge informed management decisions; (2) the barriers that prevented knowledge exchange among scientists and managers; (3) the key requirements for improving knowledge exchange processes in the future; and (4) the core capacities that are required to support knowledge exchange processes. While the NRP generated expansive and multidisciplinary science outputs directly relevant to the management of the Ningaloo Marine Park, decision-makers are largely unaware of this knowledge and little has been integrated into decision-making processes. A range of barriers prevented efficient and effective knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers including cultural differences among the groups, institutional barriers within decision-making agencies, scientific outputs that were not translated for decision-makers and poor alignment between research design and actual knowledge needs. We identify a set of principles to be implemented routinely as part of any applied research program, including; (i) stakeholder mapping prior to the commencement of research programs to identify all stakeholders, (ii) research questions to be co-developed with stakeholders, (iii) implementation of participatory research approaches, (iv) use of a knowledge broker, and (v) tailored knowledge management systems. Finally, we articulate the individual, institutional and financial capacities that must be developed to underpin successful knowledge exchange strategies.

Critical research needs for managing coral reef marine protected areas: perspectives of academics and managers.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary policy instrument for managing and protecting coral reefs. Successful MPAs ultimately depend on knowledge-based decision making, where scientific research is integrated into management actions. Fourteen coral reef MPA managers and sixteen academics from eleven research, state and federal government institutions each outlined at least five pertinent research needs for improving the management of MPAs situated in Australian coral reefs. From this list of 173 key questions, we asked members of each group to rank questions in order of urgency, redundancy and importance, which allowed us to explore the extent of perceptional mismatch and overlap among the two groups. Our results suggest the mismatch among MPA managers and academics is small, with no significant difference among the groups in terms of their respective research interests, or the type of questions they pose. However, managers prioritised spatial management and monitoring as research themes, whilst academics identified climate change, resilience, spatial management, fishing and connectivity as the most important topics. Ranking of the posed questions by the two groups was also similar, although managers were less confident about the achievability of the posed research questions and whether questions represented a knowledge gap. We conclude that improved collaboration and knowledge transfer among management and academic groups can be used to achieve similar objectives and enhance the knowledge-based management of MPAs.

Boundary spanning at the science-policy interface: the practitioners' perspectives.

Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to "span the boundaries" between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface ("boundary spanning") and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.