How can we create more effective How can we create more effective ‘spaces’ for knowledge co-production?‘spaces’ for knowledge co-production?

Jayne Glass13 July 2011

Jayne.glass@perth.uhi.ac.uk

THE POWER OF THE RESEARCH PROCESSTHE POWER OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Outline• How can we tackle ‘wicked’ problems?– Increase transdisciplinary capacity– Facilitate knowledge integration– Enhance potential for social learningRoad map for a powerful research ‘space’

• Reading the map: using the Delphi technique• The method in action• An intermediary role for researchers?

Before we dive in…

Participation = ?

For example, Scott (2011); Reed (2008)

Tackling ‘wicked’ problems

“a problem of interaction” (van Bueren et al. 2003)

ResearchTransdisciplinary

Transdisciplinary research approaches

Based on Mobjörk (2010); Rist et al. (2007)

Situated in the ‘real world’

Building bridges between

knowledges

An overall social learning process

1. Increasing transdisciplinary capacity

Based on Gibbons et al. (1994)

Scientific knowledge

Produced by communities of academic scientists Operates in a space autonomous from social interests and goals

Mode 1

Heterogeneous knowledge production sites

Close interactions between scientific, technological and industrial actors Flexible and open forms of research Continuous re-evaluation and redefinition of expertise

Mode 2

GAP: Defined ‘spaces’ for open communication

2. The knowledge integration challenge

Pohl et al (2010): Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production

Academic knowledge

Non-academic

knowledge

AGO

RA

Agora

Academic knowledge

Non-academic

knowledge

BO

Bridging organisation

Co-production of knowledgeGAP: Action-oriented research in the agora?

3. Potential for social learning

Reed et al (2010): What is social learning?

DEMONSTRATE THAT:

Some depth of conceptual change or change in understanding has take place in the individuals involved

Some depth of conceptual change or change in understanding has take place in the individuals involved

A degree of breadth for this change to go beyond individuals to become situated within wider social groups

A degree of breadth for this change to go beyond individuals to become situated within wider social groups

Occurred through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network

Occurred through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network

SOCIAL LEARNING

GAP: Create better atmospheres for communication and deliberation

A conceptual road map

Glass (2011): PhD thesis

Flexible research space, within which it is possible to facilitate iterative deliberation, learning and the collaborative production of knowledge

A: Increase transdisciplinary

capacityA1: Address ‘real world’ problems collaboratively and acknowledge the local contextA2: Develop practical outcomes that bring about a degree of change

B: Facilitate knowledge integration

B1: Integrate multiple perspectives B2: Recognise and understand values

C: Enhance potential for social learning

C1: Create an ‘atmosphere of trust’C2: Rethink assumptions and jointly solve problems

A collaborative learning process which produces

mutually endorsed, practical outcomes for positive change

Iter

ativ

e de

liber

atio

n

Reading the map: using the Delphi technique

The Delphi techniqueConventional Delphi: driving towards consensus

• Decision-making tool or ‘what should be’• Series of written questionnaires• Participants driven towards consensus through feedback• Often quantitative convergence methods

See, for example: Kuo et al. (2005); Tolley et al. (2001)

The Delphi technique

Turoff (2002): The Policy Delphi

Policy Delphi: exploring complexity 1. Formulating the issues

2. Exposing the options

3. Determining initial positions on the issues

4. Exploring the reasons for disagreements

5. Evaluating the underlying reasons

6. Re-evaluation

• Dependable group opinion• Exploring complex policy issues• Less focus on consensus• More qualitative approach

The Delphi technique

Glass et al. (submitted)

Methodological challenges

• High drop-out rates• Selection of panel members (expert bias)• Panel size• Constraining panellists’ creativity

Q: How can we use the road map to address these issues and refine the method?

Refining the methodUsing the road map

A1: Address a real world problem collaboratively

& acknowledge local context

Initial scoping round in interview format: process not overly defined

A: Increasing transdisciplinary capacity

A2: Develop practical outcomes for positive

change

Move beyond conceptual discussion to produce something

Refining the methodUsing the road map

B1: Integrate multiple perspectives

Widen definition of an ‘expert’: include local, managerial knowledge

B: Facilitate knowledge integration

B2: Recognise and understand values

Spend more time at outset exploring perceptions of the issue: researcher ‘reframes’ ideas and presents to group

Refining the methodUsing the road map

C1: Create an ‘atmosphere of trust’

Anonymous process; personal rapport with researcher

C: Enhance potential for social learning

C2: Rethink assumptions and jointly solve

problems

Reflexive process: enhance creative potential through feedback documents

The method in action

??

??

??

??

??

??

