Abstract
There is a growing appreciation for the value of collaborative research projects involving local Indigenous and visiting non‐Indigenous researchers. Examples of such partnerships are now ...numerous and diverse, and best practices and respectful approaches have been well presented, including the five priorities of the National Inuit Strategy on Research (NISR) defined by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami in Canada. However, the application of best practices remains challenging, and examples of ‘on‐the‐ground’ implementation remain scarce in the literature.
We present a practical case study in which scientists from the Federal Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada and Inuit have co‐delivered a multidecade‐long monitoring program of nesting common eider ducks
Somateria mollissima
in the Arctic. We review our experience as southern‐based government researchers in this collaboration. We reflect on successes and, more importantly, on the practical challenges that prevent the full implementation of best practices in our program.
First, we highlight challenges to co‐designing a data collection protocol that combines both Indigenous and Western scientific methods. We show how combining the strengths of Inuit Knowledge and rigorous random sampling design has led to a more powerful approach to eider population monitoring.
Second, we review how the federal government's administrative approaches are poorly suited for employing seasonal Indigenous workers living in remote communities, particularly in Canada. We argue that to deliver respectful employment and payment practices, the financial and hiring administration of collaborative projects must be based at the community level.
Finally, we show how sociocultural factors have made it challenging to ensure the safety of all field workers consistently. To increase their perceived value and uptake, we suggest that safety guidelines must be co‐designed by visiting researchers and local partners for each project to ensure that they are appropriate to the local culture, field conditions, and the nature of the fieldwork.
Based on our experience, we draw attention to gaps that still exist between the best practices of collaborative research and factors that hamper their practical implementation. We invite other research teams to do the same so that, collectively, we can improve collaborative approaches nationally and internationally.
ᓇᐃᓪᓕᑎᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ
ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖃᕈᒪᕙᓪᓕᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᕐᒪᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᑎᑭᖃᒃᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᙱᒃᑑᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᐅᒍᓐᓇᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒥ ᐊᒥᓲᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᙱᒃᑑᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ, ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕆᐊᕈᑎᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒃᓯᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ, ᐱᖃᓯᐅᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᓪᓗᒪᐅᔪᑦ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᑎᑕᐅᒍᒪᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ (NISR) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐱᕇᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ, ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓇᓱᑉᐸᓐᓂᖓ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᕐᓂ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, ᐆᒃᑑᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗ ‘ᓄᓇᒥ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂ’ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᒃᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐱᑕᖃᙱᓗᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂ.
ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕈᑎᖃᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓱᑰᔭᐃᓯᒻᒪᕆᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓯᓚᐅᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐊᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᕋᓴᕐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᒥᑏᑦ ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᒃᑎᓐᓂ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓃᖔᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒥ. ᑕᑯᒋᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᒃᓯᐊᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ, ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᒃᓯᓇᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᑕᖏᖅᑐᒥ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᒃᓯᓇᓱᑦᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑕᐅᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᒃᑎᓐᓂ.
ᓯᕗᓪᓕᕐᒥ, ᓴᖅᑭᐅᒪᑎᒃᓯᒋᐊᖅᐸᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂ ᓴᓇᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒥ ᑲᑎᖅᓱᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑐᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᓪᓗ ᓱᑯᐃᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᖏᓐᓂᑦ. ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᒃᓯᕙᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᓴᙱᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᓐᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓴᙱᓕᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᑦ ᒥᑏᑦ ᖃᒃᓯᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥ.
ᑐᖔᓂ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒋᐊᖅᐸᒃᑕᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᒡᕕᓕᕆᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᙱᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᑲᐃᓐᓇᑎᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᕋᓛᕐᓃᓐᓂᖅᓴᓂᑦ, ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ. ᐋᔩᕈᑎᒋᕙᒃᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᒃᓯᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᑎᒃᓯᓂᖅ ᐊᕿᓕᖅᑐᐃᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᓐᓂᖏᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᒍᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒃᓯᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᐊᓪᓚᒡᕕᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕆᐊᖏᑦ.
ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥᐹᖓᓐᓂ, ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᒃᓯᕙᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᒃᑐᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑕᐅᓯᖃᒃᑕᕆᐊᖏᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᔪᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᒃᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᑕᐃᒪᙵᓕᒫᖅ. ᐱᒃᓯᐊᕆᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ, ᐃᒪᐃᒋᐊᖁᔨᕗᒍᑦ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑕᐃᓕᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᐃᑦ ᓴᓇᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᑎᑭᑦᑕᖅᑐᓗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓃᖔᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᓄᑦ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᓯᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖏᑦᑕ ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖑᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ.
ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᑎᒍᑦ, ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᒃᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᑕᖃᙱᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᑕᖃᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᐱᐅᓂᖅᐹᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᓇᐃᓗᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᒃᓯᓂᕐᒥ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᓂ. ᑕᐃᒫᒃᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑐᖁᓇᔭᖅᑕᕗᑦ, ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕆᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓄᓇᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᕐᒥᓪᓗ.
