Researchers as knowledge brokers: translating knowledge or co-producing legitimacy? An urban infill case from Finland

References

• Bartels, K. P. R., and J. M. Wittmayer. 2014. “Symposium Introduction: Usable Knowledge in Practice: What Action Research has to Offer to Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 8 (4): 397–406. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2014.957335
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., and R. Mäntysalo. 2010. “Agonism and Institutional Ambiguity: Ideas on Democracy and the Role of Participation in the Development of Planning Theory and Practice-the Case of Finland.” Planning Theory 9 (4): 333–350. doi: 10.1177/1473095210373684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevir, M. 2006. “How Narratives Explain.” In Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by D. Yanow and P. Schwartz-Sea, 281–290. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Boezeman, D., M. Vink, P. Leroy, and W. Halffman. 2014. “Participation under a Spell of Instrumentalization? Reflections on Action Research in an Entrenched Climate Adaptation Policy Process.” Critical Policy Studies 8 (4): 407–426. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2014.950304
   Google Scholar
• Bornbaum, C. C., K. Kornas, L. Peirson, and L. C. Rosella. 2015. “Exploring the Function and Effectiveness of Knowledge Brokers as Facilitators of Knowledge Translation in Health-related Settings: A Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis.” Implementation Science 10 (1): 165. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0351-9 doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0353-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2001. “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction.” Science, Technology and Human Values 26 (4): 399–408. doi: 10.1177/016224390102600401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis. Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huitema, D., and E. Turnhout. 2009. “Working at the Science-Policy Interface: A Discursive Analysis of Boundary Work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.” Environmental Politics 18 (4): 576–594. doi: 10.1080/09644010903007427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klerkx, L., and C. Leeuwis. 2009. “Establishment and Embedding of Innovation Brokers at Different Innovation System Levels: Insights from the Dutch Agricultural Sector.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76 (6): 849–860. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornberger, M., and S. Clegg. 2011. “Strategy as Performative Practice: The Case of Sydney 2030.” Strategic Organisation 9 (2): 136–162. doi: 10.1177/1476127011407758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laws, D., and J. Forester. 2015. Conflict, Improvisation, Governance: Street Level Practices for Urban Democracy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leino, H. 2012. “Boundary Interaction in Emerging Scenes: Two Participatory Planning Cases from Finland.” Planning Theory & Practice 13 (3): 383–396. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.706629
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. G., and M. Baldassare. 2010. “The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development. Survey Evidence from Five States.” Journal of American Planning Association 76 (2): 219–237. doi: 10.1080/01944361003646471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, M. 2010. “The Rise of Knowledge Broker.” Science Communication 32 (1): 118–127. doi: 10.1177/1075547009359797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Mahony, S., and B. A. Bechky. 2008. “Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies.” Administrative Science Quarterly 53 (3): 422–459. doi: 10.2189/asqu.53.3.422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puustinen, S. 2006. Suomalainen kaavoittajaprofessio ja suunnittelun kommunikatiivinen käänne: vuorovaikutukseen liittyvät ongelmat ja mahdollisuudet suurten kaupunkien kaavoittajien näkökulmasta. Espoo: Aalto University.
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, M. 2015. “Many Rivers to Cross: Suburban Densification and the Social Status Quo of Greater Lyon.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (3): 622–632. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlierf, K., and M. Meyer. 2013. “Situating Knowledge Intermediation: Insights from Science Shops and Knowledge Brokers.” Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomalty, R. 2002. “Growth Management in the Vancouver Region.” Local Environment 7 (4): 431–445. doi: 10.1080/1354983022000027536
   Google Scholar
• Turnhout, E., M. Stuiver, J. Klostermann, B. Harms, and C. Leeuwis. 2013. “New Roles of Science in Society: Different Repertoires of Knowledge Brokering.” Science and Public Policy 40: 354–365. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallance, S., H. C. Perkins, and K. Moore. 2005. “The Results of Making a City More Compact: Neighbours’ Interpretation of Urban Infill.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32 (5): 715–733. doi: 10.1068/b31157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, V., A. House, and S. Hamer. 2009. “Knowledge Brokering: The Missing Link in the Evidence to Action Chain?” Evidence & Policy : A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 5 (3): 267–279. doi: 10.1332/174426409X463811
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenger, E. 2003. “Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems.” In Knowing in Organizations. A Practice-based Approach, edited by D. Nicolini, S. Gerhardi and D. Yanow, 76–99. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• White, D. D., A. Wutich, K. L. Larson, P. Goeber, T. Lant, and C. Senneville. 2010. “Credibility, Salience, and Legitimacy of Boundary Objects: Water Managers’ Assessment of a Simulation Model in an Immersive Decision Theatre.” Science and Public Policy 37 (3): 219–232. doi: 10.3152/030234210X497726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, P. 2002. “The Competent Boundary Spanner.” Public Administration 80 (1): 103–124. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanow, D., and P. Schwartz-Sea, eds. 2006. Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar