{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029487842731505433, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008794619762027936, 'mean_word_length': 6.525291828793774, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Increasing Conservation Impact and Policy Relevance of Research through Embedded Experiences

Asresearchersinconservationscienceandthefieldofscience, technology, and society, we believe Rudd’s (2011) framework, described in “How Research-Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy,” for conceptualizing research has practical value. Rudd explores means to increase research impacts through techniques such as big-question exercises and exercises to determine best practices. As an additional means to increase the impact and policy relevance of conservation research, we suggest researchers embed themselves in the daily working environment of other communities, such as government offices, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or disparate scientific fields, to learn about the constraints and opportunities that influence conservation work in these communities. In his thorough treatment of research impacts, Rudd presents the benefits and shortcomings of two frameworks for understanding and improving research impacts on policy in theory and in practice. Following Beyer (1997) and Amara et al. (2004), his first framework classifies research impacts as conceptual (policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs), instrumental (policy decisions are affected directly by results of scientific research), and symbolic (results of scientific research are used to support established policy positions). In his second framework, which he bases on Shaxson (2009), Rudd classifies research issues into 4 domains according to the extent that scientific knowledge is fully developed and the policy issue is clearly articulated: domainofuncertainty(lowscientificknowledge,lowpolicy articulation), domain of evidence (low scientific knowledge, high policy articulation), domain of partisanship (high scientific knowledge, low policy articulation), and domain of best practices (high scientific knowledge, high