Diffusion of innovation is a theory developed over half a century ago to explain how, over time, an idea or technology diffuses through a population and into widespread adoption (Rogers, 2003). A key component to the diffusion of innovation is that people must perceive the idea or technology as innovative. The theory continues with the suggestion that different people are more inclined to be early adopters, wait for the majority, or tend to remain skeptical. A common operational use of the theory is technology transfer, which for the purposes of this paper, involves moving scientific research into practical use. While diffusion of innovation theory and the concept of technology transfer seem simple enough, the actual process can be very complicated with the need for policies, lawyers, and/or technology transfer offices in place to assist in navigating the process and measuring the impacts. Depending on the goals of technology transfer, the intended user, and the involvement of the intended user in the research process, the investment time of the researcher, the impact, and the process can vary substantially. Research documenting these challenges, and extensive policy legislation goes back decades (Bozeman, 2000).

Academic researchers face many challenges to pursuing technology transfer (Irwin et al., 2018; Finn et al., 2022). For example, historically, academic reward structures have prioritized peer reviewed journal articles, associated citations, and annual research expenditures, as opposed to technology translation and implementation. While the number of citations may speak to impact, the metric does not measure actual translation of research findings into practice use. A primary technology transfer mechanism for civil and structural engineering hazards and disaster researchers is translation of research findings into codes and standards. Many codes and standards adopt structured consensus processes, which are intended to make the process for changing the standard fair from all relevant perspectives. Fair or not, consensus standard processes embedded in 3- to 6-year cycles of codes and standards can quickly become too time-consuming for an academic researcher (or anyone working in a volunteer capacity). This is especially true when funding is hard to come by to support this portion of the research process (Bonowitz et al., 2021). Whether for these reasons or otherwise, common practice is (a) to wait until the research is complete to disseminate findings; (b) focus on academic outlets for dissemination; and (c) not include any intentional efforts towards technology transfer [see Bonowitz et al. (2021) and Chock et al. (2022) for examples], thereby resulting in delayed technology transfer (see Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, feedback and refinement sometimes happen. When research projects follow the process shown in Figure 1, technology translation becomes a separate step requiring extra work at the end of the project making it more likely to not happen at all.

The motivation of this paper is to encourage hazards and disaster researchers to transcend organizational boundaries, to integrate community engagement into their research, and prioritize technology transfer. The aim of this paper is to provide a theory of change with examples and guidance for researchers to understand how to transcend organizational boundaries, integrate community engagement practices, and successfully translate their technology into practical use. The goal of applying our proposed theory of change is to move the research community into actionably enhancing community disaster resilience by implementing their science.

This paper provides new insight into how natural hazards and disaster research can be translated into practice use. Depending on the target population and degree of community involvement, the process for adoption can be very different. This paper places our aim in the context of convergence research, then introduces a theory of change considering community engagement as the intervention needed for hazards and disaster researchers striving to solve the complex problem of community resilience. This paper presents three example research projects that utilized differing levels of community involvement with different mechanisms of technology transfer. Each example concludes with a discussion on the challenges and opportunities the specific study experienced related to technology transfer framed in a way to provide insight and guidance to researchers.

In 2016, “Growing Convergence Research” was named one of the National Science Foundation’s 10 Big Ideas for prioritizing future investments in science and engineering. Convergence research is “An approach to knowledge production and action that involves diverse teams working together in novel ways—transcending disciplinary and organizational boundaries—to address vexing social, economic, environmental, and technical challenges in an effort to reduce disaster losses and promote collective wellbeing” (Peek et al., 2020). Convergence research must focus on both (1) the identification of a compelling problem and (2) the implementation of solutions (Peek et al., 2020). Here we suggest, that these two characteristics of convergence research (a) require transcending organizational boundaries—beyond academic institutions, and (b) posit technology transfer as a core part of convergence. Convergent science is action-focused science (Finn et al., 2022).

