• Wiley Online Library will be disrupted on 18 May from 10:00-12:00 BST (05:00-07:00 EDT) for essential maintenance

REVIEW

Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy

  1. William J. Sutherland1,*,
  2. Erica Fleishman2,
  3. Michael B. Mascia3,
  4. Jules Pretty4,
  5. Murray A. Rudd5

Article first published online: 2 FEB 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x

Issue

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Volume 2, Issue 3, pages 238–247, June 2011

Additional Information

How to Cite

Sutherland, W. J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M. B., Pretty, J. and Rudd, M. A. (2011), Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2: 238–247. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

  2. 2

    Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, 6832 Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3060, USA

  3. 3

    Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA

  4. 4

    Interdisciplinary Centre for Environment and Society, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK

  5. 5

    Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK

* Correspondence author. E-mail: w.sutherland@zoo.cam.ac.uk

  1. Correspondence site: http://www.respond2articles.com/MEE/

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 2 JUN 2011
  2. Article first published online: 2 FEB 2011
  3. Received 1 June 2010; accepted 11 November 2010 Handling Editor: Jana M McPherson

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (179K)

Keywords:

  • collaboration;
  • horizon scanning;
  • participation;
  • planning;
  • policy makers;
  • priority setting

Summary

1. There is a widely recognized gap between the data generated by researchers and the information required by policy makers. In an effort to bridge the gap between conservation policy and science, we have convened in several countries multiple groups of policy makers, practitioners and researchers to identify priority information needs that can be met by new research in the social and natural sciences.

2. The exercises we have coordinated included identification of priority policy-relevant research questions in specific geographies (UK, USA, Canada); questions relating to global conservation; questions relating to global agriculture; policy opportunities in the United Kingdom; and emerging global conservation issues or ‘horizon scanning’.

3. We outline the exercises and describe our methods, which are based on principles of inclusivity, openness and democracy. Methods to maximize inclusiveness and rigour in such exercises include solicitation of questions and priorities from an extensive community, online collation of material, repeated voting and engagement with policy networks to foster uptake and application of the results.

4. These methods are transferable to a wide range of policy or research areas within and beyond the conservation sciences.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (179K)