Critical Stakeholder Engagement: The Road to Actionable Science Is Paved with Scientists’ Good Intentions

References

• Alonso-Yanez, G., L. House-Peters, M. Garcia-Cartagena, S. Bonelli, I. Lorenzo-Arana, and M. Ohira. 2019. Mobilizing transdisciplinary collaborations: Collective reflections on decentering academia in knowledge production. Global Sustainability 2:E5. doi: 10.1017/sus.2019.2.
   Google Scholar
• Arnott, J. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, R. M. Meyer, A. M. Meadow, and A. T. Bednarek. 2020. Sponsoring actionable science: What public science funders can do to advance sustainability and the social contract for science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 (February):38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.006.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4):216–24. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Averyt, K., J. D. Derner, L. Dilling, R. Guerrero, L. Joyce, S. McNeeley, E. McNie, J. Morisette, D. Ojima, R. O’Malley, et al. 2018. Regional climate response collaboratives: Multi-institutional support for climate resilience. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 99 (5):891–98. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0183.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamzai-Dodson, A. 2022. Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: Moving from theory to practice. https://shareok.org/handle/11244/335567.
   Google Scholar
• Bamzai-Dodson, A., A. E. Cravens, A. Wade, and R. A. McPherson. 2021. Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: A framework and guidance. Weather, Climate, and Society 13 (4):1027–41. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0046.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamzai-Dodson, A., and R. A. McPherson. 2022. When do climate services achieve societal impact? Evaluations of actionable climate adaptation science. Sustainability 14 (21):14026. doi: 10.3390/su142114026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, J. M., K. C. Elliott, C. R. Booher, K. A. Renn, and R. A. Montgomery. 2021. The application of reflexivity for conservation science. Biological Conservation 262 (October):109322. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109322.
   Google Scholar
• Bednarek, A. T., and V. Tseng. 2022. A global movement for engaged research. Issues in Science and Technology 38 (3):53–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beier, P., L. Hansen, L. Helbrecht, and D. Behar. 2017. A how-to guide for coproduction of actionable science. Conservation Letters 10 (3):288–96. doi: 10.1111/conl.12300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, N. J., R. Roth, S. C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D. A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T. J. Durbin, G. Epstein, et al. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205 (January):93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Boström, M., R. Lidskog, and Y. Uggla. 2017. A reflexive look at reflexivity in environmental sociology. Environmental Sociology 3 (1):6–16. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2016.1237336.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, A. M. 1978. Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report 8 (6):21–29. doi: 10.2307/3561468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasseur, G. P., and L. Gallardo. 2016. Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. Earth’s Future 4 (3):79–89. doi: 10.1002/2015EF000338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briley, L., D. Brown, and S. E. Kalafatis. 2015. Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Climate Risk Management 9:41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2015.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brittain, S., H. Ibbett, E. de Lange, L. Dorward, S. Hoyte, A. Marino, E. J. Milner-Gulland, J. Newth, S. Rakotonarivo, D. Veríssimo, et al. 2020. Ethical considerations when conservation research involves people. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 34 (4):925–33. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brydon-Miller, M., D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire. 2003. Why action research? Action Research 1 (1):9–28. doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, D. R. 2021. The Anthropocene: A special issue. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (3):633–37. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1859312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buxton, R. T., E. A. Nyboer, K. E. Pigeon, G. D. Raby, T. Rytwinski, A. J. Gallagher, R. Schuster, H. Lin, L. Fahrig, J. R. Bennett, et al. 2021. Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science. Conservation Science and Practice 3 (2):e329. doi: 10.1111/csp2.329.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, S., L. Whitmarsh, S. A. Nicholson-Cole, and S. Shackley. 2009. A dynamic typology of stakeholder engagement within climate change research. Working paper 128, Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, Manchester, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Castree, N. 2016. Geography and the new social contract for global change research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41 (3):328–47. doi: 10.1111/tran.12125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnley, S., C. Carothers, T. Satterfield, A. Levine, M. R. Poe, K. Norman, J. Donatuto, S. J. Breslow, M. B. Mascia, P. S. Levin, et al. 2017. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy 73 (July):80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002.
