Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Navigating the space between research and imple...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. / Toomey, Anne Helen; Knight, Andrew T.; Barlow, Bernard Josiah.

In: Conservation Letters, Vol. 10, No. 5, 09.2017, p. 619-625.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Toomey, AH, Knight, AT & Barlow, BJ 2017, 'Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation', Conservation Letters, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315

APA

Vancouver

Toomey AH, Knight AT, Barlow BJ. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters. 2017 Sep;10(5):619-625. Epub 2016 Nov 9. doi: 10.1111/conl.12315

Author

Toomey, Anne Helen ; Knight, Andrew T. ; Barlow, Bernard Josiah. / Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. In: Conservation Letters. 2017 ; Vol. 10, No. 5. pp. 619-625.

Bibtex

@article{0edba2e416964245ace7eca520547128,
title = "Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation",
abstract = "Recent scholarship in conservation biology has pointed to the existence of a “research-implementation” gap and has proposed various solutions for overcoming it. Some of these solutions, such as evidence-based conservation, are based on the assumption that the gap exists primarily because of a communication problem in getting reliable and needed technical information to decision makers. First, we identify conceptual weaknesses with this framing, supporting our arguments with decades of research in other fields of study. We then reconceptualize the gap as a series of crucial, productive spaces in which shared interests, value conflicts, and complex relations between scientists and publics can interact. Whereas synonyms for “gap” include words such as “chasm,” “rift,” or “breach,” the word “space” is connected with words such as “arena,” “capacity,” and “place” and points to who and what already exists in a specific context. Finally, we offer ways forward for applying this new understanding in practice.",
keywords = "Knowing-doing, evidence-based conservation, society–science divide, research-implementation gap, social learning, alternative knowledges, research-implementation spaces",
author = "Toomey, {Anne Helen} and Knight, {Andrew T.} and Barlow, {Bernard Josiah}",
year = "2017",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1111/conl.12315",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "619--625",
journal = "Conservation Letters",
issn = "1755-263X",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation

AU - Toomey, Anne Helen

AU - Knight, Andrew T.

AU - Barlow, Bernard Josiah

PY - 2017/9

Y1 - 2017/9

N2 - Recent scholarship in conservation biology has pointed to the existence of a “research-implementation” gap and has proposed various solutions for overcoming it. Some of these solutions, such as evidence-based conservation, are based on the assumption that the gap exists primarily because of a communication problem in getting reliable and needed technical information to decision makers. First, we identify conceptual weaknesses with this framing, supporting our arguments with decades of research in other fields of study. We then reconceptualize the gap as a series of crucial, productive spaces in which shared interests, value conflicts, and complex relations between scientists and publics can interact. Whereas synonyms for “gap” include words such as “chasm,” “rift,” or “breach,” the word “space” is connected with words such as “arena,” “capacity,” and “place” and points to who and what already exists in a specific context. Finally, we offer ways forward for applying this new understanding in practice.

AB - Recent scholarship in conservation biology has pointed to the existence of a “research-implementation” gap and has proposed various solutions for overcoming it. Some of these solutions, such as evidence-based conservation, are based on the assumption that the gap exists primarily because of a communication problem in getting reliable and needed technical information to decision makers. First, we identify conceptual weaknesses with this framing, supporting our arguments with decades of research in other fields of study. We then reconceptualize the gap as a series of crucial, productive spaces in which shared interests, value conflicts, and complex relations between scientists and publics can interact. Whereas synonyms for “gap” include words such as “chasm,” “rift,” or “breach,” the word “space” is connected with words such as “arena,” “capacity,” and “place” and points to who and what already exists in a specific context. Finally, we offer ways forward for applying this new understanding in practice.

KW - Knowing-doing

KW - evidence-based conservation

KW - society–science divide

KW - research-implementation gap

KW - social learning

KW - alternative knowledges

KW - research-implementation spaces

U2 - 10.1111/conl.12315

DO - 10.1111/conl.12315

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

SP - 619

EP - 625

JO - Conservation Letters

JF - Conservation Letters

SN - 1755-263X

IS - 5

ER -