View
216
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Getting Engaged and Working Effectively across the Science‐
Practice InterfaceToward relevant, responsible science
and smarter policy
UCSC – Facilitating Change in Coastal Science and Policy • October 24, 2016
Susi Moser, Ph.D.
• Greater understanding of and engagement with science
• Improved relationships between knowledge producers and users
• Better information in the sense of increased usefulness and thus increased use of information(while doing interesting science)
• Better decisions and outcomes (i.e. making a difference in the world)
Vision: What Do We Want to Achieve?
• Don’t pay attention to the world
• Ask the wrong question(s)
• Apply the wrong framing/theory
• Use “bad” data (wrong type, scale etc.)
• Deliver results in language no one understands, in formats no one uses, through channels no one accesses
• Present them too late
• Resist explaining what your results mean
• Complain that no one adopts your brilliant insights and that people are simply not as smart as you are
Prescription for Being Irrelevant … and Irresponsible
Lubchenco (1998)‘…a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day’
Clarion Calls to Science (1)
Source: Science(1998)
Gibbons (1994, 1999), Nowotny et al. (2001)• From reliable knowledge to socially‐robust knowledge
• Science produced in open systems of knowledge production (the agora)
• Consciously confronting uncertainty
Clarion Calls to Science (2)
Source: Gibbons (1999) Nature
Fears and Concerns about Engagement
By Researchers By Practitioners• Bias due to undue influence
on the research process
• Constriction on academic freedom
• Public embarrassment
• Time commitment
• Frustration when policy‐relevant science is not used (or misused)
• Bias against “useless” science
• Time commitment to a process with uncertain outcomes
• Public embarrassment
• Use of results in intended and unintended ways
Source: Stafford‐Smith, Moser, et al., forthcoming
Benefits of and Motivations for Engagement
For Researchers For Practitioners• Wider attention to and
recognition of one's research findings and expertise
• Contribution to problem solving
• Access to data otherwise not available
• Learning
• A seat at the table• Practical use of scientific
information for decision‐making
• Symbolic value of science in support of policy‐making
• Fostering innovation, leadership and competitive advantage
• Learning
Source: Stafford‐Smith, Moser, et al., forthcoming
The Metaphors that Guide Us
‘bridging’ the science–practice ‘gap’
‘throwing science over the fence’
‘channeling findings from the research sphere to the practice sphere’
‘spider web of two‐way interactions with multiple
intermediaries’
‘integrating different ways of knowing, negotiating meaning’
‘packaging science in better understandable ways’
Changing Our Mental Models
The ‘linear model’ of science and society
Source: Stafford‐Smith, Moser, et al., forthcoming
Slide courtesy of Frans Berkhout, adapted
Relevant knowledge exists as a uniform, disembodied, closed system
Relevant knowledge exists in diverse, open, situated systems
Two Visions of Knowledge Systems
• Co‐design: Joint problem‐framing
• Co‐production: Collaborative, integrative knowledge production
• Co‐dissemination: Joint knowledge dissemination and outreach
• Co‐implementation: Collaborative application or implementation of actions based on co‐produced knowledge
• Co‐evaluation: Collaborative experimenting and learning of how to work together
Key Elements or Phases of Transdisciplinary Work
• Plurality (inclusivity, who?)
• Positioning (expertise, power)
• Incentives (benefits and costs to actors)
• Arrangements (experiments, mediating relationships across boundaries, sustaining interactions?)
• Outcomes (measurement, value)
Framing the “Collaborative Agora”
Slide adapted from Frans Berkhout
what's it all about?
Transdisciplinary Values
Adapted slide , Ruth Dineen, Co‐Production Training;Third Sector Forum (2013), UK
Preparation & Co‐Design Preparation Activity Examples Co‐Design Activity/Methods Examples
Stakeholder mapping (existing stakeholder, stakeholder networks)
Bilateral, small group meetings. andlarger group workshops (short or multiday)
Informational interviewing Participatory scenario planning
Experiential learning through site visits Participatory mapping of land/sea areas
Ethnographic background research Stakeholder interviews (taped, filmed)
Raise funds to bring together stakeholders Visioning session with project partners
Ethical research practice review (IRB) Rapid case study co‐assessment
Acquainting with facilitation techniques, experts in collaborative design/work
Collection/exchange of stories; reciprocity ring; other trust‐building exercises
Social Network Analysis to understand stakeholder or governance networks
Within‐ and inter‐group knowledge exchange
Survey of stakeholders Joint value‐mapping
Review of state of policy/practice Appreciative inquiry
Review of where science can make a difference in practice (literature)
Deliberate involvement of people who are and aren’t aligned on problem definition
Many Opportunities for EngagementScientific Input at Various Stages of the Decision‐Making Process
& the Nature of Science’s Influence
Source: Vogel et al (2007)
‐ Nature of Science’s Influence‐ Stage of Decision‐Making Process
Intelligence gathering
Problem definition
Promotion
Prescription
Invocation/Implementation
Application/Routinization
Appraisal
Problem identification Termination
Input from Science
Mobilization of actors
Persuasion
e.g., Training, Operationalization
Identification of choices
e.g., Provision of data
Frame the problem,alter the
goals
Help problem understanding
Raise awareness
Monitoring Evaluation
Assist learning
e.g., New Problem
Identification
Co‐Production of KnowledgeSample of activities during co‐production phase
Joint fact finding (e.g., through collaborative data collection, interviewing, dialogues etc.)
Citizen science (physical or social science projects)
Integration of different data/information sources (e.g., scientific and traditional ecological knowledge)
Focus groups
Collection of data through co‐designed survey
Joint analysis and interpretation of collected data
Collaborative or participatory mapping
Collaborative modeling
Participatory agent‐based modeling
Participatory scenario planning or pathway analysis
Collaborative field work (e.g., ethnographies)
‘…the collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a definedproblem and build an integrated or systems‐oriented understanding of that problem.’
Armitage et al. (2011)
PRINCIPLES(Ideals)
What should be?
PRACTICE(Actions)What can be?
POTENTIAL(Ideas)
What could be?
What is?
DESIGN
DO
DEVELOP
DESCRIBE
PARAMETERS(Facts)
Collective Learning Spiral
Source: V. Brown (2006) Leonardo’s Vision: A Guide to Collective Thinking and Action
?
Co‐DisseminationSample of activities during co‐dissemination phase
Co‐organized/sponsored release event
Joint or separate, but coordinated webinars
Joint policy‐maker briefings
Coordinated press work (simultaneous press releases, joint press conferences)
Coordinated social media (blogs, twitter etc.)
Co‐led/facilitated/sponsored training events
Stakeholder workshops
Staggered/series of coordinated outreach events
Range of outreach products (scientific papers, policy briefs, promotional videos, presentations for different audiences)
Any promised follow‐up
Toward Responsible & Relevant Leadership in Sustainability
• Core Attitudes & Values– Self‐reflection– Humility and respect– Curiosity and courage– Continual learning
• Core Skills– Social skills– Communicating in jargon‐free, direct language
– Listening – Strategic thinking– Finding, understanding, banking on interconnections
The Fine Print…It takes at least these:• Time• Respect• Continual interaction• Mutual learning• Persistence• Patience• Savvy/strategic thinking• Change in attitude (risk taking, view of others)• Different performance measures, incentives
The Interaction Triangle
Practitioners(policy‐makersmanagers)
Stakeholders (affected,interested people)
Researchers (scientists, others with relevant, legitimate knowledge)
• Civic/political engagement• Government accountability• Deliberative learning • Adaptive management• Building social capital
• No knowledge is inherently valuable• No knowledge is inherently “certain enough”• No uncertainty is inherently decision‐relevant
• But:• All forms of knowledge can attain value in someone’s eyes, in some contexts
• All knowledge can be “good enough” to act on• Certainties and uncertainties can be made decision‐relevant
Knowledge in Politics is a Strategic Tool
Magic?
How Science Comes to Matter in Practice
Scientific (Un)Certainties
PoliticalCertainties
(a.k.a. decision‐relevant
information)
Personal Motivation
Economic Benefit
PoliticalMotivation
Economic Liability
Legal/Policy Requirement
Reputational Liability
Source: Moser (2014)
Why Is Information So Often Not Used?• Mismatches between need/demand and supply
• Mistrust of science and scientists
• Uncertainty in information (unexplained uncertainty)
• Conflicting science or viewpoints/interpretations
• Untimely delivery of information
• Lack of direct communication between scientists and end‐users
• Lack of resources, skills to help interpret science
• Lack of time to carefully consider, learn, and understand science
• Unproven utility of science or tools etc.
Key Attributes of “Useful Information”• SALIENCE
– Regional/local specificity– High resolution– Issue linkages– Timing and format
• CREDIBILITY– Whose experts?– Interaction among experts– Transparency of scientific/assessment process
• LEGITIMACY– Account of local concerns, values, needs, interests– Rules, procedures– Involvement in decision support process
• EFFICACY– The right decisions can be made more easily
• ITERATIVITY– Updates can be made easily, rapidly
Sources: Cash et al. 2003; Mitchell et al. 2006, Farrell & Jäger 2005; Jones et al. 1999; Sarkki et al. 2015
What Does “Use” Mean Anyway? • Practical Uses (information)
– Informing planning and decisions (e.g., standards, thresholds, quantities)
– Help in setting research agendas
– Use in public or professional presentations, briefings, speeches
• Symbolic Uses (authority)– Drawing on the authority of
science to back/justify legislation/policy initiatives
– Drawing on scientific uncertainty to resist/ withdraw support for policy/legislation
• Internal Uses (resource)– Share with colleagues– Bring to attention of
superiors, elected officials– Keep in personal library as
reference for later use– Keep in office library– Way to stay current – Insights into the (lack of)
scientific consensus or state of the art on a topic
Source: Moser (2014)
Science‐Practice Interaction through the Eyes of Practitioners
Source: Moser (2015)
• To co‐produce knowledge
• To be responsive:
• To be supportive:
• To be generative:
• To be critical:
What is Needed from Science to Effectively Connect Across the S‐P Interface?
Contact:Susi Moser, Ph.D.
Susanne Moser Research & ConsultingSanta Cruz, CA 95060E: promundi@susannemoser.comW: www.susannemoser.com
Thank you!
Phot
o: w
orld
pres
s.com
Additional Resources• Journals frequently publishing on the practice and theory of transdisciplinarity in the
GEC context– Environmental Science & Policy Sustainability Science– Global Environmental Change Futures– Science, Technology & Society Ecology and Society
• Td‐net (Network for Transdisciplinary Research)• The Charter of Transdisciplinarity• Books:
– Brown, V. A. B., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling Wicked Problems Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination. London, Washington, DC: Earthscan.
– Nicolescu, B. (Ed.). (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Hampton Press, Inc.
• Articles:– Alvargonzalez, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences.
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(4), 387‐403.– Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A Review of Its Origins, Development, and Current Issues.
Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), R1. – Brown, V. A. (2015). Utopian thinking and the collective mind: Beyond transdisciplinarity. Futures,
65(1), 209‐216.– Cundill, G., Roux, D. J., & Parker, J. N. (2015). Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary
research. Ecology and Society, 20(2 C7 ‐ 22).– Frescoln, L. M., & Arbuckle Jr, J. G. (2015). Changes in perceptions of transdisciplinary science over
time. Futures, 73, 136‐150 – Hunt, F., & Thornsbury, S. (2014). Facilitating Transdisciplinary Research in an Evolving Approach to
Science. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 340‐351.
Additional Resources• Articles (cont.)
– Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1‐10
– Jahn, T., & Keil, F. (2015). An actor‐specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures, 65(1), 195‐208.
– Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515‐526. – Klenk, N., & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative.
Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 160‐167.– Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P. (2013). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability
science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25‐43.– Lawrence, R. J., & Despres, C. (2004). Introduction: Futures of Transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 397‐405.– Lawrence, R. J. (2015). Advances in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures, 65(1), 1‐9.– Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change
research: the co‐creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3‐4), 420‐431– Max‐Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53, 5‐16. – Mobjörk, Malin (2009). Crossing boundaries the framing of transdisciplinarity. Örebro University, Maladalen Uuniversity,
Report 64.– Nowotny, H. The potential of transdisciplinarity. – Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 46 – 53.
Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015). Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads. Sustain Sci, 10, 521‐526. – Simon, D., & Schiemer, F. (2015). Crossing boundaries: complex systems, transdisciplinarity and applied impact agendas.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12(0), 6‐11. – Tress, G., Tress, B., & Fry, G. (2004). Transdisciplinarity & clarifying integrative research concepts. Landscape Ecology, 20,
479‐493. – Wiek, A. (2007). Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research as Interactive Knowledge Generation: Experiences from
Transdisciplinary Case Study Research. GAIA, 16(1), 52‐57. – Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling Transdisciplinarity: An Analysis of Knowledge Integration in Problem‐
Oriented Research. Science Studies, 1, 51‐74.
Recommended