Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Navigating the stormy seas of building ‘trust’ as a boundary organisation

connecting marine science with policy and management
C. Cvitanovic a, b, *, R.J. Shellock c, b, D.B. Karcher d, b, P. Tuohy c, b, M. Mackay e, b, E.I. van
Putten e, b, Marta Ballesteros f, M. Dickey-Collas g, h
a
School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
b
Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Australia
c
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
d
Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
e
Environment, CSIRO, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia
f
Centro Tecnológico del Mar-Fundación CETMAR, Vigo, Spain
g
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark
h
National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers is a critical component of navigating
Trust ocean sustainability challenges. Boundary organisations are one approach to facilitating knowledge exchange
Boundary organisation and influencing marine policy and management. However, to effectively do so, boundary organisations must
Knowledge exchange
navigate various challenges that can undermine the extent to which they are considered as trusted by partners. At
Policy advice
Science-policy
present, there is a lack of specific guidance on how boundary organisations can navigate these challenges and
build trust. We seek to address this gap empirically via in-depth qualitative analysis, using the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a case study. Through interviews with requesters of ICES advice
(i.e. the users of the knowledge), we sought to understand (i) the benefits that requesters derived from working
with ICES and (ii) the factors that can affect the extent to which requesters trust the advice generated and
provided by ICES. Our results show that requesters gain numerous benefits from requesting advice from ICES (e.
g., being able to rely on an independent scientific body, receiving best available scientific evidence, and being
engaged in processes which enable sharing of expertise and scientific knowledge). We also identified factors that
contribute to increased trust in ICES (e.g., ICES processes, good relationships between requesters and ICES, and
the requester’s ability to understand ICES advice). Conversely, trust in ICES was negatively affected when there
was a production of poor-quality advice, a lack of transparency, and when ICES advice went beyond its original
remit. In presenting these insights from ICES, this study provides guidance for organisations operating at the
interface of marine science and policy and helps them to navigate the stormy seas associated with maintaining
trust.

1. Introduction successfully navigating these challenges necessitates using and inte­

The challenges facing marine systems are complex and inter­
connected, threatening ocean and coastal integrity with flow-on effects
for human well-being and prosperity (Jouffray et al., 2020; Nash et al.,
2017, 2020). The knowledge generated through scientific research
processes is critical for helping humanity navigate these challenges.
However, the production and accumulation of knowledge alone is not
sufficient (Cvitanovic et al., 2016; Buxton et al., 2021). Rather,
grating this new knowledge, as well as drawing from a plurality of other
knowledge sources (e.g., experiential knowledge, cultural knowledge,
etc.; Cornell et al., 2013), to inform decision-making processes by
diverse actors across scales and contexts (Cvitanovic et al., 2015a).
Significant and systemic mismatches between the production and use of
scientific knowledge remain (e.g., Cvitanovic et al., 2014a, 2015b;
Nguyen et al., 2019), leading to calls for a focus on the system that
generates and uses the evidence rather than the useable evidence itself

