Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorClark, William
dc.contributor.authorTomich, Thomas P.
dc.contributor.authorNoordwijk, Meine van
dc.contributor.authorGuston, David
dc.contributor.authorDelia, Catacutan
dc.contributor.authorDickson, Nancy M.
dc.contributor.authorMcNie, Elizabeth
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-18T20:10:58Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationClark, William C., Thomas P. Tomich, Meine van Noordwijk, David Guston, Delia Catacutan, Nancy M. Dickson, and Elizabeth McNie. 2011. Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (August 15, 2011): published online.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1091-6490en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9774653
dc.description.abstractPrevious research on the determinants of effectiveness in knowledge systems seeking to support sustainable development has highlighted the importance of “boundary work” through which research communities organize their relations with new science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of action and policymaking. A growing body of scholarship postulates specific attributes of boundary work that promote used and useful research. These propositions, however, are largely based on the experience of a few industrialized countries. We report here on an effort to evaluate their relevance for efforts to harness science in support of sustainability in the developing world. We carried out a multicountry comparative analysis of natural resource management programs conducted under the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. We discovered six distinctive kinds of boundary work contributing to the successes of those programs—a greater variety than has been documented in previous studies. We argue that these different kinds of boundary work can be understood as a dual response to the different uses for which the results of specific research programs are intended, and the different sources of knowledge drawn on by those programs. We show that these distinctive kinds of boundary work require distinctive strategies to organize them effectively. Especially important are arrangements regarding participation of stakeholders, accountability in governance, and the use of “boundary objects.” We conclude that improving the ability of research programs to produce useful knowledge for sustainable development will require both greater and differentiated support for multiple forms of boundary work.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherNational Academy of Sciencesen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108en_US
dash.licenseLAA
dc.subjectsustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectsustainability scienceen_US
dc.subjectsustainable developmenten_US
dc.subjectsustainable agricultureen_US
dc.subjectnatural resource managementen_US
dc.subjectboundary worken_US
dc.titleBoundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.relation.journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesen_US
dash.depositing.authorClark, William
dc.date.available2012-10-18T20:10:58Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1073/pnas.0900231108*
dash.contributor.affiliatedDickson, Nancy
dash.contributor.affiliatedClark, William


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record