Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: Are we making progress?

1. Despite aspirations for conservation impact, mismatches between research and implementation have limited progress towards this goal. There is, therefore, an urgent need to identify how we can more effectively navigate the spaces between research and practice. 2.In2014,weran aworkshop withconservation researchers andpractitioners toiden-tify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence-informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional. 3. Since 2014, thinking around the ‘research–implementation gap’ has progressed. The term ‘gap’ has been replaced by language around the dynamic ‘spaces’ between researchandaction,representingashiftinthinkingaroundwhatittakestobetteralign research and practice. 4. In 2019, we ran a follow-up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions. 5.Here,wereportontheoutcomesofthe2019workshop,reflectonwhathaschanged over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice.

2. In 2014, we ran a workshop with conservation researchers and practitioners to identify mismatches between research and implementation that needed to be overcome to deliver evidence-informed conservation action. Five mismatches were highlighted: spatial, temporal, priority, communication, and institutional.
The term 'gap' has been replaced by language around the dynamic 'spaces' between research and action, representing a shift in thinking around what it takes to better align research and practice.
4. In 2019, we ran a follow-up workshop reflecting on this shift, whether the five mismatches identified in the 2014 workshop were still present in conservation, and whether progress had been made to overcome these mismatches during the past 5 years. We found that while there has been progress, we still have some way to go across all dimensions.
5. Here, we report on the outcomes of the 2019 workshop, reflect on what has changed over the past 5 years, and offer 10 recommendations for strengthening the alignment of conservation research and practice.

K E Y W O R D S
actionable knowledge, conservation mismatch, conservation research and practice, environmental impact, evidence-informed policy and practice, knowing-doing gap, research-implementation gap, transdisciplinary research

INTRODUCTION
Conservation has long been described as a mission-driven discipline (Soulé, 1985). Yet despite rapid scientific progress in conservation knowledge, biodiversity decline and environmental degradation continue to worsen (Cook, Mascia, Schwartz, Possingham, & Fuller, 2013;IPBES, 2019;Knight et al., 2008;Tittensor et al., 2014). The continued shortfall between knowing and doing has inspired efforts to better align research and practice in conservation (Arlettaz et al., 2010;Toomey, Knight, & Barlow, 2017). Navigating the spaces among research, decision-making, and action is crucial for generating evidence-informed policies and practices that deliver conservation impact Rose et al., 2019). We acknowledge that professional researchers are not the only sources of conservation knowledge (Moon, Adams, & Cooke, 2019;Rose, 2018) and that the needs of practitioners will not be met by simply following advice presented in peer-reviewed scientific papers that has not been adequately co-developed with relevant practitioners, agencies, Indigenous peoples, or local communities (Dedual et al., 2013;Weeks & Packard, 2002). Instead, we discuss the systemic obstacles that researchers and practitioners face while making efforts to align their work and deliver effective evidence-based action.
In 2014, RMJ and SBB brought together researchers and practitioners for a workshop during the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Oceania Conference to explore mismatches between conservation research and practice, and to identify potential strategies for aligning them (Buschke, Botts, & Sinclair, 2019;Jarvis, Borrelle, Breen, & Towns, 2015 As interest in the research-implementation gap has grown in the conservation community, thinking and language around better aligning research and practice has begun to shift. In 2014, research exploring the 'research-implementation gap' was built upon the foundations of the now-debunked, one-way, information-deficit model, in which conservation knowledge was assumed to pass linearly from researchers as 'knowledge producers' to practitioners as 'knowledge users' . By 2019, new language was emerging to better represent the collaborative and interdependent relationship between research and practice and the different ways knowledge is generated, shared, and used by researchers and practitioners. The term 'gap' was being replaced and reconceptualized as the 'spaces' between research and practice instead (Alston, 2019;Toomey et al., 2017;Walsh, Dicks, Raymond, & Sutherland, 2019;Wowk et al., 2017). Far more than semantics, this shift in characterisation mirrors a shift in thinking; realising that not all conservation problems are tractable, and acknowledging how values, and not only facts and evidence, determine conservation priorities, actions, and effectiveness (Buschke et al., 2019). The spaces between research and practice are now increasingly conceptualized as dynamic spaces, processes, and relationships that can be built to better coordinate research and action (Buschke et al., 2019;Maas, Loyola, Toomey, & Knight, 2019;Sutherland et al., 2019;Toomey et al., 2017). tion. All workshop participants were invited to co-author this paper to further reflect and expand upon the points made at the workshop, and 12 researchers and three practitioners chose to take part.
The purpose of this manuscript is twofold: (1) review progress towards resolving mismatches between research and practice, and (2) offer recommendations for how we can further navigate these spaces going forward to improve conservation impact. We recognize that work across knowledge and practice varies widely across contexts, cultures, and geographies, and we will not have identified all possible barriers and solutions. We also acknowledge that this manuscript is informed by the personal opinions and experiences of the co-authors who chose to take part in the workshop, who are predominantly Western-trained, and that the recommendations made are most relevant for similar contexts, with potentially limited applicability to dissimilar contexts.

