4.7 Article

Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.006

关键词

Knowledge systems; Science-practice interface; Vulnerability; Global environmental change; Disaster mitigation; Hazard research

资金

  1. Harvard University's Center for International Development, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2004-26318]
  3. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0810837, GRANTS:13800627] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the results of a case study analysis from the knowledge domains of vulnerability and resilience. We analyzed 20 scientific assessments to provide empirical evidence for successes and failures in collaborative knowledge production, i.e., the joint creation of assessments reports by researchers and decision makers in policy and practice. It became clear that the latter typically use insufficiently the research-based knowledge available and researchers typically produce insufficiently knowledge that is directly usable. We found a number of functional, structural, and social factors inhibiting a joint problem identification and framing of knowledge producers and potential users: divergent objectives, needs, scope, and priorities; different institutional settings and standards, as well as differing cultural values, understanding, and mistrust. Combining understanding from multiple sources and providing mechanisms for linking solutions proposed by research with articulated needs and problems of practitioners would reduce the discrepancies in activities of different actors and result in more timely and context-appropriate solutions. In the concluding section we argue for a more locally embedded and socially contingent production of actionable knowledge and make suggestions about ways to enhance effectiveness of research-based knowledge. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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