IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v114y2020ics1389934119305428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Do, Thi Huong
  • Krott, Max
  • Böcher, Michael

Abstract

The transfer of scientific knowledge has received great attention by scientists and policymakers especially in fields that are crucially dependent on scientific knowledge like biodiversity conservation or climate change. Although many efforts have been made to better understand how scientific expertise can have an impact on politics, few studies have investigated the influence of limiting factors on scientific knowledge transfer. In this paper, we use a meta-analysis of 13 existing individual case studies from 5 different countries that all have in common that they apply the Research–Integration–Utilization model (the RIU model) to analyze limits of scientific knowledge transfer within research, integration, and utilization. Our results show that the factors of research, integration, and utilization are independent from each other in limiting or increasing the transfer of scientific knowledge. The independence of the RIU's factors also reveals that the increase of scientific knowledge alone will not lead to an improvement in knowledge transfer. There is empirical evidence in our cases providing that utilization could also be possible without a strong scientific basis, and successful integration could be based on weak scientific grounds. As a result of the independence of the different factors the RIU model consists of, the traps of scientific knowledge transfer could be observed in one or multiple RIU's factors and therefore improvements in scientific knowledge transfer should be orientated toward solely one or multiple factors instead of the whole process. We recommend that single improvements of different individual factors (research, integration, utilization) can help to improve the whole process of scientific knowledge transfer.

Suggested Citation

  • Do, Thi Huong & Krott, Max & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:114:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305428
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119305428
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102134?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. Nagasaka, Kenji & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max, 2016. "Are forest researchers only scientists? Case studies on the roles of researchers in Japanese and Swedish forest policy processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 147-154.
    2. Nataliia Sokolovska & Benedikt Fecher & Gert G. Wagner, 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327.
    4. 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.
    5. Krott, Max, 2012. "Value and risks of the use of analytical theory in science for forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 35-42.
    6. 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.
    7. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690.
    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. Cooley, Savannah & Jenkins, Amber & Schaeffer, Blake & Bormann, Kat J. & Abdallah, Adel & Melton, Forrest & Granger, Stephanie & Graczyk, Indrani, 2022. "Paths to research-driven decision making in the realms of environment and water," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Stevanov, Mirjana & Krott, Max, 2021. "Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Ulrike Zeigermann, 2021. "Scientific Knowledge Integration and the Implementation of the SDGs: Comparing Strategies of Sustainability Networks," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 164-175.
    5. Edi Dwi Cahyono & Salsabila Fairuzzana & Deltanti Willianto & Eka Pradesti & Niall P. McNamara & Rebecca L. Rowe & Meine van Noordwijk, 2020. "Agroforestry Innovation through Planned Farmer Behavior: Trimming in Pine–Coffee Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, 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. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Annette Elisabeth Toeller & Sonja Blum & Michael Boecher & Kathrin Loer, 2022. "The lesson learned from COVID-19 and the climate crisis is not to let experts decide on policies: a response to Robert C. Schmidt," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 284-290, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    7. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    8. Hall, C. Michael & Amelung, Bas & Cohen, Scott & Eijgelaar, Eke & Gössling, Stefan & Higham, James & Leemans, Rik & Peeters, Paul & Ram, Yael & Scott, Daniel & Aall, Carlo & Abegg, Bruno & Araña, Jorg, 2015. "No time for smokescreen skepticism: A rejoinder to Shani and Arad," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 341-347.
    9. Nancy Menning, 2018. "Narrating climate change as a rite of passage," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 343-353, March.
    10. Mercedes Bleda & Elisabeth Krull & Jonatan Pinkse & Eleni Christodoulou, 2023. "Organizational heuristics and firms' sensemaking for climate change adaptation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 6124-6137, December.
    11. Chhetri, Netra & Ghimire, Rajiv & Wagner, Melissa & Wang, Meng, 2020. "Global citizen deliberation: Case of world-wide views on climate and energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    12. Hochachka, Gail, 2021. "Integrating the four faces of climate change adaptation: Towards transformative change in Guatemalan coffee communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    13. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    14. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    15. Shaw, Christopher & Nerlich, Brigitte, 2015. "Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 34-40.
    16. Kattirtzi, Michael & Winskel, Mark, 2020. "When experts disagree: Using the Policy Delphi method to analyse divergent expert expectations and preferences on UK energy futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    17. Nena Vukelić & Nena Rončević & Sven Toljan, 2022. "Student Teachers’ Willingness to Act in the Climate Change Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    18. Elisabeth Eide & Risto Kunelius, 2021. "Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Kevin Raaphorst & Gerben Koers & Gerald Jan Ellen & Amy Oen & Bjørn Kalsnes & Lisa van Well & Jana Koerth & Rutger van der Brugge, 2020. "Mind the Gap: Towards a Typology of Climate Service Usability Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.

    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:s1389934119305428. 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.