* Corresponding author. School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
E-mail address: c.cvitanovic@unsw.edu.au (C. Cvitanovic).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106952
Received 24 July 2023; Received in revised form 27 November 2023; Accepted 28 November 2023
Available online 12 December 2023
0964-5691/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Cvitanovic et al.
(Cairney et al., 2023). There is a need for the implementation of new
processes and structures to improve knowledge exchange at the inter­
face of marine science, policy, and practice (Fazey et al., 2018).
Approaches to improving knowledge exchange at the interface of
marine science and policy are being increasingly identified and imple­
mented (Karcher et al., 2022a). They include, for example, participatory
research and transdisciplinary approaches such as those embodied by
the notion of co-production (Norström et al., 2020; Chambers et al.,
2021, 2022; Muhl et al. 2023), and through to the use of science-policy
intermediaries such as knowledge brokers (Cvitanovic et al., 2017;
Bednarek et al., 2018; Posner and Cvitanovic 2019). Whilst the use of
these strategies has become increasingly common in efforts to support
evidence-informed decision-making processes, recent evidence has
shown they are yet to reach their full potential with a significant
mismatch between the intended aims of knowledge exchange strategies
and the actual outcomes and impacts they support (Karcher et al., 2021).
One approach, however, that has shown consistent promise is the use of
boundary organisations, with a growing number of studies highlighting
the extent to which they have been able to successfully achieve influence
and impacts on marine policy and practice (e.g., Pietri et al., 2011;
Cvitanovic et al., 2018; Karcher et al., 2022).
Boundary organisations are designed to facilitate collaboration and
information flow between research and non-research actors and com­
munities (Guston 1999, 2001). While conceptualised and operational­
ised differently across settings and sectors, in general they are unified by
three key traits (reviewed by Parker and Crona, 2012). First, they seek to
create spaces for the active engagement and involvement of both science
and policy actors in processes of knowledge generation and sharing.
Second, they facilitate the creation and use of boundary objects (e.g.,
conceptual models, theories of change) that allow actors from both
science and policy communities to interact and collaborate, despite their
divergent perceptions on the focal topic (Carlile 2002; White et al.,
2010). Finally, through their existence as an intermediary operating at
the interface of science and policy, they have joint accountability to both
science and policy communities, ensuring the equal representation of
both groups into processes of knowledge generation and sharing.
Through this joint accountability it is believed that boundary organi­
sations can help to stabilize the boundary where science and policy
meet, despite external forces that may act to disrupt it (Guston 2001)
such as the politicisation of science or the scientization of politics.
An increasing number of studies have sought to understand the po­
tential benefits that can be conferred by boundary organisations oper­
ating at the interface of marine science and policy. For example, an in-
depth exploration of the Baltic Eye Project – a boundary organisation
based at Stockholm University with the core goal of supporting
evidence-informed decision-making on issues relating to the manage­
ment of the Baltic Sea environment – identified a range of benefits
including (i) impacts on policy and practice (e.g. scientific advice re­
flected in formal decision-making documents), (ii) impacts to in­
dividuals working within the Baltic Eye Project (e.g. increased job
satisfaction), and (iii) impacts to the broader University (e.g. improved
reputation as a trusted advisor of science; Cvitanovic et al., 2018).
Similarly, Pietri et al. (2011) describe how the California Ocean Science
Trust - a non-profit organisation mandated to support management de­
cisions with the best available science – was able to operate at the
boundary of marine science and policy to successfully navigate the
controversial issue of decommissioning California’s offshore oil and gas
platforms in a way that reflected the best available science.
Despite the potential benefits of boundary organisations in
improving knowledge exchange and supporting evidence-informed de­
cision-making processes, they also come with unique challenges and
tensions (Ballesteros and Dickey-Collas 2023). For example, different
stakeholders can have conflicting and often incommensurable needs
and/or goals, placing inconsistent demands on the functioning of the
boundary organisation and potentially leading to tension and conflict
(Parker and Crona, 2012). This can be compounded in cases where there
2
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
are unequal power dynamics among the different stakeholders to which
the boundary organisation is accountable. Hence it is important to
ensure the fairness and transparency of the process. Potentially diver­
gent needs and/or goals of different stakeholders also mean that
developing shared definitions of success is a challenge for boundary
organisations (Pitt et al., 2018). This can be problematic given that
having a shared definition of success, and working towards that shared
vision, is considered a critical precondition of successful knowledge
exchange at the interface of marine science and policy (Cvitanovic and
Hobday 2018). The implementation of boundary organisations can also
involve significant direct (e.g., money) and indirect (e.g., time for trust
building) costs that can limit their success (Karcher et al., 2022).
These barriers can challenge boundary organisations’ performance,
and in combination, they can undermine the extent to which the advice
provided by boundary organisations is deemed trustworthy. This is
significant as trust is a critical precondition to the uptake and use of
scientific knowledge in decision-making processes (Cvitanovic et al.,
2019; Cvitanovic et al., 2021; Muir et al., 2023). Trust has previously
been defined as a psychological state in which an entity (i.e., a trustor)
accepts some level of vulnerability based on a positive expectation of
another entity (Rousseau et al., 1998). In this case, the trustor could be
an individual or group, whereas a trustee could refer to an individual,
organisation, object (e.g., a policy brief or framework) or a process
(Coleman and Stern 2018). The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to
another implies that there is something of importance to be lost (Mayer
and Davis, 1995). Research suggests that trust is highly dynamic and
fragile and can exist at three levels when working at the marine
science-policy interface: (i) trust in individuals, (ii) trust in the organi­
sation and (iii) trust in the process by which knowledge is generated and
exchanged (Cvitanovic et al., 2021).
Previous research into trust at the science-policy interface has mostly
focused on the role and perceptions of/by researchers (e.g., Pielke 2007;
Cooke et al., 2020; Fischer and Karcher, 2022; Gläser et al., 2022).
Hence, there is a paucity of understanding of how the requesters of
advice perceive trust, which is crucial for the long-term interest, integ­
rity and effectiveness of the requester-provider exchange. Based on that,
guidance on how boundary organisations can navigate the “stormy seas”
of maintaining trust with policy developers and implementers against
this complex backdrop is essential. This ensures that boundary organi­
sations deliver effective knowledge exchange to build capacity for
evidence-informed decision-making and that their benefits outweigh
their costs (Karcher et al., 2022). This paper seeks to address this gap in
our knowledge through an in-depth study of the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea (from herein ICES). ICES was established
in 1902 and operates as a boundary organisation with a mission to
“advance and share scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and
the services they provide and to use this knowledge to generate
state-of-the-art advice for meeting conservation, management, and
sustainability goals” (ICES 2019). Specifically, through semi-structured
interviews with requesters (i.e., instigators and end-users) of ICES
advice we seek to understand (i) the benefits the requesters derive from
working with ICES and (ii) the factors that can both increase and
decrease the extent to which requesters trust the advice generated and
provided by ICES. In doing so this study seeks to provide insights for
boundary organisations and other relevant bodies operating at the
interface of marine science and policy.
2. Methods
2.1. Case study: The International Council for the exploration of the seas
ICES was formed as an intergovernmental science organisation in
1902, and as such, is one of the oldest boundary organisations operating
at the interface of marine science, policy and practice globally. This is
achieved through formal agreements or memoranda to provide advice to
governments, international governmental organisations or agencies in
C. Cvitanovic et al.
relation to the management of human activities, natural resources, and
the conservation of the marine environment. These memoranda
explicitly require ICES to provide scientific advice that is independent of
political influence and subject to best international quality procedures.
This represents a unique challenge given that ICES is comprised of
members that represent 20 countries from the North Atlantic, Arctic and
Baltic Sea, while giving advice that covers a range of topics.
Part of the ICES mission is to use its knowledge to generate state-of-
the-art advice for meeting marine conservation, management, and sus­
tainability goals (ICES, 2019). This advice supports ecosystem-based
decision-making for the management of human activities in our seas
and oceans, and contributes towards the effective application of an
ecosystem approach. The approach seeks to maintain the health of
marine ecosystems, alongside appropriate human use, for the benefit of
current and future generations (ICES, 2019). ICES provides over 240
pieces of advice per year to governments and intergovernmental orga­
nisations (ICES 2021). Topics include the state of fish stocks and con­
sequences of future fishing quotas, the identification of vulnerable
marine ecosystems, the spatial distribution of fishing, fisheries bycatch
and maritime biofouling mitigation measures, trends in biodiversity and
cumulative effects of anthropogenic activities on the ecosystem. The
advice varies across a range of formats from very prescribed “numbers”,
(e.g. for catches of fish), to trade-off scenarios, (e.g., for impact of seabed
trawling or biodiversity hotspots), to setting the context for manage­
ment decisions (e.g., overviews of top anthropogenic pressures in a
region).
ICES coordinate the work of about 150 expert groups that generate
scientific knowledge and conduct the analyses that underpins ICES
advice. Expert groups are comprised of scientists (i.e. topics experts)
who work together to advance scientific understanding and manage­
ment of marine systems. Each expert group has a terms of reference
which define the scientific questions to be tackled. Questions are
generated through bottom-up and top-down processes, including inno­
vation by our scientists and the wider marine science community, ICES
strategic and science priorities and requests for advice. A full list of ICES
Expert Groups, their members and their terms of references can be found
on the ICES website (www.ices.dk).
The role as a science adviser has been central to ICES’ identity and
has led to ICES being used as a unique case study for research into
boundary organisations, transparency of advice, roles and re­
sponsibilities and application of the ecosystem approach in the marine
science for policy arena (Nielson, 2008; Wilson 2009; Dankel et al.,
2015; Ballesteros et al. 2018; Cvitanovic et al., 2021a, 2021b; Linke
et al., 2023) and makes ICES a unique case study for addressing the aims
of this study. ICES is the sole science adviser to the Northeast Atlantic
Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), and the requirement to use its advice
has been written into EU legislation, (e.g., fisheries management plans).
