Chapman Kelly, Boschetti Fabio, Fulton Elizabeth, Horwitz Pierre, Jones Tod, Scherrer Pascal, Syme Geoff
School of Science, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.
Department of Geography, Vancouver Island University, 900 Fifth Street, Nanaimo, BC, V9R 5S5, Canada.
Environ Manage. 2017 Nov;60(5):896-907. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0917-1. Epub 2017 Aug 19.
Knowledge exchange involves a suite of strategies used to bridge the divides between research, policy and practice. The literature is increasingly focused on the notion that knowledge generated by research is more useful when there is significant interaction and knowledge sharing between researchers and research recipients (i.e., stakeholders). This is exemplified by increasing calls for the use of knowledge brokers to facilitate interaction and flow of information between scientists and stakeholder groups, and the integration of scientific and local knowledge. However, most of the environmental management literature focuses on explicit forms of knowledge, leaving unmeasured the tacit relational and reflective forms of knowledge that lead people to change their behaviour. In addition, despite the high transaction costs of knowledge brokering and related stakeholder engagement, there is little research on its effectiveness. We apply Park's Manag Learn 30(2), 141-157 (1999); Knowledge and Participatory Research, London: SAGE Publications (2006) tri-partite knowledge typology as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of knowledge brokering in the context of a large multi-agency research programme in Australia's Ningaloo coastal region, and for testing the assumption that higher levels of interaction between scientists and stakeholders lead to improved knowledge exchange. While the knowledge brokering intervention substantively increased relational networks between scientists and stakeholders, it did not generate anticipated increases in stakeholder knowledge or research application, indicating that more prolonged stakeholder engagement was required, and/or that there was a flaw in the assumptions underpinning our conceptual framework.
知识交流涉及一系列用于弥合研究、政策与实践之间差距的策略。文献越来越关注这样一种观念，即当研究人员与研究接受者（即利益相关者）之间存在大量互动和知识共享时，研究产生的知识会更有用。这体现在越来越多的呼声中，呼吁利用知识中介来促进科学家与利益相关者群体之间的互动和信息流动，以及科学知识与地方知识的整合。然而，大多数环境管理文献关注的是显性知识形式，而未对导致人们改变行为的隐性关系型和反思型知识进行衡量。此外，尽管知识中介及相关利益相关者参与的交易成本很高，但对其有效性的研究却很少。我们应用帕克在《管理学习》第30卷第2期，第141 - 157页（1999年）；《知识与参与性研究》，伦敦：SAGE出版社（2006年）中提出的三方知识类型学，作为评估澳大利亚宁格罗海岸地区大型多机构研究项目背景下知识中介有效性的基础，并检验科学家与利益相关者之间更高水平的互动会带来更好的知识交流这一假设。虽然知识中介干预实质性地增加了科学家与利益相关者之间的关系网络，但并未使利益相关者的知识或研究应用产生预期的增加，这表明需要更长期的利益相关者参与，和/或我们概念框架所依据的假设有缺陷。
