Study on Linking Knowledge with Action features ASB Partnership work
By Meine van Noordwijk and Elizabeth Kahurani
A boundary between science and politics is essential to give free enquiry a chance, but it also implies that the boundary must be bridged for new findings to be appreciated and used.
***
ASB Partnership scientists on a field trip involving decision makers and communities in Lombok, IndonesiaThere was a time that international
agricultural research was mostly about developing new crops and associated
fertilizer and pest control technology, usually referred to as ‘green
revolution’. To help farmers and policy makers weigh the options, ‘decision
support’ systems were developed. In the reality of rural landscapes and
tropical forest margins where there is an over-use of natural resources, many
stakeholders have many different interests, many perspectives on legality
coexist and groups refer to multiple types of knowledge to justify their
positions. More than a decade ago, ASB researchers working in tropical forest
margins found that in this context, ‘decision support’ has to be replaced by
‘negotiation support’. A new study
explores the foundations of this work in the context of ‘linking knowledge with
action’
A key challenge in linking knowledge with action is having research as an active element of the negotiation and decision making processes at local, national and international level, while at the same time remaining independent, free of political interference and/or personal interests. A boundary between science and politics is essential to give free enquiry a chance, but it also implies that the boundary must be bridged for new findings to be appreciated and used. Approaches to such boundary work have been mostly developed and analyzed in developed countries, but have not been tested for their applicability to the circumstances and context of developing countries.
That is why a new study discussing the experience of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in linking knowledge with action in developing countries is of great interest. The study, published in the influential Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is titled, “Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the CGIAR”. According to the complexity of production and use of knowledge, six types of boundary work are distinguished and discussed. All six are illustrated by examples from the work of the ASB Partnership which started as a systemwide program within the CGIAR in the 1990’s. It has been successful not just in conducting quality research but also in activities that promote the use of research evidence for policy and action.
As used in the study, the term ‘boundary work’ refers to approaches or activities that mediate among the often different cultures of scientific research, learning from field experience, and making management or policy decisions. Organizations working to facilitate these approaches are increasingly referred to as boundary organizations, while some of the tangible outputs developed in the process and potentially replicable elsewhere are known as boundary objects.
ASB’s work and experience as a boundary organization spans across benchmark sites in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and provides key lessons on effective strategies that can lead to successful interventions linking knowledge with action. According to the study, which looked at various projects within the program, all aspects of successful boundary work must satisfactorily meet the criteria of being salient (relevant to the decision or policy), credible (technically adequate in handling of evidence), and legitimate (fair, unbiased, respectful of all).
“These criteria provide recognition of the fact that the pursuit of knowledge in action contexts is both a scientific and a political act,” points out Bill Clark of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Clark, who is the study lead author, adds that depending on whether researchers find themselves engaged in simple enlightenment, or providing advice to decision makers or supporting complex negotiations between farmers and the state, the challenges they face in meeting these criteria and the strategies for doing so effectively vary in a systematic manner.
The ASB Partnership has been able to meet its challenges for producing useful knowledge by adopting three key strategies to bridge the knowledge - action gap. The program has not only developed and documented research methods, tools and maps for use by the scientific community but has also produced non-scientific publications and materials such as policy briefs that explain science in formats and languages that can be understood easily by policymakers and community members. These outputs have been highlighted and referenced in high level policy channels such as the European Commission’s Science for Environment Policy News Alert Service.
An important element of boundary work is the creation of ‘safe spaces’ where stakeholders can explore new options and critically examine evidence underpinning widely held perspectives. This can be achieved informally during joint field visits, or more formally in working groups. Trust building within and between groups is essential for learning to take place. A shared understanding of key dynamics of the system is needed before negotiated solutions can manage the tradeoffs involved.
Accountability needs to be enhanced at all levels - participatory research methods can ensure that farmers voice their concerns; scientists who gained the respect of both the research and policy communities can become champions who effectively engage policymakers, while official steering groups allow policy concerns to be expressed.
These examples show that a key aspect of ASB’s success in boundary work has been the departure from one-directional transfer models, where the role of science has been to inform decisions on development, to a role where science enrolls itself in a process that identifies appropriate knowledge needed by different groups and also plays a part in providing mechanisms that allow these groups to use the knowledge produced effectively.
“Negotiation support systems emerged about 10 years ago in connection with ASBs work in this area. They have helped reframe efforts to link knowledge with action across a much wider group of practitioners. We are excited that they are now receiving strong international recognition,” says Dr. Dennis Garrity, outgoing chair of the global steering committee of the ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins and Director General of the World Agroforestry Centre that hosts the ASB Partnership.
Comments
Post new comment