Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
Open accessAbstract
Previous 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Throughout the tropics the success of organizations aiming to reduce fire usage has been limited by a failure to frame the problem in ways that make sense to local people.
“Similarly, throughout the tropics the success of organizations aiming to reduce fire usage has been limited by a failure to frame the problem in ways that make sense to local people (Carmenta et al. 2011, 2013, Clark et al. 2011).”
From Explaining the persistence of low income and environmentally degrading land uses in the Brazilian Amazon (2017) · cites this paper as Clark et al. 2011
In “Use of Knowledge for Decision Support” (page unavailable), the paper says an initial top-down framing of deforestation and slash-and-burn was at odds with realities on the ground, prompting ASB to pursue locally salient priorities. It does not establish that organizations’ success in reducing fire use was limited throughout the tropics by this failure of framing. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C. I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., et al. (2010) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/030234210x496628 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [45]Hackett EJ (2008) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
- [52]Fujimura J (1992) Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects and ' translation ' . Science as Culture and Practice , ed Pickering A (Univ Chicago Press, Chicago), pp 168 -211.
- [53]McNie EC, et al. (2008) Boundary Organizations, Objects and Agents: Linking Knowledge with Action in Agroforestry Watersheds. Report of a Workshop Held in Batu, Malang, East Java, Indonesia, 26 -29 July 2007. Report No. 80 (International Center for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., & Thomas, C. J. (2012) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x · Cited by 2,925 · see citing works
Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture
Geertsema, W., Rossing, W. A., Landis, D. A., Bianchi, F. J., van Rijn, P. C., Schaminée, J. H., Tscharntke, T., & van der Werf, W. (2016) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1258 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Garrett, R. D., Gardner, T. A., Morello, T. F., Marchand, S., Barlow, J., Ezzine de Blas, D., Ferreira, J., Lees, A. C., & Parry, L. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09364-220327 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Rossing, W. A. H., Albicette, M. M., Aguerre, V., Leoni, C., Ruggia, A., & Dogliotti, S. (2021) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103103 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Towards a practice framework for transdisciplinary collaboration in planetary health
Wardani, J., Bos, J. J. (., Ramirez-Lovering, D., & Capon, A. G. (2024) · Global Sustainability · doi:10.1017/sus.2024.6 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., & McNie, E.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- World Agroforestry Centre Southeast Asia Regional Office, Bogor 16001, Indonesia;
- Arizona State University (US)
- World Agroforestry Centre (KE)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Clark, William C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-08-15
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 4615-4622
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4855572
- OpenAlex
- W2155804766
- Cited by
- 568
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 61.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion)
- CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0621004)
- Harvard University
- World Agroforestry Centre
- Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Climate Program Office
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Research and Practices
- Keywords
- boundary work, sustainable development, natural resource management, CGIAR, international agricultural research, knowledge systems, boundary objects, stakeholder engagement, research governance, accountability, developing countries, science-policy interface
- MeSH terms
- Natural Resources, Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Making, Humans, Research, Negotiating
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review