jayne glass knowledge coproduction seminar july 2011
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
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 [email protected]
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/.