Show simple item record

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

dc.contributor.authorWatkins, Cristy
dc.contributor.authorZavaleta, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorFrancisco, Scott
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-05T16:28:24Z
dc.date.available2019-04-01T15:01:10Zen
dc.date.issued2018-02
dc.identifier.citationWatkins, Cristy; Zavaleta, Jennifer; Wilson, Sarah; Francisco, Scott (2018). "Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods." Conservation Biology 32(1): 60-71.
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892
dc.identifier.issn1523-1739
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/141155
dc.description.abstractAlthough significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.El Desarrollo de una Comunidad de Práctica Interdisciplinaria y Trans‐Sectorial bajo el Dominio de los Bosques y los Medios de SubsistenciaResumenAunque se gastan recursos importantes en la investigación y el fomento de la relación entre los bosques y los medios de subsistencia para promover resultados mutuamente beneficiosos, aún existen vacíos críticos en el entendimiento. Una razón nuclear de dichos vacíos es que los investigadores, practicantes y legisladores carecen de espacio para interactuar y colaborar, lo cual es esencial para que la investigación, la práctica y la evaluación sean efectivas e interdisciplinarias. Por esto, los hallazgos científicos, las recomendaciones políticas y los resultados medidos no siempre se han sintetizado en un entendimiento profundo y sistémico; aprender a partir de la práctica y la implementación no encuentra fácilmente su camino dentro de los análisis científicos, y la ciencia comúnmente falla en influenciar a la política. Las comunidades de práctica (CofPs, en inglés) son sistemas socioculturales dinámicas que juntan a las personas para compartir y crear conocimiento en torno a un tema de interés común. Ofrecen a los participantes un espacio y una estructura dentro de la cual pueden desarrollar estrategias novedosas y sistémicas para problemas multidimensionales de un tema común. Informados de manera única por una perspectiva de pensamiento de sistemas y partiendo de la literatura científica y gris y entrevistas profundas con representativos de CofP establecidas bajo el dominio de desarrollo y manejo de recursos, argumentamos que una CofPs bien diseñada y propiamente financiada puede facilitar las relaciones trans‐sectoriales e interdisciplinarias y el intercambio del conocimiento. Las CofPs bien diseñadas integran un conjunto de características y procesos nucleares que aumentan los resultados individuales, colectivos y del dominio; exponen un propósito inicial pero cambiante, promueven el liderazgo diverso, y fomentan el desarrollo de la identidad colectiva. El financiamiento facilita las estrategias efectivas de comunicación (p. ej.: en reuniones de personas). Instamos a nuestros colegas en todos los sectores y disciplinas a sacar provecho de las CofPs para avanzar en el dominio de los bosques y los medios de subsistencia.Article impact statement: Developing a community of practice with a systems lens can drive collaboration and close knowledge gaps in the forest and livelihoods field.
dc.publisherTransaction Publishers
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.subject.otherinterdisciplinario
dc.subject.otherliderazgo
dc.subject.othersistemas socio‐ecológicos
dc.subject.otherpensamiento de sistemas
dc.subject.othercollaboration
dc.subject.otherinterdisciplinary
dc.subject.otherleadership
dc.subject.othersocial‐ecological systems
dc.subject.othersocial learning
dc.subject.othersystems thinking
dc.subject.otheraprendizaje social
dc.subject.othercolaboración
dc.titleDeveloping an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEcology and Evolutionary Biology
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScience
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141155/1/cobi12982.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141155/2/cobi12982_am.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cobi.12982
dc.identifier.sourceConservation Biology
dc.identifier.citedreferencePersha L, Agrawal A, Chhatre A. 2011. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331: 1606 – 1608.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCambridge D, Kaplan S, Suter V. 2005. Community of practice design guide: a step‐by‐step guide for designing & cultivating communities of practice in higher education. Educause, Louisville, Colorado. Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/nli0531.pdf (accessed March 2015).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCase P, Evans L, Fabinyi M, Cohen P, Hicks C, Prideaux M, Mills D. 2015. Rethinking environmental leadership: the social construction of leaders and leadership in discourses of ecological crisis, development, and conservation. Leadership 11: 396 – 423.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChazdon RL, Brancalion PH, Laestadius L, Bennett‐Curry A, Buckingham K, Kumar C, Moll‐Rocek J, Vieira ICG, Wilson SJ. 2016. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio 45: 538 – 550.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCundill G, Rodela R. 2012. A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 113: 7 – 14.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDuguid P. 2005. “ The art of knowing”: social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society 21: 109 – 118.