Transdisciplinary research for ecosystem service provision and biodiversity management in the EU International Conference on “Motivations and arguments to act for biodiversity: Alternative ways to inspire innovative policy making” 10 th –11 th of June 2015, Brussels, Les Ateliers des Tanneurs Michael Pregernig
24
Embed
Transdisciplinary research for ecosystem service provision ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transdisciplinary research for ecosystem service provision and biodiversity management in the EU
International Conference on “Motivations and arguments to act for biodiversity: Alternative ways to inspire innovative policy making”
10th–11th of June 2015, Brussels, Les Ateliers des Tanneurs
Michael Pregernig
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 2
Interdisciplinarity Career of a research principle
Source: td-net publication radar (2015)
„interdisciplinary“ + „interdisciplinarity“ in Web of Science, Jan. 2015
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 3
„transdisciplinary“ + „transdisciplinarity“ in Web of Science, Jan. 2015
Source: td-net publication radar (2015)
Transdisciplinarity Career of a research principle
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 4
…
Transdisciplinarity Expectations
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 5
Transdisciplinarity H2020 framing “Transdisciplinarity will be the name of the game under H2020” (Kurt Vandenberghe, yesterday)
Definition: approaches and methodologies that “integrate (a) theories, concepts, knowledge, data, and
techniques from two or more scientific disciplines, and
(b) non-academic and non-formalized knowledge (e.g. coming from relevant societal actors and stakeholders such as healthcare practitioners, farmers, user groups).”
Excpectations:
“contributes to advancing fundamental understanding or solving complex problems while fostering multi-actor engagement in the R&I process.”
(Source: Science With and For Society Scoping Paper 2012)
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 6
(Provocative) Leading question
If transdisciplinarity is the solution, what is the problem?
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 7
biodiversity conservation marked by high degrees of complexity, uncertainty and societal ambiguity
political decisions increasingly rely on scientific results and argumentations
however, effectively linking scientific expertise and political decision-making chronically difficult
Contextualization
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 8
My “analytical hook”
BESAFE & BIOMOT strive to bring forward specific proposal for how to structure the science-policy interface (SPI) in a more productive way
My (meta-)perspective: how the role of science in policy- making is discursively framed
Leading assumption: discursive framing of SPI has an influence on approaches/methods suggested and implemented in real-world SPI
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 9
Different SPI framings
My “analytical hook”
socio-constructivist perspective introduction of selected theoretical
conceptualizations of SPI constitutive rationales
(“What is the problem?”) discursive effects
(“Which problem-definitions call for which type of solutions?”)
conclusions: potential role of transdisciplinarity in biodiversity science and policy
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 11
principle: “speaking truth to power” (Price, 1981)
implicit assumptions: - spatial separation between place
of knowledge production and place of knowledge use
linear model questioned for a long time … but it still dominates perceptions among policy-makers and scientists alike (Weingart 1999; Godin 2006)
Science
(facts)
Politics (power, values)
Truth
knowledge closure policy choice
Source: Jasanoff & Wynne (1998, modified)
Linear model of knowledge transfer
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 12
Economics of science Public goods problem
perceived problem: scientific knowledge as public good insufficient supply
proposed solutions: - public research funding - public provision of infrastructure
implicit assumption: „An increase in supply will generate its own demand.“
Sources: Arrow (1962); Salter & Martin (2001); Stone (2002); Antonelli (2005)
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 13
perceived problem: scientists are not able/willing to
communicate their findings in an effective way
decision makers have insufficient access to data and analyses and they lack the capacity to process scientific results
proposed solutions: - media training for scientists
& innovative distribution formats - scientific assessments (in the sense
of „state of knowledge reports“) (Pregernig 2014)
Communication theory Ineffective transfer
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 14
‘Two Communities’ thesis Different system logics
perceived problem: scientists and policy-makers live in different worlds with different languages,systems of relevance, incentives mechanisms, time horizons etc. (Snow 1959, Caplan 1979, Lindquist 1990) “For many policy makers, three months is a long time, and two years could find them out of office. Scientists, on the other hand, recoil from quick answers. […] Three months is a very short time, hardly enough time to write the research plan for the studies that will be needed.” (Johnson & Herring 1999: 346)
proposed solutions:
- ‘realism’, because transfer and interaction problems are partly inherent to the system
- conveying the ‘logics’ of science and policy to the other relevance system
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 15
perceived problem: contending political actors use scientific knowledge as political resource (Boehmer-Christiansen 1995)
- source of authority and hence legitimacy - justification for unpopular policies (greenwash) - “scapegoat” and cover-up for policy change - mechanism for delaying or avoiding action …
proposed solutions: - consensus within scientific community
(cf. „epistemic communities“, Haas 1992) - … but consensus-based solutions rather fragile
(cf. ‘Climategate affair’) (Beck 2012)
Rational choice theory Science as a strategic resource
Post positivism Plurality of knowledge systems
perceived problem: concern over utility and validity
of scientific expertise (Jasanoff 2003)
science loses “devine appeal” and “cognitive monopoly”: more expertise more contestation controversies around technical innovations expertise counter-expertise
signs of lack of societal trust in scientific expertise
proposed solutions: − from call ‘scientifically reliable’ to
‘socially robust’ knowledge (Nowotny et al. 2001)
− more open processes of knowledge production 21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 17
Theory of democracy Democratization of knowledge society
perceived problem: environmental questions are increasingly
framed as technical questions (Beck 1992, Bäckstrand 2004)
‘scientification’ & ‘de-politisation’ of politics (Fischer 2001)
elitist alliance between scientists and policy-makers causes technocratic distance to policy addressees
implementation deficits
proposed solutions: − more participatory forms of
scientific knowledge creation − democratic forms of policy advice
(‘from policy advice to societal advice’) (Leggewie 2007) 21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 18
Conclusions
number of different explanatory models for why scientific expertise and policy- making are so difficult to integrate
Introductory question: “If transdisciplinarity is the solution, then, what is the problem?”
