Tell us how to engage you! Asking polar stakeholders about their engagement preferences | Polar Record | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

The changes the polar regions face are too complex to be tackled by single scientific disciplines and in isolation from societal actors. Therefore, the call for polar research projects that engage with stakeholders outside academia increases. The ideal set-up of these projects is envisioned as an inclusive and action-oriented process that brings scientists and stakeholders together to identify pressing issues of societal and scientific relevance and to develop research projects that produce practical outcomes. However, working across disciplines and knowledge systems can be challenging. To better understand stakeholders’ motivation for engaging in polar science projects, to learn what stages of a project they are interested in and what their preferred modes of engagement are, stakeholders were surveyed as part of the EU-funded project EU-PolarNet. The results suggest that while most academic survey participants are eager to participate from problem definition to dissemination of results, most non-academic survey participants preferred interaction at the stages when results were disseminated and used for informed decision-making. The survey results have their limitations, yet they provide a basis for important future approaches to stakeholder engagement in polar research projects. They show that stakeholders prefer to engage in different stages of a research project depending on their specific needs and interests, while also acknowledging that additional support may be required to enable meaningful engagement throughout the research process.

References

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225Google Scholar

Bieluch, K. H., Bell, K. P., Teisl, M. F., Lindenfeld, L. A., Leahy, J., & Silka, L. (2017). Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science. An examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustainability Science, 12(1), 87–104. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0360-xCrossRef Google Scholar

Bracken, L. J., Bulkeley, H. A., & Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research. Understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1291–1308. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2014.921596CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, L. D. & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry. Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294. doi: 10.1177/002188638301900306CrossRef Google Scholar

Brunet, N. D., Hickey, G. M., & Humphries, M. M. (2016). Local participation and partnership development in Canada’s Arctic research. Challenges and opportunities in an age of empowerment and self-determination. Polar Record, 52(3), 345–359. doi: 10.1017/S003224741500090XCrossRef Google Scholar

Evengård, B., Nymand Larsen, J., & Paasche, Ø. (2015). The New Arctic. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17602-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Ford, J. D., Stephenson, E., Cunsolo Willox, A., Edge, V., Farahbakhsh, K., Furgal, C., … Sherman, M. (2016). Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(2), 175–191. doi: 10.1002/wcc.376Google Scholar PubMed

Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic change, 128(3–4), 201–214. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1225-xCrossRef Google Scholar

Groß, M. & Stauffacher, M. (2014). Transdisciplinary environmental science: Problem-oriented projects and strategic research programs. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 39(4), 299–306. doi: 10.1179/0308018814Z.00000000093CrossRef Google Scholar

Harris, F. & Lyon, F. (2013). Transdisciplinary environmental research: Building trust across professional cultures. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.006CrossRef Google Scholar

Jolibert, C. & Wesselink, A. (2012). Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: The influence of stakeholder engagement. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 100–111. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Jönsson, A. M. & Swarling, Å. G. (2014). Reflections on science-stakeholder interactions in climate change adaptation research within Swedish forestry. Society and Nature Resources, 27, 1130–1144. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.906013CrossRef Google Scholar

Klenk, N. & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017CrossRef Google Scholar

Krupnik, I., et al., (Eds.) (2011). Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges. International Polar Year 2007–2008. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of the Arctic. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: CCI Press (Printed Version) and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008. ISBN 978-1-896445-55-7.Google Scholar

Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., & von Wehrden, H. (2017). Bridging divides in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 12(6), 875–879. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0497-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Macaulay, A. C. (2017). Participatory research. What is the history? Has the purpose changed? Family Practice, 34(3), 256–258. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw117Google Scholar PubMed

Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001CrossRef Google Scholar

O’Brien, L., Marzano, M., & White, R. M. (2013). ‘Participatory interdisciplinarity’: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 51–61. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs120CrossRef Google Scholar

Pain, R. (2004). Social geography: Participatory research. Progress in Human Geography, 28(5), 652–663. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph511prCrossRef Google Scholar

Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43, 618–626. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.03.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014CrossRef Google Scholar

Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., … van Delden, H. (2017). A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26, 7–17. doi: 10.1111/rec.12541CrossRef Google Scholar

Summerhayes, C., Rachold, V., & Krupnik, I. (2011). Broadening the cross-disciplinary impact of IPY research. In Krupnik, I., et al. (Eds.), Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges. International Polar Year 2007–2008. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of the Arctic. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: CCI Press (Printed Version) and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008. ISBN 978-1-896445-55-7.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO (2014) 43, 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Thompson, M. A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J. M., Leonard, G. S., & Cronin, S. J. (2017). Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006CrossRef Google Scholar