IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v114y2020ics1389934118300856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Ramirez, Luisa F.
  • Belcher, Brian M.

Abstract

There are high expectations for contemporary forestry research, and sustainability research more broadly, to have impact in the form of improved institutions, policy and practice and improved social and environmental conditions. As part of this trend, there has been an evolution of research approaches that move beyond isolated, reductionist, disciplinary science toward approaches that integrate disciplines (interdisciplinary) and that engage a wider range of research stakeholders (transdisciplinary) as a way to be more effective. While these approaches evolve, there are good opportunities to learn from the experience of projects that have had impact at some level. This paper presents lessons from a case-study of a research project that succeeded in crossing the science-policy interface. Our study characterizes the design and implementation of a research project on the influence of timber harvesting on Brazil nut production using transdisciplinary research (TDR) design principles, and empirically assesses project outputs and outcomes in relation to a project theory of change (ToC) based on document review and key informant interviews. The Brazil Nut Project included some TDR elements and realized a substantial part of its ToC. The interviews identified mixed perceptions of the research design, implementation and the extent of outcomes achievement from different stakeholder perspectives. Our analysis suggests that limited stakeholder engagement was a crucial factor affecting perceptions of legitimacy and relevance, the two main TDR principles underpinning the overall research effectiveness in our study. The application of the TDR analytical framework indicates substantial scope to improve research effectiveness, even without striving for a TDR theoretical ideal.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:114:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118300856
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118300856
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.07.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    3. Brian M. Belcher & Katherine E. Rasmussen & Matthew R. Kemshaw & Deborah A. Zornes, 2016. "Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17.
    4. Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bradley, David & Pohl, Christian & Rist, Stephan & Wiesmann, Urs, 2006. "Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 119-128, November.
    5. van Enst, Wynanda I. & Runhaar, Hens A.C. & Driessen, Peter P.J., 2016. "Boundary organisations and their strategies: Three cases in the Wadden Sea," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P3), pages 416-423.
    6. Clark, William C. & van Kerkhoff, Lorrae & Lebel, Louis & Gallopin, Gilberto, 2016. "Crafting Usuable Knowledge for Sustainable Development," Working Paper Series 16-005, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Mayne, John, 2008. "Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect," ILAC Briefs 52525, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    8. Salomaa, Anna & Paloniemi, Riikka & Hujala, Teppo & Rantala, Salla & Arponen, Anni & Niemelä, Jari, 2016. "The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 90-98.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Soler, Rosina & Lorenzo, Cristian & González, Joel & Carboni, Lucas & Delgado, Juan & Díaz, Mayra & Toro Manríquez, Mónica D.R. & Alejandro, Huertas Herrera, 2021. "The politics behind scientific knowledge: Sustainable forest management in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta, 2020. "A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2019. "Comments to Belcher et al. 2018’s critique of Hansson and Polk 2018," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 202-205.
    3. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    4. Brian M Belcher & Luisa F Ramirez & Rachel Davel & Rachel Claus, 2019. "A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impac," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 196-201.
    5. Flurina Schneider & Zarina Patel & Katsia Paulavets & Tobias Buser & Jacqueline Kado & Stefanie Burkhart, 2023. "Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    7. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    10. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    11. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Reed, Deborah K. & Aloe, Ariel M., 2020. "Interpreting the effectiveness of a summer reading program: The eye of the beholder," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. Juerges, Nataly & Jahn, Stephanie, 2020. "German forest management stakeholders at the science-society interface: Their views on problem definition, knowledge production and research utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    14. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    15. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    16. van Noordwijk, Meine, 2019. "Integrated natural resource management as pathway to poverty reduction: Innovating practices, institutions and policies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 60-71.
    17. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    18. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    19. Bullock Graham, 2015. "Signaling the credibility of private actors as public agents: transparency, independence, and expertise in environmental evaluations of products and companies," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 177-219, August.
    20. Gillian L. Galford & Julie Nash & Alan K. Betts & Sam Carlson & Sarah Ford & Ann Hoogenboom & Deborah Markowitz & Andrew Nash & Elizabeth Palchak & Sarah Pears & Kristen L. Underwood, 2016. "Bridging the climate information gap: a framework for engaging knowledge brokers and decision makers in state climate assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 383-395, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:114:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118300856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.