Keynote Presentations
from the
AVEC
International
Summer School, Peyresq, 14-27 September 2003
Speaker: Anne de la Vega
delavega<at>pik-potsdam.de
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegrafenberg C4, 14473 Potsdam,
Germany
Title of the talk: Theory
and practice in science-stakeholder dialogue (pdf: 30KB)
Summary of the talk by a student: Students´
summary (pdf)
Abstract
Plan of Lecture
10’ introduction and plan of the morning
10’ A flash brainstorming session: what is a stakeholder, what is a stakeholder
dialogue?
30’ Lecture on theoretical aspects: Part 1 – what is a science-stakeholder dialogue
and why should we care?
Content:
- Introduction: from shareholders Vs civil society to stakeholders
- Difference and similarities between public participation, corporate and
science stakeholder dialogue, and between traditional social science “sampling”
(the sample doesn’t have a say) and dialogue (2 must play this game or no
dialogue)
- Brief mention to consensus Vs conflict theories: i.e. what is the overall
aim: to maintain the status quo or to change the world?
- Public participation Vs stakeholder dialogue: 2 different conceptions
of democracy (populist Vs elitist)
- Corporate stakeholders: those who matter: i.e. who can help/hinder the
firm’s acceptance and credibility, and can support/discredit the firm’s
claim for social responsibility and accountability.
- Science: Stakeholders: those who matter: i.e. who can contribute to
the scientific process via relevant knowledge, feedback, resources; those
who can peer-review the research and judge the scientific credibility,
those who may be affected by the topic of the research, those who may
be interested in using/disseminating the scientific outputs, those who
can bring about change.
- Why a science-stakeholder dialogue?
- From the science point of view:
- Reality check (scientists get out of their ivory tower)
- Bring new perspectives into research
- Shaping new areas of research
- Improving science’s social relevance and accessibility via collaborative
research
- Mutual learning, and improving understanding and communication across
science (interdisciplinarity – horizontal integration) and with the
non-scientific community (transdisciplinarity – vertical integration)
- Informing decision-making process (and foster change?)
- Funding and greater dissemination potential
- From the stake holder’s point of view:
- Access to new science and new information sources which may help
their activities
- Possibility to influence/commission/control new science
- Possibility to express their views (on science and etc…)
- A scientific stamp can increase credibility
- Mutual learning
10’ Introduction of ATEAM: ask students to think who could be a stakeholder.
10’ break
40’ Brainstorming session: Who are ATEAM’s stakeholders? How could they contribute
to ATEAM? how could ATEAM contribute to their activity?
20’ break
35’ Lecture on theoretical aspects: Part 2 - when and how to engage in stakeholder
involvement?
- Is stakeholder dialogue always a must? Obviously nope (e.g. GCM, oceanographic
models…)
- Examples where it is advisable:
- Risk and value perception, drivers, motivations and strategies in decision
making, behavioural patterns, resource use and needs, management options,
adaptation to change
- to obtain missing expertise
- to better encompass the range of actors involved (eg. public Vs private,
commercial Vs non-lucrative, different sectors etc…): i.e. tackle diversity
and complexity
- to create synergies and consensus (e.g.: what is dangerous climate
change? What level of ecosystem destruction must be avoided?): i.e. to
simplify complexity and build assumptions
- Different levels of involvement
- As collaborator (from proposal stage throughout the project)
- As adviser (intermittently at key moments in the project)
- As witness (at the end)
- Different approaches
- Design together plausible scenarios, methods and/tools (qualitative,
exploratory research, high involvement)
- Cooperation in the production of data (combination of skills, and added
value: quantitative/qualitative, high involvement)
- Present research and obtain feedback which is fed into the research (qualitative
improvement, design more appropriate indicators, focus research via case
studies, set new agenda: on-going research, medium to high involvement –
can be highly effective and innovative)
- Disseminate research (traditional attitude, low if any involvement, circular
research)
- Major tools:
- Workshops,
- Focus groups/Interviews
- Questionnaires
- Multi-criteria analysis
- Bayesian Networks
- To be completed
- Major barriers/problems to overcome
- Different expectations and interests, thus different goals in the exercise
(e.g. getting predictions Vs communicating risk)
- Different levels of discourse (linguistic, descriptive, normative –
quote Habermass)
- Different levels of understanding and expertise (e.g. academic jargon
Vs layman’s language)
- Difficulty in communicating the complexity of the science and the uncertainty
attached to it (how much to say? How to say it?)
- Difficulty in sensitising certain stakeholders (how to convince those
who don’t care?)
- Biased stakeholder groups
- Prejudices and cultural differences
- Disciplinary parochial attitudes (different priorities, different rationalities)
- Fear of loosing control of one’s research and its process (fundamental/theoretical/exploratory
Vs commissioned/applied research)
- Fear of loosing credibility and of compromising scientific integrity
(in science community, in public eye)
- Fear of being forced to acted upon knowledge
- Dialogue fatigue and lack on incentives (Am I being heard? What do
I gain from it?
- Etc…
- What do you need to facilitate/evaluate the dialogue?
- Quote Webler: fairness (possibility express one’s view, judge that
of others, participate in the decisions on process and discourse etc.)
and competence (understanding, expertise)
- Clarity in your aims, time, conviction, dedication, enthusiasm, patience,
communication skills, understanding of group dynamics, respect… and obviously
a meaningful and successful scientific project, and a good crowd
15’ discussion
15’ break
30’ Brainstorming session: give case studies and ask students to think on approaches
+ present group work: i.e. select on case study and build a strategy.
15’ questions to prepare group work.
Recommended background literature on this presentation:
- Alcamo J, Kreileman R, Leemans R (1996) Global models meet global policy.
Global Environmental
Change, 6 (4):255-259. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(96)00031-3
- Berkhout F, Hertin J, Jordan A (2002) Socio-economic futures in climate
change impact assessment: using scenarios as ’learning machines’. Global Environmental
Change, 12 (2), 83-95. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00006-7
- Borsuk M, Clemen R, Maguire L, Reckhow K (2001) Stakeholder values and scientific
modelling in the Neuse River watershed. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 10:355-373. doi:10.1023/A:1011231801266
- Harrison SR, Qureshi ME (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members
in multicriteria decision models. Natural Resources Forum, 24:11-19.
- van Daalen E, Thissen W, Berk M (1998) The Delft process: experiences with a dialogue between policymakers and global modellers. In: Global Change Scenarios for the 21st Century. Results from the IMAGE2.1 Model [Alcamo J, Kreileman E, Leemans R(eds.)]. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 267-286.
- Walker B, Carpenter S, Anderies J, Abel N, Cumming G., Janssen M, Lebel
L, Norberg J, Peterson GD, Pritchard R (2002) Resilience management in socialecological systems: a working hypothesis for
a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology., 6 (1):14. Online at http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14
- Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment:
a social learning perspective. Environment Impact Assessment Review, 15:443-463.
