Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Socio-economic atlas of Kenya: Depicting the national population census by county and sub-location

The Socio-Economic Atlas of Kenya is the first of its kind to offer high-resolution spatial depictions and analyses of data collected in the 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census . The combination of geographic and socio-eco - nomic data enables policymakers at all levels, development experts, and other interested readers to gain a spatial understanding of dynamics affecting Kenya. Where is the informal economic sector most prominent? Which areas have adequate water and sanitation? Where is population growth being slowed effectively? How do education levels vary throughout the country? And where are poverty rates lowest? Answers to questions such as these, grouped into seven broad themes, are visually illustrated on high-resolution maps. By supplying precise information at the sub-location level and summarizing it at the county level, the atlas facilitates better planning that accounts for local contexts and needs. It is a valuable decision-support tool for government institutions at different administrative levels, educational institutions, and others. Three organizations – two in Kenya and one in Switzerland – worked together to create the atlas: the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), the Nanyuki-based Centre for Training and Integrated Research in ASAL Development (CETRAD), and the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Bern. Close cooperation between KNBS, CETRAD, and CDE maximized synergies and knowledge exchange.

Policy Instrument Selection under Uncertainty: The Case of Micropollution Regulation

The paper addresses the question of which factors drive the formation of policy preferences when there are remaining uncertainties about the causes and effects of the problem at stake. To answer this question we examine policy preferences reducing aquatic micropollutants, a specific case of water protection policy and different actor groups (e.g. state, science, target groups). Here, we contrast two types of policy preferences: a) preventive or source-directed policies, which mitigate pollution in order to avoid contact with water; and b) reactive or end-of-pipe policies, which filter water already contaminated by pollutants. In a second step, we analyze the drivers for actors’ policy preferences by focusing on three sets of explanations, i.e. participation, affectedness and international collaborations. The analysis of our survey data, qualitative interviews and regression analysis of the Swiss political elite show that participation in the policy-making process leads to knowledge exchange and reduces uncertainties about the policy problem, which promotes preferences for preventive policies. Likewise, actors who are affected by the consequences of micropollutants, such as consumer or environmental associations, opt for anticipatory policies. Interestingly, we find that uncertainties about the effectiveness of preventive policies can promote preferences for end-of-pipe policies. While preventive measures often rely on (uncertain) behavioral changes of target groups, reactive policies are more reliable when it comes to fulfilling defined policy goals. Finally, we find that in a transboundary water management context, actors with international collaborations prefer policies that produce immediate and reliable outcomes.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

Building up and sharing knowledge for better decision making on soil and water conservation in a changing mountain environment - the WOCAT experience

For successful implementation of any soil and water conservation (SWC) or sustainable land management practice, it is essential to have a proper understanding of the natural and human environment in which these practices are applied. This understanding should be based on comprehensive information concerning the application of the technologies and not solely on the technological details. The World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) is documenting and evaluating SWC practices worldwide, following a standardised methodology that facilitates exchange and comparison of experiences. Notwithstanding this standardisation, WOCAT allows flexible use of its outputs, adapted to different users and different environments. WOCAT offers a valuable tool for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of SWC practices and their potential for application in other areas. Besides collecting a wealth of information, gaps in available information are also exposed, showing the need for more research in those fields. Several key issues for development- oriented research have been identified and are being addressed in collaboration with a research programme for mitigating syndromes of global change.

Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: towards a push model of open innovation

Open innovation is increasingly being adopted in business and describes a situation in which firms exchange ideas and knowledge with external participants, such as customers, suppliers, partner firms, and universities. This article extends the concept of open innovation with a push model of open innovation: knowledge is voluntarily created outside a firm by individuals and organisations who proceed to push knowledge into a firm’s open innovation project. For empirical analysis, we examine source code and newsgroup data on the Eclipse Development Platform. We find that outsiders invest as much in the firm’s project as the founding firm itself. Based on the insights from Eclipse, we develop four propositions: ‘preemptive generosity’ of a firm, ‘continuous commitment’, ‘adaptive governance structure’, and ‘low entry barrier’ are contexts that enable the push model of open innovation.