4.6 Review

Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy

期刊

METHODS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 238-247

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x

关键词

collaboration; horizon scanning; participation; planning; policy makers; priority setting

类别

资金

  1. British Trust for Ornithology, Defra
  2. Kresge Foundation
  3. Natural England, NERC
  4. UK Foresight
  5. Social Science and Humanities Research Council (Canada)
  6. Arcadia
  7. Canada Research Chairs program
  8. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H525954/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. NERC [NE/H525954/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>1. There is a widely recognized gap between the data generated by researchers and the information required by policy makers. In an effort to bridge the gap between conservation policy and science, we have convened in several countries multiple groups of policy makers, practitioners and researchers to identify priority information needs that can be met by new research in the social and natural sciences. 2. The exercises we have coordinated included identification of priority policy-relevant research questions in specific geographies (UK, USA, Canada); questions relating to global conservation; questions relating to global agriculture; policy opportunities in the United Kingdom; and emerging global conservation issues or 'horizon scanning'. 3. We outline the exercises and describe our methods, which are based on principles of inclusivity, openness and democracy. Methods to maximize inclusiveness and rigour in such exercises include solicitation of questions and priorities from an extensive community, online collation of material, repeated voting and engagement with policy networks to foster uptake and application of the results. 4. These methods are transferable to a wide range of policy or research areas within and beyond the conservation sciences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据