A new boundary object to promote researcher engagement with policy makers / Un nuevo objeto frontera para promover la colaboración de los investigadores con los tomadores de decisiones

Community Member Methods , , , , , ,

Community member post by María D. López Rodríguez

maria-lopez-rodriguez.jpg
María D. López Rodríguez (biography)

A Spanish version of this post is available

Can boundary objects be designed to help researchers and decision makers to interact more effectively? How can the socio-political setting – which will affect decisions made – be reflected in the boundary objects?

Here I describe a new context-specific boundary object to promote decision making based on scientific evidence. But first I provide a brief introduction to boundary objects.

What is a ‘boundary object’?

In transdisciplinary research, employing a ‘boundary object’ is a widely used method to facilitate communication and understanding among stakeholder groups with different epistemologies. Boundary objects are abstract tools adaptable to different perspectives and across knowledge domains to serve as a means of symbolic communication.

Boundary objects help people to think outside the box and communicate in different ways. Such objects can take multiple forms from conceptual models, artwork and graphical tools.

The multifaceted nature of boundary objects

Numerous boundary objects are described in the scientific literature and their usefulness depends on the objective of the research. Let us take four examples:

  1. Ecosystem services are useful for framing conservation policies in terms of mutual interests between countries and diversity of stakeholders.
  2. Scenario planning can be an appropriate tool to encompass diverse information in a structured way which also accounts for uncertainties.
  3. The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, and Responses) model can help map the complex issues linked to biodiversity and ecosystems, making the effects of anthropogenic activities on them more understandable, and defining concrete and potential policy recommendations to tackle problems.
  4. Visualising geospatial data through maps is an appropriate instrument for transferring understandable information across a wide range of different stakeholder groups.

The multifaceted nature of boundary objects can:

  • enhance the dialogue and understanding between scientists and non-scientists;
  • guide open discussion;
  • enable a broad, shared understanding of a situation; and,
  • cultivate a culture of shared responsibility.

However, the role such objects can play in promoting the application of science in decision-making has not yet been well explored.

Context-specific boundary objects to promote decision making based on scientific evidence

Considering the urgency of integrating scientific knowledge into environmental decisions and actions, I have often wondered if boundary objects can be designed to help researchers and decision makers move from theory to practice. As such decisions are deeply ingrained in management settings, it is reasonable to assume that the socio-political setting is a crucial aspect to consider when designing such objects.

In a recent study, colleagues and I designed a context-specific boundary object as part of a transdisciplinary process for strengthening collaboration between scientists and decision-makers (López-Rodríguez et al., 2015).

The boundary object is a graphical tool (triangle) for diagnosing environmental problems using three dimensions, namely the state-of-the-art of:

  • the scientific knowledge, ie., the scientific evidence available about the specific problem;
  • the regulatory capacity, ie., the current legislative framework relevant to articulating public administration solutions; and,
  • public engagement, which reflects the social relevance of the specific problems to the general public.

Each was assessed using a 0–3 scale, where 0 means that scientific knowledge, regulatory capacity or public engagement is not relevant for solving the environmental problem in the short term; whereas 3 means that high scientific evidence, regulatory capacity and public engagement is available for addressing the problem.

All participants involved in our transdisciplinary process were asked to rate specific environmental problems on each dimension. As illustrated in the figure below, different problems were, collectively, rated differently for each dimension.

boundary-object_lopez-rodriguez
Examples of environmental problems diagnosed using the boundary object (Source: María D. López Rodríguez)

Through this study we confirmed that this boundary object was useful for aligning scientific knowledge with specific management goals and societal demands, and for promoting the implementation of science-based actions through collaborative work between scientists, decision makers and social actors.

To progress the design of boundary objects to achieve instrumental impacts in decision making, new and innovative approaches are required based on:

  • a deeper understanding of the socio-political settings of each case study,
  • the integration and alignment of specific management goals and interventions with both scientific advances and societal needs.

Given the wide variation of socio-political contexts across countries, the design of such boundary objects is a complex challenge. Nevertheless it is necessary to catalyze the use of scientific knowledge in decision-making. Researchers and decision makers need to work together to address this challenge in institutional settings around the world.

