Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102508Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Scientific solutions will never be implemented in the complex manner they are designed.

  • Pieces of scientific information are de-embedded from the theory-based research context.

  • These pieces become re-embedded into the context of particular actors from praxis.

  • Actors attach power resources to support or resist science-based solutions in praxis.

  • Alternative-based, multi-actor approaches facilitate knowledge transfer more effectively.

Abstract

The Horizon 2020 project, ALTERFOR, generated knowledge about forest management alternatives. Researchers modelled a future, sustainable provision of ecosystem services, where a salient question was one of how to facilitate the application of these innovative scientific results in praxis. Our qualitative study uses a method mix and the analytical Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) Model to provide in-depth explanation of the knowledge transfer going on between the ALTERFOR research project and the forestry praxis. The leading assumption related to this communication process is that selected pieces of information are de-embedded from their scientific context of the research project and re-embedded into the existing knowledge of specific forestry actors, who utilise them to implement science-based management solutions in their forest. This assumption is empirically corroborated by using ALTERFOR's German case. For the approximately 100, 000 ha of Augsburg Western Woods (south-western Bavaria) the researchers simulated five scenarios, showing which ecosystem services would be provided by different forest management models over the next 100 years. The integration of scenario results into the praxis comprised three integration forums. Within the first forum (pre-study) the alternatives focusing on “recreation” and “hunting” were dropped due to a lack of supportive powerful allies from praxis. Within the second forum (bilateral meeting) the three other scenarios - “timber production”, “multifunctional” and “set aside” scenarios, all remained in the discourse of praxis. Yet, the third forum (multilateral meeting - workshop) triggered the toughest selection. Most project results were either ignored or declined strongly, so that only a few pieces of scientific information found acceptance by particular actors, who utilised them either through support or resistance: (i) the State Forest used the information about the “multifunctional” scenario to legitimise the solution which was already in use (multifunctional management), whereas the Private Forest used the information for the possibility to increase timber harvests in a sustainable way, in order to push for (an otherwise contested) strategy of maximized timber harvesting; (ii) the State Forest resisted the possibility of increasing sustainable timber harvesting, whereas the Private Forest rejected the implementation of set asides. Both actors had sufficient power capabilities to realise their interests, even against the interests of other landowners or political groups. These results show that it is not complex scientific knowledge that makes it through the selection process, but rather, pieces of scientific information, de-embedded from their theory-based context of the research project, are re-embedded into the context of powerful actors in praxis, who then utilise these to either support or resist their own science-based solutions. Based on this, we suggest that the ambitious Horizon 2020 goal of facilitating knowledge transfer is attained more effectively when the project opens up multiple options for dialogue between researchers and different groups from praxis (multi-actor approach), abandoning the idea of one, best solution and offering different alternatives instead.

Section snippets

Introduction: challenges of transferring scientific knowledge into praxis

A disconnect between scientific knowledge and its utilisation in praxis is evident in many fields (Bowen, 2015; Ion et al., 2019; Jürges and Jahn, 2020; Locke, 2009). “Repeated claims are well recognized, on the one hand that practitioners make too little use of research and on the other that researchers pay insufficient attention to making their findings known, useful, and usable” (Gray et al., 2015, p. 1955). In addition, “Research funders, and the society as a whole, have noted the waste of

Theoretical approach: the essence of transferring scientific information into praxis

The connection between science and praxis is evolving. The most recent overview of Sokolovska et al. (2019) discriminates between three distinct phases: (i) in the first phase, in the 1960s, knowledge was expected to be implemented linearly by politicians and bureaucrats (decisionists, technocratic and legitimisation models); (ii) in the second phase, in the 1970s–1990s, attention was drawn to the active part that politicians and bureaucrats can play while interacting with scientists and

Case study and methods

To check our hypotheses, we rely on the most recent empirical evidence gained within the Horizon 2020 project, ALTERFOR. ALTERFOR conducts an advanced scenario modelling to analyse the existing and alternative forest management models in the context of future ecosystem services provision (https://alterfor-project.eu). The project involves robust, natural, quantitative, high-quality modelling data, which are of great importance for science-to-praxis communication (Oliver and Cairney, 2019, ref.

Results

The case of Augsburg Western Woods allowed us to analyse scientific knowledge transfer throughout all three RIU spheres: research – the theory and empirically-driven knowledge production (4.1), integration – the bi-directional science-praxis communication (4.2), and utilisation – the actor-driven implementation (4.3). The key results are summarized in Table 1 and described in chapters 4.1 Research: forest growth simulations, 4.2 Integration: selection processes and their results, 4.3 Utilisation

Discussion: power and interest-driven selection of scientific information

In ALTERFOR's German case, three scenarios were selected for modelling: maximized sustainable “timber production”, the “multifunctional” and the “set aside” scenarios. Within each, the provision of diverse ecosystem services was simulated over 100 years. A tailored form of this scientific information was communicated to the forestry praxis in Augsburg Western Woods through the three integration forums. These forums represented an integration process involving a three-step selection. During the

Conclusions: increasing the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and deepening RIU-based explanations

The ALTERFOR project shows that the ambitious Horizon 2020 goal of facilitating knowledge transfer is attained more effectively when using a multi-actor (or multi-stakeholder) approach. This approach opens multiple options for dialogue between researchers and praxis. In addition, the RIU-based concept of knowledge transfer provides a valuable basis to structure that dialogue further. The RIU's pragmatic view on different actors and their (often conflicting) interests in forestry accentuates the

Author statement

Equal contribution to the published work.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the EU Horizon project ALTERFOR [grant agreement No 676754].

References (86)

  • T. Sikor et al.

    Property rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis revisited

    World Dev.

    (2017)
  • P.K. Thornton et al.

    Responding to global change. A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based

    Agric. Syst.

    (2017)
  • O. Volkoff et al.

    Enterprise systems, knowledge transfer and power users

    J. Strateg. Inf. Syst.

    (2004)
  • E. Agestam et al.

    ALTERFOR Deliverable 1.1 – FMM descriptions (Report)

  • H. Aguinis et al.

    Customer-centric science: reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind

    Organ. Res. Methods

    (2010)
  • A. Amaro et al.

    Modeling Forest Systems

    (2003)
  • M. Angrosino

    Recontextualizing observation: Ethnography, pedagogy, and the prospects for a progressive political agenda

  • Augsburg'´s Biodiversity Strategy

    Strategy for Maintaining Biological Diversity in Augsburg: Local Implementation of the Bavarian Biodiversity Strategy, City of Augsburg (in German)

  • E.R. Babbie

    The Practice of Social Research

    (2015)
  • L. Baker

    Observation: a complex research method

    Libr. Trends

    (2006)
  • BayFin

    Annual Financial Statement of the Bavarian State Forest Enterprise 2019, Regensburg (in German)

  • BayLandWF

    Forestry map - Forest land ownership in Bavaria, Bavarian forestry administration - state Institute of Forestry (“LWF”)

    Freising.

    (2018)
  • BayStat

    Statistical Report of the Bavarian State Forest Enterprise for 2019, Regensburg (in German)

  • BayWaldG

    Bavarian Forest Law, enacted 22. July 2005 and amended 27. April 2020 (in German)

  • P. Biber et al.

    Synthesis Report: Discrepancies Between ES Needs and ES Outputs Under Current FMMs. ALTERFOR Deliverable 3.2 [Online]

  • P. Biber et al.

    Synthesis Report: New Forest Management Models in a Landscape Perspective: Innovation Needs and Gains in Ecosystem Service Provisioning. ALTERFOR Deliverable 3.4 [Online]

  • P. Biber et al.

    Forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and wood production: modeling synergies and trade-offs for ten Forest landscapes across Europe

    Front. Ecol. Evol.

    (2020)
  • P. Biber et al.

    Simulation Results for the ALTERFOR Case Study “Augsburg Western Woods”, Presentation at the ALTERFOR Final Conference

    (2020)
  • M. Böcher et al.

    Science Makes the World Go Round: Successful Scientific Knowledge Transfer for the Environment

    (2016)
  • S. Bowen

    The relationship between engaged scholarship, knowledge translation and participatory research (chapter 10)

  • I. Boyd

    Research: a standard for policy-relevant science

    Nature

    (2013)
  • H. Bressers

    Implementing sustainable development: how to know what works, where, when and how

  • BWaldG

    German Forest Law - Maintaining Forests and Supporting Forestry (in German)

  • B. Cashore et al.

    Can legality verification enhance local rights to forest resources? Piloting the policy learning protocol in the Peruvian forest context. International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) and Yale University’s Governance, Environment and Markets (GEM) Initiative

    (2016)
  • A. Clark et al.

    Learning to see: lessons from a participatory observation research project in public spaces

    Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.

    (2009)
  • COM

    Commission communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Putting knowledge into practice: A broad-based innovation strategy for the EU”, 13 September 2006 [Online]

  • F. Daviter

    The political use of knowledge in the policy process

    Policy. Sci.

    (2015)
  • A. Diekmann

    Empirical Social Research: Basics, meTHODS, APPLICATION

    (2002)
  • H.T. Do et al.

    Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden

    Forest Policy Econ.

    (2020)
  • EC European Commission

    Work Programme 2011 [Online]

  • EC European Commission

    FET Flagship [Online]

  • EC European Commission

    Horizon 2020 – Responsible Research & Innovation [Online]

  • EC European Commission

    Science with and for Society (SwafS) across Horizon 2020 [Online]

  • Cited by (10)

    • Making science-based natural hazard risk management work within power networks –from co-production models of knowledge transfer to the Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) model

      2022, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      To answer this question, the novel Research-Integration-Utilisation (RIU) model for knowledge transfer is applied to the case of the Interreg Alpine Space project, GreenRisk4Alps.1 The RIU model links scientific information with specific actors who are driven by their interests and power [19–21]. Whereas power seems to be a neglected factor for knowledge transfer processes in the EU Interreg Alpine Space programme, the RIU model builds on reliable data to characterise actors and actor settings, mainly with regard to their interests and power means.

    • Addressing energy injustice in rural landscapes: Community leadership, indigenous villages, and micro-hydro diffusion in Indonesia

      2022, Energy Research and Social Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Using the RIU model, we could also identify the exact role of actors as allies of science since their interests often affect project implementation. Finding the right actors as good allies might be relevant for scientific knowledge transfer and political legitimization [61]. We emphasize that both scientists and political actors must be actively involved in scientific research and interact within integration networks in the policymaking process [8,37].

    • Transformative praxis as a mode of fostering action learning

      2023, Implementing Transformative Education With Participatory Action Research
    • Empowering Scientific Information about Biodiversity by Linking Science with Forest Users in African Contexts

      2023, Power Dynamics in African Forests: The Politics of Global Sustainability
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text