Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research

被引:204
|
作者
Fazey, Ioan [1 ]
Bunse, Lukas [1 ]
Msika, Joshua [1 ]
Pinke, Maria [1 ]
Preedy, Katherine [2 ]
Evely, Anna C. [3 ]
Lambert, Emily [3 ]
Hastings, Emily [4 ]
Morris, Sue [4 ]
Reed, Mark S. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Sch Environm, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland
[2] James Hutton Inst, Dundee DD2 5DA, Scotland
[3] Project MAYA CIC, London N10 1NG, England
[4] James Hutton Inst, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland
[5] Birmingham City Univ, Birmingham Sch Built Environm, Ctr Environm & Soc Res, Birmingham B4 7XG, W Midlands, England
关键词
Interdisciplinary research; Participatory research; Co-management; Co-production; Knowledge transfer; Co-design; MANAGEMENT LESSONS; HEALTH; POLICY; COMANAGEMENT; FRAMEWORK; TRANSLATION; SYSTEMS; IMPACT; MODEL; IMPLEMENTATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.012
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research is increasingly being promoted and implemented to enhance understanding of global environment change, identify holistic policy solutions, and assist implementation. These research activities are social processes aiming to enhance the exchange and translation of knowledge. Emphasis on the design and management of knowledge exchange is increasing, but learning about how to do this better is hampered by lack of conceptual development and appropriate methods to evaluate complex and multifaceted knowledge exchange processes. This paper therefore develops principles for the evaluation of knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder environmental change research. The paper is based on an analysis of 135 peer-reviewed evaluations of knowledge exchange from diverse disciplines. The results indicate strong relationships between the field of study (e.g. health care, environmental management), the way knowledge and knowledge exchange were conceptualised and implemented, the approach used for the evaluation, and the outcomes being evaluated. A typology of seven knowledge exchange evaluations is presented to guide discussions about the underlying assumptions of different approaches to knowledge exchange and its evaluation. Five principles for knowledge exchange evaluation are also identified: (i) design for multiple end users; (ii) be explicit about why a particular approach to knowledge exchange is expected to deliver its outcomes; (iii) evaluate diverse outcomes; (iv) use evaluations as part of the process of delivering knowledge exchange; and (v) use mixed methods to evaluate knowledge exchange. We conclude that a catch-all approach to evaluation is neither appropriate nor desirable. Instead, approaches that focus on understanding the underlying processes of knowledge exchange, assess the relative contribution of other factors in shaping outcomes in addition to knowledge exchange, and that involve multiple stakeholders in implementing evaluations, will be the most appropriate for evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary global environmental change research. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 220
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Multi-stakeholder engagement in health services research
    Ladeji, E. Olayinka
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2018, 7 (06) : 517 - 521
  • [2] Digital endpoints in clinical trials: emerging themes from a multi-stakeholder Knowledge Exchange event
    Tackney, Mia S.
    Steele, Amber
    Newman, Joseph
    Fritzsche, Marie-Christine
    Lucivero, Federica
    Khadjesari, Zarnie
    Lynch, Jennifer
    Abbott, Rosemary A.
    Barber, Vicki S.
    Carpenter, James R.
    Copsey, Bethan
    Davies, Elin H.
    Dixon, William G.
    Fox, Lisa
    Gonzalez, Javier
    Griffiths, Jessica
    Hinchliffe, Chloe H. L.
    Kolanko, Magdalena A.
    McGagh, Dylan
    Rodriguez, Aryelly
    Roussos, George
    So, Karen B. E.
    Stanton, Louise
    Toshner, Mark
    Varian, Frances
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Yimer, Belay B.
    Villar, Sofia S.
    [J]. TRIALS, 2024, 25 (01)
  • [3] Framework for Evaluating and Implementing Inpatient Portals: a Multi-stakeholder Perspective
    Walker, Daniel M.
    Hefner, Jennifer L.
    Sieck, Cynthia J.
    Huerta, Timothy R.
    McAlearney, Ann Scheck
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SYSTEMS, 2018, 42 (09)
  • [4] Evaluating local multi-stakeholder platforms in forest management in Ontario
    Robson, Mark
    Hunt, Len M.
    [J]. FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 2010, 86 (06): : 742 - 752
  • [5] Framework for Evaluating and Implementing Inpatient Portals: a Multi-stakeholder Perspective
    Daniel M. Walker
    Jennifer L. Hefner
    Cynthia J. Sieck
    Timothy R. Huerta
    Ann Scheck McAlearney
    [J]. Journal of Medical Systems, 2018, 42
  • [6] Effects of multi-stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: Implications for research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale
    Sartas, Murat
    Schut, Marc
    Hermans, Frans
    van Asten, Piet
    Leeuwis, Cees
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (06):
  • [7] Multi-stakeholder engagement
    Blenkus, M. Gabrijelcic
    Kronegger, L.
    Pushkarev, N.
    Robnik, M.
    Sotlar, I.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 30
  • [8] MULTI-STAKEHOLDER SURVEY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH PERCEPTIONS
    Cummins, G.
    Duong, A.
    Doyle, J.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (07) : A359 - A359
  • [9] Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management
    Hämäläinen, R
    Kettunen, E
    Marttunen, M
    Ehtamo, H
    [J]. GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2001, 10 (04) : 331 - 353
  • [10] Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management
    Raimo Hämäläinen
    Eero Kettunen
    Mika Marttunen
    Harri Ehtamo
    [J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2001, 10 : 331 - 353