International developments in the administration of publicly-funded forest research: A review

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 37, Issue , 2013, Pages 1-8

  Hickey, Gordon M ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Mode 2 science; Participatory research; Research management; Research policy

Indexed keywords

EVALUATION; MODE 2 SCIENCE; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; RESEARCH MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH POLICIES;

COMPETITION; FORESTRY; PRIVATIZATION; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION;

RESEARCH;

COMPETITION; EVALUATION; FORESTRY; MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH;

EID: 84888072243     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Backstrand K. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environ. Polit. 2003, 3(4):24-41.
2. Bozeman B., Sarewitz D. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Sci. Public Policy 2005, 32:119-136.
3. Callon M., Laredo P., Rabeharisoa V., Gonard T., Leray T. The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of technoeconomic networks: the case of the AFME. Res. Policy 1992, 21:215-236.
4. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada: national status 2005 Available from:, (Accessed 29 July 2013). http://www.ccfm.org/ci/rprt2005/english/pg116-142_6-5-3.htm.
5. Ellefson P.V. Integrating science and policy development: case of the national research council and US national policy focused on non-federal forests. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2000, 2:81-94.
6. European Union Evidence-based policy versus policy-biased evidence: the challenge of feeding scientific advice into policy-making. Conclusions of the High-Level Trans-Atlantic Science for Policy Workshop, 27 October 2009, Ispra, Italy 2010, (Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/jrc_aaas2010_dialogue_en.pdf, Accessed 10 July 2013).
7. Feldman M.P., Lichtenberg F.R. The impact and organization of publicly-funded research and development in the European community. Ann. Econ. Stat. 1998, 49-50:199-222.
8. Fritsch M., Schwirten C. Enterprise-University co-operation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation 1999, 6:69-83.
9. Garrett-Jones S., Turpin T., Burns P., Diment Common purpose and divided loyalties: the risks and rewards of cross-sector collaboration for academic and government researchers. R&D Manag. 2005, 35:535-544.
10. Gearheard S., Shirley J. Challenges in community-research relationships: learning from natural science in Nunavut. Arctic 2007, 60:62-74.
11. Gendron Y. Constituting the academic performer: the spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia. Eur. Account. Rev. 2008, 17:97-127.
12. Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance 2003, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, W.E. Steinmueller (Eds.).
13. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Guldin R.W. Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2003, 5:329-337.
14. Guldin R.W. Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future. Forest Pol. Econ. 2003, 5(4):329-337.
15. Habermas J. A reply to my critics. Habermas: Critical Debates 1982, 219-283. Macmillan, Basingstoke. J. Thompson, D. Held (Eds.).
16. Hall A., Sulaiman V.R., Clark N., Yoganand B. From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agric. Syst. 2003, 78:213-241.
17. Hickey G.M., Forest P., Sandall J.L., Lalor B.M., Keenan R.J. Managing the environmental science-policy nexus in government: perspectives from public servants in Canada and Australia. Sci. Publ. Policy 2013, 10.1093/scipol/sct004.
18. Innes J.L. The incorporation of research into attempts to improve forest policy in British Columbia. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2003, 5:349-359.
19. Irwin A., Rothstein H., Yearly S., McCarthy E. Regulatory science-towards a sociological framework. Futures 1997, 29:17-31.
20. Janse G. Communication between forest scientists and forest policy-makers in Europe-a survey on both sides of the science/policy interface. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2008, 10:183-194.
21. Janse G., Konijnendijk C. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry: experiences from the Neighbourwoods project. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6:23-40.
22. Joyce L.A. Improving the flow of scientific information across the interface of forest science and policy. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2003, 5:339-347.
23. Kemp R., Martens P. Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective and never can be achieved?. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2007, 3:5-14.
24. Klenk N.L., Hickey G.M. Government science in forestry: characteristics and policy utilization. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2011, 13:37-45.
25. Klenk N.L., Hickey G.M. Improving the social robustness of research networks for sustainable natural resource management: results of a Delphi study in Canada. Sci. Publ. Policy 2012, 39:357-372.
26. Klenk N.L., Hickey G.M. How can formal research networks produce more socially robust forest science?. Forest. Policy Econ. 2013, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.05.006.
27. Klenk N.L., Dabros A., Hickey G.M. Quantifying the research impact of the Sustainable Forest Management Network in the social sciences: a bibliometric study. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2010, 40(11):2248-2255.
28. Konijnendijk C.C. Enhancing the forest science-policy interface in Europe: urban forestry showing the way. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19:123-128.
29. Man J.P., Weinkauf J.G., Tsang M., Sin J.H.D.D. Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European Journal of Epidemiology 2004, 19(8):811-817.
30. McKinley D.C., Briggs R.D., Bartuska A.M. When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2012, 21:1-11. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.007.
31. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators: 2012 Digest 2012, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, (January 2012, Available online: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/, Accessed 28 July 2013).
32. OECD OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011, OECD, Paris http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.
33. OECD Economic Policy Reforms 2012: Going for Growth 2012, OECD, Paris.
34. OECDStat Available online:, (Accessed 10 July 2013). http://stats.oecd.org/.
35. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) OECD Science. Technology and Industry Outlook 2012 2012, OECD. 10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en.
36. Pardy P.G., Alston J.M., Chan-Kang C. Public Food and Agricultural Research in the United States: The Rise and Decline of Public Investments, and Policies for Renewal 2013, Agree, Washington, DC, (Available online: http://www.foodandagpolicy.org/sites/default/files/AGree-Public%20Food%20and%20Ag%20Research%20in%20US-Apr%202013.pdf, Accessed 30 July 2013).
37. Petrokofsky G., Brown N.D., Hemery G.E. Matching a scientific knowledge base with stakeholders' needs: the T10Q project as a case study for forestry. Forest. Pol. Econ 2013, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.05.005.
38. Real A., Hickey G.M. Publicly funded research: a participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2013.
39. Roux D.J., Rogers K.H., Biggs H.C., Ashton P.J., Sergeant A. Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:4. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art4/).
40. Salter A.J., Martin B.R. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Res. Policy 2001, 30:509-532.
41. Shanley P., López C. Out of the Loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 2009, 41:535-544. 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00561.x.
42. Spilsbury M.J., Nasi R. The interface of policy research and the policy development process: challenges posed to the forestry community. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2006, 8:193-205.
43. Stevanov M., Böcher M., Krott M., Krajter S., Vuletic D., Orlovic S. The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: case studies of publicly funded forest research institutes in Serbia and Croatia. Forest. Pol. Econ. 2013, 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.03.006.
44. Steyaert P., Jiggins J. Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM's lessons for research, policy and practice. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2007, 10:575-586.
45. Sutherland W.J., Armstrong-Brown S., Armsworth P.R., et al. The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:617-627.
46. Thomson Reuters Web of Science Available online:, (Accessed 13 July 2013). http://apps.webofknowledge.com.
47. Van den Hove S. Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33:457-472.