Biol Invasions (2010) 12:4065–4075 DOI 10.1007/s10530-010-9812-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology? Karen J. Esler • Heidi Prozesky • Gyan P. Sharma • Melodie McGeoch
Received: 14 December 2009 / Accepted: 29 April 2010 / Published online: 3 July 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Present Address: G. P. Sharma Environmental Biology, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India
implementation of knowledge generated, by addressing aspects of management, policy, and/or implementation; the impact of these papers as indicated by the number of citations they attract; and the geopolitical scale of focus of invasion ecology papers, particularly those that attempt to bridge the knowingdoing gap. We then compared these findings with the information needs of conservation practitioners. We first looked globally at popular search engines and then narrowed our focus to South Africa—one of three regions outside USA where researchers producing highly cited papers in invasion ecology are well represented. At this level, we conducted a content analysis of invasion ecology-related papers, of which at least one author was affiliated to a South African institution. The knowledge base in the field of invasion biology is comprised largely of research oriented towards ‘‘knowing’’, while research aimed at strategically applying or implementing that knowledge is poorly represented in the scientific literature, and the scale of its emphasis is not local. Conservation practitioners clearly indicate a need for basic knowledge. However, invasion science must develop channels for effective engagement to ensure that the research is contextualised, and will deal with the complex ecological, social and economic challenges posed by invasions.
M. McGeoch DST-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology & Cape Research Centre, South African National Parks, P.O. Box 216, Steenberg 7947, South Africa
Keywords Bibliometric analysis Biological invasion Conservation practitioners Management Implementation Policy
Abstract Invasion biology is a growing discipline with clear ecological, social and economic implications. A wide range of research effort is thus required to address the invasion problem, and literature on the topic is extensive. However, the extent to which the invasion biology research is addressing the challenges associated with management and mitigation of the impacts of invasions has been questioned. Using bibliometric analysis, we investigated the extent to which the literature on the subject contributes to
K. J. Esler (&) G. P. Sharma Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology & DST-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, South Africa e-mail:
[email protected] H. Prozesky Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology & DST-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1, Matieland, South Africa
123
4066
Introduction Biological invasions are particularly significant in terms of their local and regional consequences and ultimately global, cumulative impacts (Sala et al. 2000; Davis 2009). Correspondingly, a significant amount of time, money and effort has been invested in invasion-related research, leading to a substantial increase in publications in the field in recent years (Pysˇek et al. 2006; Richardson and Pysˇek 2008). A wide range of research effort is needed, given the diversity, ecological and social complexity of the invasion problem (e.g. Larson 2007), as well as its undeniable ubiquity. The question is—to what extent does this literature address the challenges associated with the management and mitigation of the impacts of invasions? While invasions provide an excellent platform to investigate emergent theories and laws in ecology, that may well have practical implications (Lawton 1999), there is also a direct, practical need to understand invasions for the purpose of informing policy and management interventions. In recent years, the gap between knowledge and action has been highlighted in a range of related conservation practice disciplines, such as conservation planning (Knight et al. 2008), resource management (Shackleton et al. 2009), ecosystem management (McNie 2007), endangered species management (Stinchcombe et al. 2002; Linklater 2003) and restoration (Higgs 2005; Aronson et al. 2009). A recent assessment of invasive alien species pressure on biodiversity clearly demonstrated the divide between information available on invasive species and that needed for policy and management (McGeoch et al. 2010). One of the key findings of this study was the dearth of readily available basic information on the identity of invasive alien species in many countries, the consequences of which inhibit both the monitoring and management of the invasion problem. Alarming and accelerating rates of biodiversity loss have been linked to calls for evidence-based action and claims that the limited success of initiatives to stem this loss is at least partially related to relevance of scientific research outputs (Sutherland et al. 2004, 2009). Other reasons provided for the inadequacy of an evidencebase for informed conservation action include the following: lack of involvement of practitioner-stakeholders during the formulation of research programmes (Larson 2007); the lack of relevant
