Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda

Author:

Eaton Weston M.ORCID,Burnham MoreyORCID,Robertson Tahnee,Arbuckle J. G.ORCID,Brasier Kathryn J.ORCID,Burbach Mark E.ORCID,Church Sarah P.ORCID,Hart-Fredeluces Georgia,Jackson-Smith DouglasORCID,Wildermuth Grace,Canfield Katherine N.ORCID,Córdova S. CarolinaORCID,Chatelain Casey D.,Fowler Lara B.,Hendawy Mennatullah Mohamed Zein elAbdeen,Kirchhoff Christine J.,Manheim Marisa K.,Martinez Rubén O.ORCID,Mook Anne,Mullin Cristina A.ORCID,Murrah-Hanson A. Laurie,Onabola Christiana O.ORCID,Parker Lauren E.ORCID,Redd Elizabeth A.,Schelly Chelsea,Schoon Michael L.ORCID,Sigler W. AdamORCID,Smit Emily,van Huysen Tiff,Worosz Michelle R.ORCID,Eberly Carrie,Rogers Andi

Abstract

AbstractParticipatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.

Funder

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Urban Studies,Geography, Planning and Development,Nature and Landscape Conservation

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3