Environmental Conservation 40 (1): 19–36
C
Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2012 doi:10.1017/S037689291200029X
Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for
environmental management
IOAN FAZEY
1 ∗
, ANNA C. EVELY
1
,MARKS.REED
2
, LINDSAY C. STRINGER
3
,
JOANNEKE KRUIJSEN
4
, PIRAN C. L. WHITE
5
, ANDREW NEWSHAM
6
, LIXIAN JIN
7
,
MARTIN CORTAZZI
8
, JEREMY PHILLIPSON
9
, KIRSTY BLACKSTOCK
10
,NOEL
ENTWISTLE
11
, WILLIAM SHEATE
12
, FIONA ARMSTRONG
13
, CHRIS BLACKMORE
14
,
JOHN FAZEY
15
, JULIE INGRAM
16
,JONGREGSON
17
,PHILIPLOWE
9
, SARAH MORTON
11
AND CHRIS TREVITT
18
1
School of Geography and Geosciences, North Street, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL, UK,
2
Aberdeen Centre for
Environment and Sustainability, Geography and Environment, School of Geosciences, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24
3UF, UK,
3
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK,
4
Robert Gordon
University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK,
5
Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK,
6
Climate
Change Team, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Falmer BN1 9RE, UK,
7
De Montfort University, Faculty of Health and
Life Sciences, Hawthorn Building, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK,
8
The Centre for Applied Linguistics, S1.74, Social Studies Building,
University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK,
9
Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU), Centre for Rural Economy, School of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK,
10
Social, Economic and Geographical
Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK,
11
University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge Edinburgh
EH8 9YL, UK,
12
Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK,
13
Economic and Social Research Council, Polaris
House, North Star Avenue, Swindon SN2 1UJ, UK,
14
The Open University, Department of Communication and Systems, Faculty of Mathematics,
Computing and Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall MK7 6AA, UK,
15
Ty’n Y Caeau Consultants, Tregarth, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57
4BD, UK,
16
University of Gloucestershire, The Park, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 2RH, UK,
17
Institute of Development Studies, Library
Road, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK, and
18
CEDAM, Chancelry 10T, Ellery Crescent, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200,
Australia
Date submitted: 24 March 2012; Date accepted: 9 July 2012; First published online: 24 September 2012
SUMMARY
There is increasing emphasis on the need for effective
ways of sharing knowledge to enhance environmental
management and sustainability. Knowledge exchange
(KE) are processes that generate, share and/or use
knowledge through various methods appropriate to
the context, purpose, and participants involved.
KE includes concepts such as sharing, generation,
coproduction, comanagement, and brokerage of
knowledge. This paper elicits the expert knowledge
of academics involved in research and practice of
KE from different disciplines and backgrounds to
review research themes, identify gaps and questions,
and develop a research agenda for furthering
understanding about KE. Results include 80 research
questions prefaced by a review of research themes.
Key conclusions are: (1) there is a diverse range of
questions relating to KE that require attention; (2)
there is a particular need for research on understanding
the process of KE and how KE can be evaluated;
and (3) given the strong interdependency of research
questions, an integrated approach to understanding KE
is required. To improve understanding of KE, action
research methodologies and embedding evaluation as
a normal part of KE research and practice need to be
encouraged. This will foster more adaptive approaches
∗
Correspondence: Dr Ioan Fazey e-mail: ioan.fazey@st-andrews.
ac.uk
to learning about KE and enhance effectiveness of
environmental management.
Keywords: adaptive comanagement, decision-making,
environmental management, evidence-based conservation,
knowledge exchange, knowledge management, knowledge
transfer, participation, research impact, social learning
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge, experience and learning are fundamental for
effective environmental management. Irrespective of its
origins, knowledge shapes decisions and implementation,
while the learning that occurs through research and practice
influences future action (Lee 1999; Salafsky et al. 2002; Fazey
et al. 2005a). Over the last two decades there has been an
acceleration of research in environmental management to
guide theory and practice (Fazey et al. 2005b; Lawler et al.
