On “success” in applied environmental research — What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved?

A collegial team with mutually defined goals that are agreed upon in advance is key to research that is relevant to all (partners and researchers) and has the potential to create change. It follows that researchers who want to engage in co-designed work must invest time and effort into networking and building and maintaining this team (Ansell and Alison 2008). A great place to start is building a “network map” or visual image of all known or potentially interested or affected parties, including rights- and stakeholders, researchers, and decision-makers. This is useful not only to see the connections among players, but also to identify important gaps that should be filled. It is also useful to understand the variety of roles played by people and groups in the network, including the roles of science and scientists, rights- and stakeholders, partners, industry, and different levels of government. Researchers may want to rely on those more established in their study area to help identify gaps in the network and make introductions when necessary. Here, boundary organizations can be especially helpful (Safford et al. 2017). Boundary organizations are those groups that can effectively help bridge divides between groups with different norms and goals; for example, a nonprofit with a long history of working with academics might understand both typical academic goals (e.g., publications, student training) and typical nonprofit goals (e.g., mission-driven change). It is worth noting that there are broader networks and social spheres in which applied environmental research is embedded increasingly fueled by connectivity of humans around the globe. Although this can be a force for good, it can also lead to misinformation and disinformation activities (e.g., climate change denial; Dunlap and McCright 2010) and the notion of living in a post-truth world (Gross 2017). The scientific community will have to become more savvy in using various networks to spread evidence-based knowledge and stand up for environmental science by demonstrating its value and relevance (see Lubchenco 2017).

Success in environmental research demands ongoing communication with partners and stakeholders from before the project is designed through to after it is completed, which is inherent in co-production (Beier et al. 2017; Dubois et al. 2020). If done well, such relationships might continue over long periods of time, evolving to meet changing circumstances and needs of different parties. Nguyen et al. (2019) reported that ongoing engagement and co-production yielded more actionable science than science done independent of partners or with more limited communication. Related to the need for frequent communication is the need for such communication to be respectful. It is not uncommon for researchers to reach out within days of a grant deadline to seek a letter of support, and then the letter writer may not ever hear back from the researcher after such a letter is supplied. Similarly, some researchers have adopted a “parachute model” where they drop in to do research in a given region or community for a short period of time and then take off and are never heard from again. Such practices are detrimental to the development of meaningful partnerships and respect (Chapman et al. 2015). Respect also means understanding cultural differences among individuals, organizations, and regions. Active listening is regarded as an effective strategy to understand the needs of partners and end users to ultimately achieve success in collaborative environmental research (Toomey et al. 2017). Moreover, early and frequent communication that is participatory (rather than unidirectional) has been shown to improve project outcomes (Evely et al. 2011).

There is a growing momentum to co-create projects amongst academic and nonacademic partners. This can increase the likelihood of success for applied environment research by (1) ensuring that the questions and experimental design of the project are relevant for the real world; (2) providing opportunities for all members of the project to share knowledge and perspectives on a wide range of issues; and (3) potentially enhancing the chance that recommendations based on project outcomes are adopted.

Interpersonal trust is essential for effective collaboration across diverse groups. Trust can be defined in numerous ways, but in all cases it involves the acceptance of vulnerability, with parties placing a level of confidence in the motives and actions of others despite inherent uncertainties (Stern and Coleman 2015). To build trust effectively, engaging with participants as early and as transparently as possible is more likely to bring about a positive outcome. Trust is also affected by key decisions about the structure of relationships. For example, Levesque et al. (2017) argue that groups committing to a more globally distributed power structure engender more trust among participants. Additionally, creating subgroups within a project to tackle specific tasks may help facilitate communication and foster engagement across larger networks, particularly when paired with opportunities for the network to hear from each subgroup. A core level of trust needs to be developed across the network of actors, but some skepticism is also healthy for encouraging active debate and considering new ideas (Stern and Baird 2015). As with anything worth doing as part of a joint project, it is critical to dedicate time and resources to ensure there are opportunities for sharing at all steps of the project.

Applied research very commonly involves some degree of partnership, which implies a collaborative approach to identifying the motivating questions for a research project — something that takes both time and effort. This is an opportunity to engage in a discussion about what partners are keen to understand, relevant time frames, and what questions flow from this. Indeed, once team members have been identified and their general role in the network has been established (note: this should be self-identified or discussed, not assigned), it can be useful for a coordinator to work with each member or group, asking questions and listening to their concerns, questions, and thoughts on the project. This serves a dual purpose; it provides a clearer sense of each participant’s role and stance, and (if communicated among the group as a whole) it can help each person or group to feel valued as a member of the team. It can improve common understanding of the history of work, interactions, and progress on the topic at hand in the study area and among team members. Expressing personal interests, priorities, and goals helps ensure participants’ positions are clear. Given that meetings feature prominently in such interactions, it can be instructive to adopt structures (e.g., the Six Thinking Hats approach; see de Bono 2017) that enable parallel thinking that helps arrive at consensus in a cohesive way. Early on, it is important to understand power relationships and ensure that the partners do not feel that their involvement is tokenism. It is also an opportunity to discuss success for the project, as this can inform how questions are asked and how the research seeks to answer them, as well as consideration of trade-offs in terms of the optimal design of research and its associated costs. Doing this will help to truly understand what the partner needs and wants out of the relationship. For example, consider what the pathway looks like if it is expected to be a standalone project, a long-term relationship, or an opportunity to build capacity. Projects, moreover, are rarely static. Situations change. New information is acquired. And building in time and resources to ensure discussions are ongoing can be essential, particularly if early insights from the research leads partners to rethink or pose new questions. But doing this also requires establishing clear understanding of time commitments. Not all partners will want the same level of involvement, so it is useful to determine that at the outset. When dealing with environmental issues, it is not uncommon for there to be strong opinions on different sides of the core issues. Having early and frequent discussions about how to respectfully engage in debate to achieve understanding is critical. Depending on project objectives, it may either be helpful to bring people together across this divide (potentially with help of a mediator) or keep groups separate to minimize conflict.

No matter how good the science, uncertainties and other limitations always constrain the extent to which findings can be applied to a given problem. While scientists are aware of these realities, non-scientists might assume that research findings are inherently certain. And, in some cases, a researcher oversells their work. In both cases, this can be addressed through better training scientists to communicate uncertainty (Leung et al. 2015; Rose et al. 2019). That said, environmental management and policy is inherently embedded within an uncertain world, which creates challenges for all involved (Hilborn 1987; Polasky et al. 2011). An important aspect of achieving successful environmental research is being transparent with partners about the strengths, uncertainty, and limitations of the project. Sutherland et al. (2013) provided a list of 20 concepts that they suggest need to be understood by decision-makers to help them interpret scientific claims (e.g., bias is rife; no measurement is exact; extrapolating beyond the data are risky). We suggest that this list should be mandatory reading for scientists; anything that can be done to minimize those issues in the research process or communication of scientific evidence will contribute to project success. Uncertainty and limitations should be considered from project inception through to application of findings. Similarly, it is important to recognize that there are often disconnects between perceived risk and actual risk, which can lead to poor policy choices (Gilbert 2011). Transparency is a key concept that can be incorporated during all phases of environmental research as a mechanism for clarifying and overcoming aspects of uncertainty — both with current research but also in contextualizing that work relative to existing and future evidence (Ellison 2010).

The overall goal that applied environmental scientists should aim for is to answer research questions that are not only interesting and important to science, but also have the potential to help solve environmental problems. Boundary spanning, defined as “work to enable exchange between the production and use of knowledge to support evidence-informed decision-making in a specific context” (Posner and Cvitanovic 2019), is essential to the success of solutions-oriented environmental research. Intrinsic to boundary spanning is assessment of the societal context of the environmental issue being addressed and consideration of its “sphere of influence”, particularly during project planning stages.

