Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:54:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tell us how to engage you! Asking polar stakeholders about their engagement preferences

Part of: Celebrating IPY Education, Outreach and Engagement – 10 years on

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2019

Kristina C. Baer Open the ORCID record for Kristina C. Baer [Opens in a new window] ,
Kirsi Latola  and
Annette J. M. Scheepstra
Kristina C. Baer*
Affiliation:
Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
Kirsi Latola
Affiliation:
Thule Institute, University of Oulu, PO Box 7300, FI-90014 Oulu, Finland
Annette J. M. Scheepstra
Affiliation:
Arctic Centre, University of Groningen, Aweg 30, PO Box 716, 9700 AS Groningen, the Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Kristina C. Baer, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The changes the polar regions face are too complex to be tackled by single scientific disciplines and in isolation from societal actors. Therefore, the call for polar research projects that engage with stakeholders outside academia increases. The ideal set-up of these projects is envisioned as an inclusive and action-oriented process that brings scientists and stakeholders together to identify pressing issues of societal and scientific relevance and to develop research projects that produce practical outcomes. However, working across disciplines and knowledge systems can be challenging. To better understand stakeholders’ motivation for engaging in polar science projects, to learn what stages of a project they are interested in and what their preferred modes of engagement are, stakeholders were surveyed as part of the EU-funded project EU-PolarNet. The results suggest that while most academic survey participants are eager to participate from problem definition to dissemination of results, most non-academic survey participants preferred interaction at the stages when results were disseminated and used for informed decision-making. The survey results have their limitations, yet they provide a basis for important future approaches to stakeholder engagement in polar research projects. They show that stakeholders prefer to engage in different stages of a research project depending on their specific needs and interests, while also acknowledging that additional support may be required to enable meaningful engagement throughout the research process.

Keywords

Stakeholder engagementParticipation preferencesCollaboration
Type
Research Note
Information
Polar Record , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 245 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arctic Council. (2013). Taking stock of adaptation programs in the Arctic. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/1630Google Scholar
Arctic Science Ministerial (AMS). (2016). Joint Statement of Ministers. On the occasion of the first White House Arctic Science Ministerial, Washington, DC, USA. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/28/joint-statement-ministersGoogle Scholar
Arctic Science Ministerial (AMS). (2018). Joint Statement of Ministers. On the occasion of the second Arctic Science Ministerial, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://www.iarpccollaborations.org/uploads/cms/documents/asm-2-joint-statement.pdf.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225Google Scholar
Bieluch, K. H., Bell, K. P., Teisl, M. F., Lindenfeld, L. A., Leahy, J., & Silka, L. (2017). Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science. An examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustainability Science, 12(1), 87–104. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0360-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, L. J., Bulkeley, H. A., & Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research. Understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1291–1308. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2014.921596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. D. & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry. Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 277–294. doi: 10.1177/002188638301900306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, N. D., Hickey, G. M., & Humphries, M. M. (2014). The evolution of local participation and the mode of knowledge production in Arctic research. Ecology and Society, 19(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunet, N. D., Hickey, G. M., & Humphries, M. M. (2016). Local participation and partnership development in Canada’s Arctic research. Challenges and opportunities in an age of empowerment and self-determination. Polar Record, 52(3), 345–359. doi: 10.1017/S003224741500090XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU-PolarNet. (2016). Deliverable 4.5. A Stakeholder Map. Retrieved from https://www.eu-polarnet.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/www.eu-polarnet.eu/Members_documents/Deliverables/WP4/EU-PolarNet_D4_5_A_stakeholder_map.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2006). FP7 – Tomorrow’s answers start today. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp7-factsheets_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2013). Fact sheet Science with and for Society in Horizon 2020. Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/FactSheet_Science_with_and_for_Society.pdfGoogle Scholar
Evengård, B., Nymand Larsen, J., & Paasche, Ø. (2015). The New Arctic. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17602-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. D., Stephenson, E., Cunsolo Willox, A., Edge, V., Farahbakhsh, K., Furgal, C., … Sherman, M. (2016). Community-based adaptation research in the Canadian Arctic. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(2), 175–191. doi: 10.1002/wcc.376Google ScholarPubMed
Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic change, 128(3–4), 201–214. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1225-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groß, M. & Stauffacher, M. (2014). Transdisciplinary environmental science: Problem-oriented projects and strategic research programs. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 39(4), 299–306. doi: 10.1179/0308018814Z.00000000093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, F. & Lyon, F. (2013). Transdisciplinary environmental research: Building trust across professional cultures. Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolibert, C. & Wesselink, A. (2012). Research impacts and impact on research in biodiversity conservation: The influence of stakeholder engagement. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 100–111. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jönsson, A. M. & Swarling, Å. G. (2014). Reflections on science-stakeholder interactions in climate change adaptation research within Swedish forestry. Society and Nature Resources, 27, 1130–1144. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.906013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klenk, N. & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupnik, I., et al., (Eds.) (2011). Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges. International Polar Year 2007–2008. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of the Arctic. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: CCI Press (Printed Version) and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008. ISBN 978-1-896445-55-7.Google Scholar
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., & von Wehrden, H. (2017). Bridging divides in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 12(6), 875–879. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0497-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, A. C. (2017). Participatory research. What is the history? Has the purpose changed? Family Practice, 34(3), 256–258. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw117Google ScholarPubMed
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, L., Marzano, M., & White, R. M. (2013). ‘Participatory interdisciplinarity’: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 51–61. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pain, R. (2004). Social geography: Participatory research. Progress in Human Geography, 28(5), 652–663. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph511prCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43, 618–626. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner-Ries, D., … van Delden, H. (2017). A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology, 26, 7–17. doi: 10.1111/rec.12541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerhayes, C., Rachold, V., & Krupnik, I. (2011). Broadening the cross-disciplinary impact of IPY research. In Krupnik, I., et al. (Eds.), Understanding Earth’s Polar Challenges. International Polar Year 2007–2008. Rovaniemi, Finland: University of the Arctic. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: CCI Press (Printed Version) and ICSU/WMO Joint Committee for International Polar Year 2007–2008. ISBN 978-1-896445-55-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO (2014) 43, 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, M. A., Owen, S., Lindsay, J. M., Leonard, G. S., & Cronin, S. J. (2017). Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 30–39. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar