3 research outputs found
Challenge of Advocacy for Sustainability Scientists
Get PDFabstract: Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Sustainability 201
Institutional Governance System (IGS) for forest management planning: A theoretical proposal
Full text linkThe structure of this working paper is as follows. In the first part after the introduction, the theory underlying the IGS is discussed (Chapter 2); specifically the conceptual framework for which the IGS of a forest management planning design can be developed. Five concepts are discussed here, namely the rationalist view of forest planning versus the community based view of planning on the one hand, and the "common", the "co-management" and the participatory and conflict management concept on the other. Then, based on the problem resulting from these five theories, the next section addresses the need for a new approach in forest planning. The second part of this working report emphasises the design of the institutional governance system (IGS), built primarily on the basis of the 'institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework' developed by Ostrom and colleagues.31 This approach facilitates the analysis of the actors' interactions and incentives in a given forest planning process (chapter 3). The IGS also incorporates interactive and active participatory forest planning and conflict management (democratic resolution of a problem) based on the establishment of a working group called the Combined Planning System Working Group (CPSWG), and also communication/consultation, negotiation and consensus building (Chapter 4). The third part of this report highlights the conclusions of the study (Chapter 5)