Before initiating a research project, we recommend environmental scientists first identify a timely environmental issue of interest and begin to understand it through multiple lenses (e.g., economic, social, political) and at different scales (e.g., time, space) to appreciate the most pressing and timely science needs. This is best achieved through conversations with people who care about the environmental issue, often outside of academia — such as landowners, elders, government scientists, resource managers, and stewardship groups — and by collaborations between social and biophysical scientists. Integrating social science into research planning helps put the environmental problem in a societal context and better understand stakeholder perspectives (Maxwell et al. 2019). It is vital to consider the political jurisdiction relevant to the environmental issue(s) at hand — specifically, whether it falls within the purview of municipal, regional, federal, or Indigenous authorities — and the applicable statutes, laws, and regulations.

We also recommend creating a conceptual diagram of the “sphere of influence” of a proposed project, including likely “influencers”. The sphere of influence of a project describes, hypothetically, the various pathways that research outcomes could lead to valued impacts (e.g., change in environmental policy, creation of a protected area, or enhanced protection of a threatened species). Influencers (including “boundary spanners”; Posner and Cvitanovic 2019) are actors who help catalyze pathways in the sphere of influence. Influencers can help frame and shape research questions and are also important for catalyzing co-learning during the project (Turner et al. 2016). The exercise of creating a sphere-of-influence diagram is not only helpful at the front end of a project to assess which research questions are the most likely to lead to successful outcomes, but can also be used as a road map to guide actions throughout the life of the research project.

Developing and maintaining partnerships requires particular skills. Successful applied environmental researchers possess these skills, but they are not innate and are typically not taught in university science programs at either the graduate or undergraduate level. Partnerships are inherently interdisciplinary, both across scientific fields and within and outside of academia. Navigating these different perspectives requires an understanding of each, an ability to build consensus, or an ability to make progress in its absence. Relatedly, navigating the things necessary to achieve success is itself an important opportunity for learning. Case studies and perspective articles in the literature describing challenges and best practices with respect to interdisciplinary research and partnership (e.g., Podesta et al. 2013; Parker et al. 2018; Cooke et al. 2020), while being useful resources, reinforce the challenges and serve to demonstrate the need for hands-on experience (see Kelly et al. 2019 for resources specific to early career scholars and learners).

As in other scientific endeavours, students often play a crucial role in applied environmental research. Training students so that they are equipped with the skills required to build and maintain partnerships can yield current and future benefits for all involved. Embedding students in partnerships has clear benefits for the students themselves. They are exposed to varied training environments and perspectives, which can make them better prepared for nonacademic environmental careers (Cid and Brunson 2020) and broaden their experience and professional networks. In academic environments, they learn to value creativity and originality while also pursuing general understanding of natural phenomena. Since partners may ascribe higher value to pragmatism and locally relevant information, the tension between researchers’ pursuit of the general and stakeholders’ desire of the specific is a frequently cited conflict in applied environmental research partnerships (e.g., Podesta et al. 2013). Navigating these and other conflicts to see a project through to application is an incredibly valuable experience for young scientists.

The onus should be on the supervisor to be the role model (Filstrup 2019) so that students learn to be good citizens in partnerships, with skills that include collaboration, critical thought, creativity, patience, respect, and effective communication. Yet, academics should avoid sharing their responsibility for students with partners without having discussions about it. For some it may create an unwelcome burden, but other partners may want to embrace such responsibility as long as it is not an abdication of responsibility by the academic mentor. Engagement early and often ensures that students are prepared with the skills and habits needed to work with the partner organization. It further strengthens student access to supportive relationships and resources, and it helps identify shared skills for capacity building. Because students often need to meet certain institutional deadlines towards their degree, clear expectations and time commitments should be mutually discussed and revisited as needed. When this training is done successfully, the student can bring demonstrable benefits to the partnership. Students can bring a level of focused dedication to a project that is difficult for later-stage professionals to sustain, and their inclusion elevates scientific productivity (e.g., Kyvik and Smeby 1994). The potential for co-learning increases as students and partners participate in joint field and (or) lab experiences. Moreover, these students will become the leaders of tomorrow’s partnerships, having learned the challenges and rewards and applying these skills to solve so-called “wicked problems” through collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches.