123
K. J. Esler et al.
information that is readily accessible or available in an appropriate form (Bullock et al. 2001; Sunderland et al. 2009); the choice of language used, which tends to insulate scientific from popular discussion (Larson 2007); a potentially artificial distinction between science and society, which effectively operates as a form of ‘‘political…non-action towards invasive species’’ (Larson 2007); and, because of the socioecological complexity of conservation related problems and the way in which knowledge has traditionally been compartmentalized into disciplines, the lack of interdisciplinarity (Campbell 2005) and even transdisciplinarity (Max-Neef 2005; Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn 2008; Shanley and Lo´pez 2009). Furthermore, it has been argued that many challenges encountered by societies in managing natural resources arise because of ‘‘a mismatch between the scale of management and the scale of the ecological processes or natural resources being managed’’ (Cumming et al. 2006) or researched. The expanding global literature on invasion biology has been subject to many reviews and assessments that have drawn together conceptual frameworks and assessed progress on the practical front (Lockwood et al. 2007, Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn 2008; and see Pysˇek et al. 2006). However, as outlined above, there have also been claims in this discipline that the advances made in understanding invasion biology have had inadequate effects on management initiatives (Hulme 2003; Richardson and van Wilgen 2004). Here, we present a bibliometric analysis to investigate what proportion of the academic literature on invasion ecology makes a direct link between ‘‘knowing’’ (developing a purely intellectual understanding of biological invasion) and ‘‘doing’’ (management, policy and implementation or intervention research, based on that understanding). Further, we explore what priorities the end-users of this knowledge give to the types of information being published, considering the knowledge they require. ‘‘Knowing’’ research can also be defined as ‘‘basic’’ research, viz. ‘‘experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view’’ (OECD 2002). In contrast, ‘‘doing’’ or ‘‘applied’’ research is also an ‘‘original investigation undertaken in order to acquire knowledge. It is however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective’’ (OECD 2002).
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology?
Our specific objectives were: (1) to determine the extent to which the literature on the subject of invasions involves the implementation of knowledge, by addressing management, policy, and/or implementation; (2) to ascertain the scale of focus (global, regional, or local) of those invasion ecology articles that attempt to bridge the ‘‘knowing-doing gap’’; (3) to compare ‘‘knowing’’ and ‘‘doing’’ articles in terms of the impact or influence they have on the field of invasion ecology, as indicated by the number of citations they attract; and (4) to ascertain what conservation practitioners themselves consider to be research priorities in the field of invasion biology, and how these compare with the balance of basic and applied research being published.
Methods In this paper, the term ‘‘alien’’ refers to an organism ‘‘in a given area whose presence there is due to intentional or accidental introduction as a result of human activities’’ (Pysˇek et al. 2004). Synonyms include ‘‘exotic,’’ ‘‘nonindigenous’’ and ‘‘nonnative’’. The term ‘‘invasive’’ refers to naturalized organisms that produce reproductive offspring, and have selfsustaining populations that have dispersed, without active human assistance, beyond sites of initial introduction into natural ecosystems (Pysˇek et al. 2004). We included literature of both marine and terrestrial invasive plants and animals in our study, but did not include ‘‘extra-limitals’’—indigenous organisms that have moved beyond their natural ranges within countries. We conducted the bibliometric analysis at two scales—first, a global view is provided by interrogating Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science. At the second scale we narrowed our focus to South Africa—one of three regions outside USA where researchers producing highly cited articles in invasion ecology are well represented (Pysˇek et al. 2006). In this country, most work on invasions is linked to the broader research foci on land and primary resources, and is located within the scientific areas of environment/ecology and plant and animal sciences. The latter are the three most productive scientific disciplines in South Africa (Pouris 2006), and rate among only nine disciplines in the country that have a significant global citation footprint (Pouris 2007).
4067
Global bibliometric study Global data were compiled from Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science web-based search engine (http://portal.isiknowledge.com; date of search 30 November 2009). Articles published in the field of invasion ecology over a period of almost two and half decades (1987-present) were collated, and subjected to keyword searches within titles, abstracts, keywords and full text. Articles were grouped according to the filters (1) ‘‘invas*’’ and ‘‘ecolog*’’; (2) ‘‘invas*’’ and ‘‘ecolog*’’ and ‘‘manag*’’; (3) ‘‘invas*’’ and ‘‘ecolog*’’ and ‘‘policy’’ and (4) ‘‘invas*’’ and ‘‘ecol*’’ and ‘‘implement*’’. While we acknowledge that terms additional or alternative to ‘‘management’’, ‘‘policy’’ and/or ‘‘implementation’’ (and their derivatives) may be used by practitioners, we argue, on the basis of our experience, that papers that mention these terms represent those most commonly used by researchers in the scientific literature to indicate a bridging of the knowing-doing gap. We further acknowledge that the mere mention of these terms does not necessarily mean that the work is relevant and/or accessible to those who need it (Shanley and Lo´pez 2009). Subject areas were selected according to the categorization ‘‘environment’’ used by Thomson Scientific (ISI). South African study We conducted a content and citation analysis of invasion-related articles, of which at least one author was affiliated to a South African institution at time of publication, and which were published over a period of one and a half decades (1990–2005) in journals that were listed in Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science at the time of a paper’s publication. The articles were selected from SA Knowledgebase, a dynamic database of public science in South Africa, developed by the Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University. Selection of invasion-related articles from this database was done on the basis of the presence of key terms and their combinations or derivatives occurring in the paper and/or journal titles, abstracts and/or keywords. Key terms were identified in consultation with members of the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at Stellenbosch University, to ensure the inclusion of as many terms as possible that