Do you have similar experience with boundary objects to share?

To find out more:
López-Rodríguez, M. D., Castro, A. J., Castro, H., Jorreto, S. and Cabello, J. (2015). Science-policy interface for addressing environmental problems in arid Spain. Environmental Science and Policy, 50: 1–14.

Biography: María Dolores López-Rodríguez PhD works at the Andalusian Center for the Assessment and Monitoring of Global Change at the University of Almería in Spain. Her main area of research is focused on designing, improving and operating the interactive process between scientists, decision makers, and social actors in order to advance the environmental governance of social-ecological systems in different cultural, social and institutional frameworks.

 

 

Un nuevo objeto frontera para promover la colaboración de los investigadores con los tomadores de decisiones / A new boundary object to promote researcher engagement with policy makers

An English version of this post is available

¿Pueden diseñarse objetos frontera para ayudar a los investigadores y tomadores de decisiones a interactuar más eficazmente? ¿Cómo puede el contexto sociopolítico –en el que se articula la toma de decisiones- reflejarse en los objetos frontera?

En esta entrada de blog describo un nuevo objeto frontera adaptado a un contexto sociopolítico específico para promover la toma de decisiones basada en evidencia científica. Aunque, primero proveo una breve introducción a los objetos frontera.

¿Qué es un “objeto de frontera”?

En investigación transdisciplinaria, el empleo de un “objeto de frontera” es un método ampliamente utilizado para facilitar la comunicación y entendimiento entre grupos de personas con diferentes epistemologías. Los objetos frontera son herramientas abstractas adaptables a diferentes perspectivas y dominios del conocimiento que sirven como medio de comunicación simbólica.

Los objetos frontera ayudan a la gente a pensar de forma creativa y a comunicarse de diferente manera a la que están acostumbrados. Estos objetos pueden tomar múltiples formas desde modelos conceptuales, a ilustraciones y herramientas gráficas.

La naturaleza multifacética de los objetos frontera

Existen numerosos objetos frontera descritos en la literatura científica y el empleo de uno u otro depende del objetivo que se persiga en de la investigación. Tomemos cuatro ejemplos:

  1. Los servicios de los ecosistemas son útiles para enmarcar y formular políticas de conservación en términos de intereses mutuos entre países y diversidad de partes interesadas.
  2. La planificación de escenarios puede ser una herramienta apropiada para organizar información diversa de una manera estructurada teniendo en cuenta las incertidumbres.
  3. El modelo DPSIR (Impulsores, Presiones, Estado, Impactos y Respuestas) puede ayudar a mapear las complejas cuestiones relacionadas con la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, hacer más comprensibles los efectos de las actividades antrópicas y definir recomendaciones políticas concretas y potenciales para abordar problemas.
  4. La visualización de datos geoespaciales a través de mapas es un instrumento apropiado para transferir información fácilmente entendible a diferentes grupos de interesados.

La naturaleza multifacética de los objetos frontera puede:

  • mejorar el diálogo y la comprensión entre investigadores y personas fuera del ámbito de la investigación,
  • guiar debates abiertos,
  • promover una comprensión amplia y colectiva de una situación, y
  • cultivar una cultura de responsabilidad compartida.

Sin embargo, el papel que estos objetos pueden desempeñar en promover la aplicación de la ciencia en la toma de decisiones todavía no ha sido muy explorado en la literatura científica.

Objetos frontera adaptados a contextos sociopolíticos específicos para promover decisiones basadas en evidencia científica

Teniendo en cuenta la urgencia de integrar el conocimiento científico en las decisiones ambientales y acciones de gestión, a menudo me he preguntado si los objetos frontera pueden diseñarse para ayudar a los investigadores y tomadores de decisiones a pasar a la acción y trabajar conjuntamente. Dado que estas decisiones están profundamente arraigadas en los entornos institucionales de gestión, es razonable suponer que el contexto sociopolítico es un aspecto crucial a considerar al diseñar tales objetos.

