Transdisciplinary research for ecosystem service provision

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

- clear separation between “facts” and “values”

- simple transmission of ready-made scientific results (“get-the-facts-then-act model”, Pielke 2004)

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: michael.pregernig@ifp.uni-freiburg.de 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

Policy, 26/3, 151–161.

21.06.2015 24