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2021) states that ICES is
a principal science adviser for conservation and management decisions
for fisheries. ICES also acted as the forum for the development of the
European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Rice
et al., 2005), a key piece of legislation for environmental and
ecosystem-based management of EU seas, and its advice is still used to
develop guidance on methods and reporting by member states into the
MSFD.
ICES has been called a self-reflective organisation (Wilson, 2009),
that acknowledges the creative tensions between the production of sci­
ence and provision of advice for policy (Fig. 1). Wilson (2009) high­
lighted that defining the boundary between science and advice is
important in maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of ICES, to
address the bias of individual scientists and ensure that advice is based
on adequate science. When developing more holistic advice, a recent
critique suggests that the Northeast Atlantic system lacks a formalized
process to provide and integrate advice in support of an ecosystem
approach (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2021), thus challenging ICES
legitimacy in its role. ICES is also increasing engagement with a wider
3
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
Fig. 1). ICES operates in a complex and changing science-policy landscape. The
diagram lists some of the organisations and sectors ICES collaborates with. The
roles are overlapping examples and not an exhaustive list.
community of stakeholders (Dickey-Collas and Ballesteros, 2021). While
engagement contributes to securing the credibility, legitimacy and trust
of the organisations operating across boundaries, it also generates
trade-offs between those attributes that must be balanced (Ballesteros
and Dickey-Collas 2023). For a boundary organisation, the trade-offs
provide a means to navigate diverse demands for policy relevance and
scientific integrity. Further, Wilson (2009) notes that a result of their
institutional self-reflectivity, ICES have a history of adapting to the
challenges and expectations of being an advisor for societal
decision-making. For example, the reforms in the advice services of ICES
in 2008 and 2010 were specifically brought in to increase the quality of
the advice. ICES institutional development, change and capacity to cope
with adaptive learning have been fully explored (for a detailed overview
please see Wilson, 2009; Stange, 2010; Dickey-Collas and Ballesteros,
2021). The existing advisory plan focuses on increasing the legitimacy,
salience and credibility of advice (ICES 2019), which is a mechanism to
increase trust of requesters in ICES. This makes ICES an interesting and
relevant boundary organisation to use as a case study.
2.2. Participants
The requesters of ICES advice are predominantly governmental or
intergovernmental authorities associated with the management of eco­
systems and natural resources in the North Atlantic, Arctic and Baltic
Sea. Those include the governments of the 20 ICES member countries,
the European Commission and NEAFC, HELCOM (The Baltic Marine
Environment Protection Commission – also known as the Helsinki
Commission), and the OSPAR Commission (https://www.ices.dk/abo
ut-ICES/how-we-work/Pages/Advisory_process.aspx). Regarding the
initial role of the requesters in the advisory process, the ‘Guide to ICES
advisory framework and principles’ outlines that: “Final request formu­
lation is agreed through dialogue to clarify the requester’s needs and expec­
tations, the ICES process, likely resource implications, timelines, format of
advice, and roles and responsibilities of the engaged parties” (ICES 2021, htt
ps://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7648). Throughout the subsequent
advisory process, ICES guidelines ensure transparency with the re­
questers as well as independence of advice from influence of stake­
holders and requesters (idem). ICES uses the word requester to denote the
countries and organisations that ask it for advice. This word is used in
this study to maintain a common understanding with the case study
C. Cvitanovic et al.
organisation.
The initial selection of potential participants was conducted by the
research team together with the Chair of the ICES Advisory Committee.
As per the inclusion criteria, potential participants had to be a formal
requester (e.g., project expert for an organisation or country that
requested advice). Hence, we would like to acknowledge that this study
did not include actors external to the ICES advice process because it
aimed to capture in-depth knowledge around trust throughout this
advice process by experts who were involved in it. The initial group
listed 12 individuals that worked for requesting authorities and were
directly involved with the ICES advisory process. Among them, 7 agreed
to participate in this research, with the remainder declining primarily
due to time constraints (in accordance with our ethics approval,
participation in our study was on a voluntary basis). To achieve a larger
sample size and supplement the initial set of participants with additional
experiences, we performed deliberate snowball sampling (Noy 2008).
For the snowball sampling, every participant was asked to share contacts
of other requesters of ICES advice who they deemed relevant to the focus
of this study. This process identified additional people who were eligible
to participate in our study, who were then contacted and invited to take
part, five of whom were willing to participate.
2.3. Research instrument
Given the focus of this study required for a comprehensive in-depth
exploration of requesters’ thoughts towards, and experiences with, the
ICES advisory process, and a small sample size within a well-defined
study population was expected, we applied a qualitative research
approach. Qualitative approaches have been commonly implemented
and have proven useful in studies into trust and transparency (e.g.,
Glenn et al., 2012; de Vries et al., 2014; Gilmour et al., 2015; Cvitanovic
et al., 2021a). For the present study, we conducted semi-structured in­
terviews. To do so, we developed an interview guide that captured the
perceptions and experiences of participants towards ICES advice. The
guide was informed by previous works on trust at the marine
science-policy interface (e.g., Cvitanovic et al., 2021b) as well as
knowledge exchange frameworks which have acknowledged that trus­
ted and applicable advice needs to be credible, legitimate, and salient (e.
g., Cash et al., 2003). More specifically, the questions unravelled the
benefits that participants (i.e., end-users of advice) or their employers
derived from working with ICES, if and why they trust ICES’ advice, and
how they assess the credibility and legitimacy of such advice. The
interview guide was tested for clarity among the authors, which include
non-native English speakers. Through feedback from all authors, we
adjusted the interview questions to be easily comprehensible to both
native – and non-native English-speaking participants. The full inter­
view guide can be found as Appendix 1. The interviews were conducted
by three authors (CC, DK and RS), audio-recorded and professionally
transcribed for accuracy.
2.4. Data analysis
We used the qualitative data analysis tool NVivo 11 to employ coding
to the raw data (i.e., interview transcripts). Each interview transcript
was coded inductively against the three broad research questions of this
study. This means that emerging codes from the transcripts represented
the language and thoughts of participants more directly, without the
constraints of predefined categories of possible responses (Charmaz
2008). To account for interpersonal coding reliability, three transcripts
were pilot coded by two authors (PT, DK) and discussed among three
authors (PT, DK and CC) to clarify differences in the emergent themes.
Once differences in coding structure were resolved and agreed the
remaining transcripts were coded by PT.
In detail, two layers of coding were applied (following Blythe and
Cvitanovic, 2020). First, the inductive coding of interview data into
codes representing the participants’ thoughts and language.
4
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
Subsequently, a layer of thematic coding was employed to identify
recurring themes in the emerging codes under each research question
(Saldaña 2015). As the coding progressed, new codes were constantly
verified against previously identified themes and either grouped within
the existing hierarchy of themes or evoking an adjustment of themes
(including the emerging of new themes) over time. By doing so, we
intended to ensure that all codes were able to equally contribute to the
emergence of themes regardless of the order in which the transcripts
were analysed. For validity of this process, emerging codes and themes
were also constantly checked against the raw data in the transcripts.
2.5. Methodological limitations
In describing our methodological approach, it is also important to
acknowledge their limitations, to aid in the interpretation of the results
which are presented below. While case-study research approaches (i.e.,
our focus on ICES as a case study) are well recognised for their ability to
provide in-depth understandings of complex and/or complicated issues
(see Starman 2013 for a detailed overview), they are also limited in that
the findings cannot be directly extrapolated to every context. This is
particularly important to note for this study, given that the interface
between marine science and policy is highly context-specific across
cultures, space, sector and time. Thus, while the strategies presented
below have been useful within the context of the ICES operating envi­
ronment and context, the applicability of our results to other contexts
may be more limited. Thus, the results of our paper should not be seen as
a definitive list of strategies that can be applied by boundary organisa­
tions seeking to operate at the interface of marine science and policy, but
rather as a starting point for deeper exploration for a given context or
situation.
We also acknowledge that some may consider our sample size of 12
participants to be relatively small. While there is no universally appro­
priate sample size for reaching theoretical saturation during qualitative
interviews, evidence suggests that it often occurs after approximately 12
interviews (Guest et al., 2006). On that note, we would like to
acknowledge that different participants may have had different time­
frames of engagement and trust building with ICES but through the
limited sample size, we cannot disclose or even generalise from indi­
vidual timeframes on the role of individual timescales on trust. In this
instance, however, given that our inclusion criteria for participation
stipulated that individuals had to be a formal requester of ICES advice,
and we invited all relevant participants to take part in the study, it was
not necessary, nor were there additional means, to increase our sample
size. The sample includes individuals from national, supranational (EU)
and intergovernmental organisations.
2.6. Human ethics statement
Ethical approval to undertake this research was granted from the
Australian National University Human Ethics Committee (Ref: 2020/
244) in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research. This included ensuring that Participants
Information Sheets (PIS) were provided to all potential participants at
the time of inviting their participation, that outlined the ethical con­
siderations associated with the research. Then, prior to the commence­
ment of each interview, the purpose of the research was verbally
explained to each participant and formal consent to participate was
obtained in writing. In accordance with the approval protocol, and to
protect the anonymity of study participants, demographic characteris­
tics of the participants cannot be disclosed. We also acknowledge that
one of the study authors (MDC) was employed in ICES during the time of
this study as the Chair of the ICES Advisory Committee. This was also
made explicit during the application for human ethics approvals, and
additional steps put in place to ensure the anonymity of study partici­
pants, in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research. Finally, it should be noted that ICES did
C. Cvitanovic et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952