En un estudio reciente, diseñamos un objeto frontera adaptado a un contexto socio-político específico para guiar un proceso transdisciplinario dirigido a fortalecer la colaboración entre investigadores y tomadores de decisiones (López-Rodríguez et al., 2015).

El objeto de frontera es una herramienta gráfica (triángulo) para diagnosticar problemas ambientales usando tres dimensiones, concretamente, el estado del arte de:

  • el conocimiento científico, es decir, la evidencia científica disponible sobre el problema específico;
  • la capacidad de regulación, es decir, el marco legislativo actual pertinente para articular las soluciones por parte de la administración pública;
  • el compromiso social, que refleja la relevancia social de los problemas específicos para la sociedad en general.

Cada una de estas dimensiones fue evaluada utilizando una escala 0-3, donde 0 indica que el conocimiento científico, la capacidad de regulación o el compromiso social no es relevante para resolver el problema ambiental a corto plazo; mientras que 3 representa una alta disponibilidad de evidencia científica, capacidad de regulación y compromiso social para abordar el problema.

A todos los participantes involucrados en nuestro proceso transdisciplinario se les pidió que evaluaran problemas ambientales específicos teniendo en cuenta las tres dimensiones del objeto frontera. Como se ilustra en la siguiente figura, los problemas fueron evaluados colectivamente de manera diferente para cada dimensión.

boundary-object_lopez-rodriguez
Ejemplos de problemas ambientales diagnosticados usando el objeto frontera. (Source: María D. López Rodríguez)

A través de este estudio confirmamos que este objeto frontera fue útil para alinear el conocimiento científico con objetivos específicos de gestión y demandas sociales, así como para promover la aplicación de medidas basadas en evidencia científica a través del trabajo colaborativo entre los científicos, tomadores de decisiones y actores sociales.

El avance en el diseño de objetos frontera para lograr impactos instrumentales en la toma de decisiones, requiere la puesta en práctica de enfoques nuevos e innovadores basados en:

  • una comprensión más profunda de los contextos sociopolíticos de cada caso de estudio,
  • la integración y alineación de objetivos e intervenciones de gestión específicos con los avances científicos y las demandas de la sociedad.

Dada la gran variedad de contextos sociopolíticos que existen, el diseño de tales objetos frontera representa un desafío complejo y a su vez necesario para catalizar el uso del conocimiento científico en la toma de decisiones. Los investigadores y los tomadores de decisiones deben trabajar juntos para abordar este desafío en los contextos institucionales de cada país, región o municipio.

¿Tienes experiencia similar con objetos frontera y quieres compartirla con nosotros?

Para obtener más información:
López-Rodríguez, M.D., Castro, A.J., Castro, H., Jorreto, S. and Cabello, J. (2015). Science-policy interface for addressing environmental problems in arid Spain. Environmental Science and Policy, 50: 1–14.

Undertaking bi-cultural research: key reflections from a Pākehā (non-Māori) New Zealander

Community Member Concepts , , , , , ,

Community member post by Maria Hepi

maria-hepi
Maria Hepi (biography)

What does it mean to be a bi-cultural researcher? The following eight key reflections are based on working bi-culturally in New Zealand.

I am a Pākehā (non-Māori) New Zealander and started learning Māori language and culture at university in 1995. Previously I had little to no contact with te reo Māori (the Māori language) or te ao Māori (the Māori world and culture). During my studies I became involved in kapa haka (the university Māori cultural club), and as such was exposed to a whole new world.

When I embarked on my journey into te ao Māori I naively thought I would be only learning about the Māori language and culture, however I also learnt what it meant to be Pākehā. I had been blind to my own culture as I had nothing to reflect it back to me.

The reflections below are based on my master’s research, which involved interviews with 12 Pākehā who had learnt the Māori language extensively and been involved in te ao Māori and their experiences of this, as well as my own experience. The quotations come from my interviews.

1: It can be difficult and frustrating being within another culture, not being able “to be as loud as in your own”.

“I think it is important to remember, whether you are going on to a marae [meeting grounds] … or whether you are talking to someone [Māori] who’s got strong feelings about something, to remember that it is not your culture, that you are a guest and that you do sometimes just have to take second, third, or fourth best and be prepared for that…you can’t be as loud and as outspoken as you are in your own culture, because it just doesn’t wash, and I have learnt that, the hard way!”

A useful analogy relates to families. It is fine to criticize your own family but we do not appreciate others criticizing our family. Outsiders will criticize from an ill-informed knowledge base, and also your family is not theirs to critique!

2: It is impossible to know another culture as you know your own. Do not presume that you do or can.

“It is just like another camera angle … you just see things or understand them in a different way … . The glimpses I have caught of them have been pretty cool, and I am fully aware that they are glimpses in regards to what other [Māori] people can understand and see, and I think it is important to remember that.”

This can be compared to women and men understanding each other. As a female I will never know what it is like to be a male; I may get glimpses of understanding but no true understanding.

3: Although sometimes difficult, bi-cultural research is also very rewarding. You can gain a deeper understanding of issues from dual perspectives.

“It is almost like you get a binocular vision. You can see that there is another world out there and another way of seeing things, and you get both, and I think that is quite exciting actually.”

I have sometimes asked myself why I continue to do bi-cultural research when it is more difficult than just working within my own culture. However it always comes back to how fortunate I feel to be able to see and understand the world from a different perspective and how that then enriches my own analysis or understanding of the world.

4: In order to work effectively within another culture you have to be comfortable in your own culture

“I think by actually getting into the Māori world I think I have actually become comfortable as a Pākehā, I feel really comfortable as a Pākehā … my world is really a Māori world in many ways, but I feel Pākehā. I am a Pākehā New Zealander, and I think that is a really comfortable place to be.”

“And to realise more and more that I am not Māori, and they don’t want me to be, or to pretend to be Māori. They don’t need me to help them, but I think it is certainly important that I respect who they are and … I think it is respecting my own inheritance.”

To me this is key to being able to work effectively. You have to value your own culture as much as you value the other culture. There will always be things that are better and worse (in different people’s minds) in each culture. One is not better than the other, they are just different.

5: Something done differently in another culture is not wrong, it is merely different; there will be valid underlying reasons.

“And so, when I am confronted with the fact there is a completely rational reason for the opposing view, I am thinking, ‘Wow, we can’t both [be right], but you can!’ It is just understanding that the views are different, but right. Yeah that would be my greatest gift really.”

Often people want the same things, we all want to be safe and healthy and happy. However how we achieve those things and how we view what it means to be safe, healthy and happy may be different and we may also have different mechanisms to achieve that. For instance, as a Pākehā, I view health as a mainly physical dimension eg., as absence of disease. However for Māori, health may not only include the physical side but also the spiritual side of their being and their connection to the land, their iwi (tribe) and their tūpuna (ancestors).

6: Do not aspire to be the ‘knight in shining armour’; rather be a resource and support for the other culture’s own aspirations.

“Yeah certainly there have been people that have questioned my involvement and I think that’s good, I think it’s healthy, I think I need to be questioned on a regular basis. If there’s no real reason why I should be the person doing this, I should stop. So that’s one of the criteria that I apply, ‘Are there any other people that could do the job?’ and if there are, then why the hell am I doing it?”

Māori do not need rescuing. The best way for Māori to achieve what they would like to achieve is for Māori to do it themselves in the way they wish to. Therefore your role as a non-Maori is to just be there as a resource to be pulled upon and to support Māori aspirations. I do this by working with mainstream organisations to get them to expand their understanding past their own cultural viewpoint to include an understanding of how Māori may address an issue.

7: Learning about another culture does not happen through a book; it needs hands-on experience.

You cannot learn about a culture through a book, it is the lived experience that gives you the understanding of that culture.

8: When working on issues from/of another culture, it is important to work with people from that culture.

I applied the Tuākana-Tēina model that is part of Māori culture to undertaking work with our Māori community co-researchers. The Tuākana-Tēina model is about acknowledging different people being the experts at different times, with one learning from the other, the roles can be reversed at any time depending on the context. Tuākana means older/senior and tēina younger/junior. For example when we as Pākehā go on to the marae or are undertaking analysis with data from Māori participants we are the tēina (junior) and our Māori community co-researchers are the tuākana (senior). Whereas when we come to writing research proposals we are the tuākana and they are the tēina (because we are trained in writing proposals).

