There is growing interest – and need – among researchers and research organizations to contribute societally relevant work as well as to demonstrate the policy impact of their research. Diverse science-policy interfaces (SPIs) aim for scientifically informed policymaking by connecting scientists with policymakers. Effective SPIs need to be grounded in credibility, relevance and legitimacy; at the same time, however, they become part of the complex, politicised web of public policymaking. In this article we examine how forest researchers who participate in diverse SPIs in the context of the Global South navigate this complexity. We apply the concepts of credibility, relevance and legitimacy to explore the tensions researchers experience, as well as the strategies that researchers apply when responding to them. The research is based on in-depth interviews with 23 forest researchers and highlights (i) the tensions related to ensuring both policy and political relevance particularly in the context of research led SPIs; and (ii) tensions arising from the need to maintain credibility in the face of contestation and pressure to omit research critical of existing policies and practice and also the legitimacy of ‘experts’ operating within the SPI. Ensuring SPI effectiveness (research impact) also emerged as an additional source of tension. While multiple response strategies were identified, including knowledge co-production and strategic engagement with key policy actors, some of the tensions led to compromises, which we discuss. We conclude by highlighting the need to understand power relations in terms of both planning but also evaluating effective SPIs.

在研究人员和研究组织中，越来越有兴趣（也有必要）做出与社会相关的工作，并证明其研究的政策影响。多样化的科学政策接口（SPI）旨在通过将科学家与政策制定者联系起来，制定科学依据的政策。有效的SPI必须以信誉，相关性和合法性为基础；但是，与此同时，它们也成为复杂的，政治化的公共决策网络的一部分。在本文中，我们研究了在南方南部背景下参加各种SPI的森林研究人员如何应对这种复杂性。我们运用信誉，相关性和合法性的概念来探索研究人员所经历的紧张关系，以及研究人员在应对紧张关系时所采用的策略。这项研究是基于对23名森林研究人员的深入访谈而得出的，并着重指出：（i）与确保政策和政治相关性的紧张关系，特别是在以研究为主导的SPI的背景下；（ii）面对竞争和压力，需要取消对现有政策和实践的批评以及SPI内部“专家”的合法性，因此需要保持信誉，由此产生紧张关系。确保SPI的有效性（研究影响）也成为造成紧张的另一个原因。虽然确定了多种应对策略，包括知识共同生产和与关键政策参与者的战略接触，但某些紧张局势导致了妥协，我们将对此进行讨论。最后，我们着重强调了在规划和评估有效SPI方面都需要了解电源关系的必要性。