Surveillance of animal movements using electronic tags (i.e., biotelemetry) has emerged as an essential tool for both basic and applied ecological research and monitoring. Advances in animal tracking ...are occurring simultaneously with changes to technology, in an evolving global scientific culture that increasingly promotes data sharing and transparency. However, there is a risk that misuse of biotelemetry data could increase the vulnerability of animals to human disturbance or exploitation. For the most part, telemetry data security is not a danger to animals or their ecosystems, but for some high-risk cases, as with species’ with high economic value or at-risk populations, available knowledge of their movements may promote active disturbance or worse, potential poaching. We suggest that when designing animal tracking studies it is incumbent on scientists to consider the vulnerability of their study animals to risks arising from the implementation of the proposed program, and to take preventative measures.
This article examines threat perception as a potential dimension of inter-group conflict over salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River watershed. Environmental changes and the entry of new user ...groups are putting pressure on both the resource and regulators, as well as threatening to exacerbate conflicts, notably between First Nation (indigenous) fishers and non-indigenous recreational anglers. While resource conflicts are often superficially conceptualized as cases of competing interests, we build on recent studies suggesting that conflicts are associated with deeper cognitive and perceptual differences among user groups. We report findings from 422 riverbank interviews with First Nation fishers and recreational anglers focusing on perceptions of threat to the fisheries. Responses reveal both substantial agreement and disagreement in threat perceptions between the two groups. These patterns provide a potential roadmap for consensus building, and suggest possible avenues for policy-makers to defuse the "blame game" that often dominates this type of conflict.
Environmental decision-makers and practitioners need and deserve high-quality environmental evidence for effective decision-making. We collate and share a suite of best practices for applied ...environmental researchers to support their capacity to inform such decision-making processes. This raises a number of important questions: What does “relevant” and informative evidence look like? How do we know when evidence has been applied? We assembled an experienced team of knowledge generators and users in Canada to identify insights that have emerged from their work and that could serve as guideposts for others who seek to apply environmental research to policy challenges. By reflecting on successes and failures, we define “success” in applied environmental science as respectfully conducted, partner-relevant research that is accessible, understandable, and shared and that can create opportunities for change (e.g., in policy, behaviour, management). Next, we generated a list of best practices for delivering “successful” applied environmental research. Our guidance emphasizes the importance of engaging early and often, in a respectful manner, with partners, generating high-quality, relevant research (which requires flexibility), having a plan for communicating and sharing outputs, and being transparent about uncertainties and limitations. Other important considerations include acknowledging partners for involvement and training early career researchers in applied partnership research. Finally, we generated a list of specific, measurable indicators for evaluating success, including quality and quantity of scientific outputs, the relationship with the partner(s), relevance and connectedness of the research, accessibility and availability of outputs to users, provision of outputs that are digestible and usable by different audiences,training and capacity building, and ultimate outcomes (e.g., including social, environmental, and economic outcomes, as well as partner satisfaction). We encourage those embarking on applied environmental research to consider embracing the strategies, to continuously reflect on progress toward shared research goals, and to be flexible. Doing so will increase the likelihood of delivering research that is “successful” and in doing so contribute to overcoming and addressing environmental issues and problems.
Les décideurs et les praticiens de l’environnement ont besoin de données environnementales de haute qualité pour prendre des décisions efficaces et ils le méritent. Les auteurs colligent et partagent un ensemble des meilleures pratiques à l’intention des personnes qui réalisent de la recherche appliquée en environnement afin de soutenir leur capacité à éclairer la prise de décisions. Cela soulève un certain nombre de questions importantes. À quoi ressemblent une preuve « pertinente » et informative? Quand savons-nous qu’une preuve a été appliquée? Ils ont réuni une équipe expérimentée de producteurs et d’utilisateurs de connaissances au Canada afin d’identifier les idées qui ont émané de leurs travaux et qui pourraient servir de guide à d’autres qui cherchent à appliquer la recherche environnementale aux enjeux politiques. En réfléchissant sur les succès et les échecs, les auteurs définissent la notion de « succès » en science environnementale appliquée comme étant une recherche respectueuse, pertinente pour les partenaires, accessible, compréhensible et partagée, et qui peut créer des occasions de changement (par exemple en matière de politique, de comportement, de gestion). Ils ont ensuite établi une liste des meilleures pratiques pour mener à bien une recherche environnementale appliquée « réussie ». Leurs orientations soulignent l’importance de s’engager tôt et souvent, de manière respectueuse, avec les partenaires, de générer une recherche de haute qualité et pertinente (ce qui nécessite de la flexibilité), d’avoir un plan de communication et de partage des résultats, et d’être transparent sur les incertitudes et les limites. D’autres considérations importantes comprennent la reconnaissance des partenaires pour leur participation et la formation des chercheurs en début de carrière à la recherche appliquée en partenariat. Enfin, ils ont établi une liste d’indicateurs spécifiques et mesurables pour évaluer la réussite, dont : la qualité et la quantité des résultats scientifiques, la relation avec le ou les partenaires, la pertinence et la connectivité de la recherche, l’accessibilité et la disponibilité des résultats pour les utilisateurs, la diffusion de résultats digestes et utilisables par différents publics, la formation et le renforcement des capacités, et les résultats finaux (y compris les résultats sociaux, environnementaux et économiques, ainsi que la satisfaction des partenaires). Les auteurs encouragent les personnes qui se lancent dans la recherche environnementale appliquée à envisager d’adopter ces stratégies, à réfléchir en permanence aux progrès réalisés vers des objectifs de recherche communs et à faire preuve de souplesse. Cela augmentera la probabilité de mener des recherches « fructueuses » et, ce faisant, contribuera à surmonter et à traiter les questions et les problèmes environnementaux.
