| Title |
Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sustainability Science, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. T. Bednarek, C. Wyborn, C. Cvitanovic, R. Meyer, R. M. Colvin, P. F. E. Addison, S. L. Close, K. Curran, M. Farooque, E. Goldman, D. Hart, H. Mannix, B. McGreavy, A. Parris, S. Posner, C. Robinson, M. Ryan, P. Leith |
| Abstract |
Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to "span the boundaries" between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface ("boundary spanning") and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 135 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 33 | 24% |
| Canada | 13 | 10% |
| Australia | 12 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 7% |
| Ireland | 3 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 47 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 81 | 60% |
| Scientists | 43 | 32% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 9 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 388 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 388 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 88 | 23% |
| Researcher | 87 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 51 | 13% |
| Unknown | 84 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 86 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 77 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 15 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 52 | 13% |
| Unknown | 111 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 103. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2023.
All research outputs
#416,171
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Sustainability Science
#22
of 939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,324
of 345,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sustainability Science
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.