scholarly journals Network analysis of workshop activities reveals increasing transdisciplinarity of German biodiversity research community

Author(s):  
Jonas Geschke ◽  
Martina Lutz ◽  
Katrin Vohland

AbstractBoundary spanning activities in the biodiversity science-policy interface are urgently needed. Effective science communication and uptake of scientific findings by policymakers is crucial for a successful, cross-scale policy implementation. For this, national platforms promoting knowledge exchange between different stakeholder groups are key. Established in 2009, the Network-Forum on Biodiversity Research Germany (NeFo) until 2018 has organized more than 40 workshops bringing together actors from science, policy and society. In this paper, we present a network and cluster analysis of these NeFo workshops. Based on this, we discuss the importance of science-policy interface projects and networks as knowledge brokers and boundary organizations, as well as challenges in using network analysis as a tool for evaluating workshop impacts. Based on the network analysis outcomes as well as experiences in the conduction of workshops, recommendations to strengthen the innovation impact of networking efforts are drawn.

Conservation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-81
Author(s):  
André Derek Mader ◽  
Brian Alan Johnson ◽  
Yuki Ohashi ◽  
Isabella Fenstermaker

Biodiversity knowledge is communicated by scientists to policymakers at the biodiversity “science-policy interface” (SPI). Although the biodiversity SPI is the subject of a growing body of literature, gaps in our understanding include the efficacy of mechanisms to bridge the interface, the quality of information exchanged between science and policy, and the inclusivity of stakeholders involved. To improve this understanding, we surveyed an important but under-studied group—biodiversity policymakers and scientific advisors representing their respective countries in negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We found that a wide variety of SPI mechanisms were being used. Overall, they were considered to be sufficiently effective, improving over time, and supplied with information of adequate quality. Most respondents, however, agreed that key actors were still missing from the biodiversity SPI.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 552-559
Author(s):  
Laura Ferguson

This review article discusses the recent publications Studying Arctic Fields by Richard C Powell and The Technocratic Antarctic by Jessica O’Reilly. Both books are ethnographic accounts of scientists working in the Polar Regions that analyse interactions at the science–policy interface. Studying Arctic Fields is a detailed story of Canada’s Resolute research station, based on immersive ethnographic observation and communicated through an engaging narrative of colourful stories from Powell’s two summers among the scientists and support staff there. The Technocratic Antarctic treads new ground in its examination of Antarctic social science, presenting the findings of a wide-ranging and thorough research project that engages with the themes of territory, security, processes, practice, problems and science communication. Both publications make valuable contributions to Polar social science and will also appeal to many beyond this.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Neßhöver ◽  
Johannes Timaeus ◽  
Heidi Wittmer ◽  
Annamaria Krieg ◽  
Nicoleta Geamana ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanna-Riikka Saarela

Abstract There is a plea for dialogue and interaction between researchers and policymakers, particularly in relation to burning and complex societal problems. However, day-to-day science–policy interaction remains a challenge. By investigating researchers’ perspectives on challenges and opportunities of evolving interaction between science and policy, this article contributes to the ongoing discussions on workable and effective science–policy interface. The analysis, based on twelve in-depth interviews with experienced forest bioenergy researchers working at different organizations in Finland, shows that researchers appreciate a variety of roles and contributions from pure scientist to participatory knowledge production. Paradoxically, researchers ideologically still adhere to objective and linear knowledge production, which is, however, associated with multiple challenges such as politicization of science, disuse or misuse of scientific knowledge and communication. The article concludes that more nuanced consideration and acknowledgement of science–policy context as well as researchers’ role in it could create mutual benefits for research and policy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
pp. E ◽  
Author(s):  
Birte Faehnrich ◽  
Alexander Ruser

Today, science and politics are in a complex status of reciprocal dependency. Politics is dependent on scientific expertise in order to adequately address highly complex social problems, and science is fundamentally dependent on public funding and on political regulation. Taken together, the diverse interactions, interrelations and interdependencies of science and politics create a heterogenous and complex patchwork — namely, the science-policy interface. The societal relevance for phenomena such as scientific policy advice, science governance or (politically fostered) science communication have been amplified by the developments of digitalisation and now call for new approaches to clarify the ambiguous relationships within the science-policy interface. This special issue aims to provide a platform for researchers to address communication at the intersection of science and politics from different angles. The research presented in the special issue, thus, aims to reduce the contingency of science-policy communication in its various dimensions and looks to spur further investigations into the science-policy interface.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashmi Shivni ◽  
Christina Cline ◽  
Morgan Newport ◽  
Shupei Yuan ◽  
Heather E. Bergan-Roller

Abstract Background Seminal reports, based on recommendations by educators, scientists, and in collaboration with students, have called for undergraduate curricula to engage students in some of the same practices as scientists—one of which is communicating science with a general, non-scientific audience (SciComm). Unfortunately, very little research has focused on helping students develop these skills. An important early step in creating effective and efficient curricula is understanding what baseline skills students have prior to instruction. Here, we used the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework to survey the SciComm skills of students in an environmental science course in which they had little SciComm training. Results Our analyses revealed that, despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students commonly targeted broad audiences composed of interested adults, aimed to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience, and planned and executed remote projects using print on social media. Additionally, students demonstrated flexibility in their skills by slightly differing their choices depending on the context of the assignment, such as creating more engaging content than they had planned for. Conclusions The students exhibited several key baseline skills, even though they had minimal training on the best practices of SciComm; however, more support is required to help students become better communicators, and more work in different contexts may be beneficial to acquire additional perspectives on SciComm skills among a variety of science students. The few elements that were not well highlighted in the students’ projects may not have been as intuitive to novice communicators. Thus, we provide recommendations for how educators can help their undergraduate science students develop valuable, prescribed SciComm skills. Some of these recommendations include helping students determine the right audience for their communication project, providing opportunities for students to try multiple media types, determining the type of language that is appropriate for the audience, and encouraging students to aim for a mix of communication objectives. With this guidance, educators can better prepare their students to become a more open and communicative generation of scientists and citizens.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document