Approaches to managing inland fisheries vary between systems and regions but are often based on large-scale marine fisheries principles and thus limited and outdated. Rarely do they adopt holistic ...approaches that consider the complex interplay among humans, fish, and the environment. We argue that there is an urgent need for a shift in inland fisheries management towards holistic and transdisciplinary approaches that embrace the principles of social-ecological systems at the watershed scale. The interconnectedness of inland fisheries with their associated watershed (biotic, abiotic, and humans) make them extremely complex and challenging to manage and protect. For this reason, the watershed is a logical management unit. To assist management at this scale, we propose a framework that integrates disparate concepts and management paradigms to facilitate inland fisheries management and sustainability. We contend that inland fisheries need to be managed as social-ecological watershed system (SEWS). The framework supports watershed-scale and transboundary governance to manage inland fisheries, and transdisciplinary projects and teams to ensure relevant and applicable monitoring and research. We discuss concepts of social-ecological feedback and interactions of multiple stressors and factors within/between the social-ecological systems. Moreover, we emphasize that management, monitoring, and research on inland fisheries at the watershed scale are needed to ensure long-term sustainable and resilient fisheries.
•We argue for a shift in inland fisheries management towards holistic and transdisciplinary approaches.•We propose a social-ecological watershed management framework for inland fisheries.•We synthesized concepts relevant to managing inland fisheries at a watershed scale.•The behavioural dimensions (human & biophysical) are novel in the proposed framework.•We offer guidance for implementing theoretical & applied frameworks with case study examples.
Authorship should acknowledge and reward those deserving of such credit. Moreover, being an author on a paper also means that one assumes ownership of the content.
Journals are increasingly requiring ...author roles to be specified at time of submission using schemes such as the contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) system, which relies on 14 different roles. Yet, there are many other aspects of research that are not adequately captured by the list of roles, particularly in applied environmental disciplines such as conservation science, environmental science and applied ecology.
The growing recognition that authorship should reflect contributions that extend beyond the usual data collection, analysis and writing provides the ideal backdrop for rethinking contributions in conservation science. Here we propose a more inclusive approach to authorship that recognizes and values diverse contributions and contributors using an expanded list of CRediT roles.
Determining who is deserving of authorship is challenging. That is particularly salient in conservation science where contributions are diverse and may extend beyond data collection, analysis or writing. This image illustrates the interconnectedness of contributors and the challenges with determining who has earned authorship.
In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which ...that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.
When making decisions about forest and environmental management, managers and policymakers often rely upon scientific knowledge. There is a well‐documented ‘knowledge–integration gap’ where often the ...production of knowledge and its use are not aligned. Though there are several theoretical frameworks that conceptualize how knowledge is exchanged between producers of scientific knowledge and users of that information, there has been little attention to documenting knowledge exchange practices and their effectiveness, especially about forests.
In the systematic map, we will examine the peer‐reviewed academic and grey literature to document and classify the knowledge exchange techniques suggested and adopted by knowledge producers and users in the forest sciences globally. Characterizing this knowledge exchange landscape will provide new information about which techniques are used and their frequency, if there is evidence of effectiveness for particular techniques, and recommendations for best practices. This map will also show whether approaches to knowledge exchange differ between sectors (e.g. academia, government).
We will create a systematic literature map as defined by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence to capture case studies of, or theories about, knowledge exchange related to forest science. The search of peer‐reviewed academic and grey literature will be conducted in English and French in two academic databases (BASE and Scopus) and one specialist database (ResearchGate). Candidate search strings will be evaluated against a test list of documents to determine strings with maximum sensitivity and specificity. Eligibility criteria will be applied to items at two screening stages: (1) title and and (2) full‐text. All screening decisions will be recorded in a database with 15% of full‐text screening decisions validated. Items retained for inclusion will have data extracted according to a standardized strategy. Each reviewer conducting data extraction will have at least three of their extractions validated.
The systematic map will employ a narrative synthesis approach that includes descriptive statistics, tables, and figures which describe the types and frequency of knowledge exchange techniques theorized or described, a network map displaying the institutions within and between which knowledge exchange occurs, as well as summarizing any available evidence of effectiveness for particular knowledge exchange techniques.
Forest management requires a great deal of scientific knowledge, but there is a well‐documented ‘knowledge–integration gap’ where often the production of knowledge and its use are not aligned. We systematically map the peer‐reviewed academic and grey literature to document and classify the knowledge exchange techniques suggested and adopted by knowledge producers and users in the forest sciences globally in English and French. This Stage 1 article presents the protocol we will use to map and understand knowledge exchange techniques, who uses them and if there is any evidence of their effectiveness.
PDF