123
4068
K. J. Esler et al.
are used to describe key aspects of the field. Examples include invasive/invasion; alien/plant invasions; naturalized/non-indigenous; indigenous; native; exotic; biological invasions; alien species; invasive alien species and invasion biology. In subsequent searches, the net was thrown wider to include broader terms and their derivatives, e.g. biological control, so as to identify papers not identified by the first set of obvious terms. Selecting articles with at least one South African author ensured that our database reflected research authored (and therefore conducted) by South African scientists, not merely research relevant to South Africa (which would have been the case had we conducted a search of Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science with ‘‘South Africa’’ as a search term). The resulting total of 337 articles was subjected to content analysis, which is an unobtrusive research method particularly well-suited to the study of communications and to answering the classic question of communication research: ‘‘Who says what, to
whom, why, how, and with what effect?’’ (Babbie and Mouton 2001). The latent content, or underlying meaning of the articles was coded by reading each article in its entirety and making an overall assessment of its primary emphasis. This assessment was also influenced by the appearance of words such as ‘‘management’’, ‘‘policy’’ and ‘‘implementation’’, but did not depend (as is the case in manifest content analysis) on their frequency (Babbie and Mouton 2001). Guided by a ‘‘grounded theory’’ approach, 10 categories of emphasis (Table 1) were identified. The categories were derived directly from a close reading of the articles, rather than subjecting the articles to a conceptual framework formulated prior to the analysis. Consequently, the categories are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, with no single article classified under more than one of the 10 categories of emphasis. In general, the articles tended to fall clearly into particular categories. In cases where articles contained material relating to more than one category, we categorised them according to what we considered
Table 1 Description of categories in South African invasion research, including percentage of publications in each category (N = 337) Broad areas
Code
Description of the broad areas Basic research
% Publication
Invasion research
IR
Focus on the definitions, concepts, mechanisms, new introductions, distribution, abundance, demography, and synergistic affects etc. caused by invasives (i.e. research largely confined to classical invasion biology)
41.25
Bio-control research
BCR
Deals with bio-control and discussing pros and cons and suitability for release
19.88
Invasion impact
II
Discusses the impact of invasives on native flora or fauna
Invasion predictions
IP
Discusses invasive species spread at various temporal and spatial scales
2.08
Invasion research, spread
IRS
Discusses spread of invasives in time and space
1.48
Total
9.50
74.19 Management
Invasion research, management
IRM
Discusses management of invasives, but which has still not been implemented at ground level
9.50
Bio-control research, management
BCRM Discusses management of invasives, but which has still not been implemented at ground level
2.67
Total
12.17 Implementation
Bio-control research, implementation
BCRI
Has resulted in some implementation at ground level whether successful or not
8.90
Invasion research, implementation
IRI
Has resulted in some implementation at ground level
3.26
Invasion research restoration
IRR
Discusses restoration after invasion
1.48
Total
123
13.58
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology?
to be the ‘‘primary emphasis’’ of the article (as reflected in its title and/or abstract). As the terms used to describe the categories are subject to interpretation, their operational definitions are clearly specified in Table 1. Reliability was enhanced by the fact that, after joint agreement on these definitions, only one of the authors coded the articles, thereby avoiding variations in definitions or standards. For each of the 10 categories, number of publications, % publications (out of the 337 articles), number of citations (weighted by number of years since publication) and % citation was calculated. As SA Knowledgebase does not contain any data on citations, the total number of citations for each article was recorded from the Thomson Scientific’s Web of Science database during October 2006. As Pysˇek et al. (2006) report a ‘‘steadily increasing accelerating annual citation rate’’ in invasion ecology, it was deemed necessary to control for the time available for accumulation of citations, by calculating the annual citation rate (i.e., the number of citations per year) for each article. The ten categories were then combined into three broad groups, viz. basic research (which includes biocontrol research, invasion impact, invasion predictions, invasion research and range expansion research), management (which includes mention of bio-control research-management and invasion research-management, but not the on-the-ground testing thereof), and implementation (which includes on-the-ground application, including biocontrol, research-implementation, invasion research-implementation and invasion research restoration). To determine the geographic scale at which the articles citing ‘‘management’’ and ‘‘implementation’’ focus, each of these articles was scanned to determine the spatial extent of the study, on the basis of which each study was assigned to one of three geopolitical classes: global and continental, regional (i.e., with a scope spanning several nations) or national (i.e., with a scope strictly limited to a single country) and landscape or local. To evaluate the extent to which research conducted in the field of invasion biology matches information needs, conservation managers were asked to identify key knowledge gaps impeding the effectiveness with which they are able to manage the protected area(s) for which they are responsible. Personal interviews were conducted with a total of 35 conservation practitioners (encompassing the majority of relevant park personnel
4069
from park managers to field rangers) from four protected areas managed by South African National Parks (those principally encompassing Fynbos; West Coast, Table Mountain, Bontebok and Agulhas National Parks). The approach developed by Sutherland et al. (2006) was used, whereby practitioners were requested to pose questions that, according to them, required answering to improve the effectiveness of land management and biodiversity conservation. The interviews were not restricted to the topic of invasive alien species, but only those results relating to this topic are reported here.
