1
|
Goolsby JB, Cravens AE, Rozance MA. Becoming an Actionable Scientist: Challenges, Competency, and the Development of Expertise. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2023; 72:1128-1145. [PMID: 37567957 PMCID: PMC10570157 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-023-01863-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023]
Abstract
Demand has grown for actionable science to support real-world decision-making around climate change and related environmental management challenges. Producing actionable science requires scientists to hold a distinct set of competencies, yet relatively little is known about what these competencies are or how to train scientists to develop them. We conducted interviews with mid- and late-career scientists to empirically identify competencies they used when producing actionable science and to understand how they developed those competencies. We describe expertise in terms of 18 competencies-categorised as cognitive, interpersonal, or intrapersonal-that scientists integrated and applied to address the challenges associated with actionable science. We argue that scientists must engage in the social process of producing actionable science (i.e., learning by doing) to become an expert. Expert actionable scientists discussed the importance of learning through different contexts, processes, interactions, and relationships. By naming the competencies that constitute expertise, as well as methods for expertise development, our findings facilitate greater conscious awareness of the process of becoming an actionable scientist, a gradual process that starts during graduate training and continues as a career proceeds. Our results can inform the development of formal learning opportunities as well as the informal learning process that occurs whereby scientists take charge of their own learning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia B Goolsby
- Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
| | - Amanda E Cravens
- U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
- U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR, USA.
| | - Mary Ann Rozance
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- Cascadia Consulting Group, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ferguson DB, Meadow AM, Huntington HP. Making a Difference: Planning for Engaged Participation in Environmental Research. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022; 69:227-243. [PMID: 34999911 PMCID: PMC8789721 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-021-01585-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Despite the rapid and accelerating rate of global environmental changes, too often research that has the potential to inform more sustainable futures remains disconnected from the context in which it could be used. Though transdisciplinary approaches (TDA) are known to overcome this disconnect, institutional barriers frequently prevent their deployment. Here we use insights from a qualitative comparative analysis of five case studies to develop a process for helping researchers and funders conceptualize and implement socially engaged research within existing institutional structures. The process we propose is meant to help researchers achieve societal as well as scientific outcomes relatively early in a project, as an end in itself or en route to greater engagement later. If projects that have a strong foundation of dialog and shared power wish to use TDA within current institutional and academic structures, we suggest that they focus on three process-based factors to increase their chances for success: (1) the maturity of relationships within a collaboration, (2) the level of context knowledge present within the collaborative team, and (3) the intensity of the engagement efforts within the project.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel B Ferguson
- Department of Environmental Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
- Arizona Institutes for Resilience, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
| | - Alison M Meadow
- Arizona Institutes for Resilience, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Eaton WM, Burnham M, Robertson T, Arbuckle JG, Brasier KJ, Burbach ME, Church SP, Hart-Fredeluces G, Jackson-Smith D, Wildermuth G, Canfield KN, Córdova SC, Chatelain CD, Fowler LB, Hendawy MMZE, Kirchhoff CJ, Manheim MK, Martinez RO, Mook A, Mullin CA, Murrah-Hanson AL, Onabola CO, Parker LE, Redd EA, Schelly C, Schoon ML, Sigler WA, Smit E, van Huysen T, Worosz MR, Eberly C, Rogers A. Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda. SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL PRACTICE RESEARCH 2022; 4:283-304. [PMID: 36407755 PMCID: PMC9651121 DOI: 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Revised: 10/12/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Anne Mook
- Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|