推进工作环境中利益相关者参与的学术和实践:共同制定的研究议程。

Socio-ecological practice research Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-11 DOI:10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8
Weston M Eaton, Morey Burnham, Tahnee Robertson, J G Arbuckle, Kathryn J Brasier, Mark E Burbach, Sarah P Church, Georgia Hart-Fredeluces, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Grace Wildermuth, Katherine N Canfield, S Carolina Córdova, Casey D Chatelain, Lara B Fowler, Mennatullah Mohamed Zein elAbdeen Hendawy, Christine J Kirchhoff, Marisa K Manheim, Rubén O Martinez, Anne Mook, Cristina A Mullin, A Laurie Murrah-Hanson, Christiana O Onabola, Lauren E Parker, Elizabeth A Redd, Chelsea Schelly, Michael L Schoon, W Adam Sigler, Emily Smit, Tiff van Huysen, Michelle R Worosz, Carrie Eberly, Andi Rogers
{"title":"推进工作环境中利益相关者参与的学术和实践:共同制定的研究议程。","authors":"Weston M Eaton, Morey Burnham, Tahnee Robertson, J G Arbuckle, Kathryn J Brasier, Mark E Burbach, Sarah P Church, Georgia Hart-Fredeluces, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Grace Wildermuth, Katherine N Canfield, S Carolina Córdova, Casey D Chatelain, Lara B Fowler, Mennatullah Mohamed Zein elAbdeen Hendawy, Christine J Kirchhoff, Marisa K Manheim, Rubén O Martinez, Anne Mook, Cristina A Mullin, A Laurie Murrah-Hanson, Christiana O Onabola, Lauren E Parker, Elizabeth A Redd, Chelsea Schelly, Michael L Schoon, W Adam Sigler, Emily Smit, Tiff van Huysen, Michelle R Worosz, Carrie Eberly, Andi Rogers","doi":"10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":74830,"journal":{"name":"Socio-ecological practice research","volume":"4 4","pages":"283-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9651121/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda.\",\"authors\":\"Weston M Eaton, Morey Burnham, Tahnee Robertson, J G Arbuckle, Kathryn J Brasier, Mark E Burbach, Sarah P Church, Georgia Hart-Fredeluces, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Grace Wildermuth, Katherine N Canfield, S Carolina Córdova, Casey D Chatelain, Lara B Fowler, Mennatullah Mohamed Zein elAbdeen Hendawy, Christine J Kirchhoff, Marisa K Manheim, Rubén O Martinez, Anne Mook, Cristina A Mullin, A Laurie Murrah-Hanson, Christiana O Onabola, Lauren E Parker, Elizabeth A Redd, Chelsea Schelly, Michael L Schoon, W Adam Sigler, Emily Smit, Tiff van Huysen, Michelle R Worosz, Carrie Eberly, Andi Rogers\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Socio-ecological practice research\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"283-304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9651121/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Socio-ecological practice research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socio-ecological practice research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学和决策的参与式方法,包括利益相关者参与,在管理工作环境中复杂的社会生态挑战方面越来越普遍。然而,利益相关者参与这一领域的关键问题仍然存在。这些问题包括规范、政治和伦理问题,涉及谁参与、谁受益、谁损失、可以实现什么好处、为了什么、谁、由谁来实现。首先,通过参与解决正义、公平、多样性和包容性利益的机会,虽然隐含在关键的概念框架中,但在学术工作和合作实践中仍未得到充分探索。第二条探究线与研究与实践的差距有关。虽然从事敬业度工作的实践和敬业度有效性的学术研究都在上升,但“实地”从业者和学术研究人员之间几乎没有协调一致的相互作用。这意味着科学研究经常错过或忽视基于实践和经验知识的洞察力,而实践者与利益相关者参与的潜在有用的科学研究脱节。第三组问题涉及对敬业过程有效性的经验理解的差距,包括探究不同的敬业环境和流程特征如何影响一系列行为、认知和决策结果。由于这些差距,在工作环境中利益相关者参与研究和实践的凝聚力和可操作的研究议程仍然难以捉摸。在这篇综述文章中,我们提出了一个共同制作的工作景观中利益相关者参与的研究议程。联合制作过程涉及通过为期一年的虚拟系列研讨会,由160多名学者和实践者组成的多元化国际团体之间的专业促进和反复对话。由此产生的研究议程分为六个交叉主题:(1)正义、公平、多样性和包容性;(2)道德;(3)研究与实践;(4)上下文;(5)过程;(6)结果与测量。本研究议程确定了与研究人员、从业人员和政策制定者相关的关键研究需求和机会。我们认为,解决这些研究机会对于推进利益相关者参与的知识和实践,以及在工作环境中支持更公正和有效的参与过程是必要的。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,下载地址:10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda.

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda.

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信