TY - JOUR
T1 - Organisational influence on the co-production of fire science
T2 - overcoming challenges and realising opportunities
AU - Glenn, Evora
AU - Yung, Laurie
AU - Wyborn, Carina
AU - Williams, Daniel R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of IAWF.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Addressing the challenges of wildland fire requires that fire science be relevant to management and integrated into management decisions. Co-production is often touted as a process that can increase the utility of science for management, by involving scientists and managers in knowledge creation and problem solving. Despite the documented benefits of co-production, these efforts face a number of institutional barriers. Further research is needed on how to institutionalise support and incentivise co-production. To better understand how research organisations enable and constrain co-production, this study examined seven co-produced wildland fire projects associated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), through in-depth interviews with scientists, managers and community members. Results provide insights into how organisational structures and cultures influence the co-production of fire science. Research organisations like RMRS may be able to institutionalise co-production by adjusting the way they incentivise and evaluate researchers, increasing investment in science delivery and scientific personnel overall, and supplying long-term funding to support time-intensive collaborations. These sorts of structural changes could help transform the culture of fire science so that coproduction is valued alongside more conventional scientific activities and products.
AB - Addressing the challenges of wildland fire requires that fire science be relevant to management and integrated into management decisions. Co-production is often touted as a process that can increase the utility of science for management, by involving scientists and managers in knowledge creation and problem solving. Despite the documented benefits of co-production, these efforts face a number of institutional barriers. Further research is needed on how to institutionalise support and incentivise co-production. To better understand how research organisations enable and constrain co-production, this study examined seven co-produced wildland fire projects associated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), through in-depth interviews with scientists, managers and community members. Results provide insights into how organisational structures and cultures influence the co-production of fire science. Research organisations like RMRS may be able to institutionalise co-production by adjusting the way they incentivise and evaluate researchers, increasing investment in science delivery and scientific personnel overall, and supplying long-term funding to support time-intensive collaborations. These sorts of structural changes could help transform the culture of fire science so that coproduction is valued alongside more conventional scientific activities and products.
KW - actionable science
KW - co-production
KW - collaboration
KW - research organisations
KW - science-management interface
KW - science-policy interface
KW - translation
KW - wildfire social science
KW - wildland fire
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85128975235&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1071/WF21079
DO - 10.1071/WF21079
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85128975235
SN - 1049-8001
VL - 31
SP - 435
EP - 448
JO - International Journal of Wildland Fire
JF - International Journal of Wildland Fire
IS - 4
ER -