   Google Scholar
• Chief, K., A. M. Chischilly, P. Cochran, M. Durglo, P. Hardison, J. Hostler, K. Lynn, G. Morishima, D. Motanic, J. S. Arnold, et al. 2015. Guidelines for considering traditional knowledges in climate change initiatives. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2555299, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2555299.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, T. 2008. “We’re over-researched here!”: Exploring accounts of research fatigue within qualitative research engagements. Sociology 42 (5):953–70. doi: 10.1177/0038038508094573.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, T. 2010. On “being researched”: Why do people engage with qualitative research? Qualitative Research 10 (4):399–419. doi: 10.1177/1468794110366796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn, J., and G. Cundill. 2018. Ethics in transdisciplinary research: Reflections on the implications of “science with society.” In The Palgrave handbook of ethics in critical research, ed. C. I. Macleod, J. Marx, P. Mnyaka, and G. J. Treharne, 81–97. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-74721-7_6.
   Google Scholar
• Colven, E., and M. J. Thomson. 2019. Bridging the divide between human and physical geography: Potential avenues for collaborative research on climate modeling. Geography Compass 13 (2):e12418. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conant, R. T., D. Kluck, M. Anderson, A. Badger, B. M. Boustead, J. Derner, L. Farris, M. J. Hayes, B. Livneh, and S. McNeeley. 2018. Northern Great Plains. In Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, Vol. II, ed. D. R. Reidmiller, C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, K. L. M. Lewis, T. K. Maycock, and B. C. Stewart, 941–86. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH22.
   Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452230153.
   Google Scholar
• Cravens, A. E., M. S. Jones, C. Ngai, J. Zarestky, and H. B. Love. 2022. Science facilitation: Navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01217-1.
   Google Scholar
• Crutzen, P. J. 2006. The “Anthropocene.” In Earth system science in the anthropocene, ed. E. Ehlers and T. Krafft, 13–18. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/3-540-26590-2_3.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, E., S. Bharwani, Å. Gerger Swartling, G. Vulturius, and K. Brandon. 2020. Refocusing the climate services lens: Introducing a framework for co-designing “transdisciplinary knowledge integration processes” to build climate resilience. Climate Services 19 (August):100181. doi: 10.1016/j.cliser.2020.100181.
   Google Scholar
• David-Chavez, D. M., and M. C. Gavin. 2018. A global assessment of indigenous community engagement in climate research. Environmental Research Letters 13 (12):123005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaf300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos. 2011. Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change 21 (2):680–9. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dilling, L., M. C. Lemos, and N. Singh. 2021. Commentary: First, do no harm: Scaling usable knowledge for just and equitable outcomes. Global Environmental Change 71 (November):102404. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102404.
   Google Scholar
• Diver, S., and M. Higgins. 2014. View of giving back through collaborative research: Towards a practice of dynamic reciprocity. Journal of Research Practice 10 (2):1–13. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/415/354.
   Google Scholar
• Dujardin, S. 2020. Planning with climate change? A poststructuralist approach to climate change adaptation. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110 (4):1059–74. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2019.1664888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durose, C., B. Perry, L. Richardson, and R. Dean. 2023. Leadership and the hidden politics of co-produced research: A Q-methodology study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 26 (1):1–21. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1960738.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, D. B., A. M. Meadow, and H. P. Huntington. 2022. Making a difference: Planning for engaged participation in environmental research. Environmental Management 69 (2):227–43. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01585-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraro, K. M., A. L. Ferraro, and N. R. Sommer. 2021. Challenges facing cross-disciplinary collaboration in conservation ethics. Conservation Science and Practice 3 (11):e523. doi: 10.1111/csp2.523.
   Google Scholar
• Findlater, K., S. Webber, M. Kandlikar, and S. Donner. 2021. Climate services promise better decisions but mainly focus on better data. Nature Climate Change 11 (9):731–37. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01125-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 15 (2):226–43. doi: 10.1177/016224399001500204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2):219–45. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesen, P., E. Doerksen, and A. Gunay. 2021. Solidarity without sovereignty: Extending the Belmont principles further? The American Journal of Bioethics 21 (10):25–27. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1965250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesen, P., L. Kearns, B. Redman, and A. L. Caplan. 2017. Rethinking the Belmont report? The American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):15–21. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1329482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden, N., K. Devarajan, C. Balantic, J. Drake, M. T. Hallworth, and T. L. Morelli. 2021. Ten simple rules for productive lab meetings. PLoS Computational Biology 17 (5):e1008953. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodrich, K. A., K. D. Sjostrom, C. Vaughan, L. Nichols, A. Bednarek, and M. C. Lemos. 2020. Who are boundary spanners and how can we support them in making knowledge more actionable in sustainability fields? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 (February):45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.001.
   Google Scholar
• Goolsby, J. B., A. E. Cravens, and M. A. Rozance. 2023. Becoming an actionable scientist: Challenges, competency, and the development of expertise. Environmental Management. doi: 10.1007/s00267-023-01863-4.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen, V., K. Mäkinen‐Rostedt, A. Horcea‐Milcu, D. D’Amato, J. Jämsä, and K. Soini. 2022. Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co-concepts. Sustainable Development 30 (2):309–25. doi: 10.1002/sd.2276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, T., and N. Moore-Cherry. 2022. Negotiating applied and critical perspectives within the geography curriculum. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 46 (4):489–94. doi: 10.1080/03098265.2022.2119475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegger, D., M. Lamers, A. Van Zeijl-Rozema, and C. Dieperink. 2012. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy 18 (April):52–65. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, A. G. D. 2020. Researcher positionality—A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education 8 (2):1–9. doi: 10.34293/education.v8i4.3232.
   Google Scholar
• Honneth, A. 2004. Recognition and justice: Outline of a plural theory of justice. Acta Sociologica 47 (4):351–64. doi: 10.1177/0001699304048668.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Military Tribunal. 1949. The Nuremberg code: Vol. 2. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law No. 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Jagannathan, K., J. C. Arnott, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, K. J. Mach, R. H. Moss, and K. D. Sjostrom. 2020. Great expectations? Reconciling the aspiration, outcome, and possibility of co-production. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42 (February):22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.010.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., ed. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. international library of sociology. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Karcher, D. B., C. Cvitanovic, R. M. Colvin, I. E. van Putten, and M. S. Reed. 2021. Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy 125 (November):202–18. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.012.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, J. 1996. The Nuremberg code and the Nuremberg trial: A reappraisal. JAMA 276 (20):1662–66. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03540200048030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, L. C., K. R. Clifford, E. Reisman, D. Lea, M. Matsler, A. Liebman, and M. Malone. 2018. Charting a critical physical geography path in graduate school: Sites of student agency. In The Palgrave handbook of critical physical geography, ed. R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S. N. Lane, 537–57. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_25.
   Google Scholar
• Khagram, S., K. A. Nicholas, D. M. Bever, J. Warren, E. H. Richards, K. Oleson, J. Kitzes, R. Katz, R. Hwang, R. Goldman, et al. 2010. Thinking about knowing: Conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research. Environmental Conservation 37 (4):388–97. doi: 10.1017/S0376892910000809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, L., and M. Tadaki. 2018. A framework for understanding the politics of science (core tenet #2). In The Palgrave handbook of critical physical geography, ed. R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S. N. Lane, 67–88. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_4.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby, C. K., C. Haruo, K. P. Whyte, J. C. Libarkin, C. Caldwell, and R. Edler. 2019. Ethical collaboration and the need for training: Partnerships between Native American tribes and climate science organisations. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement 12 (1):5894. doi: 10.5130/ijcre.v12i1.5894.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, S. N., C. Biermann, and R. Lave. 2018. Towards a genealogy of critical physical geography. In The Palgrave handbook of critical physical geography, ed. R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S. N. Lane, 23–47. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_2.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, T. B., and J. Harrington. 2021. Geographic thought and the Anthropocene: What geographers have said and have to say. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (3):729–41. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1796575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laursen, S., N. Puniwai, A. S. Genz, S. A. B. Nash, L. K. Canale, and S. Ziegler-Chong. 2018. Collaboration across worldviews: Managers and scientists on Hawaiʻi island utilize knowledge coproduction to facilitate climate change adaptation. Environmental Management 62 (4):619–30. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1069-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, R. 2014. Engaging within the academy: A call for critical physical geography. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 13 (4):508–15.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, R., C. Biermann, and S. N. Lane. 2018. Introducing critical physical geography. In The Palgrave handbook of critical physical geography, ed. R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S. N. Lane, 3–21. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_1.
