IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v37y2013icp37-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund

Author

Listed:
  • Real, Alejandra
  • Hickey, Gordon M.

Abstract

The concept of public sphere, as put forward by Jürgen Habermas, is an ideal that is difficult to perceive in day-to-day practice. This paper attempts to find, through the study of a specific process of public research fund allocation in the native forest sector of Chile, an approximation of Habermas' public sphere. Chilean Native Forest Legislation has created policy instruments that encourage the participation of civil society in the determination of native forest policies, and established the Native Forest Research Fund, which is instrumental to the application of regulations. Examining the process of research priority setting and the Native Forest Research Fund reveals evidence of communicative action — action oriented at reaching understandings and not personal benefits; supporting the Habermasian ideal. However, strategic behavior of participants from civil society in the process of managing the research fund is also found. Our results offer a starting point towards achieving the Habermasian ideal within forestry-related policy processes in Chile.

Suggested Citation

  • Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:37-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113001767
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.002?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. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, January.
    2. Frank Fischer, 1999. "Technological deliberation in a democratic society: The case for participatory inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 294-302, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Appelstrand, Marie, 2002. "Participation and societal values: the challenge for lawmakers and policy practitioners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 281-290, December.
    5. Spilsbury, Michael J. & Nasi, Robert, 2006. "The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 193-205, March.
    6. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    7. Karin Bäckstrand, 2003. "Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(4), pages 24-41, November.
    8. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    9. Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2012. "Confronting the demands of a deliberative public sphere with media constraints," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 71-80.
    10. Hall, Andrew & Rasheed Sulaiman, V. & Clark, Norman & Yoganand, B., 2003. "From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 213-241, November.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    6. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.
    7. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    8. Böcher, Michael, 2016. "How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 65-72.
    9. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    10. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    11. David Spielman & Kristin Davis & Martha Negash & Gezahegn Ayele, 2011. "Rural innovation systems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 195-212, June.
    12. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    13. Giuseppe Di Liddo & Annalisa Vinella, 2021. "Centralized standards and local taxation in municipal waste management," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(4), pages 603-619, December.
    14. Letty, Brigid & Shezi, Zanele & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2012. "An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa and implications for innovation indicator development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    15. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Janina Heim & Max Krott & Michael Böcher, 2018. "Nomination and inscription of the “Ancient Beech Forests of Germany” as natural World Heritage: multi-level governance between science and politics," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 599-617, August.
    17. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    18. Elvira Tarsitano & Simona Giordano & Gianluigi de Gennaro & Annalisa Turi & Giovanni Ronco & Lucia Parchitelli, 2023. "Participatory Planning for the Drafting of a Regional Law on the Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Sadath, Nazmus & Kleinschmit, Daniela & Giessen, Lukas, 2013. "Framing the tiger — A biodiversity concern in national and international media reporting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 37-41.
    20. Ojha, Hemant & Regmi, Udeep & Shrestha, Krishna K. & Paudel, Naya Sharma & Amatya, Swoyambhu Man & Zwi, Anthony B. & Nuberg, Ian & Cedamon, Edwin & Banjade, Mani R., 2020. "Improving science-policy interface: Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal's community forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    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:37:y:2013:i:c:p:37-43. 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.