Scientists and agricultural trade associations may further conservation outcomes by engaging with one another to uncover opportunities and engage in social learning via knowledge co-production. We observed, documented, and critically reviewed knowledge exchanges among scientists and agricultural stakeholders working on a multidecadal water conflict in Wisconsin. Differences in knowledge exchange and production were related to meeting spaces, organization, time management, and formality of interactions. We found that repetitive, semiformal meetings organized and led by growers facilitated knowledge exchange, co-production, and social learning. However, scientists often appeared uncomfortable in grower-controlled spaces. We suggest that this discomfort results from the widespread adoption of the deficit model of scientific literacy and objectivity as default paradigms, despite decades of research suggesting that scientists cannot view themselves as objective disseminators of knowledge. For example, we found that both scientists and growers produced knowledge for political advocacy but observed less transparency from scientists, who often claimed objectivity in politicized settings. We offer practical methods and recommendations for designing social learning processes as well as highlight the need to better prepare environmental and extension scientists for engaging in agribusiness spaces.

中文翻译：

---

与农贸协会的知识合作

科学家和农业贸易协会可以通过相互合作来发现机会并通过知识共同生产参与社会学习，从而进一步促进保护成果。我们观察、记录并批判性地审查了在威斯康星州从事数十年水冲突的科学家和农业利益相关者之间的知识交流。知识交流和生产的差异与会议空间、组织、时间管理和互动形式有关。我们发现，由种植者组织和领导的重复、半正式的会议促进了知识交流、合作生产和社会学习。然而，科学家们经常在种植者控制的空间中显得不舒服。尽管数十年的研究表明科学家不能将自己视为知识的客观传播者，但我们认为这种不适是由于广泛采用科学素养和客观性的缺陷模型作为默认范式所致。例如，我们发现科学家和种植者都为政治宣传生产知识，但观察到科学家的透明度较低，他们经常在政治化环境中声称客观。我们提供设计社会学习过程的实用方法和建议，并强调需要更好地准备环境和推广科学家参与农业企业空间。我们发现科学家和种植者都为政治宣传生产知识，但观察到科学家的透明度较低，他们经常在政治化环境中声称客观。我们提供设计社会学习过程的实用方法和建议，并强调需要更好地准备环境和推广科学家参与农业企业空间。我们发现科学家和种植者都为政治宣传生产知识，但观察到科学家的透明度较低，他们经常在政治化环境中声称客观。我们提供设计社会学习过程的实用方法和建议，并强调需要更好地准备环境和推广科学家参与农业企业空间。