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrancisco S. 2010. The innovation paradox; how innovation products threaten the innovation process. Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture 10: 1 – 38.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGharajedaghi J. 2011. Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity: a platform for designing business architecture. 3rd edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHajjar R, Oldekop JA, Cronkleton P, Etue E, Newton P, Russel AJM, Tjajadi JS, Zhou W, Agrawal A. 2016. The data not collected on community forestry. Conservation Biology 30: 1357 – 1362.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHolmes J, Woodhams J. 2013. Building interaction: the role of talk in joining a community of practice. Discourse & Communication 7: 275 – 298.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Breen BB, Towns DR. 2015. Conservation, mismatch and the research—implementation gap. Pacific Conservation Biology 21: 105 – 107.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLoss L, Schons CH, Never RM, Delavy IL, Chudzikiewiez IS, Vogt AMC. 2007. Establishing the foundation of collaborative networks. Pages 23 – 30 in Camarinha‐Matos L, Afsarmancsh H, Novais P, Analide C, editors. Volume 243. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Springer‐Verlag, Boston.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcLure Wasko M, Faraj S. 2000. It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9: 155 – 173.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeadows DH, Wright D. 2008. Thinking in systems: a primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiles M, Huberman A, Saldaña J. 2013. Qualitative data analysis. 3rd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMiteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ. 2012. Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy 28: 69 – 92.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNaughton‐Treves L, Holland MB, Brandon K. 2005. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219 – 252.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNewton P, Miller DC, Mugabi A, Byenkya MAA, Agrawal A. 2016. Who are forest‐dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision‐making in forested regions. Land Use Policy 57: 388 – 395.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePaas L, Parry JE. 2012. Understanding communities of practice: an overview for practitioners. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ontario, Canada. Available from https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/understanding_communities_practice.pdf (accessed April 2015).
dc.identifier.citedreferencePEN (Poverty Environment Network). 2007. Centre for International Forestry Research. Available from www.cifor.cgiar.org/pen (accessed October 2017).
dc.identifier.citedreferencePROFOR. 2008. Poverty and forest linkages: a synthesis and six case studies. Report. Program on Forests (PROFOR), World Bank, Washington, D.C.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRose DC. 2015. The case for policy‐relevant conservation science. Conservation Biology 29: 748 – 754.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScarano FR, Ceotto P. 2015. Brazilian Atlantic forest: impact, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 2319 – 2331.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). 2007. Community of practice (CoP): From own to shared knowledge. Available from https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/deza/en/documents/die-deza/strategie/150317-flyer-cop_EN.pdf.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSmith SU, Hayes S, Shea P. 2017. A critical review of the use of Wenger’s community of practice (CoP) theoretical framework in online and blended learning research, 2000–2014. Online Learning 21: 209 – 237.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenger E, McDermott RM, Snyder W. 2002. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenger‐Trayner E, Wenger‐Trayner B. 2015a. Communities of practice: a brief overview of the concept and its uses. Wenger‐Trayner, California. Available from http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice (accessed March 2015).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWenger‐Trayner E, Wenger‐Trayner B. 2015b. Systems conveners in complex landscapes. Pages 99 – 118 in Wenger‐Tayner W, Fenton‐O’Creevy M, Hutchinson S, Kubiak C, Wenger‐Trayner B, editors. Learning in landscapes of practice: boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in practice‐based learning. Routledge, London.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWorld Bank. 2008. Forests sourcebook: practical guidance for sustaining forests in development cooperation. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWorld Bank. 2012. Communities of practice, questions and answers. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/CoP_QA.pdf (accessed April 2015).
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAckoff RL, Emery FE. 2005. On purposeful systems: an interdisciplinary analysis of individual and social behavior as a system of purposeful events. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBennett NJ, Roth R, editors. 2015. The conservation social sciences: what? how? and why ? Canadian Wildlife Federation and Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2664.3529.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.