To foster successful partnerships, we recommend that applied environmental research have a degree of adaptive capacity embedded in all stages. There is no single path or process that works for every partnership, and pathways to mutually defined success can be mapped out at early stages of the project (see section above on “Define research questions and consider pathways together”). That said, all parties will need to remain nimble and responsive over the course of the project as situations change. It is important for researchers to recognize that there may be areas where partners can be flexible (e.g., academic partners may be able to take on new tasks, government partners may be able to make resources available for emerging problems) and areas where there is little to no flexibility (e.g., government partners with fiscal deadlines, academic deadlines for students (highly qualified personnel), nonprofit organizational mission). While changing needs or priorities can sometimes cause tension, they can also lead to new opportunities — this benefit should not be overlooked. Remaining flexible with partners and building the research plan in stages and at a reasonable pace (see above regarding not rushing relationships) can allow researchers to be responsive (e.g., targeting a newly introduced invasive species) and integrating research questions that were not identified at the onset of the project. There is much to learn from the different paths that partnerships in applied environmental research can take, and they should be documented. At the end of a project, take time to think critically about what worked and what did not (with the partners), what was unexpected and how it was handled, and how being flexible and responsive benefitted the project and long-term relationship with the partner (and involve partners in this exercise if possible).

There is often misalignment between the demands of knowledge users and research outputs. Research over the past couple of decades has shown that traditional scientific outputs (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles) can have limited value in knowledge mobilization (KMb), particularly for practitioners and decision-makers who have limited time and capacity to sift through the primary literature (e.g., McNie 2007; Cvitanovic et al. 2016; Young et al. 2016a), which may also be behind a paywall (Matheson and Edwards 2016). Instead, understanding the needs and constraints of knowledge users and partners is critical to developing effective strategies to communicate and mobilize knowledge. For example, interviews with recreational salmon anglers in British Columbia revealed three typologies of communication preferences among the participants, demonstrating that there is no one-size-fits-all KMb strategy to ensure that fishers use evidence-based, best practices (Nguyen et al. 2013). Researchers should consider allocating space, time, and resources for user needs assessments in their KMb plans and work with communications specialists to develop effective strategies. Similarly, funding bodies need to allow for a portion of research funds to be devoted to KMb activities (e.g., like NSERC Alliance Grants).

A growing body of research points to the importance of engaging and building connections with knowledge users for promoting evidence-informed decision-making (Jacobs et al. 2005; Young et al. 2016a, 2016b; Nguyen et al. 2019). One of the outcomes of this work is that some researchers are re-envisioning more collaborative and social scientific outputs. As a result, the process by which research outputs are developed can be argued to be equally or more important than the deliverable itself. Activities such as knowledge exchange, translation, brokering, and mobilization involve building relationships, connections, and engaging with knowledge users in the design, implementation, and dissemination of research. Doing so can both enhance the consideration of research into practice and enhance the quality of environmental decisions (reviewed by Reed 2008). In particular, early career researchers may benefit from developing such connections, as they may evolve into long-term partnerships for their work or expertise to directly feed into decisions and inform actions.

More and more granting bodies are starting to require KMb plans. One cannot assume what the users need or want and in which forms. Doing background research, such as consulting with partners, reading annual reports, and reviewing the user’s context (e.g., organizational mission; past, present, and future projects; community), will not only inform research design but help both parties to find common language and may increase the relevance and applicability of the research itself. Creating a KMb plan that includes participation of knowledge users is essential but needs to be underpinned by the philosophy that emphasizes empowerment, equity, trust, and learning. The iterative exchanges should be considered in the KMb plan as well as time to understand user needs.