Do these reflections resonate with you? Do you have other lessons or experiences to share?

To find out more:
Hepi, M., Foote, J., Marino, M., Rogers, M. and Taimona, H. (2007). ‘Koe wai hoki koe?!’, or ‘who are you?!’: Issues of trust in cross-cultural collaborative research. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 2: 37-53.

Jellie, M. (2001). The Formation of Pākehā Identity in Relation to Te Reo Māori and Te Ao Māori. Master of Arts in Māori, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Biography: Maria Hepi is a social scientist for the Social Systems Team at the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Christchurch, New Zealand. She specialises in bi-cultural research and applies social science methods to expand the understanding of representatives from mainstream organizations past their own worldview to include an understanding of how Māori may address the same issue. She undertakes research with communities, hapū (subtribes), industry, local and central government, and other agencies to address challenging or intractable problems that involve high levels of complexity and uncertainty. Current research projects include supporting iwi evidence-based social investment and co-framing for health gain.

Sharing mental models is critical for interdisciplinary collaboration

Community Member Concepts , , , , , , ,

Community member post by Jen Badham and Gabriele Bammer

badham
Jen Badham (biography)

What is a mental model? How do mental models influence interdisciplinary collaboration? What processes can help tease out differences in mental models?

Mental models

Let’s start with mental models. What does the word ‘chair’ mean to you? Do you have an image of a chair, perhaps a wooden chair with four legs and a back, an office chair with wheels, or possibly a comfortable lounge chair from which you watch television? Continue reading →

Co-producing research: Why we need to say what we mean, mean what we say, and learn as we go

Community Member Concepts , , , , , , , ,

Community member post by Bev J. Holmes

Bev J. Holmes (biography)

The co-production or co-creation of research is not new – action based research traditions can lay claim to a long history, but are those of us involved in co-production doing enough to understand what it means?

In their work on public involvement, Antoine Boivin and colleagues (2014) note there is such widespread support for the rhetoric of co-production that we may dismiss (I would add not even acknowledge) the tensions that arise when professionals and lay people work together. Co-production in health research is similar. We need to work harder to say what we mean, mean what we say, and learn as we go. Continue reading →

Three schools of transformation thinking

Community Member Concepts , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Community member post by Uwe Schneidewind and Karoline Augenstein

uwe-schneidewind
Uwe Schneidewind (biography)

‘Transformation’ has become a buzzword in debates about sustainable development. But while the term has become very popular, it is often unclear what is meant exactly by ‘transformation’.

The fuzziness of the concept can be seen as a strength, giving it metaphoric power and facilitating inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation. However, this fuzziness means there is also a danger of the transformation debate being co-opted by powerful actors and used strategically to impede societal change towards more sustainable pathways.

karoline-augenstein
Karoline Augenstein (biography)

Thus, issues of power are at stake here and we argue that a better understanding of the underlying assumptions and theories of change shaping the transformation debate is needed. We delineate three schools of transformation thinking and their assumptions about what drives societal change, and summarize them in the first table below. We then examine the relationship of these three schools of thinking to power, summarized in the second table. Continue reading →

Creating community around the Science of Team Science

Community Member Institutionalisation , , , ,

Community member post by Stephen M. Fiore

Stephen M. Fiore (biography)

How can we create new academic communities? I provide lessons from building the Science of Team Science (SciTS), a rapidly growing cross-disciplinary field of study. SciTS works to build an evidence-base and to develop translational applications to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of team-based research.

I particularly draw lessons from the recent 8th annual conference attended by approximately 200 people. The conference aimed to:

  • disseminate the current state of knowledge in the SciTS field along with applications for enhancing team science;
  • provide opportunities to discuss future directions for advancing SciTS to improve the global scientific enterprise; and,
  • provide opportunities for interaction amongst a diverse group of stakeholders, including thought leaders in the SciTS field, scientists engaged in team-based research, institutional leaders who promote collaborative research, policymakers, and federal agency representatives.

Continue reading →