   Google Scholar
• Lemos, M. C., J. C. Arnott, N. M. Ardoin, K. Baja, A. T. Bednarek, A. Dewulf, C. Fieseler, K. A. Goodrich, K. Jagannathan, N. Klenk, et al. 2018. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nature Sustainability 1 (12):722–24. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe, P., G. Whitman, and J. Phillipson. 2009. Ecology and the social sciences. Journal of Applied Ecology 46 (2):297–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01621.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, V. Y. 2020. Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience 70 (1):13–16. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biz128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNie, E. C. 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy 10 (1):17–38. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadow, A. M., D. B. Ferguson, Z. Guido, A. Horangic, G. Owen, and T. Wall. 2015. Moving toward the deliberate coproduction of climate science knowledge. Weather, Climate, and Society 7 (2):179–91. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00050.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middleton, L. 2020. Science communication and coproduction: Applying the theory of motivated information management to the science-policy interface. Fort Collins: Colorado State University. https://hdl.handle.net/10217/212047.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, R. B. 2003. How the Belmont report fails. Essays in Philosophy 4 (2):119–34. doi: 10.5840/eip2003423.
   Google Scholar
• Montana, J., L. Elliott, M. Ryan, and C. Wyborn. 2020. The need for improved reflexivity in conservation science. Environmental Conservation 47 (4):217–19. doi: 10.1017/S0376892920000326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon, K., and D. Blackman. 2014. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 28 (5):1167–77. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon, K., T. Brewer, S. Januchowski-Hartley, V. Adams, and D. Blackman. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21 (3):Art. 17. doi: 10.5751/ES-08663-210317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motzer, N., A. R. Weller, K. Curran, S. Donner, R. J. Heustis, C. Jordan, M. Krebs, L. Olandar, K. Rowell, L. Silka, et al. 2021. Integrating programmatic expertise from across the US and Canada to model and guide leadership training for graduate students in sustainability. Sustainability 13 (16):8950. doi: 10.3390/su13168950.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. 2018. Future water priorities for the nation: Directions for the U.S. Geological Survey water mission area. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC CASC). 2019. North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center strategic science plan: Boulder, CO: U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center. https://nccasc.colorado.edu/strategic-science-planning.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, K., and A. Boaz. 2019. Transforming evidence for policy and practice: Creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Communications 5 (1):1–10. doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0266-1.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, G. 2021. Evaluating socially engaged climate research: Scientists’ visions of a climate resilient U.S. Southwest. Research Evaluation 30 (1):26–38. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearman, O., and A. E. Cravens. 2022. Institutional barriers to actionable science: Perspectives from decision support tool creators. Environmental Science & Policy 128 (February):317–25. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.004.
   Google Scholar
• Pielke, R. A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popke, J. 2016. Researching the hybrid geographies of climate change: Reflections from the field. Area 48 (1):2–6. doi: 10.1111/area.12220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulkkinen, K., S. Undorf, F. Bender, P. Wikman-Svahn, F. Doblas-Reyes, C. Flynn, G. C. Hegerl, A. Jönsson, G.-K. Leung, J. Roussos, et al. 2022. The value of values in climate science. Nature Climate Change 12 (1):4–6. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01238-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QSR International Pty. 2020. NVivo. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
   Google Scholar
• Rayne, A., S. Blair, M. Dale, B. Flack, J. Hollows, R. Moraga, R. N. Parata, M. Rupene, P. Tamati-Elliffe, P. M. Wehi, et al. 2022. Weaving place-based knowledge for culturally significant species in the age of genomics: Looking to the past to navigate the future. Evolutionary Applications 15 (5):751–72. doi: 10.1111/eva.13367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyna, V., R. Villegas, M. Simrak, and M. Kwakwa. 2021. Ethical complexities of civically engaged research. PS: Political Science & Politics 54 (4):734–27. doi: 10.1017/S1049096521000846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (2):155–69. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, K. F., A. K. Fuller, R. C. Stedman, W. F. Siemer, and D. J. Decker. 2019. Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Management 63 (5):565–73. doi: 10.1007/s00267-019-01141-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozance, M. A., M. Krosby, A. M. Meadow, A. Snover, D. B. Ferguson, and G. Owen. 2020. Building capacity for societally engaged climate science by transforming science training. Environmental Research Letters 15 (12):125008. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc27a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruano-Chamorro, C., G. G. Gurney, and J. E. Cinner. 2022. Advancing procedural justice in conservation. Conservation Letters 15 (3):e12861. doi: 10.1111/conl.12861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust, N. A., A. Abrams, D. W. S. Challender, G. Chapron, A. Ghoddousi, J. A. Glikman, C. H. Gowan, C. Hughes, A. Rastogi, A. Said, et al. 2017. Quantity does not always mean quality: The importance of qualitative social science in conservation research. Society & Natural Resources 30 (10):1304–10. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1333661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkki, S., H. I. Heikkinen, and A. Löf. 2021. Reindeer herders as stakeholders or rights-holders? Introducing a social equity-based conceptualization relevant for indigenous and local communities. In Nordic perspectives on the responsible development of the Arctic: Pathways to action, ed. D. C. Nord, 271–92. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-52324-4_13.
