9 Knowledge Exchange at Science-Policy Interfaces …
181
and informal contacts that may render knowledge exchange non-transparent. Reed
et al. (2014: 340 et seq.) have indicated that adequate funding resources and time
for knowledge exchange have to be included directly in the research design if the
exchange is to be effective; this corresponds to our findings.
Aside from the barriers, the interviews revealed several opportunities for knowledge exchange. Some of these related explicitly to the Swiss situation. Interviewees considered the small expert community in Switzerland, where people know
each other and communication paths are short, to be an opportunity for knowledge
exchange. Similarly, the Swiss system of federalism, which produces a wide range
of spatial planning solutions, facilitates learning about other cantons or even other
language areas. Informal contacts and networks were also identified as opportunities
for knowledge exchange. This corroborates findings by Reed et al. (2014: 341), who
found that informal exchange between scientists and other actors were crucial for
effective knowledge exchange. Another important factor in the facilitation of knowledge exchange was motivation and openness to new, different experiences among the
actors involved. However, it also became clear that the Swiss system of federalism,
the different language areas and informal networks could also serve as barriers to
knowledge exchange.
9.7 Conclusions
Swiss actors in spatial planning, land use and soil management exchange knowledge
in many different ways, corresponding to a variety of different concepts from the literature. Most of the actors use more than one way of exchanging knowledge, but they
nevertheless exchange knowledge differently depending on the decision situation, the
context or person they work with. A given actor might facilitate knowledge transfer
as a knowledge advocate, but may also organise participatory and transdisciplinary
processes of knowledge development and use.
In practice, multiple types of knowledge exchange occur at the same time and in
parallel. Moreover, different situations, contexts and actors require different types of
exchanging knowledge. Associated with these overlaps is the fact that actors have
different expectations about knowledge exchange and bring in different understandings of what knowledge exchange is. Our article clearly confirms that knowledge
exchange can be understood differently (e.g. to coproduce knowledge, to accompany research projects, to retrieve knowledge) and thus functions differently as well.
Balancing different expectations and types of knowledge exchange is the crucial
challenge to successfully exchanging knowledge.
We have shown that there are specific factors that impede knowledge exchange,
including philosophical divides, differences in perspectives, a lack of links between
actors and a lack of resources. Working to break down these barriers as well as
making use of the opportunities for knowledge exchange will help Swiss scientists
and policymakers improve knowledge exchange in the fields of spatial planning, land
use and soil management.
181
and informal contacts that may render knowledge exchange non-transparent. Reed
et al. (2014: 340 et seq.) have indicated that adequate funding resources and time
for knowledge exchange have to be included directly in the research design if the
exchange is to be effective; this corresponds to our findings.
Aside from the barriers, the interviews revealed several opportunities for knowledge exchange. Some of these related explicitly to the Swiss situation. Interviewees considered the small expert community in Switzerland, where people know
each other and communication paths are short, to be an opportunity for knowledge
exchange. Similarly, the Swiss system of federalism, which produces a wide range
of spatial planning solutions, facilitates learning about other cantons or even other
language areas. Informal contacts and networks were also identified as opportunities
for knowledge exchange. This corroborates findings by Reed et al. (2014: 341), who
found that informal exchange between scientists and other actors were crucial for
effective knowledge exchange. Another important factor in the facilitation of knowledge exchange was motivation and openness to new, different experiences among the
actors involved. However, it also became clear that the Swiss system of federalism,
the different language areas and informal networks could also serve as barriers to
knowledge exchange.
9.7 Conclusions
Swiss actors in spatial planning, land use and soil management exchange knowledge
in many different ways, corresponding to a variety of different concepts from the literature. Most of the actors use more than one way of exchanging knowledge, but they
nevertheless exchange knowledge differently depending on the decision situation, the
context or person they work with. A given actor might facilitate knowledge transfer
as a knowledge advocate, but may also organise participatory and transdisciplinary
processes of knowledge development and use.
In practice, multiple types of knowledge exchange occur at the same time and in
parallel. Moreover, different situations, contexts and actors require different types of
exchanging knowledge. Associated with these overlaps is the fact that actors have
different expectations about knowledge exchange and bring in different understandings of what knowledge exchange is. Our article clearly confirms that knowledge
exchange can be understood differently (e.g. to coproduce knowledge, to accompany research projects, to retrieve knowledge) and thus functions differently as well.
Balancing different expectations and types of knowledge exchange is the crucial
challenge to successfully exchanging knowledge.
We have shown that there are specific factors that impede knowledge exchange,
including philosophical divides, differences in perspectives, a lack of links between
actors and a lack of resources. Working to break down these barriers as well as
making use of the opportunities for knowledge exchange will help Swiss scientists
and policymakers improve knowledge exchange in the fields of spatial planning, land
use and soil management.