Abstract
AbstractThe limited application of science to environmental management has been termed the “science‐management knowledge gap.” This gap is widely assumed to be a consequence of inefficient knowledge transfer from science to application. However, this metaphor misrepresents knowledge as a “thing” that can be readily exchanged in complex systems, rather than a “process of relating” that involves negotiation and dialogue among stakeholders. We advocate for development of a more explicit alternative model of knowledge creation founded on Nonaka's Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, which emphasizes how knowledge is converted into more usable forms through socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization within “learning spaces.” Effective learning spaces require sufficient trust to enable open, honest, and receptive interactions among stakeholders. We advocate that greater emphasis on knowledge conversions within effectively designed learning spaces will accelerate development of actionable knowledge beyond that of existing models.
Highlights
The complexity of emerging conservation challenges often exceeds the experience and ability of those tasked with their management
We argue for greater emphasis on opening collaborative learning spaces to catalyze more effective co-production of actionable knowledge, rather than piling more scientific information at the loading dock in hopes of its eventual access and use (Maas, Toomey, & Loyola, 2019; Toomey, Knight, & Barlow, 2017)
We propose that greater emphasis be placed on the development of effective multi-stakeholder learning spaces to create better opportunities for the co-production of actionable knowledge among practitioners, scientists, and other stakeholders
Summary
The complexity of emerging conservation challenges often exceeds the experience and ability of those tasked with their management. In a study of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which involves collaborative networks of scientists, managers, and other stakeholders, Coleman and Stern (2018a) found that taking the time to establish rules for interaction enhanced systems-based trust and streamlined planning processes (see Table 2 for more detail).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
