Mouserat

Bridging the gap between policy and science

    The “coproduction of knowledge” is a concept that is relatively new to me, and pretty exciting!  According to Meadow et al., the “coproduction of knowledge is the process of producing usable, or actionable, science through collaboration between scientists and those who use science to make policy and management decisions,” (2015).  This concept is exciting because it is one of the few attempts I have seen that seems to bridge the policy-science gap with some success.  Boundary organizations attempt to bridge this gap as well, with limited success, by producing outputs/products for both scientists and policy makers.  Coproduction of knowledge bridges this gap by including policy makers in the scientific creation process, lending it legitimacy as well as creating a buy-in from both sides. 

    All said and done, the coproduction of knowledge seems like a perfect solution, however, there are a few aspects that concern me.  The first is the heightened possibility of the inclusion of bias in the creation of this knowledge.  Policy makers and scientists are often at odds, and this can very easily show up in the results of the research.  Another aspect that concerns me is the speed at which this knowledge will be created.  More people involved will slow the process down, especially if the policy maker involved has to wade through the bureaucratic process that the scientist can easily side step.  Climate science is becoming increasingly important, and slowing down the rate that it is being produced can be detrimental overall.  However, despite these concerns, I think that the coproduction of knowledge, if done correctly as Meadow et al. lays out, can be a wonderful bridge between science and policy.

Question: What other ways can we bridge the gap between science and policy?

Climate change. Creation and Co-Creation of Knowledge. Boundaries. And ... Climate news.

You may know this line from a famous old Beatles' song:  "I heard the news today, oh, boy..." Speaking of climate change and knowledge, I heard some news today:

• Ocean currents affected by climate change, lead to major disruption in Northern Europe's habitability.
• Melting permafrost leads to huge carbon release.

Most concerning in recent climate news: ever-increasing instances of reinforcing feedback loops.  These systemic reinforcers should encourage us to take a conservative (sic) approach and reduce our global climate footprint.  

Maybe we could call it a footSTOMPprint:  could that help co-create knowledge? This week's readings detail important work to create systemic changes in science.  One of my favorite climate scientists, Katharine Hayhoe, explores smart ways to improve our climate change communication.  

Our readings take an even deeper approach, showing that when various social groups participate with scientists in the process of scientific discovery, using a variety of proven methods, the outcomes include a better understanding of the discoveries, and, most importantly, greater willingness to adopt actionable policies based on the information discovered in the shared process.

I'm envisioning a self-organized and dispersed series of local conferences, co-creating knowledge about climate change, bringing together scientists, climate activists, community organizers, and local governments and residents.  These conferences would inform and empower people interested in long-term survival, resilience, and sustainability.  Perhaps we can hold one at SEEC; let's co-create and spread this movement, like a health virus, to other universities and scientists and communities around the country and around the world.

On boundaries: As an active participant in 12-step programs, among other social movements, I think a lot about boundaries, like having some, or having healthy ones.  Helping scientists and policy-makers connect across the divisive boundaries and silos that impede progress around climate change, a new kind of healing boundary worker must dance between worlds, with word art, a shape-shifting translations of groups' cultures, to metamorphasize actionable understanding.  

Still, there's a deeper systemic problem here:  how we think about our lives and the lives of all creatures with us in this biosphere, this earth, our home.  

In the Web of Life, Frijtof Capra identifies and explores fundamental misconceptions of the approach we call science.  He says our primary error is objectification, a requisite theoretical and often physical removal of the scientist from messy reality.

I'll posit a theory:  the separation of the "scientist" from the rest of the world is a traumatic response to the inquisition.  Or the witch-burning times. Or the rise of the family, private property, and the state.

The approaches we discovered this week are valiant, welcome, essential efforts to systemically humanize science.

A question for you:  

I didn't see anything in these articles on how climate change activists can co-produce knowledge

while their hearts are breaking,

while they're flattened,

on the ground,

grieving 

tears running into the earth...

 

or did I miss that part?

 

Related articles

Climate Change This Week: The Population Connection, Protections Gone, and More!

Using participatory methods to address the climate problem

            Often as knowledgeable practitioners in a certain field or subject matter, it can be easy to overlook the opinions of stakeholders. We find ourselves thinking “well, if people only understood how their actions were affecting our planet, they would listen to me!” However, to take this approach to stakeholders if often a form of oversimplifying the complexity of the problem. By failing to recognize the framing of the problem by our stakeholders and the incentives that motivate them, we ignore an essential component to the solution.