Results The dominance of ‘‘knowing’’ research over ‘‘doing’’ research is reflected in the global literature (v2 = 1320.25, d.f. = 1, P \ 0.001). A total of 8,880 search engine ‘‘hits’’ were returned after a search that included the terms ‘‘invasion’’ and ‘‘ecology’’ (and derivatives of the words). A reasonably high proportion of these papers (26%, N = 2342) mentioned the term ‘‘management’’. However, only 2% (N = 164 out of 8,880) referred to the term ‘‘policy’’ and 3% (N = 222 out of 8 880) to the term ‘‘implementation’’ (and derivatives of the word). A caveat to these observations concerns the confounding effect of the number of keywords, as an increase in search terms would automatically reduce the number of hits. The latter three searches, however, included the same number of terms. Moreover, similar trends were highlighted in the South African scale study. Nearly three quarters (74%) of articles published in the field of biological invasions since 1990 by South Africans were classified broadly as basic research (‘‘knowing’’), while a smaller remaining proportion (26%) incorporated an applied aspect (‘‘doing’’) (v2 = 78.84, d.f. = 1, P \ 0.001; Table 1). Invasion research within the ‘‘knowing’’ category that focuses primarily on definitions, concepts, distributions and effects, accounted for the largest proportion of these publications (41%) (Table 1). The South African data further show that the numbers of citations attracted by papers in the categories ‘‘basic research’’ and ‘‘management’’ (Fig. 1a and b) are generally proportionate to publication volume, but that research geared toward
123
4070
K. J. Esler et al.
Percentage citation / publication
A
Table 2 Number and percentage of publications from South Africa sorted by spatial scale in the collapsed categories of management and implementation
80 70
% publication % citation
Spatial scale
Number of publications
40
Global and continental
30
34.5
30
National and regional
54
62.0
Local/landscape level
3
60 50
20 10
Total
3.5 100
0 Broad Research
Management
Implementation
Research publication category
B Percentage citation / publication
87
% publications
60
% publication % citation
50 40 30 20 10 0 IR
BCR
II
IP
Broad research
IRS
IRM
BCRM
Management
BCRI
IRI
IRR
Implementation
Research publication category
Fig. 1 A comparison between percentage publications and % citations in (a), collapsed categories of Basic research, Management and Implementation (including policy research) and b, categories of research emphasis (refer to Table 1 for explanation of codes)
implementation has a lower impact on the field as a whole; i.e. articles in this category were cited proportionately less than the other collapsed categories (v2 = 107.22, d.f. = 2, P \ 0.001; Fig. 1a). A more detailed look at the finer categories of research emphasis (Fig. 1b) shows that this is particularly true for bio-control research. Finally, scientific research aimed at management or implementation was found to be largely focused on broader spatial scales, with significantly fewer studies conducted at finer (local and landscape) scales (between three scales: v2 = 44.89, d.f. = 2, P \ 0.001; Table 2). More than 60% of the articles on the management and implementation of invasives focused on issues of a national and regional scale, while a relatively strong contribution was also made at the global and continental scales (35%). Conversely, very few fine scale-focus articles (3%) have been published by South African authors since 1990.
