Shaping the DSS: Contributing factors

Even though no physical construction of the DSS had taken place by the time my observations of and involvement with the IWRAM project ceased, several factors had already introduced biases in terms of the likely form and content of the DSS. Firstly, integrating different professional and strategic interests together into a project of mutual interest shaped the initial focus of the project and therefore of the DSS. For example, there was a widespread expectation from the outset that IHACRES, a model which the

Australian project leader had developed and worked extensively with during his

professional career, would be likely to be incorporated within the modelling system of the DSS. Similarly, there was an expectation from the outset that, given the Australian sociocultural leader’s research interests, efforts would be made to promote a participatory approach.

As the project progressed, emergent interests and commitments, such as institution­ building, motivated either reconstruction or reinforcement of conceptual and

methodological dimensions of the project and the DSS. In particular, the participation of new team members introduced a new suite of research interests, including favoured techniques, models and theory. For example, the familiarity of the appointed Australian economic component leader with the Extend simulation system influenced the use of that system among the Australian team in further conceptual development of the DSS. In parallel, the Thai DSS leader proceeded with the use of a simulation system based on the Fortran computing language, which he had used previously, arguing that as he would be the one who would eventually have to maintain the DSS, he wanted the DSS to incorporate a simulation system which he would be more able to apply, maintain and communicate.

Secondly, the IWRAM experience has demonstrated that within the present Australian political era, which is placing increasing pressures on academia to attract external funding, the influence of funding bodies on research practice should not be underestimated. Within the IWRAM project, the funding discourse, transmitted via guidelines, objectives,

recommendations and accounting procedures demanded that prior to the official

commencement of the project, decisions had to be made as to the scope, objectives, and methods of the project, who would be involved, what types of hardware, software and data was likely to be incorporated, and how the budget would be allocated. These decisions placed further bounds on what could be researched and how that research could be conducted, and thereby on the nature of the DSS. The need to specify objectives, methodology and so on before the funding application would be approved also placed significant constraints on the extent to which potential stakeholder users could participate in the initial conceptual development of the DSS, see Figure 7.3. Researchers must frame a proposed project in detail before they receive funds, and during this period, they must rely on a self-funded participation programme if they wish to engage in collaborative design. Thus, as Carr and Wilkinson (1997:742) observe, “It is very difficult in current funding cycles to have collaborative design in research because of time-lags, expense of

consultation with local groups, and it is horrendously complex given the rigidities in funding cycles”. In this manner, funding processes act to reinforce development biases in terms of who is empowered to participate in initial formulation of a DSS development project, and thus whose perspectives are incorporated in the conceptual framing of the DSS. Consequently, as with previous highland development projects, highland villagers did not participate substantially in the original formulation of the IWRAM project which reflected bureaucratic and academic perspectives of the decision-making environment. Once the project officially commenced, the funding procedures continued to influence the conduct of research via the prospect of performance reviews and staggered funding which

exerted pressure on the researchers to achieve “quick runs on the board”. Research activities likely to achieve rapid outcomes were thus accorded prominence. Matters perceived to be outside or peripheral to the core funded proposal, such as issues of practice pertinent to a longer timeframe, were at best relegated to secondary priority. Supporting this analysis, some participants intimated that while reflection on potential biases and other use-related issues was an interesting exercise, it ran counter to “getting on with the task”. Given the influence of the funding process, whoever takes primary ownership of

preparation of the funding application for the project plays a critical role in shaping the DSS, even though this may not be obvious at the time. During preparation of the

Australian teams’ funding proposal, many people were eager to be involved by name, but few were enthusiastic about expending substantial amounts of time contributing to the proposal. The result was that decisions were clustered around those individuals who were willing to take the most active ownership, and that the project agenda, focus and

methodology was inevitably shaped by their interests. In terms of primary ownership, the CRES hydrologist, who tended towards a DSS-for-research stance, assumed (and perhaps was partially thrust into) this role through apathy, absence and conflicting professional commitments of other personnel, as well as his own interests.

The IWRAM case study illustrated that features of the decision-making environment of the Northern highlands of Thailand may also necessitate research decisions which serve to shape the DSS. For example, the Thai sociocultural team decided to exclude from their study one of the ethnic groups, the Lisu, in one of the focal catchments, because the Lisu

village was thought to be involved in heroin refinement and trafficking. As well as the village presenting a dangerous situation for field research assistants to work in, there were doubts over the likely validity of interview data, which, if incorporated in the DSS, would have led to distortions in knowledge. Thus, the village was excluded from the study. As different ethnic groups tend to be associated with different patterns of land use, the

exclusion of key groups amounts to an instance of bias in terms o f ‘absence of knowledge’ which may have implications for the representativeness and future extrapolation of the DSS. It should be noted that biases due to catchment selection criteria were compounded when limited financial and personnel resources lead the Thai team to select focal

catchments that were the most well-documented but had the least ethnic diversity.

j i potential participants in development i f ◄ ... ► funding submission process initial conceptual design o f project conception o f DSS development project start o f funded project end o f funded project

