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


„transdisciplinary“ + „transdisciplinarity“ in Web of Science, Jan. 2015

Source: td-net publication radar (2015)

Transdisciplinarity Career of a research principle


…

Transdisciplinarity Expectations


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)


(Provocative) Leading question

If transdisciplinarity is the solution, what is the problem?


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


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


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


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


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)


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


‘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


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


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


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

Policy, 26/3, 151–161.

21.06.2015 24

Documents

Transdisciplinary research for ecosystem service provision