UCSC Facilitating Change in Coastal Science and Policy October 24, 2016 Getting Engaged and Working Effectively across the Science Practice Interface Toward relevant, responsible science and smarter policy Susi Moser, Ph.D.
Dream it up! The ideal interaction between science and policy in a complex, rapidly changing world
Vision: What Do We Want to Achieve? 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)
Oh, How to be Relevant. Photo: meta activism.org
and How to be Responsible
Prescription for Being Irrelevant 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 and Irresponsible 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
Clarion Calls to Science (1) Lubchenco (1998) a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day Source: Science(1998)
Clarion Calls to Science (2) 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 Source: Gibbons (1999) Nature
Fears and Concerns about Engagement By Researchers Bias due to undue influence on the research process Constriction on academic freedom Public embarrassment Time commitment Frustration when policyrelevant science is not used (or misused) By Practitioners 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 Wider attention to and recognition of one's research findings and expertise Contribution to problem solving Access to data otherwise not available Learning For Practitioners A seat at the table Practical use of scientific information for decisionmaking Symbolic value of science in support of policy making Fostering innovation, leadership and competitive advantage Learning Source: Stafford Smith, Moser, et al., forthcoming
HOW DOES CHANGE IN COASTAL POLICY HAPPEN? Uncovering our Theories of Change
The Metaphors that Guide Us throwing science over the fence packaging science in better understandable ways integrating different ways of knowing, negotiating meaning bridging the science practice gap spider web of two way interactions with multiple intermediaries channeling findings from the research sphere to the practice sphere
Changing Our Mental Models The linear model of science and society Source: Stafford Smith, Moser, et al., forthcoming
Two Visions of Knowledge Systems Relevant knowledge exists as a uniform, disembodied, closed system Relevant knowledge exists in diverse, open, situated systems Slide courtesy of Frans Berkhout, adapted
Different Degrees of Collaborative Work Source: Klenk et al. (2015), Science
Source: Tress et al. (2004)
Transdisciplinary Work Source: Cornell et al. (2013)
www.futureearth.org Co Dissemination Source: Mauser et al., 2013, COSUST, adapted
Key Elements or Phases of Transdisciplinary Work 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 coproduced knowledge Co evaluation: Collaborative experimenting and learning of how to work together
Framing the Collaborative Agora Plurality (inclusivity, who?) Positioning (expertise, power) Incentives (benefits and costs to actors) Arrangements (experiments, mediating relationships across boundaries, sustaining interactions?) Outcomes (measurement, value) Slide adapted from Frans Berkhout
Transdisciplinary Values what's it all about? Adapted slide, Ruth Dineen, Co Production Training; Third Sector Forum (2013), UK
Preparation & Co Design Preparation Activity Examples Stakeholder mapping (existing stakeholder, stakeholder networks) Informational interviewing Experiential learning through site visits Ethnographic background research Raise funds to bring together stakeholders Ethical research practice review (IRB) Acquainting with facilitation techniques, experts in collaborative design/work Social Network Analysis to understand stakeholder or governance networks Survey of stakeholders Review of state of policy/practice Review of where science can make a difference in practice (literature) Co Design Activity/Methods Examples Bilateral, small group meetings. and larger group workshops (short or multiday) Participatory scenario planning Participatory mapping of land/sea areas Stakeholder interviews (taped, filmed) Visioning session with project partners Rapid case study co assessment Collection/exchange of stories; reciprocity ring; other trust building exercises Within and inter group knowledge exchange Joint value mapping Appreciative inquiry Deliberate involvement of people who are and aren t aligned on problem definition
Many Opportunities for Engagement Scientific Input at Various Stages of the Decision Making Process & the Nature of Science s Influence Help problem understanding Intelligence gathering Raise awareness Problem identification e.g., New Problem Identification Termination e.g., Provision of data Frame the problem, alter the goals Problem definition Promotion Input from Science Invocation/ Implementation Application/ Routinization Appraisal Monitoring Evaluation Assist learning e.g., Training, Operationalization Identification of choices Prescription Mobilization of actors Persuasion Stage of Decision Making Process Nature of Science s Influence Source: Vogel et al (2007)
Co Production of Knowledge the collaborative process of bringing a plurality of knowledge sources and types together to address a defined problem and build an integrated or systemsoriented understanding of that problem. Armitage et al. (2011) Sample 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 participatorymapping Collaborative modeling Participatory agent based modeling Participatory scenario planning or pathway analysis Collaborative field work (e.g., ethnographies)
Collective Learning Spiral DESCRIBE DEVELOP PRINCIPLES (Ideals) What should be? PRACTICE (Actions) What can be?? PARAMETERS (Facts) What is? POTENTIAL (Ideas) What could be? DESIGN DO Source: V. Brown (2006) Leonardo s Vision: A Guide to Collective Thinking and Action
Co Dissemination Sample 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 jargonfree, 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 Researchers (scientists, others with relevant, legitimate knowledge) Practitioners (policy makers managers) Civic/political engagement Government accountability Deliberative learning Adaptive management Building social capital Stakeholders (affected, interested people)
Knowledge in Politics is a Strategic Tool 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 decisionrelevant
How Science Comes to Matter in Practice Personal Motivation Political Motivation Scientific (Un)Certainties Economic Benefit Magic? Reputational Liability Economic Liability Legal/Policy Requirement Political Certainties (a.k.a. decisionrelevant information) 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 endusers 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 To co produce knowledge Source: Moser (2015)
What is Needed from Science to Effectively Connect Across the S P Interface? To be responsive: To be supportive: To be generative: To be critical:
Thank you! Contact: Susi Moser, Ph.D. Susanne Moser Research & Consulting Santa Cruz, CA 95060 E: promundi@susannemoser.com W: www.susannemoser.com Photo: worldpress.com
Some Resources http://graham.umich.edu/mm/agenda/ All available from www.futureearth.org
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.