IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v61y2015icp77-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The design and management of multi-stakeholder research networks to maximize knowledge mobilization and innovation opportunities in the forest sector

Author

Listed:
  • Klenk, Nicole Lisa
  • Wyatt, Stephen

Abstract

Our comparative analysis of forest research networks indicates the emergence and strengthening of a new model of knowledge co-production involving knowledge producers and users, with the goal of fostering innovation and addressing challenges facing the forest sector. However, effective movement towards this model requires attention to design and to management, particularly in relation to the expectations of partners (both university and non-university) who are used to traditional models of knowledge production and linear processes of knowledge extension. Based on our survey and literature review, we argue that in the short-term, the objective of producing applied research requires that forest research networks prioritize diverse and tailored knowledge mobilization strategies, rather than emphasizing knowledge production. With regards to the longer-term objective of facilitating new avenues for innovation in the forest sector this requires a knowledge mobilization strategy that entails a level of engagement with partners that is creative and transformative rather than mainly informative. Building an organizational culture of innovation requires a different approach to producing applied research, although many of the same skills are required. Our analysis suggest that if networks are to be effective in both these short and long term objectives, they should foster openness by establishing transparent and responsive organizational processes. Although such policies may exist and be available to partners, we found relatively little information available on the processes of transparency, accountability and conflict resolution within the websites of the networks we compared. Establishing clear roles and consistent channels of communications is imperative to facilitate the efficient and effective management of the network and manage partners' expectations, regardless of the partnership model.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:61:y:2015:i:c:p:77-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300198
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.008?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. 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.
    2. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    3. 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.
    4. David Phipps & Krista Jensen & J. Gary Myers, 2012. "Applying Social Sciences Research for Public Benefit Using Knowledge Mobilization and Social Media," Chapters, in: Asun Lopez-Varela Azcarate (ed.), Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Social Sciences and Knowledge Management, IntechOpen.
    5. Donald Gerwin & Nicholas J. Barrowman, 2002. "An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 938-953, July.
    6. Van Horne, Constance & Frayret, Jean-Marc & Poulin, Diane, 2006. "Creating value with innovation: From centre of expertise to the forest products industry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(7), pages 751-761, October.
    7. Raitzer, David A., 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research: The Case of CIFOR's Influence on the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1506-1518, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Baba, Yasunori & Shichijo, Naohiro & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2009. "How do collaborations with universities affect firms' innovative performance? The role of "Pasteur scientists" in the advanced materials field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 756-764, June.
    10. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon, 2004. "Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1215, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Adler, Niclas & Elmquist, Maria & Norrgren, Flemming, 2009. "The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1136-1149, September.
    13. Laurens K. Hessels & Tjerk Wardenaar & Wouter P. C. Boon & Matthias Ploeg, 2014. "The role of knowledge users in public–private research programs: An evaluation challenge," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 103-116.
    14. Rametsteiner, Ewald & Weiss, Gerhard, 2006. "Innovation and innovation policy in forestry: Linking innovation process with systems models," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(7), pages 691-703, October.
    15. Di Matteo, Giovanni & Nardi, Pierfrancesco & Ceci, Paolo & Bajocco, Sofia & Perini, Luigi & Herrero-Corral, Gema & Gabiña, Dunixi & Mugnozza, Giuseppe Scarascia, 2015. "Linking the forest research in the Mediterranean area: A framework to improve research capacities and cooperation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 292-301.
    16. Janse, Gerben, 2006. "Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision-makers," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 579-592, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Janse, Gerben, 2008. "Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe -- A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 183-194, January.
    19. Ritter, Thomas & Gemunden, Hans Georg, 2003. "Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 745-755, September.
    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. Louda, Jiří & Dubová, Lenka & Å paÄ ek, Martin & Brnkaľáková, Stanislava & Kluvánková, Tatiana, 2023. "Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Fagateanu Alina-Mihaela & Nicolaescu Sergiu Ştefan & Kifor Claudiu Vasile & Mărginean Silvia, 2015. "Student Career Management – Private and Public Sector Involvement," Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education, Sciendo, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, November.
    4. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2021. "Developing the persona method to increase the commitment of non-industrial private forest owners in French forest policy priorities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Aboal, Diego & Rovira, Flavia & Veneri, Federico, 2018. "Knowledge networks for innovation in the forestry sector: Multinational companies in Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 9-20.
    6. de Bruin, Jilske Olda & Kok, Kasper & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke Alberttine, 2017. "Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 269-282.
    7. 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.
    8. Patricia Romero-Lankao & Daniel M. Gnatz & Olga Wilhelmi & Mary Hayden, 2016. "Urban Sustainability and Resilience: From Theory to Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, November.

    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. 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.
    3. Hasanagas, Nikolaos D., 2016. "Managing information in forest policy networks: Distinguishing the influential actors from the “postmen”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 73-80.
    4. Belussi, Fiorenza & Sammarra, Alessia & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2010. "Learning at the boundaries in an "Open Regional Innovation System": A focus on firms' innovation strategies in the Emilia Romagna life science industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 710-721, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, Domingo & Madrid-Guijarro, Antonia & Martin, Dominique Philippe, 2017. "Influence of university–firm governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 250-261.
    8. Frenz, Marion & Ietto-Gillies, Grazia, 2009. "The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1125-1135, September.
    9. Ester Martínez‐Ros & Rasi Kunapatarawong, 2019. "Green innovation and knowledge: The role of size," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 1045-1059, September.
    10. Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Ardito, Lorenzo & Savino, Tommaso, 2018. "Maturity of knowledge inputs and innovation value: The moderating effect of firm age and size," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 190-201.
    11. Cassiman, Bruno & Di Guardo, Maria Chiara & Valentini, Giovanni, 2010. "Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract?: A project-level analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 882-892, September.
    12. Baraldi, Enrico & Gressetvold, Espen & Harrison, Debbie, 2012. "Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: Foundations, comparison, and a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 266-276.
    13. Lai-Yin Cheah, Sarah & Ho, Yuen-Ping & Li, Shiyu, 2021. "Search strategy, innovation and financial performance of firms in process industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    14. Pratiwi, Santi & Juerges, Nataly, 2022. "Digital advocacy at the science-policy interface: Resolving land-use conflicts in conservation forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    15. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    16. Shi, Xing & Wu, Yanrui & Fu, Dahai, 2020. "Does University-Industry collaboration improve innovation efficiency? Evidence from Chinese Firms⋄," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 39-53.
    17. Ornella W. Maietta & Cristian Barra & Roberto Zotti, 2017. "Innovation and University-Firm R&D Collaboration in the European Food and Drink Industry," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 749-780, September.
    18. SLUYTS, Kim & MARTENS, Rudy & MATTHYSSENS, Paul, 2008. "Towards a dynamic concept of alliance capability," Working Papers 2008019, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    19. Winkelbach, Andreas & Walter, Achim, 2015. "The More Learning, the Better? The Curvilinear Relationship between Technological Learning and New Product Commercialization," EconStor Preprints 107018, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    20. Ethan Gifford & Daniel Ljungberg & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "Innovating in knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms: exploring the effects of a variety of internal and external knowledge sources on goods and service innovations [Advancing knowledge-intensiv," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(5), pages 1259-1284.

    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:61:y:2015:i:c:p:77-86. 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.