Figure 7-3 Potential participation in DSS development

Within the Australian biophysical team, who were undertaking precipitation-runoff modelling, the (un)availability of data introduced a potential bias in terms of absences in knowledge. Fragmentation and rivalry between government departments and other data collection agencies had led to a tradition of non-sharing of information. The biophysical team encountered great difficulties in acquiring access to data, and in some cases, were denied access, leading to absences in knowledge. The quality of data also provided a key source of potential bias due to absences and distortions in knowledge. Initial examination of the data suggested possible data errors. For example, during the dry season, when it would tend not to rain for many days, it was expected that streamflow data would illustrate a gradual incremental decline. However, the data showed that the same level was recorded each day for a week, then would suddenly step down to a lower level which was recorded each day for the following week, and so on. It was thought that the villager or public servant hired to check the stream flow gauge probably visited the site once a week, and

then would write down that level for the whole week46. The potential for other distortions in streamflow data was revealed in the catchment of Wat Chan, where streamflow readings did not register for the first few rainfall events of the wet season. At first, it was

hypothesised that the dry streambed was soaking up the initial rain, leading to zero streamflow. However, a site visit to Wat Chan revealed that the streamflow gauge was removed during the dry season to prevent it being stolen or vandalised and was not replaced until after a couple of downpours had signalled the commencement of the rainy season. Doubts also arose regarding the accuracy of precipitation data as it was unclear what instruments were used to measure the rainfall, whether the data was recorded every day, or whether the data was recorded at the same time each day. The latter factor was significant because if the rain gauge was read at different times during the day, then rainfall events could be artificially large or small depending on whether the gauge was read later or sooner. In fitting the data, the precipitation-runoff model IHACRES tries to ensure that the largest rainfall events are modelled correctly. Thus, if apparent large events are actually over-estimated, uncertainty may be compounded. Although the modellers have developed rigorous techniques and conventions to deal with dubious data, such as presuming the first streamflow reading from each step of the streamflow data is correct and altering the intermediary readings to fit a linear curve, the potential for distortions and absences in knowledge remain.

Several factors during the course of the project have resulted in the Australian team assuming increasing control over the research process, thereby increasing their relative influence in shaping the DSS. Firstly, the economic recession which Thailand began to experience in 1997 compounded the resource difficulties facing the Thai team, who had been unsuccessful in attracting funding. As a result, some of the Thai academic

collaborators withdrew from the project, and were replaced by public servants. In response to the diminished capacity of the Thai team, the Australian researchers assumed greater responsibility for research tasks where practicable. In some cases, the reduced capacity led to research tasks being simplified. For example, in the sociocultural component, the withdrawal of the entire original Thai sociocultural team, amounting to the loss of field research capacity for participatory research, lead to many participatory aspects of the project being simplified dramatically.

Differences between the way in which the Thais and Australians approach collaborative research also seem to have contributed to the Australian team taking increasing ownership of the research process. The Australian collaborators work more rapidly according to a Western model of efficiency; Thais work to an alternate model which to the Australians appeared slower and more protracted. In part, the interaction necessary for efficient project management amongst the Thai team was impeded because the collaborators were scattered amongst several government offices and university campuses in Bangkok and Chiang Mai, in contrast with the Australian team who were co-located in the same building.

Furthermore, while the Australian team was funded to hire several additional researchers dedicated entirely to the IWRAM project, the funding problems encountered by the Thai team necessitated a reliance on existing team members, many of whom were unable to accord sole or even first priority to the IWRAM project because of their other professional

46 The occurrence o f stepped streamflow data is a common data problem encountered during hydrologic modelling in both developing and developed countries. In addition to human data recorders occasionally missing a daily reading, particularly on public holidays, digital recorders also sometimes display steps, suggesting a possible instrumentation bias.

commitments. As the Thais tended to concentrate on practice and the Australians on product, the preceding events have contributed to the DSS-as-research perspective gaining primacy in the development of the DSS.

Different researchers’ personal modes of communication and interaction was another important factor in terms of different researchers’ relative influence in shaping DSS

development. Observations of Australian team meetings suggest that a vocal, assertive and factual style tends to override a quieter or a more conciliatory approach. Supporting this analysis, one Australian researcher, a DSS-for-use advocate, remarked that she felt her influence being eroded because she favoured a less aggressive style than others. Within both Thai and Australian teams, males tended to be more dominant than females, however, given the small number of researchers involved, there was insufficient evidence to

conclude that gender rather than personalities was involved. Within joint Thai-Australian meetings, the Australians tended to play a greater role than the Thais in discussions, thereby reinforcing the predominance of the Australian framing of decision support in development of the IWRAM DSS. The tendency for the Thais’ to make fewer substantive comments during group dialogues than the Australians may possibly be due to the

meetings being conducted in English, or to the cultural style of meeting procedures. The latter interpretation is supported by comments made by some of the Thai collaborators and my observations of joint team meetings (see Section 6.6). Some Thai studies literature suggests that differences in Thai and Western ideals of interaction, implicated in differences in the ritualistic dimensions of meetings, often introduces tensions in cross- cultural collaborative development practice (cf Hinton 1992, Demaine 1986:110).