not provide any funding for this research. Table 2

Factors that influence why requesters trust ICES advice.
3. Results Theme Subtheme Frequency Number Example quote
of
Analysis of the interview transcripts resulted in the identification of Sources

24 themes which we mapped against our study objectives. An overview ICES’ processes Requesters 9 5 “I think it’s
of the themes is provided (in Tables 1–3) as an ‘analysis hierarchy’, for generating understand ICES enormously
scientific advice and important for the
whereby they are ordered from the themes most frequently mentioned
advice processes requesters to
by research participants to those least frequently mentioned. It should (including its understand the
be noted that in the tables, frequency refers to the number of times each limitations) science and to
theme was mentioned, not the level of importance that participants ask questions
attributed to the specific issue. that are sensible
of the science.”
Involvement of 7 6 “.., involving
3.1. Benefits that requesters derive from working with ICES experts everyone I think
means you can
have sort of faith
Analysis of the interview transcripts identified six benefits that study in the process, i.
participants derive from working with and using ICES advice (Table 1). e. they’re not – it
Of these, the most commonly discussed benefit (n = 9) was the ability to seems that
they’re not
rely on ICES reputation as an independent provider of scientific advice,
trying to cover
with participants noting that this conferred confidence in the advice anything up and
amongst their stakeholders and partners. Closely related to this, par­ they’re doing
ticipants also noted that the high degrees of participation by different what they think
stakeholders in ICES processes allowed for the sharing of expertise and is right”
Quality 6 6 “I trust the ICES
assurance (e.g., system because
Table 1 peer reviewed) it’s a peer review
Benefits that requesters have derived from working with ICES. system, and they
have a built-in
Theme Frequencya Number of Example Quote
checking system”
Sourcesb
Transparent 5 3 “.., there is trust
ICES’ reputation as 12 9 “Benefits from working with processes on this that I
an independent ICES is that they have a very expect that the
scientific body good reputation advice is
internationally. They are transmitted and
internationally acknowledged every time you
as an independent scientific have asked for
body.” anything, for any
Receiving best 8 7 “The benefits are that actually document, ICES
available scientific we are getting, of course, better is very open to
advice science or better assessment on send it.”
our species.” Relationship Individual 8 5 “But also
Opportunity to 8 7 “The more we do here, the between because the
exchange expertise better we understand how little requester and professional and
and knowledge we know. So by sharing the ICES then personal
knowledge and ideas, helps us relationships I
in a way to focus on the built up, that was
research priorities. So that successful
having the discussions, having because they’re
the shared knowledge that’s very open-
improved us all, instead of minded, willing
being two or three persons to listen group of
dealing with each of the issues people.
that we are working on, having Extremely
a family that you can seek responsive. So
advice from, that is so that I always felt
important.” I could pick up
Opportunity to build 5 5 “.., the benefits comes from the the phone and
personal and co-operation. You get sometimes at tell,
professional acquainted with the persons. I’m sorry, this is
networks You get even friendship, a bit last minute,
developing projects on other but could you?
sides, sharing views on things.” And they would
Good ecological 2 2 “I guess the advice – ultimately, always
outcomes the main benefit is to ensure endeavour to
that we’re fishing at a help whatever
sustainable level.” the problem was
Value for money 2 2 “.., they are also very good or address an
value for money regarding our issue. And that –
requests.” yeah, so from
a
that personal
Frequency refers to the number of times a theme was coded across all trust, you start to
interview transcripts. trust the
b
The number of sources represents the number of unique interviewees (i.e., organisation
participants) who raised the theme during the interview process (maximum (continued on next page)
potential n = 12).

5
C. Cvitanovic et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952

Table 2 (continued ) Table 3

Theme Subtheme Frequency Number Example quote
Factors that adversely impact trust in ICES advice by requesters.
of Theme Frequency Number of Example quote
Sources sources
even more Quality of advice 8 6 “I don’t think it’s right either to
because of the trust it to the tonnage that – the
direct exact tonnage that they give. I don’t
experience.” think that’s correct. I think there
Organisational 7 7 “.., as an are some areas where it could be
organisation better, but it […] is sometimes hard
we’re bound to to differentiate between what’s a
trust them as fault with ICES potentially and the
well.” way they give their advice, and
High quality Inputs (i.e., data) 4 4 “And it is based what’s a fault with the data that’s
science on the best collected.”
available Lack of 4 3 “So in terms of the trust, I think
information […] transparency ICES could be better at being more
at the time.” honest about why they don’t have
Outputs (i.e., 2 2 “I was quite full trust in the advice. They know
advice) happy with the that it’s not as robust as they would
scientific advice like it to be, but due to data
that they provide limitations, and things like that,
and the services that’s the best they can do.”
that they Providing advice 4 3 “.., it didn’t really damage my
provide” beyond remit relationship with them, but there
Reputation of 4 3 “.., it’s also an was one time when a scientific
ICES as an international group had stepped beyond their
independent organisation, it’s remit and had started to provide
scientific independent, so I advice about certain habitats that
body think that also should be protected, and that
stakeholders see wasn’t what had been asked for.”
this work as Not entirely 3 2 “Do I trust that they always bring a
independent” independent bit of real-world common sense
ICES 2 2 “I think ICES has political noise to the issue? Not so
acknowledges also been sure.”
limitations increasingly
willing to admit
where it doesn’t 3.2. Factors that influence the extent to which requesters trust ICES
know the answer
advice
and where it
can’t know the
answer. So that All 12 participants of the study stated that they have a high degree of
by itself trust in the scientific advice provided by ICES. The most commonly
increases trust in
discussed reason was the highly participatory and transparent processes
the organisation
that we’re not
that ICES utilises to generate their advice (Table 2). Specifically, par­
setting ticipants discussed that ICES processes (i) had the involvement of a
themselves up to diverse group of scientific experts for the generation of advice, (ii) had
be Superman. So quality assurances that were built into ICES processes, such as the in­
yeah, I think it
dependent peer-review of the advice prior to dissemination, (iii) were
has increased, I
mean, by no articulated and understood by requesters of advice, including an un­
means a 100% derstanding of the limitations of the advice, and (iv) had high levels of
trust, but yeah, it transparency which allowed requesters to have full oversight over how
has increased.” the advice was generated and the associated limitations (Fig. 2).
ICES listens to 2 2 “.., was very
requesters open to listening
The next most commonly discussed reasons for why requesters trust
and accepts and trying to the advice provided by ICES was based on relationships at two levels -
feedback improve their the first being relationships between individuals (i.e., person to person -
own processes. interpersonal trust), and the second being relationships among organi­
And so the
sations (i.e. ICES to the requester via formal agreement - interorgani­
transparency
was always there zational trust). Personal and professional relationships with individuals
and that was in ICES were frequently mentioned, with participants identifying ICES
valuable.” staff and participating scientists whom they can be honest and have
informal discussions with (i.e., a degree of personal trust), which helps
confer trust more broadly in ICES as an organisation and the advice it
knowledge on the focal topic, helping to ensure that the advice gener­
provides. Furthermore, interpersonal and interorganizational trust seem
ated through ICES processes could be considered as the best available
mutually facilitating. The trust between organisations (ICES and re­
advice. Other benefits identified by participants included: (i) the extent
questers, e.g., NEAFC, OSPAR or a given country) set the basis for
to which ICES processes create opportunities to establish new relation­
establishing formal agreements. Interorganizational trust provides a
ships and networks for requesters of ICES advice, (ii) how the quality of
context for interpersonal relations to be developed (e.g., through face to
the advice provided by ICES represented good value for money, and
face meetings between ICES and advice requesters), which in turn fa­
ultimately, (iii) how the application of ICES advice in practice has led to
cilitates increasing trust in the organization (e.g. “[…] so from that per­
improved ecological outcomes.
sonal trust, you start to trust the organisation even more because of the direct
experience”; see Table 2).

