IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v39y2012i3p357-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the social robustness of research networks for sustainable natural resource management: Results of a Delphi study in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Lisa Klenk
  • Gordon M. Hickey

Abstract

Formal cross-sector research networks in Canada face enormous organizational challenges to attain the goals of enhancing the economic and social relevance of science, attracting and retaining world-class researchers, fostering innovation, and improving science communication between societal sectors. This paper presents the results of an exploratory concept mapping policy Delphi exercise that aimed to map the essential characteristics of an ideal cross-sector research network in the natural resource sector. The results suggest that the most important and feasible design features for a future research network are the scope of research, knowledge management and knowledge exchange, which relate to three critical functions of research networks: knowledge production, coordination, and translation. The results also suggest that a future research network should involve all stakeholders affected by, and affecting, natural resource management and that the network be flexible and responsive to various stakeholders' research needs. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Lisa Klenk & Gordon M. Hickey, 2012. "Improving the social robustness of research networks for sustainable natural resource management: Results of a Delphi study in Canada," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 357-372, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:3:p:357-372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Borge & Stefanie Bröring, 2020. "What affects technology transfer in emerging knowledge areas? A multi-stakeholder concept mapping study in the bioeconomy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 430-460, April.
    2. Klenk, Nicole Lisa & Wyatt, Stephen, 2015. "The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 77-86.
    3. de Loë, Rob C. & Melnychuk, Natalya & Murray, Dan & Plummer, Ryan, 2016. "Advancing the State of Policy Delphi Practice: A Systematic Review Evaluating Methodological Evolution, Innovation, and Opportunities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 78-88.
    4. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "How can formal research networks produce more socially robust forest science?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 44-56.
    5. Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "International developments in the administration of publicly-funded forest research: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-8.

    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:oup:scippl:v:39:y:2012:i:3:p:357-372. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.