2006). But accumulation of knowledge and information is
not enough: the effectiveness of environmental management
depends greatly on how knowledge is exchanged, with whom
it is exchanged, and how it is used (Pullin & Knight 2001;
Cash et al. 2003; Francis & Goodman 2011). The importance
of knowledge exchange (KE) is increasingly being recognized
as key to facilitating social, environmental and economic
impact of research. This is seen in requirements for funding
applications to identify potential beneficiaries and strategies
and pathways to impact (Phillipson et al. 2012). Yet KE is often
seen as a tool rather than a complex and dynamic process with
many interpretations and uncertainties about what makes the
process effective and under what circumstances. This paper
20 I. Fazey et al.
Table 1 Some of the many terms used to describe processes of KE and implied meanings of these terms.
Term Implications
Knowledge generation Implies ‘new’ knowledge produced as an outcome of some form of process, but does not indicate the
nature of the process. It does not explain whether the ‘new’ knowledge is discrete from or a product
of past knowledge and experience
Coproduction of knowledge Implies a process where knowledge is or can be produced through interaction with others, possibly
with people with different perspectives and backgrounds, through cooperative endeavours and
mutual learning
Knowledge transfer Implies knowledge is portable, a linear direction, delivery and reception in a one-way process
Brokerage of knowledge Implies disputed knowledge, deliberation between different parties, and possibly mediation through a
third party to resolve dispute
Storage of knowledge Implies knowledge is portable and can be held in a form that can be accessed when needed
Knowledge exchange Implies a two- or multiple-path process with reciprocity and mutual benefits, maybe with multiple
learning, but not necessarily recognition of the equitable value of the different forms of knowledge
being exchanged
Knowledge sharing Implies a similar process to exchange, but possibly with greater recognition by those involved of the
value of the knowledge of those with whom they are sharing
Transformation of knowledge Implies changing the knowing or knowers towards a different state or condition in the process
Knowledge mobilization Implies eliciting or spreading knowledge to a wider range of recipients, possibly with the intent of
increased application of knowledge
Knowledge translation Implies communication using a mediated language modified for recipients
therefore highlights KE as a research topic in its own right that
is highly relevant to environmental management and identifies
a research agenda aimed at improving understanding of KE.
There are many definitions of knowledge and KE
(Bierly et al. 2000; Nonaka et al. 2000; Duchelle et al.
2009) and many different terms used to describe KE
processes. These include knowledge sharing, generation,
coproduction, comanagement; transfer, brokerage, storage,
exchange, transformation, mobilization, and translation
(Ward et al. 2009; Best & Holmes 2010). Use of these terms
is not arbitrary, with most involving metaphors with different
underlying propositions that lead to different practices
(Table 1, Lakoff & Johnson 1980; Cortazzi & Jin 1999).
A single concept or definition is unlikely to adequately
encompass all of these terms. Nevertheless, for the purposes
of this paper, they are generally referred to as knowledge
exchange, which we define as a process of generating, sharing,
and/or using knowledge through various methods appropriate
to the context, purpose, and participants involved.
There is extensive research on KE relevant to
environmental management in a wide range of fields
and disciplines, including business and organizational
management (Bierly et al. 2000; Argote et al. 2003; Dwivedi
et al. 2011), health studies (Graham et al. 2006; Davies
et al. 2008), international development (Blaikie et al.
1997; Campbell & Vainio-Mattila 2003; Cash et al. 2003),
political science (Nutley et al. 2010), environmental science,
agriculture and natural resource management (for example
Reed 2008; Blackstock et al. 2011; Sanchez & Morrison-
Saunders 2011). Education, linguistics, psychology, sociology
and the diffusion of innovations also provide highly relevant
insights into processes relating to KE, such as how people
learn, communicate, make decisions, and form beliefs
and cultures (Bloom et al. 1956; Rogers 1995; Valente
1996; Entwistle 2001; Bennett & Bennett 2003). Despite
increasing recognition of the importance of social practices,
interventions, and decision-making processes to enhance KE,
environmental management has had little engagement with
research on KE from other fields. Many aspects of KE are also
still poorly understood, such as how KE functions in different
contexts, which approaches are most effective, the kinds of
skills and processes required to facilitate them (Entwistle &
Smith 2002; Dwivedi et al. 2011) and how knowledge can be
best mobilized to encourage transitions towards sustainability
and environment related outcomes (Cash et al. 2003).