123
The 35 conservation practitioners interviewed posed a total of 325 questions, of which 11.3% related to alien and invasive species. The latter 37 complex questions were decomposed into 55 individual, topicspecific questions, and 11 broad topics (Table 3). Of the questions posed, 60% conveyed a need for basic research (across 7 main topics), whereas 40% of the questions (4 topics) call for research on the control and management of invasive alien species (basic versus applied questions: v2 = 2.2, d.f. = 1, P = 0.13; Table 3). Most basic research needs concerned the population size, spread, distribution and identity of alien and invasive species, whereas most management and implementation-related questions expressed a need for research on the type and effectiveness of control methods and the management strategies to be used (Table 3). The proportion of basic versus applied knowledge required by conservation practitioners (60% basic vs. 40% applied) thus approximates the proportion appearing in the literature (74% basic vs. 26% applied), albeit that basic research is 14% more common in the latter.
Discussion Considerable investment has been made in the research and management of biological invasions, both globally and in South Africa (e.g. Richardson and van Wilgen 2004; Shirley and Kark 2006; Marais and Wannenburgh 2008). Correspondingly, the publication base of the field of biological invasions continues to grow exponentially (Richardson and Pysˇek 2008), in terms of both size and impact. Based on the classifications of ‘‘knowing’’/basic research, versus ‘‘doing’’/applied research, the results presented here demonstrate, at least at face value, that the body of research that could directly inform the
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology? Table 3 Topics and categories of questions posed by conservation practitioners (percentage of total questions on alien and invasive species) that require research on alien and invasive species Topic
%
Description of research
Basic research Numbers and spread Distribution
16.4 Population dynamics and spread, invasion status 12.7 The location and distribution of species, alien mapping
Species composition
10.9 Are particular alien species present, which alien species are present, and how many alien species are present?
Impacts of species
9.1 What impact do particular species have on biodiversity and ecosystems?
Interactions
5.5 Between aliens and humans, fire and carbon storage
Pathways
3.6 Specifically whether road verges facilitate spread
Hybridization Total
1.8 Between native and alien species 60%
Management/implementation research Control methods
14.5 Management and control options and strategies
Effectiveness of methods
10.9 How effective are particular control methods? Secondary infestation, herbicide tolerance
Impacts of management Rehabilitation Total
9.1 Impact of control methods on biodiversity and habitat (non-target/ unintentional) 5.5 How to rehabilitate post clearing 40%
mounting applied challenges associated with invasion detection, control and management (Perrings et al. 2002) lags behind the body of research representing the ‘‘spectator’’ approach (see below, Babbie and Mouton 2001) to biological invasions. It is interesting to note, however, that rather than a dominance of applied knowledge, the knowledge required by conservation practitioners in our study reflected a balance between basic and applied information needs, whereas basic research remains better represented in published literature. It is important to acknowledge that there is a broader set of arguments at play that impact fundamentally on these results. The classifications used in this paper are based on one way that scientists conceptualize knowledge and do not infer any value
4071
of one approach over another. At the one extreme, knowledge can be viewed as ‘‘exclusively theoretical’’. This is the ‘‘spectator view’’ (Babbie and Mouton 2001) which regards knowledge generation as an intellectual or speculative pursuit, aimed largely at establishing generalities that make sense of a diverse world to allow the creation of a predictive science (Lawton 1999). Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn (2008) refer to this as ‘‘systems knowledge’’. In contrast there is the view that knowledge to some extent entails a certain level of intervention, be it ‘‘weak’’ (making research available to serve a particular cause) or ‘‘strong’’ (where active steps are taken to promote the use of the knowledge) (Babbie and Mouton 2001). Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn (2008) refer to the latter as ‘‘transformation knowledge’’. Research classified as ‘‘knowing’’ may well be ‘‘oriented’’ basic research, carried out with the expectation that it will produce a broad base of knowledge upon which to resolve more applied questions (OECD 2002; Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn 2008). Both ‘‘knowing’’ and ‘‘doing’’ forms of research are legitimate avenues of inquiry that are mutually supporting and complimentary, (Linklater 2003). However, it is of interest to examine these patterns in more detail, as this provides information on the status quo of the research base, on the potential drivers of the research and on potential future research directions. Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn (2008), who reported on problem-oriented landscape research with a focus on biotic invasions, concluded in a qualitative review that a broad range of research approaches have emerged in the invasion field. This research, they argued, targeted the entire range of knowledge forms and that while early research in the field was dominated by spectator-view, ‘‘systems’’ knowledge, other forms of knowledge have increasingly received more attention, although transdisciplinary research is scarce. The results shown here demonstrate that it is basic research on this subject of significant conservation concern, i.e. invasions, that is still making its way to a greater degree into the peer-reviewed literature. The body of recent research aimed primarily at strategically applying or implementing that knowledge is less well represented in the scientific literature, although it may well exist in other forms, such as research reports and books (Mouton 2003), popular articles and web pages. It may be that the latter forms of communication are more accessible to
