Research on institutions for agricultural water management under the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food - Water Scarcity, Livelihoods and Food Security - page 136

resource use beyond the game or the project context. In most cases, a sup-
portive institutional environment will be important to sustain and scale-up
impacts from the implementation of these approaches. This is consistent with
Lebel et al.'s (2006) propositions two and three. Many of these approaches
are time and resource intensive to implement even at a small scale. It is
therefore important to think about how these pilot experiences can be used
strategically to support change at other scales and on other aspects of gover-
nance. Another issue is what to do where the institutional context is not
initially conducive.
How have the results of CPWF research been used?
While all the CPWF's research was expected to generate knowledge relevant
to pro-poor development, some of it had the explicit goal of contributing to
change on the ground. These projects are examples of boundary work (Clark
et al., 2011), referring to the distinct, yet porous, boundaries between science
and policy (Guston, 1999). Boundary organizations and boundary agents have
a distinct role to span those boundaries and translate between the languages of
science and action (Buizer et al., 2010). Boundary objects help to distill
scientific results in ways that are meaningful for action (Fujimura, 1992).
Overall, research communities undertake boundary work to “organize their
relations with new science, other sources of knowledge, and the worlds of
action and policy making” (Clark et al., 2011, p 1).
Clark et al. (2011) formalized these observations in the boundary frame-
work. The framework defines uses of knowledge by knowledge consumers,
including: (i) better understanding (called “enlightenment” by Clark et al.),
which is advancement of general understanding that is not targeted to specific
users or specific actions; ii) decision support, which is supporting specific
choices by a single user such as a farmer or a government minister; and (iii)
negotiation support, which is supporting negotiation, bargaining or political
processes that involve multiple users. The framework also posits two distinct
sources of knowledge, either a single source or multiple communities of
expertise. Boundary work thus entails effective communication and translation
of knowledge between sources and users. The simplest boundary work involves
a single community of knowledge sharing knowledge to support better
understanding. The most complex boundary work involves multiple com-
munities of knowledge sharing knowledge in support of negotiation.
There is a growing body of research that shows that the effectiveness of
boundary work depends upon the credibility, salience and legitimacy of the
knowledge that is being shared (White et al., 2010). Knowledge that is credible
is technically adequate in the way that it handles evidence. An important
indicator of credibility is publication of findings in a peer-reviewed publication.
Knowledge that is salient is relevant to a decision or policy under considera-
tion; and knowledge that is legitimate is fair, unbiased and respectful of all
stakeholders.