This paper has three main aims: (1) to provide a review of
existing literature from a wide range of academic disciplines
on KE; (2) to identify key research questions for addressing
key gaps in understanding about KE; and (3) to define
an integrated research agenda for enhancing understanding
about KE. To achieve these aims academics from different
disciplines and diverse backgrounds were brought together to
review and develop a shared interdisciplinary understanding
of the state-of-the-art of KE. This involved a number
of iterative steps, including a professionally facilitated
workshop. This paper describes the methodology, and then
presents a review of key focal research areas and associated
research questions, followed by an integrated research agenda
for enhancing understanding about KE in environmental
management.
METHODS
Participant selection
KE is a complex field of research that requires interdisciplinary
approaches to identify meaningful research questions and
research agendas. Given the challenges of working with
multiple perspectives and backgrounds, a moderately sized
group of 20 academic experts was chosen to explore the
Knowledge exchange for environmental management 21
Table 2 Expertise (in addition to
KE)ofeachofthetwenty
participants involved in the
elicitation process.
Expertise
Governance and stakeholder participation
Ecosystems and their management
Environmental impact assessment and sustainability
International development
Education, learning, adaptability, community development
Education and theories and practice of student learning
Education and learning, designing learning environments
Human-environment relationships, learning
Intercultural and inter-professional communication, cultures of learning and teaching
Stakeholder participation, sustainability
Participation and conservation
Environmental change and livelihoods
Knowledge exchange and research impact
Human geography and rural economies
Sociology of rural development, environmental policy analysis and land use planning
Impact of research on policy and society
Learning systems, environmental decision making, environmental ethics and responsibility
Technology diffusion and sustainability
Educational linguistics, cultural aspects of language learning
complexities of KE, with the size of the group aiming to
provide a balance of a diversity of perspectives and ability to
examine in-depth a range of material. ‘Expert’ knowledge was
chosen over ‘lay’ knowledge because this was an exercise to
clarify and understand a complex issue (in this case KE) rather
than being an exercise of public engagement aiming to make
decisions about ways forward to address an issue (Fazey et al.
2006).
Many of the participants had extensive experience in
the practice of KE and some had primary roles as KE
professionals. Nevertheless, the primary focus was selecting
participants with academic expertise for three key reasons.
First, there has been no comprehensive overview of research
requirements and gaps in the academic literature on
KE, and academic expertise was considered to be the
most relevant to addressing this issue. Second, it was
important to take a conceptual and strategic standpoint,
where broad questions across disciplines and application
areas were defined rather than identifying research questions
for a specific context, location or management issue to
which practice-based expertise would have been appropriate.
Finally, the approach needed to be manageable and balance
interdisciplinary breadth versus depth of investigation. The
approach was therefore bounded around academic expertise
to ensure that a meaningful research agenda could be
developed.
The 20 participants involved in this study were identified
through a review of published literature which discussed
different concepts about and research on KE (Evely et al.
2012). Selection criteria for participants were: (1) that they
needed to be directly involved in research and practice of KE;
and (2) have a minimum of 10 years of experience in their
respective fields, which is approximately the amount of time
it takes to develop characteristics typically displayed by an
expert (Bransford et al. 2000). The initial literature review
identified around 30 potential participants. Final decisions
about inclusion were therefore also based on ensuring a
breadth of expertise, mix of career seniority and gender, the
capacity of individuals to be able to work in an interdisciplinary
group and their availability (Table 2). All participants are
coauthorsofthispaper.
Eliciting expertise
In general, the methodology built on other approaches used
for setting research agendas in other fields of research (see
for example Hoffman 1998; Steffen et al. 2004). An iterative
process using ideas from Delphi methodologies (Glass et al.
2012) was used to elicit the expertise of participants. This
process ensured sufficient exploration of the complexities,
nuances and varied perspectives of KE before research
questions were identified. ‘Cold calling’ approaches (for
example, using questionnaires rather than face to face dialogue
and discussion) were unlikely to have provided sufficient
context, background, and opportunities for participants to
explore the many issues involved.
The methodology included a number of steps (Table 3).
First, two iterative rounds of preparatory questionnaires
were sent to participants prior to a two-day workshop
with the aim of helping them articulate their implicit
expertise and to position their own perspectives in relation
to that of others. Participants were then well prepared
for engaging in interdisciplinary discussions during the
next stage, which consisted of a two-day workshop led
by professional facilitators. In this workshop participants
outlined their current thinking about KE, explored concepts
and shared their experiences of KE in various exercises,
including a range of commonly used participatory techniques,
supplemented with the use of rich pictures from soft systems
modeling (Checkland 1998). These exercises aimed to help
participants explore in-depth what they understood KE to
be and the limits to knowledge about how KE works in
22 I. Fazey et al.
Table 3 Key stages of the research to elicit expertise and develop the research agenda.