123
4072
the practitioners who need the information and therefore the work is preferentially targeted to these outlets, but it is also possible that less applied research is conducted, or that the research is less successful in being accepted into the mainstream peer-reviewed literature. There are indeed increasing moves by journals in related disciplines to embrace previously ‘‘outcast’’ literature, provided it is defensible, by for example publishing failed experiments or ideas along with those that succeeded (Failing and Gregory 2003; Hobbs 2009; Knight 2009). A recurring theme in science policy documents of the postapartheid South African government is the call for relevant and strategic research aimed at meeting the socio-economic demands of society (Babbie and Mouton 2001). Colautti and Richardson (2009), however, caution against the ‘‘careless incorporation’’ of what they refer to as ‘‘motivational subjectivity’’ (the framing of ecological questions in response to issues important to society as a whole) into the methods of science, particularly in peer-reviewed publications. Nevertheless, our findings strongly suggest a need to rectify an observed imbalance in terms of the spatial scale of research that is being conducted. Biological invasion is an immense and complex global challenge, the impacts of which can be felt at all scales (Davis 2009). While some solutions may be found in the policy interventions steered by global players (e.g. policy and investment decisions), many solutions must necessarily be landscape level or local in nature (hands-on management). Yet published South African research on management and implementation of invasions at this scale is minimal. Do researchers, who are working on local-scale issues, find publication more challenging within a globalised science system that eschews so-called ‘‘parochialism’’? Is the pursuit of international relevance and recognition overshadowing a genuine, local management implementation crisis? Or is research at this scale relegated to the grey literature and never subjected to the critical scrutiny of peer review—a process whereby independent experts ensure scientific quality and integrity? Acknowledging that there is a need to address the gap between knowledge and action, how do we go about further closing the gap and how can science contribute? Clearly advancing management, policy and implementation requires a different approach to advancing science (Briggs 2006). Science is about
123
K. J. Esler et al.
logical study, the expertise of individuals, and the gaining, testing and generalizing of new knowledge. Management and policy related activities have to work with uncertainties and within a range of knowledge, contexts (often highly local) and value systems (Briggs 2006). Possible solutions to bridging the ‘‘knowing’’-’’doing’’ gap include expanding systems within and beyond science to allow this to take place by adding additional ways of doing things [such as greater inclusion of social-ecological research and action-oriented, transdisciplinary research, Kueffer and Hirsch Hadorn (2008)] and perhaps an additional suite of reward systems. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research involves the collaborative process of a range of experts from different disciplines working together, using a shared conceptual framework, and leading to the emergence of original ideas and knowledge (Choi and Pak 2006). Transdisciplinary research additionally involves stakeholders through a participatory process and has been applied to help solve, mitigate or prevent life-world problems in complex social-ecological systems (Pohl 2008). Within the current reward system, there may well be a disincentive for scientists to publish applied and local scale research. The same applies to interdisciplinary research (Rhoten and Parker 2004). Publications based on a clearly defined, broad research paradigm tend to attract a greater number of citations compared to those where research is focused on local or landscape-level problems or themes (Pouris 2006), and ‘‘researchers tend to publish in journals with high impact factors calculated in terms of citations by their peers rather than accessibility to or readership by policy-makers’’ and/or managers (Gibbons et al. 2008; Shanley and Lo´pez 2009). We found that, although output volumes differ, articles with a focus on management attract numbers of citations proportionally similar to those attracted by basic research. However, implementation-oriented articles appear to make less of an impact (as measured by number of citations), proportionately to what is already a comparatively small volume of output. The primary assumption here is that citation is an indication of impact, at least within academia. However, the validity of what some disparagingly refer to as ‘‘counting footnotes’’ (Wade 1975), is by no means uncontroversial (Weingart 2005). Nevertheless, the authors would argue that, among scientists and those who study them, citations have become inextricably
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology?