SPATIAL MISMATCH
Spatial mismatch occurs when research is conducted at a different spatial scale or geographic extent than is relevant for conservation practice. In 2014, workshop participants highlighted how researchers work at multiple scales, with many working at global scales due to the broader scope of grants, funding, and increased likelihood of publication (Jarvis et al., 2015). Practitioners were more likely to work at refined, local scales, where they felt they were better able to integrate local, place-based knowledge into decision-making and involve communities in conservation more effectively. In 2019, workshop participants had mixed thoughts on how much spatial mismatch has been overcome in the past 5 years.
Some workshop participants did not believe spatial mismatch is as much of an issue in 2019 as in 2014, likely because local-level research is increasingly being translated into other contexts and at larger scales.
For example, the Australasian Genomics Wildlife Group works to generate species-specific conservation outcomes, such as for the Tasmanian devil, while also being recognized as a global leader for translating genomic tools to threatened species management around the world (Wright et al., 2020). Likewise, genomics studies of salmonid species demonstrate a range of successful research-practice collaborations that are context relevant while also providing translatable global insights (Garner et al., 2016;Piccolo, 2016). Workshop participants noted how more general conclusions from socio-ecological case studies have also been shown to provide insights at multiple scales (Magliocca et al., 2018) and how lessons learned from 'bright spots' could be shared to replicate conservation successes in other areas (see Cvitanovic & Hobday, 2018).
However, several participants argued that spatial mismatch continues. Participants agreed that global and large-scale research is important but noted that the information it provides is often unable to meet the needs of practitioners. There were several reasons given for this, including that practitioners perceive most researchers as being too inflexible or time limited to translate their (often generalized) research in a way that could help inform more localized action towards particular issues (Kadykalo, Cooke, & Young, 2019;Nguyen, Young, Corriveau, Hinch, & Cooke, 2019;Weeks & Packard, 2002). Several researchers stated that while they would like to increase their work with practitioners at more local scales, this still risks putting them at a career disadvantage in the current job market; large-scale projects and global studies are still more likely to secure research grants and be accepted in high-impact publications. Despite this, practitioners in the workshop did note many productive collaborations with researchers at smaller scales that have tended to result in more actionable information, and called for greater investment in research at practitionerrelevant scales. Practitioners also observed that researchers nearing completion of a project were much more likely to shift their focus to a brand-new project, rather than work with practitioners to replicate this success in other areas, contexts, or at scale. This mismatch was thought to be driven by research organisations and scientific journals still tending to favour novelty over replication, even where replication may provide additional conservation benefits.