Stage Aim Details
Preliminary questionnaire:
Round 1
To help participants articulate
their implicit expertise
about KE
Participants respond to a questionnaire that asked:
1. How would you define knowledge?
2. In what way do you think new knowledge is generated?
3. What do you think characterizes a knowledge exchange process?
4. What are the key questions needed to address to improve understanding of
how knowledge flows between people and organizations and how this flow
of knowledge can be enhanced?
Preliminary questionnaire:
Round 2
To enable participants to
position their own
understanding of KE in
relation to that of others
Participants respond to a questionnaire with questions about the extent to
which they agree or disagree (and why) with responses from others to
questions from the first round. Both sets of preliminary questionnaires
meant that participants were prepared for interdisciplinary dialogue prior to
the next phase, and provided background to those designing the workshop
Workshop: Initial stages Outline current thinking of
participants about their
understanding of KE
Participants explored the following questions:
1. What do you ‘think’ you know about knowledge exchange?
2. What don’t you know about knowledge exchange?
3. What are the current thinking, models and concepts in knowledge
exchange?
4. How do you think knowledge is held within a community of practice?
5. What do you think enhances learning and absorbing knowledge?
6. What do you think inhibits learning and knowledge exchange?
Workshop: Middle stages Various exercises to get
participants to think and
reflect on how they
understood KE and what
was generally known about
KE in different academic
fields of research
For example, exercises using ‘rich pictures’ methods (see Sorensen et al.
2010) to identify what individuals had learnt about KE from involvement in
past projects and group based exercises to build on this to design
conceptual models of KE
Workshop: Final stages To identify research questions
and key themes
Participants wrote research questions on post-its. These were organized into
groups/themes and discussed
Iterations to refine
research questions
Refine research questions Research questions and themes arising from the workshop were redrafted
(e.g. to improve clarity or remove duplicates) and sent out for two iterations
of comments by e-mail to all participants
Literature review To provide background to
different themes in which
the research questions were
presented and outline
current knowledge about
the theme
Participants who had the most appropriate expertise wrote introductory
sections to the different themed research questions. This was directed and
refined by the primary author based on the key gaps and other information
provided by the workshop data. The range of topics identified through the
research questions meant that not all material could be reviewed in-depth
(each would have been a separate research paper). The literature review
therefore provides a general overview of the theme, with selection of
material that was included being decided by the primary author of that
section with comments provided by other authors
Coding research questions To develop an integrated
research agenda
Research questions were coded into subtopics of key parts of the KE process
and broader themes. These were then discussed and agreed and resulted in
the integrated research agenda
order to provide background thinking before they identified
the research questions. The exercises were also designed to
elicit information to address aims that were beyond the scope
of this paper (for example, to produce a conceptual model
of KE). During the workshop, results from exercises were
collated in different ways, such as through direct writing
of information by participants on sheets/post-its, through
written short reports, or diagrams/schemes.
Towards the end of the workshop, participants were asked
to identify key research questions. These were sorted into
themes. The list was refined and finalized by participants
in two additional iterations by e-mail. Participants then
contributed to writing short reviews of each theme under
direction of the primary author. The themes to be reviewed
emerged inductively from the questions, but the literature
reviewed was influenced by the expertise of those who
contributed to different sections, with moderation and
direction by the primary author to ensure that it focused on
the key issues that emerged from the workshop. The literature
presented in this paper is therefore a guide or preface to the
themes rather than specifically a ‘result’ of the process. Finally,
to develop a more specific research agenda for KE, the research
questions were coded into subtopics and in relation to four
different stages of a KE process and to two additional broader
Knowledge exchange for environmental management 23
themes. The end result was a list of specific sub-topics of
research under six focal research areas.
RESULTS
Experts’ perspectives of what constitutes KE
It was clear during the workshop that the way participants
perceived knowledge and KE influenced the kinds of research
questions elicited. It is therefore helpful to understand
the general ways participants conceptualized and framed
KE. Participants’ perspectives about KE highlighted the
multi-faceted nature of KE with a diverse range of social
process, contextual influences and challenges to effective
implementation. Despite different views about some of the
details, there was considerable general agreement about what
it involved. Conceptualizations were similar to how KE was
often defined in the literature (for example Bierly et al.
