MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2579422623 · doi:10.3390/w9010060

Building a Foundation for Knowledge Co-Creation in Collaborative Water Governance: Dimensions of Stakeholder Networks Facilitated through Bridging Organizations

2017· article· en· W2579422623 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Wietske Medema, Jan Adamowski, Christopher Orr, Alison Furber, A.E.J. Wals, Nicolas Milot

Notice bibliographique

RevueWater · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueE-Government and Public Services
Établissements canadiensUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
Mots-clésKnowledge managementBridging (networking)StakeholderKnowledge sharingCorporate governanceBusinessCollaborative governanceContext (archaeology)Knowledge creationCollaborative networkStakeholder engagementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyMarketing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The sustainable governance of water resources relies on processes of multi-stakeholder collaborations and interactions that facilitate the sharing and integration of diverse sources and types of knowledge. In this context, it is essential to fully recognize the importance of fostering and enhancing critical connections within and between networks of relationships between different government and non-government agencies, as well as the dynamics that are in support of the development of new knowledge and practices. In Quebec, a network of watershed organizations (WOs) has been put in place to serve as bridging organizations (BOs) for stakeholder groups in their watershed territories. Using the WOs as a case study, this research aims to contribute to a greater understanding of how stakeholder groups can be effectively connected to support knowledge co-creation through networked relationships facilitated by BOs. In line with this overall research aim, the following research objectives are proposed: (1) to assess the quality of the knowledge that is developed and shared through the WOs and their stakeholder networks; (2) to determine the characteristics of stakeholders participating in the WOs’ networks that either hinder or support collaborations and knowledge co-creation; (3) to describe the collaborative processes and mechanisms through which the WOs facilitate stakeholder interactions and knowledge co-creation; and (4) to assess the quality of the relationships and interactions between stakeholders participating in the WOs’ collaborative networks. A comprehensive literature review is provided of collaborative network dimensions that are in support of knowledge co-creation that forms the foundation of a research framework to assess knowledge co-creation processes that are facilitated through BOs and their collaborative networks. Documented experiences have been gathered through face-to-face semi-structured interviews, as well as a Quebec-wide survey distributed to all WOs and their staff. A total of 41 interviews were conducted, of which nine interviews were with staff members of six selected WOs. Stakeholder perspectives were captured through 33 interviews with diverse stakeholders from three of the six selected WOs. Additionally, interviews were also conducted with five decision makers at the Quebec provincial government level. The findings of this study point to some key challenges and constraints for the effective facilitation of collaboration and knowledge co-creation through the Quebec WOs and their stakeholder networks. Through diverse collaborative mechanisms, most WOs have, to an extent, succeeded in creating opportunities for learning through a renewed sense making of different practices (and related identities) through the development of their watershed master plans, as well as through the facilitation of new communicative connections and translation efforts between diverse stakeholder groups. Key challenges to their effectiveness have been relating to a limited capacity and resources, limited territory-wide impacts, as well as limited perceived legitimacy that hindered the WOs as BOs in their ability to facilitate effective knowledge co-creation. Areas for further research to overcome these challenges are in developing a greater understanding of how BOs can optimize resources and capacities available in their collaborative networks through, e.g., the development of boundary-crossing leaders and competences, as well as the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,090

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0060,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,036
Communication savante0,0170,016
Science ouverte0,0020,012
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,344
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations42
Publié2017
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWaterMême sujetE-Government and Public ServicesTravaux en français237 207