Increasing Conservation Impact and Policy Relevance of Research through Embedded Experiences

Conservation Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 740-742

  Jenkins, Lekelia D ^a   Maxwell, Sara M ^b   Fisher, Erik ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; POLICY;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84863997025     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01878.x     Document Type: Note

References (15)

1. Amara, N., M. Ouimet, and R. Landry 2004. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26:75-106.
2. Beyer, J. M. 1997. Research utilization-bridging a cultural gap between communities. Journal of Management Inquiry 6:17-22.
3. Committee to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental Health Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials, and National Research Council. 2012. A research strategy for environmental, health, and safety aspects of engineered nanomaterials. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C
4. Conley, S. 2011. Engagement agents in the making: on the front lines of socio-technical integration. Commentary on: ''Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies.'' Science and Engineering Ethics 17:715-721.
5. Fisher, E. 2007. Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1:155-165.
6. Jenkins, L. D., and S. M. Maxwell 2011. Change in conservation efforts. BioScience 61:93.
7. Macnaghten, P., M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27:268-291.
8. Maxwell, S. M., et al. 2011. Using satellite tracking to optimize protection of long-lived marine species: olive ridley sea turtle conservation in Central Africa. Public Library of Science ONE 6 DOI:
9. Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York
10. Rudd, M. A. 2011. How Research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy. Conservation Biology 25:860-866.
11. Schuurbiers, D. 2011. What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17:769-788.
12. Shaxson, L. 2009. Structuring policy problems for plastics, the environment and human health: reflections from the UK. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 364:2141-2151.
13. Sutherland, W. J., E. Fleishman, M. B. Mascia, J. Pretty, and M. A. Rudd 2011. Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2:238-247.
14. Witt, M. J., A. C. Broderick, M. S. Coyne, A. Formia, S. Ngouessono, R. J. Parnell, G. P. Sounguet, and B. J. Godley 2008. Satellite tracking highlights difficulties in the design of effective protected areas for critically endangered leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea during the inter-nesting period. Oryx 42:296-300.
15. Wynne, B. 2011. Lab-work goes social, and vice-versa: strategising public engagement processes. Commentary on: "What happens in the lab does not stay in the lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance reflection in the laboratory." Science and Engineering Ethics 17:791-800.