2000; Nonaka et al. 2000) with participants’ responses to the
questions in the initial stages of the workshop often expressing
the following:
r
KE is generally a process of individual or social learning
within or between groups of individuals;
r
the process of KE can be unidirectional, but to be more
effective, KE needs to be seen to be a multidirectional
process that involves the coproduction of knowledge;
r
viewing knowledge as something that can be passed around
in inert form through traditional processes of ‘transfer’ is
outmoded and does not reflect what is known about how
knowledge is constructed and shared;
r
viewing knowledge as fixed or inert, no matter who
exchanges it, how it is exchanged, or in whichever context
is problematic. Such a view does not reflect relatively
common and accepted understandings of researchers on
knowledge about how it is constructed and shared;
r
KE is very significantly influenced by a range of contextual
factors including political and social considerations, power
relationships, the status of individuals, and what the process
aims to achieve;
r
outcomes of KE can be wide ranging, from the generation
of information that can be shared, individual learning,
enhanced cohesion and trust, empowerment, participation,
ownership and responsibility for decision-making, and
flattening of hierarchies between individuals and groups;
r
outcomes depend on a range of individual factors, such as
how people internalize knowledge, the skills of facilitators
of KE, and past experience, expertise and background; and
r
outcomes depend greatly on how KE is defined, how goals
are identified, and projects implemented.
Key research themes and questions
Participants identified a wide range of research questions
and themes (Table 4). We reviewed each research theme’s
relationship to the associated research questions.
Defining and conceptualizing KE
There is a multitude of definitions, perspectives, concepts
and models of knowledge and how people acquire knowledge
(Bierly et al. 2000; Hofer 2000; Nonaka et al. 2000; Evely et al.
2008; Trevitt 2008; Evely et al. 2012)). Such perspectives
have profound impacts on a whole range of individuals’
activities, such as reasoning, perspectives on what counts
as evidence, how people relate to and manage complex
problems, and their capacities for learning (Hofer 2000;
Fazey 2010). Importantly, how people perceive or define
‘knowledge’ also influences how KE processes are designed
and implemented (Evely et al. 2012). Understanding the
relationship between such perspectives and their implications
for effective implementation of KE is therefore important.
For example, viewing knowledge as something explicit that
can be passed between people tends to result in traditional
processes of dissemination where the ‘facts’ are communicated
to different groups. ‘Transmissive’ perspectives of knowledge
tend to maintain the existing status of those involved
(for example external conservation expert versus indigenous
knowledge) and fails to recognize the complexities of the
learning processes in knowledge sharing (such as how cultural
background influences what is understood, learnt and shared).
At the other extreme, viewing knowledge as a more complex,
iterative process of reflection, experiential learning, making
implicit knowledge explicit and internalizing the results of
a process of sharing knowledge with others, tends to lead to
approaches that emphasize the coproduction of knowledge and
more adaptive forms of learning (see for example Armitage
et al. 2008; Sheate & Partidário 2010). Such approaches
recognize the existence of multiple perspectives and different
forms of knowledge, and require continuous attempts to learn
from and understand others; these approaches are more likely
to lead to adaptive forms of environmental management and
longer lasting or more effective outcomes (Reed 2008; Evely
et al. 2012). Therefore, while all models of knowledge and KE
will be useful in some contexts, important questions about
how perspectives of knowledge and KE influence the process
and outcomes of KE and environmental management remain
(Questions 1–7, Table 4).
Evaluating KE
Environmental research and practice almost always involves
some form of exchange of knowledge or information, whether
this is a presentation at a conference or more sophisticated and
extensive processes of community engagement and decision-
making. Whatever the form of KE, specific approaches are
usually employed to achieve specific outcomes. For example,
the Wensum Alliance, a catchment management programme
in the UK (http://www.wensumalliance.org.uk/), aimed to
reduce impacts of agricultural diffuse water pollution on
ecosystem function while maintaining food security. Multiple
on-farm measures were implemented across whole river
catchments using local expertise to solve local problems. A
key aspect of the work aimed to engage the wider public,
and thus open day events were used as an approach to