            The methodologies presented by Meadow et al. help researchers avoid this problem entirely, by incorporating stakeholder engagement directly into the design of the project. In all five of the participatory methods discussed, researchers give other stakeholders the opportunity to frame the situation. I agree with Meadow et al.’s assessment that climate science is a particularly promising area to apply these types of techniques, as often knowledge production is the purview of a small group of highly specialized experts (those working with the global circulation models). I can think of numerous examples where researchers in this field have identified the need for greater integration between disciplines and stakeholders.

            For example, in my climate change law and policy class, we read a portion of the Stern Review, in which Stern calls for greater collaboration between scientists and policy makers. Specifically, he calls on scientists to take an active role in policy making, and to push back on policy-maker requests to deliver information that’s more specific than what can be generated by their models. Similarly, he calls for policy makers to understand the basics of climate modeling and not to push scientists for more specific predictions than they can provide.

            This approach also seems like it would be useful for managing near-term climate change impacts. Since climate predictions are more certain in the long-term and on a global scale, participatory knowledge generation methods could help planners or policy-makers understand local impacts, based on trends that residents are already seeing or areas residents have identified as particularly vulnerable to climate change.

Question: What are other examples of ways in which knowledge co-production can be used to engage policy-makers with environmental problems?

More communication please

Undoubtedly, climate change is an issue that encompasses all aspects of our lives. Its effects are widespread and cause devastation worldwide. If this is such a pressing issue, why are we not talking about it more? One problem that has been brought to my attention multiple times is that people often do not understand scientists. Scientists, generally, report their findings in a way that is understandable to other scientists. It is difficult for the average person to then interpret and comprehend complex findings on climate science, without having the appropriate background knowledge. With an issue such as climate change, it is imperative that information is easily accessible and incorporates input from the stakeholders involved. The information laid out in the reading by Meadow et al. on coproduction of climate science knowledge is something that should be widely incorporated into our decision-making. The authors of this article provided frameworks that could be applicable to different relationships that exist between scientists and stakeholders. In order for scientists to present data to the public they must make it understandable for the laypeople, and in turn stakeholders must provide scientists with feedback on what they need for their specific communities. To create the most valuable output of scientific information, I think that it requires cooperation between all groups that wouldn’t normally talk to each other. Coproduction of scientific knowledge is a necessity in our changing world, especially when it comes to climate change.

The Telos of an Acorn is an Oak Tree

    One of the most life changing ideas I was exposed to during my undergraduate career, besides intellectual vertigo, was the philosophical notion of “telos.” Teleology, originally thought of by Socrates, is the idea that within every object lies an ultimate object or aim. After that Western Civilization lecture I picked up an acorn on campus because I knew its telos was to become a massive oak tree. Envisioning what our civilization’s capacity or ultimate aim is looks vastly different depending on who you are and what you value, but I wonder what the ultimate telos of our civilization is and what is limiting us from reaching it.

            Arguably, many of our systems are holding humankind back from achieving our telos. We have an economic system where there are disproportionate feedback loops keeping the wealthiest people wealthy, and a political system in which only two parties are supposed to collectively represent an increasingly diverse population. Obviously, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than just those two examples. Instead, thinking about the acorn again and what is necessary to draw out its telos, what are the potential variables that could affect its growth?  Different levels of sunlight, water, soil, oxygen affect how large it will grow, but systems differ from the acorn in that values have a significant role to play in how they develop.

    One decision made to change how resources within the government or private sector are allocated could be seen as fair or unjust contingent on who you are or what you believe. Depending upon your age, race, gender, economic, spiritual or cultural background, each one of those aspects of how you identify yourself permeates throughout how you view every decision being made within our systems. Representing all the possible permutations and combinations of these views is hard if not impossible to do, but “critical systems thinking is dedicated to human emancipation and seeks to achieve for all individuals the maximum development of their potential” (Jackson, 1991). When one perspective to dominates our system it comes at the cost of others and to the system. Human emancipation and therefore critical systems thinking is necessary for us to unleash the true power of our systems and achieve our telos as humans.