A mixed panel of interests

Estate management professionals

Academics & consultants

NGOs & other interest groups

Government agencies &

other bodies

Representative bodies

PanelPanel

Land Agents

LandownersEstate managers

LINK

RICS

SLE

SAC

Relu programme

ConsultantsInternational

Scottish Government

DCS

Sustainable Development Commission

CNPA

RSPBNTS

JMT

Moorland Forum

Southern Uplands Partnership

SNH

SEBG

19 panellists

A deliberative process

Round One: Establishing a context for

sustainability

Round One: Establishing a context for

sustainability Compiling and feeding back ideas

Compiling and feeding back ideas

Redrafting and piloting the workbook

Redrafting and piloting the workbook

Developing second draftDeveloping second draft

Developing first draftDeveloping first draft

Round Two: Discussing practical

management strategies

Round Two: Discussing practical

management strategies

Round Four: Reflecting on the second

draft

Round Four: Reflecting on the second

draft

Round Three: Reflecting on the first draft

Round Three: Reflecting on the first draft

Glass et al. (2011)

A practical output

Ecosystem thinking

Ecosystem thinking

Broadening options

Broadening options

Linking into social fabricLinking into social fabric

Adapting management

Adapting management

Thinking beyond the estate

Thinking beyond the estate

Sustainable estate principles [5]

SUSTAINABILITY ACTIONS [12]SUSTAINABILITY ACTIONS [12]

More sustainable Less sustainable

!

Enabling factors

Constraining factors

Identify and understand

ProactiveProactive UnderactiveUnderactiveActiveActive

‘Getting the best from Scotland’s estates: twelve actions’ – A sustainability workbook

High levels of motivation

Responses received on/before deadline

Responses received after the deadline

Round Two 9 7

Round Three 6 11

Round Four 12 5

88% response rate over three written rounds

Reactions to

the process

22

“Much more fun than the

boring work I should

have been doing this

evening!”

“I’ve enjoyed this; I think you have the makings of an extremely valuable tool”

“A good basis [that] should be worked

on in practice on real estates”

“Very stimulating for our thinking”

Reflecting on the map: did I create an effective ‘space’ for knowledge co-production?

Increased transdisciplinary capacity?

• Equal ownership• Exploring perceptions• Based on participants’

experience

• Moving from concepts to practicalities

• High levels of motivation• ‘Producing something’

A: Increase transdisciplinary

capacityA1: Address ‘real world’ problems collaboratively and acknowledge the local contextA2: Develop practical outcomes that bring about a degree of change

Integrated knowledge?

• New network of collaboration• Creating new knowledge

• Time at the outset to explore views

• Anonymity

B: Facilitate knowledge integration

B1: Integrate multiple perspectives B2: Recognise and understand values

Enhanced social learning?

• Anonymous forum• Open negotiation and

dialogue

• Iteration• Slow development of ideas• Considering all views, rather

than ‘positions’

C: Enhance potential for social

learning

C1: Create an ‘atmosphere of trust’C2: Rethink assumptions and jointly solve problems

A conceptual roadmap

Glass (2011): PhD thesis

Iterative deliberation

Iterative deliberation

A conceptual roadmap

Glass (2011): PhD thesis

Can I use this roadmap to design or adapt my own

methods?

Finally: an intermediary role for researchers?

Academic knowledge

Non-academic

knowledge

AGO

RA

Can we position ourselves here?

Thank youThank youjayne.glass@perth.uhi.ac.uk

AcknowledgementsThe Henry Angest FoundationProject supervisors: Prof Martin Price (UHI)Prof Alister Scott (Birmingham City University)Dr Charles Warren (University of St Andrews)

The Sustainable Estates Advisory Group:

Thank you to Micah Stanbridge for the use of his photographs

References I• Glass, J.H., Scott, A.S. and Price, M.F. (2011). Developing a sustainability assessment tool for upland

estates. In: S.J. Marrs, S. Foster, C. Hendrie, E.C. Mackey, and D.B.A. Thompson (eds.) The Changing Nature of Scotland. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp. 425-429.

• Glass, J.H., Scott, A.S. and Price, M.F. (submitted). The power of the process: adapting the Delphi technique for applied sustainability research. Please contact Jayne for a copy of the submitted manuscript.

• Kenyon, W., Hill, G. and Shannon, P. (2008). Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land Use Policy, 25, 351-360.

• Kuo, N.-W., Hsiao, T.-Y. and Yu, Y.-H. (2005). A Delphi-matrix approach to SEA and its application within the tourism sector in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment, 25, 259-280.

• McCrum G., Blackstock, K., Matthews, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D. and Buchan, K. (2009). Adapting to Climate Change in Land Management: the Role of Deliberative Workshops in Enhancing Social Learning. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 413-426.

• Mobjörk, M., 2010. Consulting versus Participatory Transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(8) 866-873.

• Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmerman, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Ifejika Speranza, C., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267-281.

References II• Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.

Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431.• Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J.H., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C.,

Raymond, C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), 1.• Rist, S., Chidambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zimmermann, A. (2007). Moving

from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning process in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 23-37.

• Scott, A.J. (2011). Focussing in on focus groups: Effective participative tools or cheap fixes for land use policy? Land Use Policy, 28(4), 684-694.

• Tolley, R., Lumsdon, L. and Bickerstaff, K. (2001). The future of walking in Europe: a project to identify expert opinion on future walking scenarios. Transport Policy 8, 307-315.

• Turoff, M. (2002). The Policy Delphi. In: H.A. Linstone and M. Turoff, eds. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Available online from: http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/.