Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization

The relationship between forest research, its producers and forest policy is extremely complex. While there is a growing body of work about the role of university research in informing forest policy, comparatively little attention has been paid to government science in forestry. This paper describes the characteristics of government science and explores how it informs forest policy using the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Canada, as a case study. A close and effective relationship was found between scientists and policy developers/analysts where the OMNR was legally required to engage in scientific research to inform the development of guidelines and associated evaluation processes. Other factors that contributed to an effective use of research in the development of policy included the active engagement of policy developers/analysts in the design of projects using "policies as hypotheses" within an adaptive forest management framework. While our results suggest that government science at the OMNR has effectively addressed many of the policy risks associated with forest management, it can also generate risks where government science challenges the strategic directions set by forest policy in response to societal values. Another associated risk is that publicly-funded research will result in "irrelevant" knowledge in the context of current policies. These risks are difficult to manage and can affect relationships. Nevertheless, the OMNR will need to continue taking calculated risks to effectively monitor the dynamic relationship between forests, policy and society into the future.

[1]  J Lomas,et al.  Diffusion, Dissemination, and Implementation: Who Should Do What? , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Fred H. Everest,et al.  Working with knowledge at the science/policy interface: a unique example from developing the Tongass Land Management Plan , 2000 .

[3]  Gerben Janse,et al.  Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision-makers , 2006 .

[4]  C. Konijnendijk,et al.  Enhancing the Forest Science-Policy Interface in Europe: Urban Forestry Showing the Way , 2004 .

[5]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Large‐Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing , 1990 .

[6]  Wim Wiewel,et al.  Collaborative research: Harnessing the tensions between researcher and practitioner , 1992 .

[7]  David J. Webber.  Legislators' Use of Policy Information , 1987 .

[8]  Michel Callon,et al.  Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993 , 1994 .

[9]  D. J. Webber,et al.  The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process , 1991 .

[10]  R. Grundmann.  The role of expertise in governance processes , 2009 .

[11]  Réjean Landry,et al.  The Extent and Determinants of the Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2003 .

[12]  Robert F. Rich,et al.  Explaining use of information in public policymaking , 1996 .

[13]  Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.  Science and trans-science. , 1972 .

[14]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis , 2008 .

[15]  Nathan Caplan,et al.  The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization , 1979 .

[16]  Nicole Klenk.  Listening to the Birds: A Pragmatic Proposal for Forestry , 2008 .

[17]  S. Ospina,et al.  Narrative Inquiry and the Search for Connectedness: Practitioners and Academics Developing Public Administration Scholarship , 2005 .

[18]  Hanna J. Cortner,et al.  Making science relevant to environmental policy , 2000 .

[19]  C. Weiss.  The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[20]  Peter Mayer,et al.  Forest Science-Policy Interface in the Context of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe: A Policy Perspective , 2004 .

[21]  Jack H. Knott,et al.  If Dissemination Is the Solution, What Is the Problem ? , 1980 .

[22]  S. Ospina,et al.  It's About Time: Catching Method Up to Meaning—The Usefulness of Narrative Inquiry in Public Administration Research , 2005 .

[23]  Robert Nasi,et al.  The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community , 2006 .

[24]  E. Lindquist.  Discerning policy influence : framework for a strategic evaluation of IDRC - supported research , 2001 .

[25]  J Lomas,et al.  Research and evidence–based decision making , 1997, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[26]  Gerben Janse,et al.  Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe — A survey on both sides of the science/policy interface , 2008 .

[27]  Charles E. Lindblom,et al.  The Policy-Making Process , 1968 .

[28]  Richard W. Guldin,et al.  Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future , 2003 .

[29]  John L. Innes,et al.  The incorporation of research into attempts to improve forest policy in British Columbia , 2003 .

[30]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Judgment Under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy , 2005 .

[31]  Keith M. Reynolds,et al.  The science/policy interface in logic-based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability , 2003 .

[32]  L. Salter,et al.  Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards , 1988 .

[33]  Réjean Landry,et al.  Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada , 2001 .

[34]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Regulatory science—Towards a sociological framework☆ , 1997 .

[35]  Gerald Keller,et al.  Statistics for Management and Economics , 1990 .

[36]  G. Buttoud.  How can policy take into consideration the “full value” of forests? , 2000 .

[37]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[38]  Insider Perspectives on Institutional Change in Contemporary British Forestry: Identity and Environmental Governance , 2008 .

[39]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[40]  Robert F. Rich,et al.  The Pursuit of Knowledge , 1979 .

[41]  Lorraine Code.  What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge , 1991 .

[42]  A. Kantorovich.  Sociology of the sciences , 1982 .

[43]  Government Laboratories - Transition and Transformation , 2001 .

[44]  A. Pross,et al.  Renewing nature's wealth : a centennial history of the public management of lands, forests & wildlife in Ontario, 1763-1967 , 1967 .

[45]  R. Clark,et al.  Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making , 2001 .

[46]  Paul V. Ellefson,et al.  Integrating science and policy development: case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests , 2000 .

[47]  F. Carden.  Issues in assessing the policy influence of research , 2004 .

[48]  M. Krott,et al.  Voicing interests and concerns: institutional framework and agencies for forest policy research in Europe , 2002 .

[49]  James W. Dearing,et al.  Portraying the New: Communication Between University Innovators and Potential Users , 1994 .

[50]  Fritz Machlup,et al.  Knowledge : its creation, distribution, and economic significance , 1980 .

[51]  D. Norse,et al.  Links between science and policy making , 2000 .

[52]  Nabil Amara,et al.  New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies , 2004 .

[53]  James C. Scott,et al.  Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed , 1999 .

[54]  Ruud Smits,et al.  In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society , 2009 .

[55]  Réjean Landry,et al.  The Extent and Organizational Determinants of Research Utilization in Canadian Health Services Organizations , 2007 .

[56]  S. Ospina,et al.  Integrating Rigor and Relevance in Public Administration Scholarship: The Contribution of Narrative Inquiry , 2005 .

[57]  C. Weiss,et al.  TRUTH TESTS AND UTILITY TESTS: DECISION-MAKERS' FRAMES OF REFERENCE FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH* , 1980 .