The Art and Science of Linking Science with Practice Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Stanford University Susanne Moser Research & Consulting
Climate Change Adaptation Master Class • Brisbane, QLD • 20th May 2011
The metaphors that guide us ‘throwing science over the fence’ ‘bridging’ the science–practice ‘gap’ or ‘gulf’
‘spider web of two-way interactions with multiple intermediaries’
‘channeling findings from the research sphere to the practice sphere’
The emerging paradigm (but far from reality)
Science-Practice Interface = complex terrain made up of a multi-level system of governance and knowledge production among a range of actors engaged in understanding and managing environment–society interactions
Key sources: Cash et al 2003; Vogel et al 2007; Kasperson & Berberien 2011
What do we want to achieve?
• Increased usefulness and use of information (while doing interesting science)
• Improved relationships between producers and users
• Better decisions
knowledge
Why is information often not used?
Mismatches between what scientists can provide and what end-users need
Mistrust of science and the information used to create them (unexplained uncertainty)
Untimely delivery of information
Lack of communication between scientists and end-users
Lack of resources to help interpret science
Like of time to carefully consider, learn, and understand science
Need for researchers to demonstrate the utility of science before end-users are willing to adopt it
And more… Upshot: It takes time, continual interaction, mutual learning, and persistent reaching out to each other to achieve acceptance and adoption of science products. Capacity building to improve interaction between providers and users of information must be matched by a change in attitude and performance measures.
Key attributes of “useful information”
SALIENCE
CREDIBILITY and TRUST
Whose experts? Interaction among experts Transparency of scientific/assessment process
LEGITIMACY
Regional/local specificity Higher resolution Issue linkages Timing Format
Account of local concerns, values, needs, interests Rules, procedures Involvement in information-decision support process
EFFICACY
The right decisions can be made more easily
Key attributes of “good scientistpractitioner relationships”
Learning is mutual
Knowledge is co-produced
Understanding of the other’s context
Respect
Trust
Influences on Scientists’ Choices
Interest and curiosity
Training and skills
Professional/collegial networks
Funding
Promotional incentives
Concurrent obligations (e.g. teaching)
Prestige and professional status
Personal motivation, personality
Influences on Practitioners’ Choices
Agency mission
Policy statements, missions, laws, rules
Training
Job descriptions, accountabilities
Required or customary procedures, engrained habits
Organizational culture, professional expectations, norms
Timeline
Resources (technical, financial, staff, information)
External driving forces and barriers Photos (t-b): USFS, clipart, USDA
Key attributes of “good decisions”
Framing is engaging, salient Problem definition
facilitates consideration of alternative options delineates clear objectives identifies criteria helps confront tradeoffs
Process effectively and meaningfully involves key stakeholders Outcomes
meet objective(s) - satisfy many/most stakeholders minimize negative side effects compensates for losses
The interaction triangle Researchers (scientists, others with relevant, legitimate knowledge)
Pro Pr ble obl m em de Da fin iden ta Ide gat Pro ition tific nti her ble , fr atio fic ati ing, m an amin n * on pro al g Ev op of ce ysis * alu r t ion esp ssin * ati I on mp s, o g of lem solu nse * ma en tio * n a t at ns ge io ou men n* tco t * me s
Practitioners (policy-makers managers)
ing o ng o ith a ta w d . on esp i ble t a a l , i c g va du ildin a e n u al bu e u s t u city wi M r on t a i e t n p • h a me ot ep C c e r o • g ag s t ge n pe d s n e E cce wl ts i • A kno , shif and uy-in *B
• Civic/political engagement • Government accountability • Deliberative learning • Adaptive management • Building social capital
Stakeholders (affected, interested people)
What are the opportunities for engagement? Scientific Input at Various Stages of the Decision-Making Process & the Nature of Science’s Influence e.g., New Problem Identification
Raise awareness Help problem understanding Intelligence gathering
Problem identification
Termination
Appraisal
e.g., Provision of data
Input from Science
Problem definition Frame the problem, alter the goals
Promotion
Identification of choices
- Stage of Decision-Making Process
Application/ Routinization
Invocation/ Implementation Prescription
Monitoring Evaluation Assist learning
e.g., Training, Operationalization
Mobilization of actors Persuasion - Nature of Science’s Influence
Source: Vogel et al (2007)
Integrating Research Interests with User Needs Consideration of use?
YES
Pure basic research
YES
Use-inspired basic research
NO
Quest for fundamental understanding?
NO
Implications: Need for dialogue – early and often Mutual understanding
(Crazy inventor playing in the garage)
Pure applied research
Source: after Stokes (1987)
13
Decision-making situation and constraints Researcher’s constraints Knowledge needs and current state of science
Slow process of learning and changing what we do
What is Decision Support? •
Decision support involves • • • • • •
•
ongoing communication among producers and users of DS products, services production of decision-relevant information creation of products and tools based on this information dissemination of these products and tools efforts to encourage the use of decision-relevant information and tools development of organizations, networks, and institutions for the above purposes
Types of decision support services • • • • • •
various communication services mediation and information brokering use-inspired research basic research decision structuring and problems-solving assistance evaluations
(Source: NRC 2009)
1.
Begin with users’ needs
2.
Give priority to process without neglecting products
3.
Link information producers and users
4.
Build connections across disciplines and organizations
5.
Seek institutional stability
6.
Design for learning
(Source: NRC 2009)
Principles for Effective Decision Support
Photo: lifetraveling.com
Designing the science-practice interface
Utilize scale-dependent comparative advantage
Technical capacity (economies of scale) Functional specialization Political leverage and social advantage Enabling policies and efforts
Boundary organizations
Translation and information brokerage Transformation of results (boundary objects) Facilitation of convergence of interests, ideas, languages, perspectives at different scales
Co-production of knowledge in stable institutions
Committed stakeholder engagement
Designing the science-practice interface (cont.)
Balancing products and process
Attention to the policy/management-public interface
Process more than products creates salience and legitimacy Products more than process establish credibility Flexibility and deliverables
Fatal to neglect if science is to support policy-making/management Adaptive research & management processes Goal is to build human, intellectual and social capital to deal with global changes
Deeper understanding of the communication-social change link
Communication of primary importance Move away from transfer toward engaged dialogues Strategic audience choice Focus on motivation and barriers/resistance
Capacity Building and Training
Whose capacity?
Research organization’s
What kind of capacity?
Expertise in decision support Expanded technical capacities Multidisciplinary collaboration Communication
Boundary/interface personnel’s
In-house research and science support Implementation
CSIRO, extension, RISAs, etc. “climate extension” TV meteorologists Some non-profits
Information users’
Managers at various levels (Wider public)
Communication, mediation, brokering, decision-structuring, collaboration, evaluation skills Analytic (translational) capacity Willingness, ability , courage to engage, listen, consider, and act
Conclusion: What it will take to be effective
Communication
Mediation & Brokering Decision-structuring and problem solving assistance Collaboration
Translating Listening and learning Being in dialogue
Multi-, inter-, transdisciplinary skills Interpersonal skills
Evaluation
Capacity building
Institution building and institution changing
researchers’ and users’
Incentives Performance measures Stabilization
Ongoing self-reflection and transformation
Attitudes Willingness to take risks and change
Contact: Susi Moser, Ph.D. Susanne Moser Research & Consulting Santa Cruz, CA 95060 E:
[email protected] Tel: (831) 427-2081
Photo: worldpress.com
Thank you!