   Google Scholar
• Saunkeah, B., J. A. Beans, M. T. Peercy, V. Y. Hiratsuka, and P. Spicer. 2021. Extending research protections to tribal communities. The American Journal of Bioethics 21 (10):5–12. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1865477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, L., T. Falk, M. Siegmund-Schultze, and J. H. Spangenberg. 2020. The objectives of stakeholder involvement in transdisciplinary research. A conceptual framework for a reflective and reflexive practise. Ecological Economics 176 (October):106751. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106751.
   Google Scholar
• Shore, N. 2006. Re-conceptualizing the Belmont report. Journal of Community Practice 14 (4):5–26. doi: 10.1300/J125v14n04_02.
   Google Scholar
• Simm, D., A. Marvell, and A. Mellor. 2021. Teaching “wicked” problems in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 45 (4):479–90. doi: 10.1080/03098265.2021.1956883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L. T. 2021. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples, 3rd ed. London: Zed.
   Google Scholar
• Sprain, L. 2016. Paradoxes of public participation in climate change governance. The Good Society 25 (1):62–80. doi: 10.5325/goodsociety.25.1.0062.
   Google Scholar
• Springgate, B. F., O. Sugarman, K. B. Wells, L. A. Palinkas, D. Meyers, A. Wennerstrom, A. Johnson, C. Haywood, D. Sarpong, and R. Culbertson. 2021. Community partnered participatory research in southeast Louisiana communities threatened by climate change: The C-LEARN experience. The American Journal of Bioethics 21 (10):46–48. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1965248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steger, C., J. A. Klein, R. S. Reid, S. Lavorel, C. Tucker, K. A. Hopping, R. Marchant, T. Teel, A. Cuni-Sanchez, T. Dorji, et al. 2021. Science with society: Evidence-based guidance for best practices in environmental transdisciplinary work. Global Environmental Change 68 (May):102240. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102240.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, M. J., and K. J. Coleman. 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 28 (2):117–32. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.945062.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tadaki, M. 2017. Rethinking the role of critique in physical geography. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 61 (1):73–83. doi: 10.1111/cag.12299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsosie, K. S., J. M. Yracheta, and D. Dickenson. 2019. Overvaluing individual consent ignores risks to tribal participants. Nature Reviews:Genetics 20 (9):497–98. doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0161-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• VanderMolen, K., A. M. Meadow, A. Horangic, and T. U. Wall. 2020. Typologizing stakeholder information use to better understand the impacts of collaborative climate science. Environmental Management 65 (2):178–89. doi: 10.1007/s00267-019-01237-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vollmer, S. H., and G. Howard. 2010. Statistical power, the Belmont Report, and the ethics of clinical trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675–91. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9244-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wainwright, J. 2010. Climate change, capitalism, and the challenge of transdisciplinarity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4):983–91. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2010.502439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall, T. U., A. M. Meadow, and A. Horganic. 2017. Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather, Climate, and Society 9 (1):95–107. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0008.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whyte, K. P. 2011. The recognition dimensions of environmental justice in Indian country. Environmental Justice 4 (4):199–205. doi: 10.1089/env.2011.0036.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, K. P. 2013. On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study. Ecological Processes 2 (1):7. doi: 10.1186/2192-1709-2-7.
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, K. P., and R. P. Crease. 2010. Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese 177 (3):411–25. doi: 10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilbanks, T. J., and R. W. Kates. 2010. Beyond adapting to climate change: Embedding adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (4):719–28. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2010.500200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilmer, H., A. M. Meadow, A. B. Brymer, S. R. Carroll, D. B. Ferguson, I. Garba, C. Greene, G. Owen, and D. E. Peck. 2021. Expanded ethical principles for research partnership and transdisciplinary natural resource management science. Environmental Management 68 (4):453–67. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01508-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winkler, J. A. 2016. Embracing complexity and uncertainty. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 106 (6):1418–33. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2016.1207973.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyborn, C., A. Datta, J. Montana, M. Ryan, P. Leith, B. Chaffin, C. Miller, and L. van Kerkhoff. 2019. Co-producing sustainability: Reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44 (1):319–46. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar