Transcript Linking Knowledge to Action

Symposium on
Knowledge Systems for
Sustainable Development:
Mobilizing Research and
Development for Decision-Making
American Association for the Advancement of
Science Annual Meeting
18 February 2007, San Francisco
Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development:
Report of an international study on mobilizing R&D
to support decision making for sustainability
Project leaders:
William C. Clark and Nancy Dickson, Harvard University
Gilberto C. Gallopín, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Louis Lebel, Chiang Mai University
Pamela Matson, Stanford University
Researcher team:
Lee Addams, Columbia University
James Buizer, Arizona State University
David Cash, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Charunee Chirangworapot, Chiang Mai University
Po Garden, Chiang Mai University
Kathy Jacobs, University of Arizona
Amy Luers, Union of Concerned Scientists
David Mánuel-Navarrete, Economic Comm. for Latin America and the Caribbean
Ellen McCullough, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
George Saliba, University of Arizona
Nicole Szlezák, Harvard University
Drinya Totrakool, Chiang Mai University
Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Australian National University
The problem we explored
• Growing recognition that development "is built not merely
through the accumulation of physical capital and human skill,
but on a foundation of information, learning and adaptation”
(World Bank), and that successfully “navigating a transition
toward sustainable development will be an especially
knowledge-intensive activity” (NRC, ICSU)
• In general, however, relevant knowledge remains
underproduced, underutilized and unevenly distributed…
– eg. How to accommodate 3B more people in cities, sustainably
• …while even the knowledge that does exist is seldom
integrated into systems that can support decision, action
– eg. persistent mortality due to indoor air pollution from cook stoves
• But there are exceptions. This study therefore sought to
answer the question “What makes some knowledge systems
more effective than others in harnessing science and
technology to achieve the goals of sustainable development?”
The approach we took
• Attempt to understand the systems involved in
mobilizing R&D to support decisions, action…
– networks of actors, organizations, and objects that
perform a number of knowledge-related functions that
link knowledge and know-how with action.
– included are the incentives, financial resources,
institutions, and human capital that give such systems
capacity to do their work, and the intention to focus
such work in some arenas rather than others.
• Oriented through general review of experience with
knowledge systems in agriculture, health, energy, etc
• Focused through a set of empirical case studies
exploring a range of issues, scales and regions
– developing and applying a common set of questions and
research protocols
– iterating between field work and conceptualization
The Cases we Studied
• Water management:
– Yaqui Valley, Mexico; Ceará, Brazil; Ping River Basin,
Thailand; Upper San Pedro River, Arizona
• Short-term climate forecasts:
– Pacific, Southern Africa
• Fisheries:
– Yaqui Valley and Thailand
• Agriculture:
– Pampas in Argentina, Yaqui Valley, CGIAR
• Health:
– Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
The conclusions we’ve reached:
Today’s presentations
• Linking knowledge with action for sustainability
– William C. Clark, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univ.
• Multiple epistemologies of knowledge for sustainability
– Gilberto C. Gallopín, Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean
• Governing knowledge systems for sustainability
– Louis Lebel, Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang
Mai University
• Research actors in knowledge systems: Perspectives
from the inside
– Pamela Matson, School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University
• Discussants
– James Buizer, Office of the President, Arizona State University
– Kathy Jacobs, Arizona Water Institute, University of Arizona
Project conclusions on
Linking knowledge with action for
sustainability
William C. Clark, Harvard University
• Case studies revealed many different barriers
that inhibited effective mobilization of R&D to
support decision making
• Three, however, stand out:
– Mutual incomprehension between scientists, decision
makers
– Fragmentation of the knowledge system
– Inflexibility in a world of ignorance and surprise
1) Mutual Incomprehension
(square pegs for round holes)
• Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?)
– Scientists and practitioners have different perceptions of
problems, solutions, and reliable knowledge
– Usable knowledge must be perceived by both scientists and
decision makers to be salient, credible, legitimate (SCL)
• Process prescription (What needs to change?)
– Reject pipe-line models of one way knowledge transfer
– Promote co-production of usable knowledge
• Institutional implementation (How to do it?)
– Boundary-spanning institutions that
• co-produce ‘boundary objects’ (maps, models, standards)…
• that are perceived to be salient, credible, legitimate by all
• through processes of dual accountability to scientists & practitioners
A Boundary-spanning Object…
2) Fragmentation
(system less than sum of its parts)
• Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?)
– Sustainability often a public good (weak market tests)
– Principal-agent issues (optimize parts, not whole)
• Process prescription (What needs to change?)
– Systems integration
• identify missing nodes, links;
• construct incentives to complete them
• Institutional implementation (How to do it?)
– Project-oriented management accountable for results
– Adopting supply chain perspective to get all parts
– Implement via task teams outside normal structures
Project oriented management
Large scale
deployment
of decision
support
system
Farmers
benefiting
from
forecasts
Initial field
testing, revision
Diffusion
(large scale)
Adoption
(small scale)
Solution/ Problem
(re)definition
Development
(translation)
Research
Basic research on climate forecasting
Development
of decision
support tools
for farmers
3) Inflexibility
(static systems, dynamic challenges)
• Diagnosis (Why is there a problem?)
– Absence of forums to learn from others’ experience
– Incentives to hide failures, not to learn from them
– Willful ignorance and motives to block learning
• Process prescription (What needs to change?)
– From knowledge systems to learning systems
• Institutional implementation (How to do it?)
– Adaptive management institutions, with capacity for
• experimentation (“safe spaces” for “safe failure”)
• reflection (evaluations and metrics that reward learning)
• response (stable resources, flexible structures and rules)
Summary
• Lessons for Linking Knowledge with Action
– Miscommunication  Boundary-spanning institutions
– Fragmentation project management to integrate
– Inflexibility  Adaptive management fostering social learning
• But …
– This has been the simplest manager’s / technician’s view of
knowledge systems for sustainability
– Our project also grappled with the fact that such knowledge
systems need to entrain different kinds of knowledge, leading us
into questions of epistemology (Gallopin)
– and do so in contexts where the power to determine what
knowledge gets to the table and what is done with it is unequally
distributed, leading to questions of governance (Lebel)
– Finally, we tried to reflect on our own learning as knowledge
institutions in conducting this study (Matson)