Authors

Weston M. Eaton, University of Wyoming
Morey Burnham, Idaho State University
Tahnee Robertson, Southwest Decision Resources
J. G. Arbuckle, Iowa State University
Kathryn J. Brasier, Pennsylvania State University
Mark E. Burbach, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Sarah P. Church, Montana State University
Georgia Hart-Fredeluces, Idaho State University
Douglas Jackson-Smith, The Ohio State University
Grace Wildermuth, Pennsylvania State University
Katherine N. Canfield, United States Environmental Protection Agency
S. Carolina Córdova, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Casey D. Chatelain, Barnstable Clean Water Coalition
Lara B. Fowler, Pennsylvania State University
Mennatullah Mohamed Zein el Abdeen Hendawy, Ain Shams University
Christine J. Kirchhoff, Pennsylvania State University
Marisa K. Manheim, Arizona State University
Rubén O. Martinez, Michigan State University
Anne Mook, Colorado State University
Cristina A. Mullin, United States Environmental Protection Agency
A. Laurie Murrah-Hanson, Independent Researcher
Christiana O. Onabola, University of Northern British Columbia
Lauren E. Parker, USDA California Climate Hub
Elizabeth A. Redd, Idaho State University
Chelsea Schelly, Michigan Technological UniversityFollow
Michael L. Schoon, Arizona State University
W. Adam Sigler, Montana State University
Emily Smit, University of Toronto
Tiff van Huysen, USDA Agricultural Research Service
Michelle R. Worosz, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Carrie Eberly, Southwest Decision Resources

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-11-2022

Department

Department of Social Sciences

Abstract

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.

Publisher's Statement

© The Author(s) 2022. Publisher’s version of record: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8

Publication Title

Socio-Ecological Practice Research

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Version

Publisher's PDF

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.