Final meeting spiekermann know4DRR

Department of Geoinformatics | University of Salzburg, Austria | 8 www.zgis.at – * [email protected]

Mapping the flow of information and knowledge between stakeholder groups:

weaknesses and strengths in knowledge management and communication

Raphael Spiekermann & Stefan Kienberger

Final conference: Knowledge management for improving DRR & CCA

26 – 27 May 2015

Université de Savoie-Mont Blanc, Chambéry


Further developments of Del. 1.2 now published:

Link: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.05.002


Consequences of the rapid increase in research-based knowledge

§  What does increased fragmentation of knowledge mean? à Advanced, specialized expertise in various fields is available à Difficulty of linking and aggregating state-of-the-art knowledge

The result: à  limited impact on reversing the upward trend in disaster damage, coined by

White et al. (2001) as “knowing better and losing even more”


research-based knowledge ∥ growing toll of losses

§  Is human knowledge and understanding of the causes of the losses inadequate despite the increasing research effort?

§  Or is existing knowledge not applied or not used effectively? §  Are communication methods inadequate for the task so that

information is not transformed into knowledge that can be acted on?

Ø  An additional challenge: If information is available, it does not necessarily imply that it is known, accepted and acted on


Our focus

Ø  Improving mechanisms for an increased application of research-based knowledge.

§  Barriers to knowledge sharing, transformation and implementation are

often greater than the means to overcome them.

§  Identifying where fragmentation of knowledge exists, as well as its causes

§  The challenge is to understand how to utilise “knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality” (Hayek 1945)


A fresh look at the nature of knowledge

§  Mittelstrass illustrates that knowledge is increasingly being replaced and confused with providing information, which may remain untapped or unused à  thus legitimising a discussion on data, information, knowledge, and

wisdom:

“From knowledge to wisdom? Which wisdom could that be, if its concept of knowledge is only that of information again?”



§  “Knowing always involves a knower knowing something. It involves a relationship between a knower and the known. It is an act which joins a mind with an object in a relationship which is unique and incomparable with any other. There is no such thing as knowledge without something known and a knowing subject knowing it. Each and every act of knowing is a synthesis of object and subject.” (Horrigan 2007, p.75)

à Two major preconditions are required of the knower



§  Aristotle distinguishes between three forms of knowledge: theoretical, productive, and practical knowledge:

1.  A decision-maker without experience: problematic 2.  A decision-maker with great experience: might be capable of

producing good results. 3.  Yet, the one who has the theoretical knowledge knows the

“why” 4.  The best decision-maker is therefore one who has theoretical

knowledge as well as experience, i.e. knowledge of universals and of how to apply them to particulars



§  Mittelstrass defines information knowledge (or factual knowledge) as “knowledge of facts, i.e., knowledge of what is the case. Orientation knowledge (or ‘Socratic knowledge’), by contrast, may be defined as knowledge of aims and purposes, i.e., as knowledge of what (justifiably) ought to be the case”.

à great significance for understanding DRR-related decision-

making


What does this mean in a world where more is lost while more is known?

1.  Knowledge continues to be flawed by areas of ignorance

2.  Knowledge is available but not used effectively

3.  Knowledge is used effectively but takes a long time to have effect

4.  Knowledge is used effectively in some respects but is overwhelmed by increases in vulnerabilities


Identifying barriers of knowledge production, transfer and implementation


Identifying barriers of knowledge production, transfer and implementation


By relating the knowledge production flow with the DMC, the Disaster-knowledge-matrix can be used as an instrument to identify bridges and barriers of information and knowledge production, transfer and implementation


An example from Salzburg

[Barriers as defined by Weichselgartner & Kasperson 2010]


Concluding comments §  The nature of knowledge-action is such that informed and well-reasoned

decisions can only be made with an intelligent use of available information and pre-existing knowledge.

à  requires a constant learning process

§  The capacity to learn is dependent on sufficient training and previous learning, as well as an awareness of current problems and the availability of accessible, relevant information.

§  The transfer of knowledge is thus also a function of the individual capacity to gain knowledge, i.e. to learn, and therefore contains procedural, technical and cultural components that all need to be considered.

§  The implementation of knowledge is dependent on the capacity to utilize knowledge gained.


Recommendations

§  Decision-makers in DRR and CCA need to reflect on their own capacity to make informed decisions and, in realization of individual limitations, seek lacking information when essentially necessary.

§  Increasing incentives and possibilities for decision-makers to gain knowledge in order to improve decision-making is therefore imperative.

However: §  Social, structural and functional barriers in knowledge sharing and

implementation are currently greater than the capabilities to overcome them, hindering an effective reduction of disaster risk


Recommendations

§  The way forward is a more socially robust and context-sensitive knowledge production, with the integration of v  local knowledge, in the sense that tacit and practical knowledge based

on local experience is understood, but also includes an understanding of local priorities and perceptions as well as a factual depiction of user needs;

v  provision of improved, target-oriented methods of communication; and

v  trans-disciplinary approaches to research.


Outlook

§  How have decisions been taken in the past that are known to have produced desirable, beneficial results?

§  Is it possible to characterise “good” decision-making (criteria/ guidelines) in the DRR context?

§  Which procedural, technical and cultural components in the decision-making process need to be considered as vital for obtaining best-possible results?

§  Which aspects of decision-making are context-specific (e.g. influenced by local culture, available time, etc.) and need to be adapted accordingly?


References

§  Aristotle. Metaphysics. In: Ed. J. Barnes. The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation. Vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1984.

§  Hayek FA. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 1945; XXXV;519-530. §  Horrigan PG. Epistemology: an introduction to the philosophy of knowledge. Lincoln: iUniverse; 2007. §  Marotzki W. Internet communities. In: Coelen T, Otto HU (eds.). Grundbegriffe Ganztagsbildung: Das

Handbuch, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008;402-410. §  Mittelstrass J. The loss of knowledge in the information age. In: Corte ED, editor. From information to

knowledge, from knowledge to wisdom: challenges and changes facing higher education in the digital age. London: Portland Press, 2010;19-23.

§  White GF, Kates RW, Burton I. Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazard management. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 2001;3-4:81-92.

§  Weichselgartner J, Kasperson RE. Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 2010;2:266-277.