12 pages, Knowledge brokers are often portrayed as neutral intermediaries that act as a necessary conduit between the spheres of science and policy. Conceived largely as a task in packaging, brokers are expected to link knowledge producers and users and objectively translate science into policy-useable knowledge. The research presented in this paper shows how brokering can be far more active and precarious. We present findings from semi-structured interviews with practitioners working with community-based groups involved in collaborative water planning in New Zealand’s South Island region of Canterbury. Working in a highly conflicted situation, our brokers had to navigate different knowledges and epistemic practices, highly divergent values and grapple with uncertainties to deliver recommendations for regional authorities to set water quality and quantity limits. Conceiving science and policy as interlinked, mutually constitutive and co-produced at multiple levels, rather than as separate domains, shows how the brokers of this study were not only bridging or blurring science policy boundaries to integrate and translate knowledges. They were also building boundaries between science and policy to foster credibility and legitimacy for themselves as scientists and the knowledge they were brokering. This research identifies further under-explored aspects of brokering expertise, namely, the multiple dimensions of brokering, transdisciplinary skills and expertise, ‘absorptive’ uncertainty management and knowledge translation practices.
7 pages., Article 26, Via online journal., As global problems have become ever more complex, the production and organization of knowledge in society is increasingly based on the sharing, integration and collaboration of diverse experiences. For instance, global ‘grand challenges’, such as world hunger, poverty, climate change, and sustainability often require an interdisciplinary (ID) approach, in which integrating the insights of different disciplines provides a more comprehensive solution than can be offered by any given discipline. Universities or higher educational institutions face increasing pressures to engage in such interdisciplinary collaboration. This interdisciplinarity, however, raises particular organizational challenges to departments in higher educational institutions. In particular, while departments have been traditionally organized around a disciplinary core, interdisciplinarity has placed increasing pressures on departments, such as agricultural economics, to integrate insights from disciplines that do not advance a department’s disciplinary core. Few ID researchers have addressed the issue of how this internal conflict can be resolved in a departmental setting. Resolving this internal conflict is important to developing a greater interdisciplinarity among the disciplines of departmental units where a greater variety of disciplinary insights can be drawn upon to solve complex social problems. Here, we call for a unique organizational structure that can resolve this internal conflict. In using agricultural economics departments as a case study, we appeal to a concept of a “gatekeeper” whose role is to institute “loosely coupled” connections that can reconcile a department’s internal conflicts. This “gatekeeper” can advance the “normal science” of a department’s core and peripheral disciplines, while at the same time support a ‘common ground’ that appeals to these disciplines’ common interests. A key conclusion is that “gatekeepers” can sustain the integration of disciplinary insights necessary for the advancement of interdisciplinarity in higher educational institutions.
9 pages, Poverty is an important issue for third world Sub-Saharan African countries such as Ethiopia. To assist with poverty alleviation, a great number of nongovernmental organizations have moved resources into the region, but the problem has not significantly improved. This paper studies the Jerusalem Children and Community Development Organization (JeCCDO), an NGO that has engaged in poverty alleviation programs in Ethiopia for more than 35 years. The study examines communication practices used by JeCCDO as part of its poverty alleviation programs in Negede Woito community (Bahir Dar, Ethiopia). We use a qualitative research methodology to assess the organization’s communication practices, as well as the challenges it and the Negede Woito community face. Poverty is perceived as lack of resources by JeCCDO, but the community also prioritizes other forms of poverty such as psychological and cultural. Our findings reveal that JeCCDO is renowned for using a social enterprise development model and a participatory communication approach. However, in practice we find these are not used. In the models, endogenous knowledge and grassroots communication were vital to community development, but JeCCDO did not implement them during planning, implementing, and evaluating community-based programs. Community workers who coordinated the organization and the community were Negede Woito community members. Besides grassroots communication, knowing the context and living situation of the community is mandatory for development agents. JeCCDO did not contextualize development efforts, such as sheep fattening and poultry for people who did not have shelter. In conclusion, we propose that nongovernmental organizations and development workers should reconsider their communication contexts and practices while launching new poverty alleviation programs.
