The debate in the literature on the science-practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science-practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.

中文翻译：

---

巴西关于生态和保护科学实践界面的共享思维方式

关于科学实践界面的文献中的辩论表明了关于如何将科学与实践联系起来以改善保护的多种观点。理解这种多样性是解决不平等权力关系、避免只考虑主流观点以及确定将科学与实践联系起来的策略的关键。反过来，将科学与实践联系起来应该促进社会稳健和科学知情的保护决策。为了确定和描述科学家和决策者关于科学实践界面应该如何工作以改进保护决策的观点，我们采访了巴西科学家（生态学家和保护科学家，n = 11）和决策者（n = 11）。我们使用 Q 方法并要求参与者对他们对 48 项关于科学实践接口应如何工作以改进保护决策的陈述的同意程度进行排序。我们使用主成分分析来确定共享的观点。科学家和决策者共享的主要观点的特点是重视整合科学和战略知识以解决环境问题。第二种观点主要由决策者持有，其特点是在决策过程中高度重视科学并呼吁进行与问题相关的研究。第三种观点只有科学家同意，其特点是不愿意合作，并且认为科学家是可以帮助决策者的知识生产者。大多数参与者同意组织应该促进合作，并且来自科学和实践的参与者和知识是相关的。分歧涉及分配给行动者的具体角色、合作意愿以及被认为有效地将科学与实践联系起来的组织和制度安排。我们的研究结果表明，有足够的合作空间，障碍主要在于现有的组织和正式的制度安排，而不是科学家和决策者之间的消极态度。