The process of knowledge discovery

The other valuable aspect of who engages in a particular activity relates to the knowledge they bring to the process, given that knowledge inputs can be verbal as well as written. In the normative rationale for decision-maker engagement in Chapter 2, I proposed that dialogue and deliberation on a range of relevant knowledge and experience, including science, as part

83

of public decision making is worthwhile. In terms of scientific knowledge, having a documented, transparent process by which sources are selected allows the evaluation of the comprehensiveness of the scientific knowledge engaged with, and possible biases (Fischer et al., 2014). Indeed Jasanoff (2003) argues that experts advising public institutions need to be held to the same standards of transparency and scrutiny as those in government. An assessment of the available knowledge, expertise and approaches to climate change adaptation was beyond the scope of AdaptNRM. Few even within the AdaptNRM project team knew how scientific expertise was chosen. One biophysical scientist in the project team noted the number of experts in the relevant area of climate modeling is quite small. However, comments from some interviewees about alternative, unused approaches would indicate gaps in the science accessed, although the significance of these is difficult to determine.

Despite the lack of transparency in process of science selection, interviewees did not question the legitimacy of the engagement process on this basis. Arguably, given their stated lack of time, they did not have the capacity to make this assessment and trusted the scientists and project team to provide best available knowledge. Also, decision-makers who questioned the legitimacy of the project may have disengaged and not participated in this research. So is lack of comprehensive science input an issue? Practically, it is unlikely a given engagement exercise can encompass all the relevant science in a complex and far-reaching field like climate science. However, selection of only some available knowledge creates several potential problems. Firstly, if the process by which knowledge is selected is not transparent, decision-makers or their stakeholders may question the legitimacy of the subsequent decisions. Secondly, the quality of decisions may be compromised if the “best” knowledge is ignored—it may even raise the question of whether misleading conclusions were reached because of biases in information input. More theoretically, are such exercises “engagement” or public relations (‘selling’ a particular set of research)? For these reasons it is my view that while it is likely impractical and unnecessary in many situations to access all relevant science for engagement, selection of science should be negotiated with participants and the process documented in a transparent manner. For example, describing how experts were selected as part of the methods section in the synthesis documents produced in the AdaptNRM modules.

Little information is currently collated regarding decision-maker engagement with science through these science push types of initiative either across Australia or internationally. Therefore, it is difficult to know how typical the AdaptNRM approach of accessing in-house science is. AdaptNRM may not be unusual at least in the natural resource management realm

84

if we look at how science push types of engagement are funded in Australia. For example, the funding for the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program (NESP) stipulates consortia conduct a range of knowledge brokering and engagement activities including e.g. “promoting the hub’s research outputs and the NESP to end-users and the community” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014, p. 8). In terms of policy-pull, a review of expert involvement in policy development also showed a lack of transparency with only 81 out of the 159 studies documenting how they selected experts with 27 using existing networks or project partners (Fischer et al., 2014). Early work in Australia on knowledge seeking strategies of natural resources professionals highlighted that they tend to seek knowledge from easily accessible and trusted sources (Cullen et al., 2001). These findings suggest that while processes of engagement including dialogue and deliberation may be moving beyond a deficit approach in some cases, promotion of science push from research funders and reliance on trusted sources means there are likely biases in the knowledge decision-makers access. Current evaluation approaches are unlikely to address this question of knowledge bias because the success of engagement is framed as adoption of funded research.

Accessing sources of knowledge other than science was arguably beyond the stated scope of the AdaptNRM project with its focus on science delivery. However, the participants brought their own knowledge to the process whether it was the project team’s expertise in engagement processes or the decision-makers’ expertise in the application of science in NRM and working with landholders. The value of engaging with different knowledges and knowledge systems underpins transdisciplinary science (Polk, 2014) and indeed multiple knowledges may be commonly accessed in public decision-making even if this is not explicit or acknowledged (Head, 2013). Participants in AdaptNRM saw the elicitation of decision- maker knowledge about the application of science as a valuable outcome of the engagement process and this reflects positively on the flexibility and consultative processes the project team adopted. One value that sources of knowledge other than science may have and that was demonstrated in AdaptNRM was that they can help tease out the implications of science for decision-makers in their given context (Nowotny, 2007). If we acknowledge that different sources of knowledge are informing decision-making it follows that the comprehensiveness or adequacy of all sources, not just the science should be considered, albeit likely using different validation methods (Tengö et al., 2014). For example, local knowledge may be justifiable according to claims of connection to a particular place (Van Kerkhoff & Lebel,

85

2006). As a minimum, it is my contention that science push projects should consider who has practical expertise as well as who has scientific expertise or ideally broaden their scope to consider what knowledge other than science may be relevant to the issue at hand.

Implications for draft framework (Table 9)

A new evaluation criterion should be added for the value “Quality of knowledge engaged with”: 4. “Process for selection of knowledge sources”. This recognises the importance of the process of knowledge selection (which may equate to participant selection/invitation) to engagement quality and legitimacy.

When considering the “quality of knowledge engaged with” in processes like AdaptNRM, the knowledge of decision-makers (and likely others with other relevant knowledge such as farmers or Indigenous people) should be considered, in addition to the current focus on scientific knowledge. For decision-makers, their knowledge of the decision context seems particularly important.