172
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
demand that can be met by a one-way transfer process. Knowledge demand,
for example, occurs when policymakers approach scientists with a question the
researchers can answer promptly (e.g. on the phone).
Type 1.2: Direct knowledge transfer from a supply perspective. This embraces
knowledge transfer by researchers who disseminate their results not only via scientific
journals, but in ways that also address policymakers directly. We understand this as
knowledge transfer coming from a supply perspective, because the scientists impart
their findings unasked.
Type 1.3: Indirect knowledge transfer from a supply perspective. This describes
indirect knowledge transfer via publications that scientists or policymakers supply.
This subtype includes, e.g. popular articles in newspapers, the trade press or
factsheets, or scientific reports published by scientists or policymakers.
9.4.2 Type 2: Knowledge Transfer Support
The knowledge exchange type of “knowledge transfer support” is characterised by
one-way transfer processes between science and policymaking enabled by boundary
organisations or individual knowledge advocates. We established four subtypes.
Type 2.1: Direct knowledge transfer supported by boundary organisations. In
this type, scientists and policymakers are in direct contact; knowledge transfer is
supported, e.g. by universities within final presentations of research projects.
Type 2.2: Indirect knowledge transfer supported by boundary organisations. This
indicates that scientists and policymakers do not meet or communicate directly;
knowledge transfer is enabled by boundary organisations that are involved in science
dissemination activities.
Type 2.3: Knowledge transfer supported by knowledge advocates. Here, individual advocates are understood to support knowledge transfer from science to policymaking or from policymaking to science in one-way processes, e.g. scientists who
send publications directly to policymakers.
Type 2.4: Awareness-raising activities. These encompass events, excursions,
marketing campaigns and publications to raise awareness regarding challenges in
spatial planning, land use and soil management; they are organised by boundary
organisations or individual knowledge advocates. This way, scientific and expert
knowledge is transferred to policymakers and laypeople. This subtype shows features
of all the other subtypes of “knowledge transfer support”.
9.4.3 Type 3: Knowledge Exchange
“Knowledge exchange” describes knowledge exchange where dialogues or other
interaction between actors from science and policymaking takes place. Here, knowledge is exchanged reciprocally. However, the kind of knowledge that science
M. Pütz and R. Brassel
demand that can be met by a one-way transfer process. Knowledge demand,
for example, occurs when policymakers approach scientists with a question the
researchers can answer promptly (e.g. on the phone).
Type 1.2: Direct knowledge transfer from a supply perspective. This embraces
knowledge transfer by researchers who disseminate their results not only via scientific
journals, but in ways that also address policymakers directly. We understand this as
knowledge transfer coming from a supply perspective, because the scientists impart
their findings unasked.
Type 1.3: Indirect knowledge transfer from a supply perspective. This describes
indirect knowledge transfer via publications that scientists or policymakers supply.
This subtype includes, e.g. popular articles in newspapers, the trade press or
factsheets, or scientific reports published by scientists or policymakers.
9.4.2 Type 2: Knowledge Transfer Support
The knowledge exchange type of “knowledge transfer support” is characterised by
one-way transfer processes between science and policymaking enabled by boundary
organisations or individual knowledge advocates. We established four subtypes.
Type 2.1: Direct knowledge transfer supported by boundary organisations. In
this type, scientists and policymakers are in direct contact; knowledge transfer is
supported, e.g. by universities within final presentations of research projects.
Type 2.2: Indirect knowledge transfer supported by boundary organisations. This
indicates that scientists and policymakers do not meet or communicate directly;
knowledge transfer is enabled by boundary organisations that are involved in science
dissemination activities.
Type 2.3: Knowledge transfer supported by knowledge advocates. Here, individual advocates are understood to support knowledge transfer from science to policymaking or from policymaking to science in one-way processes, e.g. scientists who
send publications directly to policymakers.
Type 2.4: Awareness-raising activities. These encompass events, excursions,
marketing campaigns and publications to raise awareness regarding challenges in
spatial planning, land use and soil management; they are organised by boundary
organisations or individual knowledge advocates. This way, scientific and expert
knowledge is transferred to policymakers and laypeople. This subtype shows features
of all the other subtypes of “knowledge transfer support”.
9.4.3 Type 3: Knowledge Exchange
“Knowledge exchange” describes knowledge exchange where dialogues or other
interaction between actors from science and policymaking takes place. Here, knowledge is exchanged reciprocally. However, the kind of knowledge that science