Final answer: “There isn’t any single problem!”
rather, various problem framings various expectations
TD as highly polyvalent concept
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 19
Source: Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn (2007: 39)
Conclusions
Various expectations: Strategic: TD as argumentative vehicle to
mobilize more funding for research on biodiversity Instrumental: TD as ‘compass’ that directs science
policy towards the ‘Grand Societal Challenges’ Cognitive: TD as ‘bridge between worlds’ (between
different disciplines and to non-scientific knowledge holders) Normative: TD as back-stopper for trends towards ‘technocracy’
hope for final clarification of scientific questions highly unrealistic call for ‘professional humility’ (Jasanoff 2003)
find the proper place of expertise in democratic decision-making
TD as useful theoretical and methodological concept … but critical reflection needed
21.06.2015 Transdisciplinariy research | Michael Pregernig 21
Contact: Prof. Dr. Michael Pregernig Chair Group Environmental Governance Institute for Environmental Social Science and Geography Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg Mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.ifp.uni-freiburg.de/EnvGov
Cited sources Antonelli, Cristiano (2005): Models of knowledge and systems of governance.
Journal of Institutional Economics, 1/1, 51-73. Arrow, Kenneth (1962): Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.
In: Nelson, Richard R. (ed.) The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 609-626.
Bäckstrand, Karin (2004): Scientisation vs. Civic Expertise in Environmental Governance: Eco–feminist, Eco–modern and Post–modern Responses. Environmental Politics, 13/4, 695–714.
Beck, Silke (2012): From truth to trust: lessons learned from 'Climategate'. In: Hogl, Karl, Kvarda, Eva, Nordbeck, Ralf & Pregernig, Michael (eds) Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 220-241.
Beck, Ulrich (1992): Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London et al.: Sage. Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja (1994): Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice: Part 1. Global
Environmental Change, 4/2, 140-159. Brewer, Garry D. (1999): The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32, 327–337. Caplan, Nathan (1979): The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22/3, 459-
470. Fischer, Frank (2001): Beyond Technocratic Environmentalism: Citizen Inquiry in Sustainable Development. In: Hisschemöller,
Matthijs, Hoppe, Robert, Dunn, William N. & Ravetz, Jerome R. (eds) Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. New Brunswick; London: Transaction Publishers. 29–45.
Godin, Benoit (2009): Making Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives. RICEC, 1/1. Grundmann, Reiner (2009): The role of expertise in governance processes. Forest Policy and Economics, 11/5-6, 398-403. Haas, Peter (1992): Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization,
46/1, 1–35. Jasanoff, Sheila (2003): Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41/3, 223–244. Jasanoff, Sheila & Wynne, Brian (1998): Science and Decisionmaking. In: Rayner, Steve & Malone, Elisabeth L. (eds) Human
Choice and Climate Change. Volume 1: The Societal Framework. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press. 1–87. 21.06.2015 23
Cited sources Johnson, K. Norman & Herring, Margaret (1999): Understanding Bioregional Assessments.
In: Johnson, K. Norman, Swanson, F., Herring, M. & Greene, S. (eds) Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of Management and Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. 341–376.
Lang, Daniel J., Wiek, Arnim, Bergmann, Matthias, Stauffacher, Michael, Martens, Pim, Moll, Peter, Swilling, Mark & Thomas, Christopher J. (2012): Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7/1, 25-43.
Leggewie, Claus (Hg.) (2007): Von der Politik- zur Gesellschaftsberatung: Neue Wege öffentlicher Konsultation. Frankfurt am Main; New York: Campus.
Lindquist, E. A. (1990): The Third Community, Policy Inquiry, and Social Scientists. In: Brooks, Stephen & Gagnon, A.–G. (eds) Social Scientists, Policy, and the State. New York; Westport; London: Praeger. 21–51.
Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter & Gibbons, Michael (2001): Re–Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pielke, Roger A. (2004): When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7/5, 405–417.
Pohl, Christian & Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude (2007): Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. München: oekom. Pregernig, Michael (2014): Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from
conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23/14, 3615-3639. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R. (2001): The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review.
Research Policy, 30/3, 509-532. Snow, Charles P. (1959): The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Stone, Diane (2002): Using Knowledge: the dilemmas of 'Bridging Research and Policy'. Compare, 32/3, 285–296. Weingart, Peter (1999): Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics. Science & Public