Community resilience is a compelling problem that brings together many disciplines of study. Convergence, and especially technology transfer, should be a central goal for hazards and disaster and community resilience research. For nearly two decades, researchers have agreed that private-public partnerships and collaborative organizational structures can strengthen actual community resilience (NRC, 2005; Waugh and Streib, 2006; DHS, 2010; FEMA, 2010; NRC, 2012). While researchers have continued to agree, common practice has stayed the same (see Figure 1), and disaster losses have continued to grow substantially during this time. In these past two decades, the United States has experienced the nine most expensive years on record in terms of disaster losses (NOAA NCEI, 2023). Research teams should strive to engage community partners, including local government actors and grass roots community organizations, in the co-production of knowledge to build community resilience. Until translation is prioritized in research, disasters and the disparities exacerbated by disasters will continue to threaten our communities.

A charging paper on ethical concerns in disaster research called on the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction for an ethical code of conduct for researchers doing post-disaster field research. Gaillard and Peek (2019) suggest that an ethical code of conduct “should advance disaster research, making it scientifically rigorous as well as locally and culturally grounded” (Gaillard and Peek, 2019). But what does it mean for disaster research to be locally grounded? Resilience scholars have suggested any approach to measure or enhance community resilience cannot be one-size-fits-all (Cutter, 2016). While there is a community resilience planning guide (CRPG) (NIST, 2015), and many community resilience frameworks (e.g., Bruneau et al., 2003; Cutter et al., 2008; Renschler et al., 2010), “the devil is in the details” (NRC, 2012). And, the details of a community and its needs can be very different from one place to the next considering its unique history, geography, demography, culture, economy, governance, infrastructure, hazard risk, and capacity (NRC, 2012). Resilience requires a bottom-up approach that integrates local knowledge and the full fabric of the community, including grass roots organizations and local residents. This is why the first step in the CRPG is to form a collaborative team composed of representatives from the public, non-profit, and private domains (NIST, 2015). Because of integrating community participation in their research, Hung et al. (2016) were able to identify and measure higher adaptive capacity in areas with higher social vulnerability in their resilience assessment. Burnside-Lawry and Varvalho (2016) and Meyer et al. (2018) were able to increase risk awareness and empower and encourage collective action in climate change adaptation with the people they engaged in their research. Empowerment of residents in disaster risk reduction has been echoed in other works (Harahap, 2020), and plays an important role in improving resilience. Resilience is a shared value and responsibility, further positioning the need for community partners to be a part of the co-production of knowledge and solution implementation.

Resilience also requires a top-down approach. Olsen et al. (2020) makes a compelling case that policy implementation is the most important challenge for disaster risk reduction (DRR), and that effective DRR needs “stronger policies and implementation regimes” (Olson et al., 2020). Policy changes are the ideal way to reach the masses. Local adoption can precede federal policy changes. Perhaps a compelling way to change policy is with demonstrated effectiveness through local adoption further motivating the need for community engagement in hazards and disaster research.

Indeed, integrating community engagement in hazards and disaster research is not new. Applying tenets of diffusion of innovation theory, social and health sciences are the “early adopters” (see Wells et al., 2013; Pfefferbaum et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2018; Singletary et al., 2022), and now it is time for “the majority” to latch on. Engineering researchers and multidisciplinary teams are already engaging too. A recent project funded by the National Science Foundation, titled Adaptive and Resilience Infrastructures Driven by Social Equity (ARISE) (Award No. 2148878), is integrating community engagement from the beginning. The project seeks to advance the resilience of infrastructure, including water, energy, and transportation systems, by creating tools that ensure support for underserved communities in urban and rural areas. Community partnerships are central to the approach with the goal of co-developing these tools for ensuring practical usefulness and immediate adoption. ARISE researchers are using the community toolbox, a web-based resource, to support community engagement (see Fawcett et al., 2000).