TEMPORAL MISMATCH
Temporal mismatch occurs when the timelines of researchers and practitioners are not aligned, where decision-making and policy windows open and close before research can be completed to meet their information needs, or where the temporal scope of research and practice differs. In 2014, researchers noted that their work is often responsive to knowledge gaps previously identified in the literature. Practitioners characterized themselves as being more reactive and focused on the present and ready to tackle new conservation issues as they emerge in their projects (Jarvis et al., 2015). In 2019, workshop participants agreed that this temporal mismatch still tends to occur because of the slower academic research cycle, even when research is forward looking or focused on emerging problems. Participants also noted how researchers' timelines are often constrained by the funding cycles driving their research (Martinson, Crain, Anderson, & De Vries, 2009), whereas practitioners' timelines are generally driven by operational constraints and project mandates. Short-term grant timelines were also identified as working against activities that build long-term trust and understanding necessary for researchers and practitioners to better align their work.
In 2019, participants communicated that there has been increasing engagement in more interactive models of research and knowledge production that promote better alignment in the temporal scope of research and uptake into practice. There are now numerous examples of researchers and practitioners aligning the temporal context of their work by identifying research questions collaboratively, co-designing conservation projects, and co-producing relevant and actionable conservation knowledge to solve emerging issues (Miller & Wyborn, 2020;Wyborn, 2015). The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was provided as an example in which temporal mismatch was addressed by bringing together researchers and practitioners to identify long-term issues and solutions, and to develop shared frameworks for cetacean research, conservation, and management going forward (IWC, 2016). Conservation genetics was also cited as an important example of a field that is able to forecast impacts and help facilitate management responses that can be proactive rather than reactive (Taylor, Dussex, & van Heezik, 2017). However, participants also noted that many conservation genetic studies still do not place their results into the broader context of conservation management and practice. This lack of implementation-relevant research appears fairly widespread across conservation topics (Mair et al., 2018).
Participants noted that while there tends to be greater collaboration between researchers and practitioners in 2019, research continues to supply information more slowly than the demands of practitioners (as noted by Kadykalo et al., 2019;Wiens, 2008).
Practitioners often work in contexts where decisions have to be made rapidly to manage threatened species or ecosystems, and the urgency associated with the conservation crisis can make an approach that takes time for research to be completed less viable (e.g. Bottrill et al., 2008;McMahon, Teeling, & Höglund, 2014). For example one practitioner described an experience where management actions for a rapidly declining population were needed urgently, so decisions were ultimately taken without research support. Although researchers wanted to contribute with population viability analyses, they were unable to complete these within the window of opportunity for the translocation of individuals to a new secure site.

PRIORITY MISMATCH
Priority mismatch occurs when there is misalignment in the topical relevance of the information generated by researchers and the information needs of practitioners. In 2014, researchers identified how they often focused on ecosystem dynamics and threats to species, whereas practitioners tend to focus on how best to work within the local and social systems for more effective conservation outcomes. In 2019, workshop participants agreed that although alignment of research and practice had improved since 2014, mismatches between differing priorities still occur. Participants noted that research still tends to focus on improving the understanding of conservation issues through the refinement of methods and models, whereas practice often focuses on improving the implementation of conservation actions to deliver impact.
More often than not, conservation problems are driven by social, economic, and political pressures that require the social sciences to understand and overcome (Moon & Blackman, 2014 Despite Indigenous communities and knowledge systems sustaining biodiversity across the world for generations, they have often been sidelined from Western models of conservation and decision-making (Rayne et al., 2020). This is changing, with Western-trained researchers and practitioners increasingly working to de-centre their own Western perspectives to centre Indigenous peoples, rights, knowledge, processes, priorities, and practices instead (Lyver et al., 2019;Sterling et al., 2017;Rayne et al., 2020 Rayne et al., 2020). However, such an approach is still not the norm and far more needs to be done. Indigenous-led and co-led approaches developed through authentic partnerships and investment are critical (Ataria et al., 2018;Rauika Māngai, 2020;Rayne et al., 2020;Sterling et al., 2017;Wehi, Beggs, & McAllister, 2019).  Language was also noted as a considerable barrier, especially where research is overly technical; research papers written for other researchers are not likely to be utilized by practitioners if they cannot get around excessive jargon used in a scientific journal article.

COMMUNICATION MISMATCH
Practitioners may not always be able to objectively assess the quality and applicability of research to their situation, or may place excessive trust in researchers instead (Gossa, Fisher, & Milner-Gulland, 2015;Kadykalo et al., 2019;Lacey, Howden, Cvitanovic, & Colvin, 2018).
While researchers are making their work more available in general, they need do more to ensure their findings are relevant for particular people, places, and institutions, are translated into the appropriate languages, and are presented in an accessible way (Amano, González-Varo, & Sutherland, 2016).

INSTITUTIONAL MISMATCH
Institutional mismatch occurs when the rules, norms, and priorities Practitioner organisations continue to face challenges balancing the need for rapid tangible actions alongside activities that build, use, and evaluate the evidence base for conservation decisions, or processes that build knowledge exchange and learning with researchers (Dubois et al., 2020). Despite research funders and universities increasingly calling for on-ground or policy outcomes, institutional rules, norms, and incentive systems continue to reward individual outputs with a fast turnaround over collaborative efforts that may require increased time and resources. Such an approach only reinforces a model that rewards research publications over activities promoting use and uptake of the knowledge generated through research (Gossa et al., 2015). Institutions must be willing to provide the significant time and resource requirements to make collaboration, co-production, and boundary work mainstream.

ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS?
In Progress towards aligning these mismatches and effectively navigating the spaces between research and practice is likely to be multifaceted. Looking forward, the group offered a number of potential and partial solutions (Box 1). The 10 strategies identified here each a call for strong, deliberate, and sustained action to better align the spaces between research and practice for conservation impact. As conservation researchers and practitioners, we can work towards the 10 strategies made here individually and collaboratively, but we must also challenge our institutions to better support this broader community of practice through the creation of effective and collaborative spaces that can help achieve shared conservation goals (Keeler et al., 2017).
We acknowledge that these 10 recommendations (Box 1) were identified by a predominantly Western-trained cohort in our workshop who self-selected to take part in this exercise while attending the International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). The resulting group was made up of 12 researchers, five practitioners, and one funder, and the outcomes of this workshop will be informed by their opinions and experiences. We also acknowledge the broad wealth of knowledges, perspectives, priorities, practices, values, experiences, and approaches that exist and how knowledge and practice varies widely across cultures, geographies, and contexts. We recognize the strategies identified here may have potentially limited applicability to the range of contexts and ways of knowing that exist beyond the knowledge and experiences of those who attended the workshop. Still, we hope the 10 strategies identified here, and work toward implementing them, will encourage a meaningful shift in how work is done in the spaces between knowledge and action in the conservation community.
Since 2014, the 'research-implementation gap' has been reconceptualized as the spaces, processes, and relationships between research and practice. Reconceptualizing our understanding in this way is important because it changes the narrative and inspires new ways of thinking about solutions. Work in this area will keep evolving and we hope the 10 recommendations identified in this paper can be used to start important conversations and inform these processes. Real problems are solved by dialogue, negotiation, and building long-term and trusting relationships. Authentic partnerships are crucial to improve how we design research for implementation and deliver positive conservation impact. Such an approach must be backed by funding and elevated as institutional priorities if we are to navigate the spaces between research and practice to achieve our conservation goals.

CONCLUSION
The 2019 workshop provided the opportunity to reflect on the five mismatches between conservation research and practice identified in 2014. While some participants felt progress towards bridging these BOX 1. Ten strategies to better align research and practice for conservation impact 6. Co-design, co-produce, and co-appoint Collaboratively identify research questions, co-design conservation projects, and co-produce relevant and actionable conservation knowledge where time and resources allow. Increase co-appointments between research-and practice-led institutions. Invest in building authentic relationships and co-design processes.
De-centre Western models of conservation and invest in Indigenous-led and co-led research and practice.
David H. Smith Conservation Fellows; Sutherland et al., 2017;Wyborn, 2015;Wehi et al., 2019;Rayne et al., 2020 7. Improve accessibility of conferences and events Break down the barriers to entry of conservation congresses, conferences, meetings, and events to diversify who gets to attend and take part in the knowledge sharing, network-building, professional learning, and agenda-setting activities that take place. Brosius, 2004;Tulloch, 2020 8. Increase knowledge exchange and boundary work Increase knowledge exchange activities and boundary work between research-and practice-led institutions. Posner & Cvitanovic, 2019;Roux et al., 2019 9. Expand adaptive management Encourage adaptive management processes to improve how evidence is used and evaluated, decisions are made with incomplete information, and actions are adjusted as new knowledge and evidence becomes available Dubois et al., 2020;Gillson, Biggs, Smit, Virah-Sawmy, & Rogers, 2018;Gregory et al., 2012 10. Champion diversity, kindness, and inclusivity Incentivize collaboration by fostering a more diverse, kind, and inclusive approach to research.
Kindness in Science movement in New Zealand; Powell, 2018;Nature, 2018 mismatches had been made, many believed more work is needed to truly navigate the spaces between research and implementation. Collectively, the conservation community can better match research and practice with the recommendations presented here by building more equitable and authentic relationships and by developing new ways to collaborate and share conservation evidence. Simultaneously, we must challenge our institutions and ourselves to redefine success, including how we navigate those spaces between research and action, else we risk continuing to strive for a mission-driven illusion rather than realworld solutions.
manuscript. All authors participated in the workshop and contributed critically to the drafts. All authors gave final approval for publication.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
This manuscript does not use data, therefore no data are archived.