Question:  I was so inspired by my acorn’s capacity for growth that I still have it to remind me of what I can become. Our systems have an incredible capacity for growth, where should they look to be inspired?

Uh, Can You Use It in a Sentence?

Have you ever started reading an academic article for class, read about two pages in, and come to the realization that you understood exactly zero percent of the content so far? This recently happened in my theories of mass media class when we were assigned an article by Gayatri Spivak titled, Can the Subaltern Speak. After attempting to read the first few pages no less than ten times I gave up and went in search of an online summary, chalking up my inability to understand her writing to the fact that I am not yet well versed in media studies. When I arrived in class that week I found that everyone had trouble understanding the article (yes, even those condescending PhD students) and that it was assigned to show how troublesome it can be when collaboration is not embraced. Spivak had produced a paper that offered incredible insights and vision, but had done so in a way that made it completely inaccessible to her intended audience, and was therefore in my opinion ineffective.

In her piece Meadows describes that in addition to a deliberate approach coproduction should include: establishing long-term relationships between scientists and stakeholders, ensuring two way communication between both groups, and keeping the focus on the production of usable science. In my opinion, Meadows would most likely use Spivak's article as an example of what not to do. We can liken her paper to suggesting an environmental law that was only drafted by scientists without any outside input. That suggested law would enter the public sphere and invoke as much confusion and frustration as my classmates and I experienced while attempting to dig through Can the Subaltern Speak.

In addition to the main components suggested by Meadows for coproduction, the modes of engagement and research approaches also resonated deeply with me, especially after a "Careers in Sustainability" talk I attended earlier this week. For some odd reason I had been picturing the sustainability branch of a company to have its own office and dedicated workforce that was established and respected. While this is true in some cases, many of the panelists that night noted that they had to create their job position and work daily with other branches of the company, not within their own, which is usually non-existent. If this one single sustainability person in a company were to begin implementing "solutions" on their own in a Spivak-like fashion I highly doubt it would work. They must constantly be 1. identifying problems 2. choosing a mode of engagement and 3. choosing a research approach. By following this deliberate process end users (other employee branches) will gain a greater sense of ownership over the final product and will be more likely to participate and follow through as opposed to re-reading the suggestion/new policy over and over again until through frustration and confusion they give up.

Question: Is there necessary stakeholder engagement that you are possibly overlooking in the planning process for your capstone project? If you are already considering stakeholders, which mode of engagement will you most likely use?

PS. I'm more than happy to e-mail over Spivak's paper if you would like to give it a crack!

 

 

Biases that shape the way we solve problems

Although it was touched on, I think it should be mentioned how much culture can influence the way we approach and solve problems. In the Stan Deetz report, the case of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster is used as a narrative to describe the ‘Human Organizational Factors’ that orientate the way we interact with problems. The reading talks about confirmation bias, hindsight bias, tunnel vision, distancing through differences, and oversimplification, but not culture. It can be argued that the Japanese culture played a huge role in the time it took to reveal the severity of the meltdown, and ultimately, to contain it. Admittedly, I am no expert on Japanese culture. So I will only speak to the concepts that I understand: honor and loyalty.

The effects of the tsunami on the plant were obvious, yet spokespersons were very restrained when describing the severity of the meltdown. It would have been far more efficient for all of the information to be available to the international councils that offer support in times of crisis. But that would have not been within the culture to do so; it would have been subversive for an employee to ‘leak’ the actual status of the plant. To admit that the plant was not able to withstand a tsunami of that magnitude would create an element of distrust to the Tokyo Electric Power Company, and General Electric, the manager and producer of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, respectively. Subversion to the public protects the ‘honor’ of the stakeholders.

Question: can you think of an example of when cultural “biases” lend themselves to an answer that seems illogical?

Primed for Solving Wicked Problems

Wicked problems in and of themselves are not new. They have been around since the dawn of time and will continue to confuse those that come after us. Systems thinking is evolving and we are learning from and taking lessons from all different fields in order to solve these problems. Systems thinking is something that lends itself easily when attempting to “solve” a wicked problem. “A Seven-Step Primer on Soft Systems Methodology” by Elizabeth Patitsas gave a clear framework that can be applied to such problems. Although written to accommodate computer science issues, Patitsas introduces some important ideas, such as thinking about your biases and opinions when solving a problem and forming a situation expression that does not contain value judgments. Both of these ideas are important not only in solving wicked problems, but can be applied more generally in daily conversations and relationships. By identifying the domain and situation that you are working in, it may become easier to then determine problem frames and solve those smaller problems instead. Breaking down the issues into problem frames can help us to better tackle monstrous wicked problems. The end goal of this process is to find a solution that will theoretically be feasible. At the end of the day, wicked problems will always be wicked, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could make them just a little bit less scary?