This paper proposes that community engaged research can be the solution to the solution implementation problem—across disciplines. Community engagement is “the process of working collaboratively with groups of people who are affiliated by geographic proximity, special interests, or similar situations with respect to issues affecting their wellbeing” (CDC, 1997). Community engaged research “sees non-academic knowledge as not only legitimate but also necessary in the generation of new knowledge aimed at solving public problems” (Saltmarsh and Hartley, 2011). As such, the partnership recognizes and builds on the strengths of both the community partners and the researchers. A true benefit is that community engaged research enables continuous feedback and continuous technology transfer (see Figure 2) in the research process because the ideal users of the technology are part of the project team. Their perspectives are integrated throughout giving community partners an invested interest in adopting the technology they are co-producing (Chen et al., 2010). Mutual trust, respect, and commitment are key tenants of a true partnership, and can take years to establish (McDavitt et al., 2016). Partnership agreements and memorandums of understanding are also common practice for community engaged research, especially when the level of involvement is high (CBGC, 2021).

As shown in Figure 3, there are different types of community engaged research which involve different levels of community involvement (Winkler, 2013), and thereby result in different timeframes for technology transfer. On one end of the spectrum is investigator-driven research which may not incorporate any community involvement. This style of research aligns with the common practice shown in Figure 1, which often results in delayed technology transfer. At the other end of the spectrum is community-driven research where there is complete community involvement. Community-driven research incorporates community partners at the very beginning with identifying the problem and designing the research, and throughout the dissemination process. It may even be reasonable for community partners to co-author peer reviewed manuscripts and other publications with the researchers in community-driven research (see Lyles et al., 2021 for an example; Bordeaux et al., 2007 for guidance).

When referring to community engagement, “community” does not necessarily imply any shared geographic location. Community is “a group of people who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives or interests, and may or may not share a geographic location” (MacQueen et al., 2001). For engineering researchers who may be looking to have their research translated into codes and standards, practicing engineers and those in the construction and materials industries may serve as the “community” to engage throughout their research. Advisory boards, industry panels, and community engagement studios are common mechanisms for facilitating this type of relationship. However, the degree to which the community is engaged—how frequent and involved the advisory board is—can make a big difference in the timeframe for technology translation. Similarly, human subjects research, particularly the use of survey, interview, and focus group methods, can provide critical input to the research team from a broad representative community base. However, if the community-based activities exclusively involve one-way communication, the “human subjects” are not partners and may not be as inclined to adopt findings. One-way knowledge transfer leads to community-placed and community-based research (see Figure 3). Two-way, authentic collaborations with community partners lead to immediate and continuous technology translation (see Figure 2).

Training and other educational resources are available to help researchers learn more about how to do ethical and responsible community engaged research. Three examples are shared here. First, the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) has multiple courses available, including Introduction to Community Engaged Research (CEnR), Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), and Ethical and Practical Considerations in Community Engaged Research. CITI courses are not free, but most research-active universities have a CITI subscription, or equivalent, as part of their Institutional Review Board required training. A second resource is the Campus Compact, a national coalition of colleges and universities dedicated to civic and community engagement in higher education. The Campus Compact offers a free Community Engaged Research Knowledge Hub with curated resources and readings related to all aspects of ethical and reciprocal research with communities (Campus Compact 2021). The third resource is grounded in hazards and disaster research: CONVERGE, the National Science Foundation (NSF) supported facility that provides free training modules for researchers (Adams et al., 2023). While none of the current CONVERGE training modules are exclusively focused on the topic of community engaged research, the modules titled Broader Ethical Considerations for Hazards and Disasters Researchers and Reciprocity in Hazards and Disaster Research both incorporate the topic with the context of hazards and disaster research.