6
C. Cvitanovic et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952

policy to enable evidence-informed decision-making processes (e.g.,

Pietri et al., 2011; Cvitanovic et al., 2018; Karcher et al., 2022). This is
achieved by facilitating and mediating collaboration and knowledge
exchange between research and non-research actors and communities
(Guston 1999, 2001). Previous research has studied the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and examined (i) the
importance of trust and strategies for building and regaining trust at the
marine science-policy interface and (ii) the types of success that can be
delivered by organisations such as ICES who work at the marine
science-policy interface. Previous research on ICES drew on the per­
spectives of ICES employees and active members of the ICES community
(Cvitanovic et al., 2021a, 2021b), but not the users of ICES advice which
is the focus of the current study.
Further, thus far, there has been limited investigation into the per­
ceptions of end-users who commission and use ICES advice in policy and
practice. In the present study, we have shone a spotlight on how end-
users perceive the benefits and trustworthiness of ICES. We sought to:
(i) identify the main benefits of working with boundary organisations
and (ii) understand the ways by which boundary organisations build and
maintain trust, using ICES as a case study and by elucidating the per­
spectives of representatives from governments, international govern­
mental organisations or agencies that formally commission and use ICES
advice on the management of anthropogenic activities, marine ecosys­
tems, and the conservation of the marine environment. Here, we reflect
on our findings in the context of the broader literature, to discuss their
Fig. 2). Visual summary of the factors that influence why requesters trust
implications for boundary organisations operating at the interface of
ICES advice.
marine science and policy.

Beyond the processes used to generate advice and the relationships

4.1. Benefits that requesters derive from working with ICES
between individuals and organisations, a range of other factors were
found to help confer trust. These included (i) the quality of the science
Previous research has identified that interactive knowledge ex­
used to generate the advice, and in particular, the data (inputs) used to
change can have a range of benefits and impacts can take a variety of
inform the process, (ii) the reputation of ICES as an independent pro­
forms (e.g., instrumental, conceptual, and cultural) and can occur on
vider of advice (i.e. that they are free from bias), (iii) the fact that ICES
different scales (Karcher et al., 2021, 2022; Cooke et al., 2020). This was
openly acknowledges the limitations associated with the data they use or
observed in an earlier study of ICES (Cvitanovic et al., 2021a). ICES staff
the advice they provide (e.g. related to missing data), and (iv) because
and active members of the ICES community perceived that knowledge
ICES is open to listening to feedback from the requesters of advice, and
exchange had a range of impacts on people, science, organisations,
acting on that feedback to improve their processes (Table 2).
policy, and ecosystems. The current study explores the benefits that
Despite all 12 participants stating that they trust the advice provided
end-users gain from working with ICES.
by ICES, six participants also discussed instances when their trust in ICES
Our results showed that requesters of advice derive a range of ben­
waivered and/or decreased. Loss of trust (often temporary) occurred for
efits from working with ICES. The most commonly discussed benefit was
four main reasons (Table 3). The first related to the quality of advice,
the organisations’ ability to rely on ICES reputation as an independent
whereby participants stated that trust in ICES advice wavered due to
provider of scientific advice, which conferred confidence and trust in the
questions around the assumptions and data behind the advice, as well as
advice among their different stakeholders and partners. All agreements
the thoroughness of the advice provided. The second reason related to
between ICES and organisations requesting advice state that resulting
occasions whereby requesters felt there was a lack of transparency, for
advice should be independent and free from political influence. As an
example around recognising the limitations of the advice they provide to
intermediary operating at the interface of marine science and policy, a
requesters.
key feature of boundary organisations such as ICES is the joint
Aside from these, participants also discussed how at times their trust
accountability that they have to both science and policy communities
in ICES advice had waivered because they felt that ICES had stepped
(Guston 2001). This aligns with the perceptions of ICES employees and
beyond their remit and provided advice outside of their scope (Table 3).
active members of the ICES community, who highlighted the importance
Finally, while acknowledging that ICES did their best to be an inde­
of ICES being, and demonstrating independence (Cvitanovic et al.,
pendent provider of advice, two participants noted that it is, to some
2021a). In this way, boundary organisations can potentially unite sci­
level, impossible to be entirely independent and free of political bias,
entists and decision-makers that may otherwise have strained relation­
which made their trust in ICES advice waiver at times (Table 3). Despite
ships to build capacity for evidence-informed decision-making (Osmond
mentioning occasions whereby trust wavered, however, participants
et al., 2010), due to their cultural and institutional differences (as
noted that these issues and occurrences did not entirely diminish their
reviewed in Cvitanovic et al., 2015a). Our results suggest that ICES has
trust in ICES advice. Participants also noted that, at times, the issues that
over the years been very successful in uniting groups via the creation of a
caused trust to waiver were not necessarily the fault of ICES specifically
transparent and participatory process of knowledge generation and
(e.g., it may be an issue of how the data input into the process was
transfer.
collected).
We also found that working with ICES enabled requesters to access
the best available scientific advice. While we acknowledge that the
4. Discussion
concept of ‘best’ available advice is contested, in-line with the ways by
which interview participants discussed the concept, here we define the
Boundary organisations are increasingly seen as a pathway for
concept as advice which is based on the most current and relevant sci­
improving knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and
entific research that was available to be scrutinised by those who were

7
C. Cvitanovic et al.
intended to use it. Requesters of advice also highlighted that the high
degree of participation by different requesters in ICES processes allowed
for the sharing of expertise and knowledge, helping to ensure that the
advice generated through ICES processes could be considered as the best
available advice (as also described in Cvitanovic et al., 2021a).
In addition, engaging with ICES provided requesters the opportunity
to exchange expertise and knowledge. The importance of integrating
and including different expertise and perspectives into knowledge gen­
eration and decision-making processes is now widely recognised (Cor­
nell et al., 2013; Mauser et al., 2013; Tengö et al., 2017). For example,
the integration of knowledge systems does not only help to ensure that
the best available knowledge is produced, but previous studies have also
highlighted other benefits, including but not limited to, facilitating so­
cial learning among participants (Fazey et al., 2006), increasing the
extent to which new knowledge is trusted (Cvitanovic et al., 2014b), and
increasing the accessibility of new knowledge to decision-makers (Cvi­
tanovic et al., 2016).
Another benefit to the requesters of advice is that ICES was perceived
by participants of this study as good value for money. Given science-
policy knowledge exchange, particularly that achieved through bound­
ary organisations, comes with immense direct and indirect costs
(Karcher et al., 2022), it is key to organise it in a way that reduces costs
and maximises value of engagement (Reed et al., 2014). The value of
history in knowledge exchange, meaning previous experiences, re­
lationships, social capital, reputation and trust could significantly
contribute to what value for money is feasible (Karcher et al., 2022).
However, a detailed contextual understanding of the factors increasing
the cost-efficiency in knowledge exchange is still missing to date and
warrants further, future, investigation.
4.2. Factors that confer trust in ICES advice
All requesters interviewed in this study had a high degree of trust in
the scientific advice provided by ICES. Through this study, we developed
a comprehensive understanding of the main factors which can affect
trust in ICES, as perceived by requesters of ICES advice. Six factors
increased requester’s trust in ICES advice. They were: (i) transparent
processes for generating scientific advice, (ii) the relationship between
requesters and ICES, (iii) high quality science, (iv) the reputation of ICES
as an independent scientific body, (v) ICES acknowledging its limita­
tions and (vi) ICES listening to requesters and accepting feedback.
ICES processes for generating advice was the most frequently
mentioned factor that increased trust in ICES advice, and in particular,
the transparent nature of the process. There were various reasons for
this, due to the multi-faceted nature of the ICES advice process. Re­
questers perceived that it was important for organisations to understand
the advice provided by ICES and the processes through which the advice
is generated. This includes ICES being upfront with the limitations of the
process (e.g., annual bilateral meetings occur between ICES and each
requester to openly discuss the strengths and limitations of the pro­
cesses) and having transparent processes (e.g. advice is provided based
on agreed frameworks, and for new types of advice the framework are
interactively developed in dialogue between ICES and requesters). Re­
questers also highlighted that trust in ICES processes comes from having
experts in the field engaged in the process and for there to be quality
assurance processes.
Interestingly, these findings align with the perceptions of ICES staff
and active members of the ICES science community (i.e. those gener­
ating the scientific advice, as described in Cvitanovic et al., 2021a). ICES
staff and active members of the community perceived that trust with
requesters has been built because processes are transparent (i.e. the
requesters have trust in the process; as discussed in Cvitanovic et al.,
2021a). For example, ICES has a clearly documented process and data is
open, traceable and accessible and they acknowledge risks associated
with the advice (e.g., articulating limitations associated with the process
and being explicit about potential uncertainty within the data). The
8
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
importance of transparency has also been discussed in prior research (e.
g., Lacey et al., 2015) and our research reconfirms this finding in the
context of marine science.
These findings are likely reflective of the deliberative processes that
ICES have taken to create processes that generate trustworthy scientific
advice. As mentioned earlier ICES has given scientific advice since 1908
(Rozwadowski, 2002). Since that time structures and frameworks have
been developed in response to both internal and external challenges to
improve the transparency of ICES processes (Dickey-Collas and Balles­
teros, 2021). In 2008–2010 as example, ICES reformed its committee
structure, with the formation of an advisory committee and a science
committee. This demarcated specific roles and responsibilities to sepa­
rate components of the network. The advisory committee proceeded to
develop guidelines and frameworks for the provision of advice which
provided transparency and the rationale for decisions, and technical
guidelines explained the methods used.
Another example of the efforts ICES have taken to increase the
transparency of their processes can be drawn from 2018, whereby steps
were taken to safeguard the reputation of ICES as an impartial knowl­
edge provider, all contributors/experts were required to abide by the
ICES Code of Conduct, and behave in a manner consistent with scientific
independence, integrity, and impartiality and to declare any actual,
potential, or perceived conflicts of interest (ICES 2022). In addition,
templates for the submission of requests for advice, the publication of
cooperation agreements, and the opening up to observers of the pro­
cesses and meetings (Ballesteros and Dickey-Collas, 2023) all illustrate
the learning and continuing development of the organisation as it strives
to maintain and build trust and legitimacy. This process is ongoing, as
exemplified by the recent publication of the 10 principles for ICES
advice as documented in the Guide to ICES advisory (ICES 2021).
Relationships were also commonly mentioned by requesters as a
reason for why they trusted ICES advice. As aforementioned, trust is as a
psychological state in which an entity (i.e., a trustor) accepts some level
of vulnerability based on a positive expectation of another entity
(Rousseau et al., 1998). Trust at the science-policy interface is most
commonly described between individual actors through interpersonal
relationships or informal networks (e.g., Edelenbos and van Meerkerk,
2015; Murti et al., 2020; Karcher et al., 2022b). However, in the current
study, participants spoke both of individual level relationships such as
those reported elsewhere, and organisational-level trust (i.e., the trust
that end-users have in the scientific advice provided by ICES). This
further highlights the complexity of trust, and need to consider how it
can be built, monitored and maintained across different scales so as to
realise the associated benefits.
In summary, our study has shown that most of the key factors un­
derpinning trust in ICES are the same for ICES scientists (‘producers’ of
knowledge) and requesters (‘users’ of knowledge): process transparency,
independence, individual and organisational level relationships and
data quality (idem; Cvitanovic et al., 2021a). This is a valuable finding
because it provides a shared set of factors or “values” that make very
different actors with different expectations, limitations and working
cultures trust a boundary organisation. Maintaining those factors could
serve as a baseline of trustworthiness for both scientists and end users
but compromising them would harm trust of scientists and end users
alike. It would be hoped that ICES could use these insights to further
sculpt their advisory frameworks.
4.3. Factors that reduce trust in ICES advice
In the previous section we focused on the factors that conferred trust
in ICES advice by requesters. However, as established in the literature,
trust is also highly dynamic and fragile over time and space and a trusted
relationship should not be taken for granted (Lacey et al., 2015, 2018).
Thus, while simple in concept, trust is complex by nature.
Indeed, in the present study, requesters of advice also discussed sit­
uations whereby their trust in ICES had decreased, and the reasons for
C. Cvitanovic et al.
that. Specifically, there were four factors that were shown to decrease
trust in ICES advice: (i) poor quality advice, (ii) lack of transparency,
(iii) ICES providing advice beyond their remit and (iv) ICES not being
entirely independent. As previously discussed in section 4.1, requesters
gain benefits from working with ICES, for example, due to ICES’s
reputation as an independent scientific body and receiving best avail­
able scientific advice. However, these same benefits can be lost and can
cause a breakdown in trust between ICES and requesters.
Of the factors that were identified as decreasing trust in advice
perhaps, perhaps the most interesting is the situation whereby ICES
provided advice beyond their remit. Indeed, throughout the majority of
its existence, ICES could have been, and was, challenged for over­
stepping its role as a knowledge provider. For example, before 2008,
advice often contained normative elements, or scientists choosing risk
profiles or instructing managers how to manage. This threatened the
legitimacy and trust in the organisation (Dickey-Collas and Ballesteros
2021). In response ICES have put in place various reforms, guidelines
and principles to tackle this challenge. However, there still seem to be
incidences of where the boundary organisation has provided advice
beyond its remit, and in such cases, this has caused the trust that ICES
requesters have in their advice to waiver.
Even when trust in ICES advice has waivered for different reasons, in
all cases the participants of our study said it was rebuilt. Indeed, pre­
vious studies have identified and articulated the steps needed to repair
trust when it is compromised (Gillespie and Dietz., 2009; Lewicki and
Brinsfield., 2017). These include, when a breach of trust has occurred it
is critical that the providers of knowledge: (i) do not become defensive,
be honest that a mistake has occurred, (ii) identify, and explain, why the
mistake occurred, (iii) implement measures to ensure that the mistake
does not happen again, (iv) correct the mistake (e.g. by providing
updated knowledge/advice), and (v) give the trust re-building process
time, and ensure ongoing face to face contact throughout that time (as
detailed Cvitanovic et al., 2021a).
4.4. Future research needs
Through this paper we have sought to draw on the experiences of
ICES to generate guidance for organisations operating at the interface of
marine science and policy and help them navigate the stormy seas
associated with maintaining trust. However, in doing so we reiterate our
earlier point that we acknowledge that the interface between marine
science and policy is highly context specific, and thus the results of this
study should be considered by readers for their individual circum­
stances, and may not be relevant for all contexts. Thus, we call for
further research into how boundary organisations build and manage
trust across different contexts, settings and sectors, to build on our
findings, and enable a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
Future research should also seek to understand how the factors that
confer trust (as reported in this study and Cvitanovic et al., 2021a)
change over time, given the highly dynamic nature of trust over tem­
poral scales (Lacey et al., 2018).
Our case study has also had an explicit focus on a boundary orga­
nisation operating and the interface of marine science and policy. Many
boundary organisations, however, are not limited by only supporting the
science-policy interface, but rather work between many different actors
that represent a range of knowledge systems (e.g., Carr and Wilkinson,
2005). This can introduce additional and more complex challenges to
the operation of the organisation. As such, future research is also needed
to understand how navigating trust and legitimacy can be achieved
when broader actors and knowledge systems are involved. This must
include a focus on how boundary organisations can ensure trust and
legitimacy with Indigenous knowledge systems to ensure that traditional
knowledge systems are fairly and appropriately represented (e.g., Rob­
inson and Wallington 2012).
Further research is also needed to understand how the concept of
trust interacts with other attributes that are known to support effective
9
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
relationships and knowledge exchange. For example, Lacey et al. (2018)
highlight the relationship and interdependencies between trust,
accountability and transparency, particularly in terms of creating
learning opportunities that can be used as mechanisms to set shared
expectations for a trusted relationship. Whereas organizational trans­
parency increases perceived trustworthiness, how the
transparency-accountability attributes are set and their interplay is
particularly relevant for advisory organisations such as ICES. While it
was outside of the scope of this study to explore the relationship between
trust and other factors such as accountability and transparency, we
suggest this as another area for further research in the future.
Finally, while this study has focused on understanding the factors
that confer trust in the advice provided by boundary organisations by
formal requestors of advice (which, in the case of ICES is governmental
and/or intergovernmental authorities), and by so provides a valuable
baseline to understand trustworthiness in boundary organisations,
further research is needed to understand the extent to which other
groups trust information provided by boundary organisations. Such
research should also seek to understand the factors that enable or inhibit
trust. For example, in the context of ICES, future research could seek to
understand the perspectives of other stakeholders such as environmental
non-government organisations, the fishing industry, and society more
broadly. Furthermore, disentangling trust on advice products from
institutional trust would be a useful avenue for further research.
5. Conclusions
Boundary organisations are increasingly recognised as an effective
mechanism for improving knowledge exchange at the interface of sci­
ence and policy to support the attainment of evidence-informed deci­
sion-making. However, boundary organisations can face various
challenges and tensions which undermine the extent to which they are
considered as trusted, which in turn undermines the extent to which the
knowledge and information they share is used in policy and practice. At
present, there is a lack of specific guidance on how boundary organi­
sations can navigate these challenges and build trust – a gap we
addressed through this study through a case study of ICES.
Reasons why ICES’ work is trusted have been investigated before
from the “ICES scientists’ point of view” (Cvitanovic et al., 2021b). In
comparison with the requesters (i.e. the present study), some differences
can be seen. While scientists felt they must give trust building time to
establish and grow within the context of political sensitivities (Cvita­
novic et al., 2021b), requesters specifically mentioned ICES’ reputation
of being independent. That being said, most of the key factors under­
pinning trust in ICES are the same for ICES scientists and requesters:
process transparency, independence, individual and organisational level
relationships and data quality. This is a valuable finding because it
provides a shared set of factors that make very different actors with
different expectations, limitations and working cultures trust a bound­
ary organisation. Maintaining those factors could serve as a baseline of
trustworthiness for both scientists and end users, but compromising
them would harm trust of scientists and end users alike.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
C. Cvitanovic: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administra­
tion, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. R.J. Shellock: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review
& editing, Project administration. D.B. Karcher: Data curation, Formal
analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. P. Tuohy: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. M. Mackay: Data curation,
Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. E.I.
van Putten: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Marta Ballesteros: Methodology, Writing – review &
C. Cvitanovic et al.
editing. M. Dickey-Collas: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
There are no known interests by any authors that require declaration.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
We thank the ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) leadership for their
support in developing this study, and all participants who took part in
this study. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided
constructive feedback on the paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106952.
References
Ballesteros, M., Dickey-Collas, M., 2023. Managing participation across boundaries: a
typology for stakeholder engagement in the International Council for the Exploration
of the Seas. Mar. Pol. 137, 105389.
Bednarek, A.T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., et al., 2018. Boundary spanning at the
science-policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. Sustain. Sci. 13 (4),
1175–1183.
Blythe, J., Cvitanovic, C., 2020. Five organizational features that enable successful
interdisciplinary marine research. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 539111.
Carlile, P., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in
new product development. Organ. Sci. 13, 442–455.
Carr, A., Wilkinson, R., 2005. Beyond participation: boundary organizations as a new
space for farmers and scientists to interact. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 255–265.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J.,
Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091.
Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M.E., Reid, R.S., Riechers, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.
J., Cvitanovic, C., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., Goldstein, B.E., 2021. Six
modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4 (11), 983–996.
Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N.L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.J.,
Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., Goldstein, B.
E., 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability
transformations. Global Environ. Change 72, 102422.
Charmaz, K., 2008. Grounded theory as an emergent method. Handbook Emergent
Method. 155, 172pp.
Coleman, K., Stern, M.J., 2018. Exploring the functions of different forms of trust in
collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31 (1), 21–38.
Cooke, S.J., Rytwinski, T., Taylor, J.J., Nyboer, E.A., Nguyen, V.M., Bennett, J.R.,
Young, N., Aitken, S., Auld, G., Lane, J.F., Prior, K.A., 2020. On “success” in applied
environmental research—what is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know
when it has been achieved? Environ. Rev. 28 (4), 357–372.
Cornell, S., Berkhout, F., Tuinstra, W., Tàbara, J.D., Jäger, J., Chabay, I., de Wit, B.,
Langlais, R., Mills, D., Moll, P., Otto, I.M., 2013. Opening up knowledge systems for
better responses to global environmental change. Environ. Sci. Pol. 28, 60–70.
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., 2018. Building optimism at the environmental science-
policy-practice interface through the study of bright spots. Nat. Commun. 9, 3466.
Cvitanovic, C., Fulton, C.J., Wilson, S.K., van Kerkhoff, L., Cripps, I.L., Muthiga, N.,
2014a. Utility of primary scientific literature to environmental managers: an
international case study on coral-dominated marine protected areas. Ocean Coast
Manag. 102, 72–78.
Cvitanovic, C., Marshall, N.A., Wilson, S.K., Dobbs, K., Hobday, A.J., 2014b. Perceptions
of Australian marine protected area managers regarding the role, importance, and
achievability of adaptation for managing the risks of climate change. Ecol. Soc. 19
(4), 33.
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., van Kerkhoff, L., Wilson, S.K., Dobbs, K., Marshall, N.A.,
2015a. Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to
facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and
research needs. Ocean Coast Manag. 112, 25–35.
Cvitanovic, C., Hobday, A.J., van Kerkhoff, L., Marshall, N.A., 2015b. Overcoming
barriers to knowledge exchange for adaptive resource management: the perspectives
of Australian marine scientists. Mar. Pol. 52, 38–44.
