IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v66y2016icp170-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery

Author

Listed:
  • Young, Nathan
  • Nguyen, Vivian M.
  • Corriveau, Marianne
  • Cooke, Steven J.
  • Hinch, Scott G.

Abstract

Environmental scientists have long been frustrated by the difficulties involved in transferring their research findings into policy-making, management, and public spheres. Despite increases in scientific knowledge about social-ecological systems, research has consistently shown that regulators and stakeholders draw on tacit, informal, and experiential knowledge far more than scientific knowledge in their decision-making. Social science research in the fields of knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KMb) suggest that one of the major barriers to moving knowledge into practice is that scientists fail to align their communication strategies with the information-seeking behaviours and preferences of potential knowledge users. This article presents findings from in-depth qualitative research with government employees and stakeholders involved in co-managing Pacific salmon fisheries in Canada’s Fraser River. We investigate how members of these groups access, view, and use scientific information, finding both similarities and differences. Members of both groups express a strong interest in academic science, and self-report using scientific information regularly in their work and advocacy. However, the two groups engage in different information-seeking behaviours, and provide notably different advice to academic scientists about how to make research and communication more relevant to potential users. For example, government employees focus on the immediate applications of research to known problems, while stakeholders express greater concern for the political context and implications of scientific findings. We argue that scientists need to “go where the users are” in the behavioural and intellectual sense, and tailor their communications and engagement activities to match the habits, preferences, and expectations of multiple potential user groups. We conclude with recommendations on how this may be done.

Suggested Citation

  • Young, Nathan & Nguyen, Vivian M. & Corriveau, Marianne & Cooke, Steven J. & Hinch, Scott G., 2016. "Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-178.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:66:y:2016:i:c:p:170-178
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116302520
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.002?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.

    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:enscpo:v:66:y:2016:i:c:p:170-178. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    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.