Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: Networks for knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system
Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: Networks for knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.003
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Proctor, Amy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Klerkx, Laurens;Proctor, Amy
农业日益多功能化，加上以前的公共农业推广服务私有化，形成了一个多元化的土地管理咨询系统。尽管这些变化带来了更多面向客户和顾问多样化的好处，但有人认为，这些变化导致土地管理咨询系统支离破碎，咨询系统内部以及咨询系统与科学之间的互动减少。因此，人们对咨询系统吸收新知识的能力表示关切，因此，人们越来越关心顾问如何获得和构建向客户提供适当咨询服务所需的知识。在这篇文章中，我们将探讨如何在英国土地管理咨询系统（土地代理人，应用生态学家和兽医）顾问开发和优化他们的知识，通过从事不同类型的网络（集中式，分布式和分散式），其中每一个采用不同类型的社会资本。主要研究结果表明，要获得解决客户的复杂查询所需的知识，顾问使用分布式网络，并利用非正式的“实践社区”在自己的咨询行业的特点是结合社会资本，但也利用更广泛的“实践网络”，涉及多个顾问从不同的咨询专业，这依赖于桥接社会资本。尽管有专业协会的中介活动，但利用分散的网络解决复杂的问题或开发新的服务，例如通过与科学机构的联系，似乎还不够发达。然而，由于竞争和认识论的差异造成的分裂和脱节确实发挥了作用：它们似乎并没有阻止不同专业内部和跨专业的顾问之间的整体知识交流。土地管理咨询系统内互动崩溃的假设没有证据支持，因为似乎有很多社会资本。然而，为了优化专业之间以及顾问与科学系统之间的互动，非正式经纪人或专业协会或其他组织形式的正式经纪人可以发挥更大的作用。(C)2012爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
The growing multifunctionality in agriculture, combined with privatisation of previously public agricultural extension services, has resulted in a pluralistic land management advisory system. Despite benefits in terms of increased client orientation and greater advisor diversity, it is argued that these changes have resulted in the fragmentation of the land management advisory system and a reduction of interaction within the advisory system and between the advisory system and science. Hence, concerns have been voiced as regards the capacity of the advisory system to be able to incorporate new knowledge, resulting in a growing interest in how advisors obtain and construct the knowledge necessary for offering adequate advisory services to their clients. In this article we explore how advisors within the English land management advisory system (land agents, applied ecologists and veterinarians) develop and optimise their knowledge by engaging in different kinds of networks (centralised, distributed and decentralised), each of which employs a different type of social capital. Key findings suggest that to obtain the knowledge needed to solve complex queries of clients, advisors use distributed networks and draw upon informal 'communities of practice' within their own advisory profession characterised by bonding social capital, but also draw upon broader 'networks of practice' involving multiple advisors from different advisory professions, which rely on bridging social capital. The employment of decentralised networks which rely on linking social capital, to solve complex queries or develop new services, for example through contacts with scientific institutes, appears to be less developed, despite brokering activities of the professional associations. Whereas fragmentation and disconnect due to competition and epistemological differences do play a role: they do not appear to prevent overall knowledge exchange among advisors within and across different professions. Assumptions of a collapse of interaction within the land management advisory system are not supported by the evidence, as there appears to be much bonding and bridging social capital. However, to optimise interactions between professions, and between advisors and the science system, either informal brokers or formal brokers in the form of professional associations or other organisations could play a bigger role. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.