250
S. Rogga
directly to society, i.e. scientific evidence that led to concrete action being taken by
decision makers in line with the authors of the study.
The case of the ozone layer is often cited when addressing the potential societal
impact induced by research. The science-practice transfer, which appears as a straight
path in our example, is rather diffuse and acts in a permeable environment at the
intersection of science and society in which information is shared, reassembled and
re-evaluated. What appears to be an action arena that is too complex to steer, or even
to fully understand, is an upcoming field of investigation for scientific action that
aspires to bring about societal effects as a result of the research undertaken. To be
clear from the outset: science-to-practice transfer cannot be conducted and planned
to the full extent. This is especially true for contested policy arenas, within areas of
high scientific uncertainty, and areas of application involving a variety of actors. It is
nonetheless possible to design science-policy interfaces that increase the likelihood
of science results being adopted by societal actors. But how should such interfaces
be designed in the field of sustainable research?
In this chapter, I seek to reframe the science-society interface in sustainable land
management (SLM). The result is not a “how-to manual”, but rather a framework
for initiating and guiding SLM processes with a focus on the transfer of knowledge.
SLM encompasses a purposeful process of managing land use and development by
integrating scientific and practical knowledge. From my perspective, SLM embraces
project-based research processes in which actors from practice and academia form a
project consortium for a certain period with the common goal of achieving the more
sustainable use of land resources. As such, SLM project partners form an alliance
that proactively seeks to intervene in the highly regulated field of land use. I refer
to these proactive intervention measures as transfer and implementation (T&I),
despite a variety of related terms, including diffusion, impact or outreach.
T&I is applied in a wide variety of contexts such as political science, information
technology and other domains. Nevertheless, this chapter will show that T&I, as a
conceptual pair of terms, is ideal for supporting the framework for that particular
area of SLM practice that receives greater attention as research is increasingly asked
to “perform” with a higher societal impact. Besides the societal performance aspect,
I also apply T&I as guiding principles for transdisciplinary processes. In doing so,
I take into account the fact that T&I activities in SLM encompass more than a
sole compilation of artefacts (i.e. books, reports and software) that are gathered and
compiled at the end of a project cycle. Thus, I seek to transcend the prevalent practice
that Cash (2006) calls the “loading dock paradigm” of transfer.
The “loading dock” is a metaphor for a location or deposit where scientific results
are stored for the one-way transfer of results from science to other areas of society.
These results, often peppered with scientific jargon and offering limited opportunity
for feedback, are indeed generally available to everybody (unless they are hidden
behind paywalls), but do not specifically address non-scientific target audiences. In
addition, the “loading dock” oversimplifies the complex intersectional network that
emerges in the transition area between science and society, which leads to a linear,
causal understanding of how knowledge transfer actually works (ibid.).
S. Rogga
directly to society, i.e. scientific evidence that led to concrete action being taken by
decision makers in line with the authors of the study.
The case of the ozone layer is often cited when addressing the potential societal
impact induced by research. The science-practice transfer, which appears as a straight
path in our example, is rather diffuse and acts in a permeable environment at the
intersection of science and society in which information is shared, reassembled and
re-evaluated. What appears to be an action arena that is too complex to steer, or even
to fully understand, is an upcoming field of investigation for scientific action that
aspires to bring about societal effects as a result of the research undertaken. To be
clear from the outset: science-to-practice transfer cannot be conducted and planned
to the full extent. This is especially true for contested policy arenas, within areas of
high scientific uncertainty, and areas of application involving a variety of actors. It is
nonetheless possible to design science-policy interfaces that increase the likelihood
of science results being adopted by societal actors. But how should such interfaces
be designed in the field of sustainable research?
In this chapter, I seek to reframe the science-society interface in sustainable land
management (SLM). The result is not a “how-to manual”, but rather a framework
for initiating and guiding SLM processes with a focus on the transfer of knowledge.
SLM encompasses a purposeful process of managing land use and development by
integrating scientific and practical knowledge. From my perspective, SLM embraces
project-based research processes in which actors from practice and academia form a
project consortium for a certain period with the common goal of achieving the more
sustainable use of land resources. As such, SLM project partners form an alliance
that proactively seeks to intervene in the highly regulated field of land use. I refer
to these proactive intervention measures as transfer and implementation (T&I),
despite a variety of related terms, including diffusion, impact or outreach.
T&I is applied in a wide variety of contexts such as political science, information
technology and other domains. Nevertheless, this chapter will show that T&I, as a
conceptual pair of terms, is ideal for supporting the framework for that particular
area of SLM practice that receives greater attention as research is increasingly asked
to “perform” with a higher societal impact. Besides the societal performance aspect,
I also apply T&I as guiding principles for transdisciplinary processes. In doing so,
I take into account the fact that T&I activities in SLM encompass more than a
sole compilation of artefacts (i.e. books, reports and software) that are gathered and
compiled at the end of a project cycle. Thus, I seek to transcend the prevalent practice
that Cash (2006) calls the “loading dock paradigm” of transfer.
The “loading dock” is a metaphor for a location or deposit where scientific results
are stored for the one-way transfer of results from science to other areas of society.
These results, often peppered with scientific jargon and offering limited opportunity
for feedback, are indeed generally available to everybody (unless they are hidden
behind paywalls), but do not specifically address non-scientific target audiences. In
addition, the “loading dock” oversimplifies the complex intersectional network that
emerges in the transition area between science and society, which leads to a linear,
causal understanding of how knowledge transfer actually works (ibid.).