Token partner engagement abounds. We recommend wrapping up projects by “closing the loop” with partners (for long-term projects, occasional reviews during the research process may also be useful). Such reflection is a reminder to consider the context of the research and to ask for feedback about whether partners have been effective. It goes beyond the project’s exit strategy, which outlines how it ends or is transitioned (e.g., to a future project) and reminds us that the collaboration must meet the needs of research partners. This challenges us to think outside of what is valued in the academic context, to ask what would benefit our partners, and then not only to build that into the project plan but into what we do to maintain the relationship. Closing the loop also means thinking about power and recognizing the privilege inherent in the access to funding, research support, and compensation for research activities that is the norm for academic researchers (Higginson 2018; Wallerstein et al. 2019).

Awareness of power relationships may lead to recognition rather than reward for the contributions of research partners. Rewarding carries with it an implicit imbalance of power between the partners receiving and distributing rewards. Both academic and nonacademic partners reap the rewards of a well-designed collaboration, but this does not necessarily mean the rewards flow from one to the other. The nature of the recognition and of the support that academic partners can provide is specific to the research partner and project. Examples include the following: advocate for nonacademic partners to funding bodies with respect to valuing in-kind contributions of data and expertise; include funding in grant applications to cover the time contributed to the project by nonacademic partners, especially not-for-profit and community groups; be aware of paywalls and provide access to library resources; find opportunities to use university resources to showcase stories featuring the work and contributions of research partners (e.g., quotes and contact information in university press releases about research partnership, feature partners alongside researchers in university-created videos about the project; invite partners to give solo or joint seminars about the research and its applications). The importance of returning to a community to share results (in person or by video conference) and to hear feedback cannot be understated; it can help to interpret and validate results, adapt analysis or communication as necessary, and increase uptake and implementation.

In some instances, acknowledging involvement in the research may include considering co-authorship on peer-reviewed journal articles. This ought to be discussed early in the research process, particularly for partners who are unfamiliar with academic publishing or for interdisciplinary work where publishing norms may differ (Cooke et al. 2020). The extent to which a given partner values — and is able to engage in — co-authoring publications will depend on the interests, resources, organizational culture, and contributions of research partners. For example, partners may not be compensated for time spent to publish or have publications factor into career advancement; some groups might have limited internet access, familiarity with or access to specialized computer programs, or seasonal activities that make it difficult to turn around manuscripts. Where individual authorship is not appropriate (e.g., community science, degree of involvement), authorship that recognizes the contributions of a group can provide an alternative (Ward-Fear et al. 2020).

Successful uptake of environmental research is about more than getting information to the desk or email inbox of a decision-maker — evidence must be framed in clear, persuasive, and, in some instances, politically salient ways (Rose 2015; Rose et al. 2017). This means that successful applied research does not end at peer reviewed publications or even policy briefs, which few busy decision-makers or practitioners have time to read and may not be successful instruments of change. Effectively communicating the weight of evidence and implications of research findings is a process that involves understanding the audience that will use the evidence — where listening and connecting are just as important as talking (Smith et al. 2013). Successful communication that engages with decision-makers is one of the most potent catalysts for action (Baron 2010; see above section “Consider the sphere of influence”).

Written communications have been shown consistently to be less effective or persuasive than face-to-face meetings (Roghanizad and Bohns 2017), and in many cases, telephone conversations may be more productive than email communication. Moreover, do not assume that partners have reliable internet access or that an unanswered email is a lack of interest. Do not be afraid to pick up the phone, which can often be more effective in forging meaningful connections than email.

There are several helpful tools and training programs to help researchers craft the content of their message for effective communication to decision-makers (see Kuehne et al. 2014 for a summary). Decision-makers, like most people, are more likely to be influenced by relevant, human-based stories rather than stark presentation of facts (Jones and Crow 2017). Using evidence to create simple messages that appeal to emotions and focus on positive outcomes and solutions is known to effectively communicate scientific messages to wide audiences (Begon 2017; Balmford and Knowlton 2017). To build these clear messages, distill research findings into the elements most relevant to the audience(s) (e.g., https://www.compassscicomm.org/leadership-development/the-message-box/). Learning and using basic narrative structure can make communication more memorable (e.g., identifying setting, characters, plot, and moral in a narrative policy framework; Jones and Crow 2017). For more complex research messages, interactive data visualization tools that allow participation can be persuasive (Herring et al. 2017). Decision-makers, like most people, have different perspectives and values (Sandbrooke et al. 2011; Baron 2010); thus, understanding their needs and perspectives is paramount for effective communication (Bainbridge 2014). Finally, if researchers are unable to communicate messages effectively with decision-makers, knowledge brokers and intermediaries are available that speak the language of science and policy (Nguyen et al. 2017).

