Search for: All records

This paper synthesizes three domains of literature to develop a conceptual framework for knowledge integration in cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaborations: (1) studies of inter- and transdisciplinarity, (2) studies of knowledge co-production in sustainability research, and (3) studies focusing on factors influencing knowledge integration in the Science of Team Science field. Combining a scoping review methodology with a cited reference search approach, we identify eight dimensions of knowledge integration: types of knowledge integrated, competencies and education required to practice knowledge integration, organizational structure, types of actor involvement, stages of collaboration, contextual factors, processes and mechanisms of knowledge integration, and types of knowledge integration outcomes. We structure these dimensions across four interconnected components of collaboration: knowledge gathering (inputs), structural dynamics and collaborative dynamics (processes), and integrative outcomes (outputs). We identify the different types of knowledge mobilized in cross-disciplinary collaborations – epistemic, experiential, contextual, cultural, applied, specialized, knowledge for systemic change, and normative knowledge - and link them to the structural features (e.g., team composition, governance) and collaborative dynamics (e.g., stakeholder engagement, interaction frequency, and roles) of cross-disciplinary teams that influence the processes and outcomes of knowledge integration. This framework is intended to function as a heuristic to prompt teams to adapt it to specific contexts, projects, and team configurations. It can also be used a scaffold for designing and evaluating knowledge integration efforts in diverse collaborative settings. 

Abstract How does the state of American federalism explain responses to COVID-19? State-by-state variations to the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate the political dynamics of “kaleidoscopic federalism,” under which there is no single prevailing principle of federalism. In the COVID-19 pandemic, features of kaleidoscopic federalism combined with shortcomings in the public health system under the Trump administration, leading to fragmented responses to the pandemic among the states. Federalism alone does not explain the shortcomings of the United States’ response to the pandemic. Rather, the fragmented response was driven by state partisanship, which shaped state public health interventions and resulted in differences in public health outcomes. This has sobering implications for American federalism because state-level partisan differences yield different and unequal responses to the pandemic. 

In Spring/Summer 2020, most individuals living in the United States experienced several months of social distancing and stay-at-home orders because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Clinicians, restaurant cooks, cashiers, transit operators, and other essential workers (EWs), however, continued to work outside the home during this time in order to keep others alive and maintain a functioning society. In the United States, EWs are often low-income persons of color who are more likely to face socioeconomic vulnerabilities, systemic racism, and health inequities. To assess the various impacts of COVID-19 on EWs, an online survey was distributed to a representative sample of individuals residing in six states during May/June 2020. The sample included 990 individuals who identified as EWs and 736 nonessential workers (NWs). We assessed differences between EW and NW respondents according to three categories related to health equity and social determinants of health: (1) demographics (e.g. race/ethnicity); (2) COVID-19 exposure risk pathways (e.g. ability to social distance); and (3) COVID-19 risk perceptions (e.g. perceived risk of contracting COVID-19). EWs were more likely to be Black or Hispanic than NWs and also had lower incomes and education levels on average. Unsurprisingly, EWs were substantially more likely to report working outside the home and less likely to report social distancing and wearing masks indoors as compared to NWs. EWs also perceived a slightly greater risk of contracting COVID-19. These findings, which we discuss in the context of persistent structural inequalities, systemic racism, and health inequities within the United States, highlight ways in which COVID-19 exacerbates existing socioeconomic vulnerabilities faced by EWs. 

Inland freshwater salinity is rising worldwide, a phenomenon called the freshwater salinization syndrome (FSS). We investigate a potential conflict between managing the FSS and indirect potable reuse, the practice of augmenting water supplies through the addition of highly treated wastewater (reclaimed water) to surface waters and groundwaters. From time-series data collected over 25 years, we quantify the contributions of three salinity sources—a water reclamation facility and two rapidly urbanizing watersheds—to the rising concentration of sodium (a major ion associated with the FSS) in a regionally important drinking-water reservoir in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Sodium mass loading to the reservoir is primarily from watershed runoff during wet weather and reclaimed water during dry weather. Across all timescales evaluated, sodium concentration in the reclaimed water is higher than in outflow from the two watersheds. Sodium in reclaimed water originates from chemicals added during wastewater treatment, industrial and commercial discharges, human excretion and down-drain disposal of drinking water and sodium-rich household products. Thus, numerous opportunities exist to reduce the contribution of indirect potable reuse to sodium pollution at this site, and the FSS more generally. These efforts will require deliberative engagement with a diverse community of watershed stakeholders and careful consideration of the local political, social and environmental context.