Question: Have you ever used a method similar to the one that Patitsas presents to solve a problem?

Infrastructure and Systems

        The reading material for class this week was quite diverse!  The most interesting piece assigned, in my opinion, was the excerpt from the report written by Stan Deetz (“PUBLICATION 1F HOF LL_V12”).  This report focuses on how Executive and Senior managers within the “overall nuclear system” can implement the actions and guidance provided by the Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) following analysis of the Fukushima Daiichi accident.  The reason that I found this report to be the most interesting reading this week is its audience.  The report discusses how all stakeholders (regulators, local and central governments, media, nuclear plant operators, etc.) slowly and unintentionally came to believe that the nuclear power plants were sufficiently robust and able to withstand much abuse before a catastrophic failure.  As it turns out, this unfounded faith in the nuclear power plants robustness ended up being their downfall.

        I believe that while analysis such as this report are very necessary in order to avoid repeating mistakes.  However, accidents such as the one at Fukushima make me wonder if there is a way to effectively do this analysis before a disaster occurs.  I think analyzing the short-comings (for lack of a better word) of infrastructure upon building would help avoid major damage due to natural disasters, however it would seem like an extraneous step while in the moment.  It would also be costly and point out the weaknesses of brand new infrastructure, which could be seen as negative and undermining.

Question: How can a system’s analysis allow for an effective risk assessment of new infrastructure?

Strategic Balancing of Values and Expertise

    One element of systems thinking that was poetically touched on by Donella Meadows is the human aspect and desire to understand complexity. She says, “Our culture, obsessed with numbers, has given us the idea that what we can measure more important than what we can’t measure” (Meadows, 175). In the readings done before the synthesis of this blog post, several bright minds use a systems thinking approach to overcome this tendency to quantify.

     In a pilot study done on ecosystem health by Cleland and Wyborn, a variance to the standardized research template of methods, results, analysis was added by incorporating visual methods to draw out participants basic underlying assumptions. Both researchers adopted visual methods in their research by allowing participants to draw a picture and then to play a board game for part of their methodology. Using these visual methods was done with tact, and for their “ability to uncover a range of new understandings about the relationships between self-identity, disease, and health” and to “gain access to representations of knowledge that would not otherwise be accessible” (Cleland Wyborn, 416). Rather than the researchers letting their own values be imbedded within the survey questions asked and potentially limit the scope of the conversation, this more creative format of response allowed uniqueness to their study. Towards the end of their paper, they discuss the limitations of piloting a new form of research in this manner; however, the ceiling of potential for drawing out participant beliefs and values can help explain some of the complexity often discussed in systems thinking.

    Both Cleland and Wyborn were trying to innovate the way in which research draws how values and beliefs. It turns out, though, that both researchers and the organizations operating nuclear reactors have some commonalities. Both can develop tendencies for tunnel vision, confirmation bias, oversimplification, and hindsight bias. Deetz says that it was a confirmation of these basic assumptions that lead to the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Another parallel that I arrived at from the comparison between these highly specialized experts is the disadvantage it is to have lack of diversity or a homogenous expertise comprising your organization. Doing so leads to “alternative possibilities and information that challenge basic assumptions tending to be unconsciously avoided” (Deetz, 2). Additionally, I find it interesting that the two messages Deetz proposed to learn from the Fukushima disaster are to promote a more open dialogue in organizations and to develop additional resilience capacities. For me this ran counterintuitively to what I expected. People probably think of the disaster as an engineering failure; however, it turns out after a period of reflection the failure came from a lack of information flow between actors.

So far we are painting a picture of systems thinking that is highly dependent upon mindfulness of when you're being objective and subjective in order to innovate through an otherwise stagnate situations.

Question: How do you incorporate your values and expertise to navigate such a value-laden and multidisciplinary topic as the environment?