Cvitanovic, C., McDonald, J., Hobday, A.J., 2016. From science to action: principles for
undertaking environmental research than enables knowledge exchange and
evidence-based decision-making. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 864–874.
10
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
Cvitanovic, C., Cunningham, R., Dowd, A.M., Howden, S.M., van Putten, E.I., 2017.
Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge
brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: an Australian case study.
Environ. Pol. Governan. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1752.
Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., Norström, A.V., Reed, M.S., 2018. Building university-based
boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice.
PLoS One 13 (9), e0203752.
Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R.J., Mackay, M., van Putten, E.I., Karcher, D.B., Dickey-
Collas, M., Ballesteros, M., 2021a. Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to
enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 123, 179–189.
Cvitanovic, C., Mackay, M., Shellock, R.J., van Putten, E.I., Karcher, D.B., Dickey-
Collas, M., 2021b. Understanding and evidencing a broader range of ‘successes’ that
can occur at the interface of marine science and policy. Mar. Pol. 134, 104802.
Cvitanovic, C., Howden, M., Colvin, R.M., Norström, A., Meadow, A.M., Addison, P.F.E.,
2019. Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by
understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environ. Sci. Pol.
94, 20–31.
de Vries, J.R., Roodbol-Mekkes, P., Beunen, R., Lokhorst, A.M., Aarts, N., 2014. Faking
and forcing trust: the performance of trust and distrust in public policy. Land Use
Pol. 38, 282–289.
Dickey-Collas, M., Ballesteros, M., 2021. The Process in ICES of Opening up to Increased
Stakeholder Engagement (1980–2020), vol. 353. ICES Cooperative Research Report,
p. 26. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.8516.
Fazey, I., Fazey, J.A., Salisbury, J.G., Lindenmayer, D.B., Dovers, S., 2006. The nature
and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ.
Conserv. 33 (1), 1–10.
Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Patterson, J., Hultman, J., Van Mierlo, B., et al.,
2018. Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions,
transformations and climate change research. Energy Res. Social Sci. 40, 54–70.
Gillespie, N., Dietz, G., 2009. Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 34, 127–145.
Gilmour, P., Coffey, B., O’Toole, K., 2015. Trust and knowledge exchange in coastal
settings. Australian J. Maritime Ocean Affairs 7 (1), 66–74.
Glenn, H., Tingley, D., Marono, S.S., Holm, D., Kell, L., Padda, G., Edvardsson, I.R.,
Asmundsson, J., Conides, A., Kapiris, K., Bezabih, M., 2012. Trust in the fisheries
scientific community. Mar. Pol. 36 (1), 54–72.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1), 59–82.
Guston, D.H., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of
the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 29,
87–111.
Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an
introduction. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 26, 299–408.
ICES, 2022. Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. ICES Convention, Policies, and
Strategy. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.21647825.v2. Report.
ICES, 2021. Guide to ICES advisory framework and principles. In: Report of the ICES
Advisory Committee. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7648, 2020. ICES
Advice 2020, section 1.1.
ICES, 2019. Strategic Plan. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5470.
Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Nortström, A.V., Österblom, H., Nyström, M., 2020. The blue
acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2, 43–54.
Karcher, D.B., Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R.M., van Putten, I.E., Reed, M.S., 2021. Is this
what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to
demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of
environmental science and policy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 125, 202–218.
Karcher, D.B., et al., 2022a. Lessons from bright-spots for advancing knowledge
exchange at the interface of marine science and policy. J. Environ. Manag. 314,
114994.
Karcher, D.B., Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R., Hobday, A.J., Stephenson, R.L., Dickey-
Collas, M., van Putten, I.E., 2022. More than money-the costs of knowledge exchange
at the interface of science and policy. Ocean Coast Manag. 225, 106194.
Lacey, J., Howden, S.M., Cvitanovic, C., Dowd, A.M., 2015. Informed adaptation: ethical
considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Global Environ.
Change 32, 200–210.
Lacey, J., Howden, M., Cvitanovic, C., Colvin, R.M., 2018. Understanding and managing
trust at the climate science-policy interface. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 22–28.
Lewicki, R.J., Brinsfield, C., 2017. Trust repair. Annual Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav. 4,
287–313.
Linke, S., Nielsen, K.N., Ramírez-Monsalve, P., 2023. Roles for advisory science in the
international Council for the exploration of the Sea (ICES). Mar. Pol. 148, 105469.
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B.S., Hackmann, H., Leemand, R.,
Moore, H., 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of
knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 420–431.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 20 (3), 709–734.
Muhl, E., Armitage, D., Anderson, K., Boyko, C., Busilacchi, S., Butler, J.,
CvitanovicC, Faulkner L., Hall, J., Martynuik, G., Paul-Burke, K., Swerdfager, T.,
Thorpe, H.C., van Putten, I.E., 2023. Transitioning toward “deep” knowledge co-
production in coastal and marine systems: examining the interplay among
governance, power, and knowledge. Ecol. Soc. 28 (4), 17.
Muir, A.M., Bernhardt, J.R., Boucher, N.W., Cvitanovic, C., Dettmers, J.M., Gaden, M.,
Hinderer, J.L.M., Locke, B., Robinson, K.F., Siefkes, M.J., Young, N., 2023.
Confronting a post-pandemic new-normal—threats and opportunities to trust-based
relationships in natural resource science and management. J. Environ. Manag. 330,
117140.
C. Cvitanovic et al.
Nash, K.L., Blythe, J.L., Cvitanovic, C., Fulton, E.A., Halpern, B.S., Milner-Gulland, E.J.,
Addison, P.F.E., Pecl, G.T., Watson, R.A., Blanchard, J.L., 2020. To achieve a
sustainable blue future, progress assessments must include interdependencies
between the sustainable development goals. One Earth 2 (2), 161–173.
Nash, K.L., Cvitanovic, C., Fulton, E.A., Halpern, B.S., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Watson, R.A.,
Blanchard, J.L., 2017. Planetary boundaries for a blue planet. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 1
(11), 1625–1634.
Nguyen, V.M., Young, N., Corriveau, M., Hinch, S.G., Cooke, S.J., 2019. What is
“useable” knowledge? Perceived barriers for integrating new knowledge into
management of an iconic Canadian fishery. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 76, 463–474.
Norström, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P.,
Bednarek, A.T., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B.M.,
Canadell, J.G., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Fulton, E.A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S.,
Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., Le Tissier, M., Martín-López, B., Louder, E., Loutre, M.-F.,
Meadow, A.M., Nagendra, H., Payne, D., Peterson, G.D., Reyers, B., Scholes, R.,
Speranza, C.I., Spierenburg, M., Stafford-Smith, M., Tengö, M., van der Hel, S., van
Putten, I., Österblom, H., 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in
sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3 (3), 182–190.
Noy, C., 2008. Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in
qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 11 (4), 327–344.
Osmond, D.L., Nadkarni, N.M., Driscoll, C.T., Andrews, E., Gold, A.J., Broussard
Allred, S.R., Berkowitz, A.R., Klemens, M.W., Loecke, T.L., McGarry, M.A.,
Schwarz, K., Washington, M.L., Groffman, P.M., 2010. The role of interface
organizations in science communication and understanding. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8,
306–313.
Parker, J., Crona, D., 2012. On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and
the contemporary research university. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42, 262–289.
11
Ocean and Coastal Management 248 (2024) 106952
Pietri, D., McAfee, S., Mace, A., Knight, E., Rogers, L., Chornesky, E., 2011. Using science
to inform controversial issues: a case study from the California Ocean Science Trust.
Coast. Manag. 39, 296–316.
Pitt, R., Wyborn, C., Page, G., Hutton, J., Virah Sawmy, M., Ryan, M., Gallagher, L.,
2018. Wrestling with the complexity of evaluation for organizations at the boundary
of science, and practice. Conservat. Pract. Pol. 5, 998–1006.
Posner, S., Cvitanovic, C., 2019. Evaluating the impacts of boundary spanning activities
at the interface of environmental science and policy: a review of progress and future
needs. Environ. Sci. Pol. 92, 141–151.
Robinson, C.J., Wallington, T.J., 2012. Boundary work: engaging knowledge systems in
co-management of feral animals on indigenous lands. Ecol. Soc. 17 (2).
Rozwadowski, H.M., 2002. The Sea Knows No Boundaries: A Century of Marine Science
under ICES. ICES,Copenhagen, and University of Washington Press, Seattle, p. 450.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C., 1998. Not so different after all: a
cross-discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (3), 393–404.
Saldaña, J., 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Stange, K., 2010. Towards a More Holistic Marine Management Paradigm: Ten Years of
ICES Changes to Meet Tomorrow’s Need for Science and Advice. MS Thesis.
Stockholm University, Stockholm, p. 71.
Starman, A.B., 2013. The case study as a type of qualitative research. J. Contemp.
Educat. Studies 64 (1).
Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielson, F.,
Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond
– lessons learned for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 17–25.
Wilson, D.C., 2009. Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in
Europe. MARE Publication Series No. 5. Amsterdam University Press, p. 304.
White, D., Wutich, A., Larson, K., Gober, P., Lant, T., Senneville, C., 2010. Credibility,
salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a
simulation model in an immersive decision theatre. Sci. Publ. Pol. 37, 219–232.