Intsci Moderators: Topic 2 summary
From discussions Monday 5th-Wed 7th March
Once again there have been some wonderful contributions to the discussions going on here.
Tools and resources for community engagement etc
In response to the ongoing interest in tools and resources, Val Brown offered Bohm’s rules for dialogue, while Ashwani Vasishth send a vast number of links and paper titles on the topic. David Waltner-Toews also sent links to a virtual network for young researchers and to AMESH a methodology for participatory development.
Many of these will go up on our resource page before the end of the conference so that participants can access them all in one place.
Polly Erikson and Margaret Kilvington with help from Tom Measham discussed the sustainable livelihoods framework, used in a development context but which can also be used in other contexts for resource management. And this led to a discussion around the question
We posed the questions:
- What is the relationship between learning and management in this kind of science?
- How can a learning approach help the Science-user-policy dialogue, and
- In integrated science, who is doing the learning and what is the role of individual and collective learning
Relationship between learning and management in this kind of science
In answer to Question 1, Polly Eriksen noted that frameworks can be useful for learning but that they do not enable learning. In the end, people still have to be motivated to learn (John Glass) and without that the best frameworks in the world simply will not work. Margaret Kilvington noted that these frameworks also need to be adapted as learning about a context continues.
People noted differences in the type of learning that is needed in these integrated science contexts. Meg Kilvington for example noted that people are relatively comfortable with single loop learning but less comfortable with double or triple loop learning which requires a deeper level of reflection and inquiry into one’s assumptions and mental models. Richard Bawden added to this by suggesting that we are a very good at looking at the “systems out there” and not at all good at on the knowing systems (the systems in here?) that we are using.
An interesting thread of discussion that came out of this focused on a question that Meg posed: “Does it matter where frameworks for integrated science for sustainability come from?”
While Will Allen felt that “no it doesn’t” Polly Eriksen felt that “oh yes!” it does! However these two postings did appear to have a slight difference in emphasis. Will drew on his experience of using similar models of participation in various cultural settings while Polly drew on her experience of working in the same culture but with an interesting power dynamic created by an initial bias towards ecology and the knowledge of internationally renowned scientists. David Waltner-Toews (DWT) suggested, based on work in many different cultures, the one thing that was generalizable across cultures and ecosystems was the questions that must be asked.
This leads nicely onto Question 2 and 3 How can a learning approach help the science-user-policy dialogue, and In integrated science, who is doing the learning and what is the role of individual and collective learning?
Science User Policy dialogue
Polly E noted here that all groups need to learn from each other while Frederik Oberthūr presenting a Swedish Russian case study, noted that it is crucial that those managing the project see themselves as part of the learning process. John Glass discussing ths in the context of collective and individual learning notes the need to learn in a reflexive interaction between being teacher and being learner and where both are open to new ideas. Val Brown suggested that we need to build more mutual understanding of the different perspectives that we have on our world and that “transformation” (rather than slower evolution or more violent revolution) is the way forward. Other discussion here points to the vast differences in perspective that exist as illustrated by the way we use language and the need to communicate our perspectives more effectively (DWT, Scott Sawyer, Paul Barrett).
Tensions between individual and collective learning
Janita Vos, DWT, and Lorrae van Kerkhoff between them noted a number of tensions that emerge between individual and collective learning and the process of change to which that leads. Collective learning depends on the independence of the individuals involved but the sustainability of that learning can be an issues where the collective breaks down. Institutionalising learning can make adaptation difficult but at the same time Lorrae highlighted a tension between too much learning and change where change becomes unsettling and difficult to work with, and too little where there is not enough opportunity to adapt.
Getting it together in practice
There has been debate on how or whether people with different perspectives can come together in practice. Phil Henshaw even debates whether a physicist could talk to a shaman if in fact they were one and the same person. He writes that people often have very different facets which they bury depending on the role they are playing at the time. Kristan Cockrill gave an example of a group of highly educated people with a strong interest in sustainability who were not willing or able to grapple with the different ways of knowing implied by the “physicist /shaman confluence type”. Scott Sawyer suggests that just-doing-it might be the answer by citing an example where a group engaged with the “enemy” to good effect in a project on alternative fuels.
Frederik B felt that we need an amalgam of scientific enquiry and self improvement to do this work effectively. This in itself may well illustrate Kristan’s point above since many many that I know in science would shudder in horror at the thought of mixing the two.