Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Science and SocietyRemove filter
- Science CommunicationRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
Publication Date
Author
- Axelson, Jodi1
- Bennett, J R1
- Bourbonnais, Mathieu1
- Cardinal Christianson, Amy1
- Chapman, J M1
- Cooke, S J1
- Cooke, Steven J1
- Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey1
- Coristine, Laura E1
- Daniels, Lori D1
- DeRosa, Maria C1
- Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah1
- Donaldson, M R1
- Dufour-Beauséjour, Sophie1
- Faulkes, Z1
- Gray, Robert W1
- Hoffman, Kira M1
- Holub, Peter1
- Lennox, R J1
- Madliger, C L1
- Mauro, Nicholas1
- Minocher, Dinyar1
- Nyboer, E A1
- Owens, Brian L1
- Pascal, Dave1
Access Type
1 - 4of4
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Mathieu Bourbonnais,
- Jodi Axelson,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Lori D. Daniels,
- Robert W. Gray,
- Peter Holub,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Dinyar Minocher, and
- Dave Pascal
Western Canada is increasingly experiencing impactful and complex wildfire seasons. In response, there are urgent calls to implement prescribed and cultural fire as a key solution to this complex challenge. Unfortunately, there has been limited investment in individuals and organizations that can navigate this complexity and work to implement collaborative solutions across physical, cognitive, and social boundaries. In the wildfire context, these boundaries manifest as jurisdictional silos, a lack of respect for certain forms of knowledge, and a disconnect between knowledge and practice. Here, we highlight the important role of “boundary spanners” in building trust, relationships, and capacity to enable collaboration, including through five case studies from western Canada. As individuals and organizations who actively work across and bridge boundaries between diverse actors and knowledge systems, we believe that boundary spanners can play a key role in supporting proactive wildfire management. Boundary spanning activities include: convening workshops, hosting joint training exercises, supporting knowledge exchange and communities of practice, and creating communication tools and resources. These activities can help overcome unevenly valued knowledge, lack of trust, and outdated policies. We need collaborative approaches to implement prescribed and cultural fire, including a strong foundation for the establishment of boundary spanning individuals and organizations. - OPEN ACCESS
- S.J. Cooke,
- N. Young,
- M.R. Donaldson,
- E.A. Nyboer,
- D.G. Roche,
- C.L. Madliger,
- R.J. Lennox,
- J.M. Chapman,
- Z. Faulkes, and
- J.R. Bennett
For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions. - OPEN ACCESS
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Laura E. Coristine,
- Maria C. DeRosa,
- Chelsea M. Rochman,
- Brian L. Owens, and
- Steven J. Cooke
Consider for a moment the rate of advancement in the scientific understanding of DNA. It is formidable; from Fredrich Miescher’s nuclein extraction in the 1860s to Rosalind Franklin’s double helix X-ray in the 1950s to revolutionary next-generation sequencing in the late 2000s. Now consider the scientific paper, the medium used to describe and publish these advances. How is the scientific paper advancing to meet the needs of those who generate and use scientific information? We review four essential qualities for the scientific paper of the future: (i) a robust source of trustworthy information that remains peer reviewed and is (ii) communicated to diverse users in diverse ways, (iii) open access, and (iv) has a measurable impact beyond Impact Factor. Since its inception, scientific literature has proliferated. We discuss the continuation and expansion of practices already in place including: freely accessible data and analytical code, living research and reviews, changes to peer review to improve representation of under-represented groups, plain language summaries, preprint servers, evidence-informed decision-making, and altmetrics. - OPEN ACCESSInuit Nunangat, including Nunavik, is seeing an ever-increasing number of research projects. While mainstream approaches to research are colonial in nature and have historically contributed to the oppression of Indigenous peoples, a new paradigm is now emerging from Indigenous recommendations. Researchers are encouraged to collaborate with Inuit or Northern communities, organizations, and governments and to develop communication strategies to keep local populations informed. This paper focuses on outreach activities organized on several occasions throughout the Ice Monitoring project, in which we participated as PhD students. We share details on this periodic outreach program, which included a Facebook page, hosting an information table at the Co-op store, activities with high school classes, and participation in Raglan Mine’s Environmental Forum. We also discuss lessons learned and the transformation of our practice.