Fisheries knowledge exchange and mobilization through a network of policy and practice actors

Highlights

• Case study of rainbow trout management in British Columbia, Canada is used to assess processes of knowledge mediation.

• The study builds on a knowledge-action framework and makes use of the concept of knowledge mediation spaces.

• This study reaffirms the importance of political, economic, and social influences on adoption and use of scientific research.

• Rainbow trout research would benefit from stronger relationships between researchers and actors who draw on their science.

Abstract

Conservation researchers have been shown to be motivated by the application of their work to address real world problems. However, a significant number of recent studies in the sociology of science and related fields such as knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilization have shown that direct influence of conservation science on policy and practice is rare. To improve conservation science uptake, we need a better understanding of how knowledge mediation and interpretation by potential knowledge users actually happens. This article examines qualitative data from a set of 65 interviews with government staff and other stakeholders and rights holders involved with rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) management in British Columbia, Canada. The focus of the investigation is on the ways that scientific knowledge moves through this network of actors. We approach knowledge exchange and mobilization as a social and political process. Our analysis makes use of the concept of knowledge mediation spaces as the specific settings in which actors deliberate and make sense of multiple forms of knowledge and competing social interests. Four knowledge mediation spaces were identified in the case study: sharing expertise and best practices, consultation on policy direction, program delivery, and research partnerships. Sharing of knowledge among actors in this network was found to be influenced by the movement of individuals from one organization to another throughout their careers. We also found that there is frequent interaction among actors for problem solving and seeking expert advice and that scientific methods strongly inform the actions of fisheries actors; yet science does not always play a role in policy formation. We recommend researchers place more emphasis on engaging stakeholders and Indigenous rights holders more directly in order to inform their research agendas and to facilitate more direct pathways for knowledge exchange, and by extension impacts on management and conservation.

Introduction

Conservation science, as an applied discipline, is oriented towards active protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). Research has shown that conservation scientists are motivated by seeing their research used in practical ways (Singh et al., 2014). However, direct impacts of university-based research on policy and practice are rare, and indirect impacts are not always evident, occur circuitously, and/or are significantly time-delayed (Adams and Sandbrook, 2013, Rose, 2015). In conceptualizing the challenge of encouraging (and observing) impact, we begin with Phipps et al.’s (2016) conceptualization of research impact as any instance in which an organization or community takes up new information to use it as a basis for a decision to maintain, adjust, or substantially change a given policy or practice. Conceptualizing impact in this way puts the emphasis on real-world decisions by end users, rather than by tracking readership or citation of articles as is often done (Phipps et al., 2016). Several recent papers have similarly argued that while traditional metrics of research impact that focus on dissemination are important, higher level impacts come from social, environmental, and economic outcomes that are not well captured using those measures (Singh et al., 2019, Cooke et al., 2020, Louder et al., 2021).

Our approach to knowledge generation and exchange is rooted in the sociology of science, similar to that of Fazey et al. (2014). In that seminal article, Fazey and colleagues argued that knowledge is constructed and that its interpretation is influenced by an individual’s prior knowledge, personal and professional experience, and group and organizational culture. This means that factors such as social norms, values, and power influence how knowledge is received and applied, often in the form of narratives distilled from data or findings (Buschke et al., 2019, Stern et al., 2021). Narratives that are favoured by influential and trusted actors ultimately shape policy and practice directions (Nursey-Bray et al., 2014, Armitage et al., 2015, Berdej et al., 2015, Rose, 2015, Rose and Parsons, 2015, Clark et al., 2016).

Studies of knowledge exchange and knowledge mobilization have shown that social and professional relationships are critical for facilitating the movement of knowledge within and across organizations (e.g., Crona and Parker, 2011; Kulig and Westlund, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2020). Interpersonal relationships move knowledge via advice-seeking, and add important dimensions of personalization and trust (Young et al., 2016a). Relationships help decision-makers access the information and knowledge that they need (Gale and Cadman, 2014, Kulig and Westlund, 2015), where knowledge is pulled and pushed between the domain of science and the domain of action (e.g. conservation and management) in an iterative process (Roux et al., 2006). When making decisions or plans, conservation actors have been shown to draw on personal experience, discussion with colleagues and experts, guidelines from governments and NGOs, and other informal sources (Pullin et al., 2004, Cook et al., 2012, Gale and Cadman, 2014, Rose, 2015, Rose and Parsons, 2015, Fabian et al., 2019, Kadykalo et al., 2021a).

There is also an extensive literature on barriers to the use of scientific evidence for conservation in practice and policy. Barriers include actors not having access to peer reviewed literature, limited organizational capacity for accessing and interpreting the science, institutional inertia, mismatches in priorities or decision-making processes, lack of trust in the research or researchers, and the influence of advocacy groups with an interest in maintaining the status quo (see Rose et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2019; Walsh et al., 2019). Underlying these barriers, adoption of scientific knowledge can often be hindered by a reluctance to take the political risk to change policy or management approaches, rather than a lack of knowledge among conservation staff (Shafer et al., 2015; Artelle et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018).

We investigate scientific knowledge mobilization and exchange in relation to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) management in British Columbia (BC), Canada (Kadykalo et al., 2020, Kadykalo et al., 2021b). We use qualitative data from interviews to analyse how actors involved in the management of rainbow trout, as potential knowledge users, come into contact and become familiar with scientific research. Rainbow trout are important for recreational and subsistence fisheries, but impacts from climate change are putting greater pressure on wild populations. As cold-water salmonids, rainbow trout are impacted by hydrological changes such as increased water temperatures in summer, decreased water oxygen content, and increasing frequency of drought (Wenger et al., 2011, Jones et al., 2012, Whitney et al., 2016). These changes in habitat quality and quantity arising from climate change will have direct and indirect effects on fish health, condition, and survival (Whitney et al., 2016) with associated knock-on effects on fish populations and communities (Lynch et al., 2016).