linked to constructs such as impact, influence and visibility, and that researchers operating within a social system of science that rewards citations (Lawrence 2002, 2007) will tend to publish ‘‘less risky, mainstream rather than borderline papers’’ that have a greater chance of being cited (Weingart 2005). The observed citation imbalance might therefore reflexively create a disincentive for further research aimed at implementing existing knowledge. Related to this issue, and one of the arguments sometimes put forth by scientists as a reason for not conducting applied research, is the perceived parochial (and therefore potentially invisible in global terms) nature of management problems. This concern is not a new one. As the analysis in this manuscript shows, local scale implementation research indeed tends to draw less attention from the international scientific community. However, this need not be the case. Questions of interest to managers, as described in this paper, are entirely possible to frame within an invasion theory context, while simultaneously addressing local knowledge gaps and information needs (see also Shaw et al. 2010). The majority of questions posed by managers conveyed a need for basic, but nevertheless, ‘‘targeted’’ research (cf. Linklater 2003). There is certainly a need for much closer examination of the actual knowledge and information needs of practitioners (land managers, conservation managers and policy makers), as well as an assessment of the most appropriate forms of knowledge delivery for the different purposes of scientific communication (primary literature), policy (guideline documents) and management (management plans and guidelines). Seavy and Howell (2010) recently reported that synthetic reviews and peer-reviewed publications are, in fact, perceived by managers and practitioners as an important component of conservation and restoration decision making, although one-on-one interactions between ecologists and decision makers is likely to enhance the delivery of best available information. The Invasive Alien Species Indicator for reporting on the 2010 Biodiversity Target showed, for example, that much greater investment is required in research in developing countries, as well as in data collation and information delivery more generally, to inform policy makers of the status of biological invasion (McGeoch et al. 2010). Clearly there is a strong need to engage with the very stakeholders who apply the information
4073
generated through research; this requires mutual understanding, clear communication pathways, rewards for practitioners and scientists who work together, power sharing, mutual respect and forwardthinking (Briggs 2006; Gibbons et al. 2008). Perhaps the answer lies in more frequent and in-depth engagement with the end-users of research-generated knowledge during the formulation of research questions and, as Larson (2007) highlights, adopting ‘‘deliberative methods for environmental problemsolving that involve stakeholders’’ in the design of invasion biology research. Subsequently, the insight gained may be used in the development of research programmes that are able to bridge information needs with scientific theory. This mode of operation is much like that suggested by Roux et al. (2006) who ‘‘propose that ‘co-production’ of knowledge though collaborative learning between ‘experts’ and ‘users’ is a more suitable approach to building a knowledge system for the sustainable management of ecosystems’’. Knowledge, they suggest, should not be viewed as a ‘‘thing’’ that can be easily transferred between scientists and practitioners, but rather that it should be viewed as ‘‘a process of relating’’ (Roux et al. 2006). This approach, they point out, requires cooperation and conciliation among partners. There is no doubt that it is not only the implementation focus of the research being conducted that is necessary to enhance evidence-based invasive alien species management. It is also the translation and delivery of that knowledge, generated into an appropriate and accessible format, that are key to its adoption and application. The processes that drive the patterns we have observed clearly need to be interrogated more closely in future research. Such research would benefit from a longitudinal design, incorporating existing bibliographies of the mainstream and grey literature (e.g. Musil and Macdonald 2007) to (i) test the postulate that implementation-related research tends to be concentrated in the grey literature, (ii) explore trends in the biases we observed, and (iii) identify underlying reasons for these. Whatever the reasons for the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap, our research points towards the need for a critical awareness to develop among invasion biologists about the type of scientific knowledge they produce, and their rationale for doing so. ‘‘Science as usual’’ does not represent the only viable way forward to address the often locally
123
4074
contextualised and multifaceted ecological, social and economic challenges posed by invasions. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding and support given by the DST-NRF Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, South Africa and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We thank the management staff of SANParks that participated in the interview exercise and CREST for access to SA Knowledgebase, from which the South African-level data were extracted.