Funding agencies have also begun to see the necessity to integrate community engagement and offer support for technology transfer. The Gulf Research Program (GRP) of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has designated funding specifically to understand how to effectively engage communities about the impacts of climate change. At the time of this writing, two GRP requests for applications require or strongly encourage community partners, including Thriving Communities and Understanding the Effects of Climate Change on Environmental Hazards in Overburdened Communities. The GRP committee, Enhancing Community Resilience Initiative (EnCoRe), is a multi-year community engagement initiative that partners with communities in the five Gulf Coast states to build and enhance health and community resilience at the local level. While the NSF primarily supports fundamental research, programs like Civic Innovation Challenge, Smart and Connected Communities, Coastline and People Hubs for Research and Broadening Participation, and the new directorate, Technology, Innovation and Partnerships, all promote community engagement and technology translation. Thus, the timing for shifting common practice, as shown in Figure 1, to a community engaged practice, as shown in Figure 2, has never been better.

Who should be engaged in the research process, and their level of involvement, depends on the scope of the research, intended users and beneficiaries, and the desired outcomes of technology transfer. The next section provides three examples of hazards and disaster research to guide researchers in determining where along the community engagement spectrum (Figure 3) their project could lie, whom they could engage, and how to engage.

This first example demonstrates technology transfer stemming from investigator-driven research. The project first documented hurricane wind damage to low-rise elevated residential buildings after Hurricane Michael. The field data was coupled with experimental data collected from wind tunnel tests on large scale models of elevated buildings. This illustrative example documents the 10-year process of incorporating investigator-driven research findings into a national consensus standard.

This second example demonstrates technology transfer stemming from a community-based research project. The project documented damage and 1-year recovery after a tornado in Kansas that received significant local attention. Each engagement activity resulted in more opportunities to share the findings resulting in the penultimate opportunity to be part of a Public Broadcasting Station episode on tornado disasters.

The third example demonstrates technology transfer stemming from community-driven research. The project developed a local climate plan to provide comprehensive policy on specific actions that a community will undertake to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation strategies to counter the negative effects of climate change. The process for plan development has a core focus on advancing equity through innovative community engagement. The example illustrates how the co-production of knowledge leads to immediate adoption of engagement practices. This example also exemplifies multi-way technology transfer among the professional community and the research team, as well as with the general public and future professionals currently in student roles.

Community resilience is a compelling problem that requires a convergence research approach. Disaster losses will continue to climb until disaster scholars prioritize technology translation. Community engaged research is a seamless way to integrate technology translation into a research project that also opens up new ideas, directions, and opportunities for researchers to pursue. The three examples shared here illustrate different levels of community engagement and the subsequent approach to technology transfer. The first example, investigator-driven research, saved technology transfer until after all of the research was complete, and even after a peer reviewed journal article was accepted for publication. The second example, community-based research, integrated community input through human subjects research, but otherwise saved technology transfer until after the research was complete. These first two examples aligned with the common approach for technology transfer depicted in Figure 1. The third example, community-driven research, integrated community partners from the very beginning enabling continuous feedback and continuous technology transfer during the entire project.

Technology transfer does not come free; it takes time, effort, and commitment, often in the form of relationship building. A key challenge identified in the first two examples is the time required for technology translation, including the passing of time required and the commitment of time required. Research with high community involvement organically incorporates technology transfer throughout. Research with low community involvement requires distinct efforts separate from the research itself. We call on funding agencies and research institutions to further incentivize and support technology translation activities, particularly community engagement.

A key opportunity identified through the examples is how community engaged research can lead to more impactful technology translation. When starting a research project, teams should thoughtfully engage community partners and impacted communities, as well as professional end-user audiences, early and often through research design, through interpretation of findings, and through sharing and communicating the results. A community engaged approach can lead the research in directions that are more impactful, and where the positive impact is more immediately realized. There are many mechanisms for technology transfer, and research teams should pursue the mechanisms best aligned with their work, their audiences, their timeframes, and their resources at hand. Different audiences require drastically different modes of translation and associated communication.

The illustrative examples presented here focused on specific elements of technology transfer, and were not exhaustive in their coverage of the teams’ efforts. Perhaps most important to mention is the translation of findings into educational courses, which all three projects did. Through the educational tools developed in all three projects, future engineers, planners, and natural hazards professionals will now be better prepared to apply lessons from these studies into their own work, continuing the impacts of the research for years.