Sound environment-related decisions need sound environment-related information. One of the most powerful aspects of applied research is that it can increase our understanding and lead to new, reliable knowledge. Poorly designed and (or) executed applied research runs the risk of providing incomplete or incorrect information that could lead to ineffective or even harmful decisions (Sells et al. 2018). As noted by Hofseth (2018), “If science isn’t rigorous, it’s reckless”; although this message was coming from the field of human health, it is just as relevant to environment-related management. Providing practical and applied information that has relevance — ideally beyond the immediate question or problem — requires a genuine collaboration among researchers and partners (see section above on “Define research questions and consider pathways together”); however, scientific rigour should never be compromised in the process. For some collaborative environmental projects, there can be a sense of urgency to deliver actionable science to end users, and in this process, there may be temptation or pressure to disregard proper scientific rigour. Indeed, some decisions, or the implications of those decisions, may require less detail or specificity than others. However, researchers must ensure that the integrity and credibility of research findings and interpretations are not sacrificed. The underlying goal of researchers should be to produce rigourous, unbiased, and reproducible science that is conducted in a way that is ethically minded, regardless of speed (Roche et al. 2019) and (or) pressure from partners, and to be willing to maintain scientific independence (i.e., walk away from the partnership) if (or) when asked to do anything less. The researcher will need to navigate the need to get the science done while working diligently to ensure that stakeholder and partner engagement occurs throughout the process.

Partnership and co-production can create dynamics and tensions that may be unfamiliar to researchers trained in traditional scientific norms and methods. Partners may have particular outcomes or applications in mind, including sociopolitical aims that may or may not be shared by researchers. Partners may also have ideas about what types of data and findings are most useful to them (Young et al. 2016a) and may exert pressure on researchers (intentionally or not) to focus their efforts on research questions and data collection of potential high utility. Some researchers are comfortable accommodating such interests, while others are concerned with maintaining distance from policy or political considerations (e.g., Lackey 2016; Donner 2017). In all cases, however, it is important for researchers to reflect on such possibilities prior to engaging in partnerships and co-production and to take measures to anticipate and clarify how research will be conducted and results communicated. For instance, it is advisable to develop explicit agreements with partners about access to raw data and metadata, analysis of findings, and communication of results (noting, however, the imbalance in familiarity with what these things mean and the implications). Such agreements may include commitments to publicize information that is useful to the broader scientific community, even if they run contrary to partner priorities or expectations. Information about methods, study limitations, and null findings (if applicable) are important for our global understanding of phenomena and should be communicated transparently. More generally, these issues relate to questions of research integrity and credibility. Partnership and co-production imply that all parties contribute to the research process for mutual gain. Prior reflection and agreement on questions of integrity can help structure these collaborations to ensure that research is both useful to partners and credible in the eyes of the broader scientific community.

Most environmental problems are sufficiently complex that they are best approached by tackling focused questions that can be addressed in a short time frame (months to a few years) while simultaneously collecting data that will feed into larger, often longer-term studies (decades or more). This means having outcomes that are project-specific and achievable, yet contain the vision and forethought for the long term, recognizing that sustained funding for long-term research is challenging to secure (Parr et al. 2003; Kuebbing et al. 2018). Short-term research can also be used to identify new questions that can be addressed in the future through identifying profitable research areas and excluding others. For example, taking time to engage in strategic visioning and horizon scanning (see Sutherland and Woodroof 2009) with partners and stakeholders can be valuable to ensure that the research activities and outputs are relevant to both immediate needs and future challenges, such as global environmental change and human population growth and consumption.