References Aronson J, Blignaut JB, Milton SJ et al (2009) Are socio-economic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restor Ecol 18:143–154 Babbie E, Mouton J (2001) The practice of social research (South African edition). Oxford University Press, Cape Town Briggs SV (2006) Integrating policy and science in natural resources: why so difficult? Ecol Manage Restor 7:37–39 Bullock H, Mountford J, Stanley R (2001) Better policy making. Centre for management and policy studies. Cabinet Office, London Campbell LM (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv Biol 19:574–577 Choi BCK, Pak AWP (2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 29:351–364 Colautti RI, Richardson DM (2009) Subjectivity and flexibility in invasion terminology: too much of a good thing? Biol Invasions 11:1225–1229 Cumming GS, Cumming DHM, Redman CL (2006) Scale mismatches in social ecological systems: causes, consequences and solutions. Ecol Society 11:14 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 288 Failing L, Gregory R (2003) Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. J Environ Manage 68:121–132 Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K et al (2008) Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecol Manage Restor 9:182–186 Higgs E (2005) The two-culture problems: ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restor Ecol 13: 159–164 Hobbs R (2009) Looking for the silver lining: making the most of failure. Restor Ecol 17:1–3 Hulme PE (2003) Winning the science battles but loosing the conservation war? Oryx 37:178–193 Knight AT (2009) Is conservation ready to fail? Conserv Biol 23:517 Knight A, Cowling RM, Rouget M et al (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617
123
K. J. Esler et al. Kueffer C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) How to Achieve Effectiveness in Problem-oriented landscape research: the example of research on biotic invasions. Living reviews in landscape research 2. URL (cited on 14 April 2010): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2008-2 Larson BMH (2007) An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology. Biol Invasions 9:947–956 Lawrence PA (2002) Rank injustice: the misallocation of credit is endemic in science. Nature 415:835–836 Lawrence PA (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Curr Biol 17:R583–R585 Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192 Linklater WL (2003) Science and management in a conservation crises: a case study with rhinoceros. Conserv Biol 17:968–975 Lockwood JL, Hoopes MF, Marchetti MP (2007) Invasion ecology. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, p 304 Marais C, Wannenburgh AM (2008) Restoration of water resources (natural capital) through the clearing of invasive alien plants from riparian areas in South Africa—costs and water benefits. S Afr J Bot 74:526–537 Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53:5–16 McGeoch MA, Butchart SHM, Spear D, Marais E, Kleynhans EJ, Symes A, Chanson J, Hoffmann M (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Divers Distrib 16:95–108 McNie EC (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38 Mouton J (2003) South African science in transition. Sci Techn Soc 8:235–260 Musil CF, Macdonald IAW (2007) Invasive alien flora and fauna in South Africa: expertise and bibliography. SANBI Biodiversity Series 6. South African biodiversity Institute, Pretoria OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2002) Frascati manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. OECD Publications, Paris Perrings C, Williamson M, Barbier EB et al. (2002) Biological Invasion Risks and the public good: an economic perspective. Ecology 6(1): 1. [online] URL: http://www. consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art1 Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11:46–53 Pouris A (2006) A bibliometric assessment of South African research publications included in the internationally indexed database of Thomson ISI. In academy of science of South Africa (ASSAf). Report on a strategic approach to research publishing in South Africa. Marketing Support Services, Pretoria, pp 9–28 Pouris A (2007) The international performance of the South African academic institutions: a citation assessment. High Educ 54:501–509 Pysˇek P, Richardson DM, Rejma´nek M, Webster GL, Williamson M, Kirschner J (2004) Alien plants in checklists and floras: towards better communication between taxonomists and ecologists. Taxon 53:131–143
How wide is the ‘‘knowing-doing’’ gap in invasion biology? Pysˇek P, Richardson DM, Jarosˇ´ık V (2006) Who cites who in the invasion zoo: insights from an analysis of the most highly cited articles in invasion ecology. Preslia 78:437–468 Rhoten D, Parker A (2004) Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science 306:2046 Richardson DM, Pysˇek P (2008) Fifty years of invasion ecology–the legacy of Charles Elton. Divers Distrib 14: 161–168 Richardson DM, van Wilgen BW (2004) Invasive alien plants in South Africa: how well do we understand the ecological impacts? S Afr J Sci 100:45–52 Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC et al. (2006) Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11:4 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyand society.org/col11/iss1/art4/ Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 5459:1770–1774 Seavy NE, Howell CA (2010) How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions? Biodivers Conserv 19:1261–1267 Shackleton C, Cundhill G, Knight A (2009) Beyond just research: experiences from southern Africa in developing social learning partnerships for resource conservation initiatives. Biotropica 41:563–570 Shanley P, Lo´pez C (2009) Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41:535–544
4075 Shaw JD, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2010) Initiating dialogue between scientists and managers of biological invasions. Biol Invasions. doi:10.1007/s10530-010-9821-9 Shirley SM, Kark S (2006) Amassing efforts against alien invasive species in Europe. PLoS Biol 4:1311–1313 Stinchcombe J, Moyle LC, Hudgens BR et al (2002) The influence of the academic conservation biology literature on endangered species recovery planning. Conserv Biol 6:15 Sunderland T, Sunderland-Groves J, Shanley P, Campbell B (2009) Bridging the gap: how can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41:549–554 Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19:305–308 Sutherland WJ, Armstrong-Brown S, Armsworth PR et al (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J Appl Ecol 43:617–627 Sutherland WJ, Adams WM, Aronson RB et al (2009) One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conserv Biol 23:557–567 Wade N (1975) Citation analysis: a new tool for science administrators. Science 188:429–432 Weingart P (2005) Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics 62: 117–131
123
