Cargando…
Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science
The knowledge‐action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13835 |
_version_ | 1784751108904714240 |
---|---|
author | Roche, Dominique G. O'Dea, Rose E. Kerr, Kecia A. Rytwinski, Trina Schuster, Richard Nguyen, Vivian M. Young, Nathan Bennett, Joseph R. Cooke, Steven J. |
author_facet | Roche, Dominique G. O'Dea, Rose E. Kerr, Kecia A. Rytwinski, Trina Schuster, Richard Nguyen, Vivian M. Young, Nathan Bennett, Joseph R. Cooke, Steven J. |
author_sort | Roche, Dominique G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The knowledge‐action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long‐term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short‐term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9300006 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93000062022-07-21 Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science Roche, Dominique G. O'Dea, Rose E. Kerr, Kecia A. Rytwinski, Trina Schuster, Richard Nguyen, Vivian M. Young, Nathan Bennett, Joseph R. Cooke, Steven J. Conserv Biol Essays The knowledge‐action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long‐term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short‐term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-11-29 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9300006/ /pubmed/34476839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13835 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Essays Roche, Dominique G. O'Dea, Rose E. Kerr, Kecia A. Rytwinski, Trina Schuster, Richard Nguyen, Vivian M. Young, Nathan Bennett, Joseph R. Cooke, Steven J. Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title | Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title_full | Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title_fullStr | Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title_full_unstemmed | Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title_short | Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
title_sort | closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science |
topic | Essays |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300006/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34476839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13835 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rochedominiqueg closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT odearosee closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT kerrkeciaa closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT rytwinskitrina closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT schusterrichard closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT nguyenvivianm closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT youngnathan closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT bennettjosephr closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience AT cookestevenj closingtheknowledgeactiongapinconservationwithopenscience |