Scientific research is increasingly motivated to produce knowledge for sustainability decision-making and action. This is driving some funders, academic institutions, and researchers to pursue research approaches that are more interactive with potential users of the knowledge created. Yet despite compelling evidence that these more collaborative approaches lead to increased use, it remains unclear what constitutes use and how to evaluate its societal impact. To understand knowledge utilization better, we use data from in-depth interviews of research project team leaders funded through an applied coastal research program in the United States. We show that, empirically, what constitutes ‘use’ remains elusive: researchers believe that their efforts yield usable knowledge that is impactful but find it difficult to provide clear descriptions about specific uses, user identities, attribution, and evidence of broader outcomes. We argue that rather than an impediment to understanding knowledge utilization, these findings may suggest the inherent messiness of knowledge production and use. These results build on prior findings about the methodological obstacles to studying or explaining knowledge utilization and offer new insight into factors that shape the linking of sustainability knowledge and action.

越来越多地激发科学研究来产生有关可持续性决策和行动的知识。这正驱使一些出资者，学术机构和研究人员寻求与所创建知识的潜在用户更具互动性的研究方法。然而，尽管有充分的证据表明这些更协作的方法会导致更多的使用，但仍不清楚什么是使用以及如何评估其社会影响。为了更好地了解知识的利用，我们使用对来自美国应用海岸研究计划资助的研究项目团队负责人进行深入访谈的数据。我们证明，凭经验，“使用”的构成仍然难以捉摸：研究人员认为，他们的努力产生了有用的有用知识，但发现很难提供有关特定用途，用户身份，归因和更广泛成果的证据的清晰描述。我们认为，这些发现不是阻碍理解知识利用的障碍，而是暗示了知识生产和使用的内在混乱。这些结果建立在先前关于研究或解释知识利用的方法学障碍的发现之上，并为塑造可持续性知识与行动之间联系的因素提供了新的见解。