Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools
Introduction
Today's economic, social and environmental problems are increasingly complex and global in nature. Climate change, loss of biodiversity and poverty in the South, illustrate problems where causes and effects are often distant in time and space. This complexity challenges the capacity of humankind to learn from past experiences and, maybe most importantly, to create a shared vision of a desired world. Sustainability science seeks to understand the dynamics of global change, i.e., the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society. It also seeks to explore ways to collectively create a sustainable world (Kates et al., 2001; Senge, 2003).
Science has an important role to play in a sustainability transition. Meeting the needs of the future world population (with emphasis on reducing hunger and poverty), while maintaining the planet's life-support systems is at the core of such a transition. Science can identify critical drivers of global change and plausible risks, such as the shutdown of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (e.g. Rahmstorf and Zickfeld, 2005). Furthermore, science can analyse and model impacts and vulnerabilities, such as extreme weather events (e.g. Christensen and Christensen, 2003). Although uncertainties of various kinds remain, we already know a substantial amount about the dynamics between nature and society. In terms of solutions to global change problems, however, much remains to be done. We simply do not know how world-wide species extinction could be halted or how to foster a transition of global energy systems. Sustainability science aims at exploring potential solutions to such problems (Kates et al., 2001). When embedded in a transdisciplinary context, sustainability science can play an important role in finding workable solutions for mitigating, and adapting to, global change. However, when detached from the ‘real world’ (e.g. from lifestyles, technological innovations, expectations and mental models of actors), it may remain a purely academic endeavour with little social relevance. Therefore, science needs to have access to the insights and expertise of different societal actors and incorporate their knowledge bases. On the other hand, scientists need to communicate the results of their inquiries in a comprehensible way.
In recent years, research institutions have become increasingly involved in science-based stakeholder dialogues. This has been partly driven by researchers themselves, but also to a great extent by funding agencies and the general public's demand for greater accountability in science. The objectives of scientific dialogues have, however, often remained unclear. Furthermore, the absence of a theoretical framework has hampered the practice of scientific dialogues and the development of appropriate tools, including both communication and analytical tools.
The objectives of this paper are: (a) to describe the specifics of science-based stakeholder dialogues and the differences to other types of dialogues, and (b) to examine the relevance of three theoretical frameworks for science-based stakeholder dialogues. The three theoretical frameworks are the Rational Actor Paradigm, Bayesian Learning, and Organisational Learning. We proceed in this paper as follows: in Section 2, we discuss the motivation for science-based stakeholder dialogues: Why are such dialogues needed from the point of view of the general public, funders and researchers themselves. In Section 3, we compare scientific dialogues with other types of stakeholder dialogues, in particular policy dialogues, multi-stakeholder dialogues and corporate dialogues. Although the methods applied in these different types of dialogues may be similar, there are differences in the objectives of stakeholder involvement. The relevance of theory in general and of the three selected theoretical frameworks in particular for science-based dialogues is discussed in Section 4. In the discussion part (Section 5), we link the theoretical frameworks with each other.
The paper is largely based on practical experience gained in the process of establishing the European Climate Forum (ECF). ECF1 is a non-profit organisation committed to facilitating dialogue between scientists in the field of climate change, energy and integrated assessment on the one hand and various stakeholders including corporations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), policy makers and citizens. Thus the paper is, besides a theoretical inquiry, also a result of action research, in which observations have nurtured conceptual thinking and vice versa2 (Reason, 2002).
Section snippets
The need for science-based stakeholder dialogues
The practice of science-based stakeholder dialogues can be seen as an effort to link different domains of discourse. Domains of discourse are contexts needed for reasonably coherent exchange of arguments (Jaeger, 2003). The ones used by scientific communities and by society at large are, and should be, diverse and pluralistic. Too often, however, the domains of discourse are also disconnected from each other. Although the ‘scientific method’ is often seen as a guarantee for the quality of
Comparison with other types of dialogues
A stakeholder is usually defined as a person or a group who has a stake or special interest in an issue, policy, company, etc. A distinction can be made between individuals and groups who affect (determine) a decision or action and those who are affected by it (Freeman, 1984; Harrison and Qureshi, 2000). The concept originates from management literature where a distinction is made between shareholders, i.e. those who own the company, and stakeholders, i.e. individuals or groups, which are
Why do we need theory?
Science-based stakeholder dialogues have been driven by the practical need to link scientific inquiry with different knowledge bases and to take into account value and risk judgements of individuals and groups. The theoretical framework for such exercises has however remained rudimentary. Although theoretical overloading should be avoided, a solid theoretical foundation can be helpful for the art and practice of dialogues.
A key requirement for a practical theory relevant for stakeholder
Discussion
Global change and climate change are becoming issues of great public interest. In particular at the interface between science, policy and society new ways of inquiry and dialogue have to be developed. Traditionally, science has had great authority in defining what is a socially relevant problem and what approaches are appropriate in investigating them. Also in global change research and climate research political institutions for support and legitimacy play a significant role (Miller, 2004).
Conclusions
In science dialogues relevant stakeholders usually include, for example business and sectoral representatives, policy makers at different scales, as well as citizens. Each of these groups possesses distinctive knowledge, which can range from records on past flood and storm damages owned by insurance companies and sector management expertise to the everyday life experience of lay-persons. Their role in the dialogue ranges from witnessing the scientific process and commenting research results to
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the productive dialogues that have been conducted within the European Climate Forum (ECF). We would like to acknowledge the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research for enabling this research on stakeholder dialogues. Anne de la Vega-Leinert benefited from financial and otherwise support within the ATEAM Project (Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystems Analysis and Modelling) funded within the 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission ‘Energy, Environment and
References (60)
- et al.
Integrated global change scenarios: surveying user needs in Finland
Global Environmental Change
(2002) - et al.
The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments
Global Environmental Change
(2005) - et al.
Taking the uncertainty in climate change vulnerability assessment seriously
Comptes Rendus Geoscience
(2005) - et al.
The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures
Global Environmental Change
(2001) - et al.
The oil industry and climate change: strategies and ethical dilemmas
Climate Policy
(2002) On Dialogue
(1996)- et al.
Characterizing mental models of hazardous process: a methodology and an application to radon
Journal of Social Issues
(1992) The ‘Cognitivist Model’: a generalised ‘Rational-choice Model’
Rationality and Society
(1996)Beliefs, rational choice and Bayesian learning
Rationality and Society
(1999)Planning Improvements in Natural Resources Management. Guidelines for Using Bayesian Networks to Support the Planning and Management of Development Programmes in the Water Sectors and Beyond
(2001)
Climate modelling: severe summertime flooding in Europe
Nature
Empowering the public? Citizens juries and the new genetic technologies
Critical Public Health
Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach
Environmental Problems and Human Behavior
Negotiating congruencies among multiple interpretive frameworks: elite representations of global climate change
Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models
Natural Resources Forum
The challenge of long-term climate change
Science
Conflict cultures—qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry
Silva Fennica Monographs
Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability—Beyond Deadlock and Conflict
Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogues
Risk management and integrated assessment
Environmental Modeling and Assessment
Decision analysis and rational action
Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action
Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of the Brent Spar
Business Strategy and the Environment
Civic scenarios as a tool for societal change
Strategy and Leadership
Cited by (172)
Assessing distributional effects of carbon pricing in Israel
2023, Energy PolicyKnowledge brokers within the multiple streams framework: The science-policy interface for livestock and climate change discussions in Kenya
2023, Environmental Science and PolicyUnpacking the complexity of the UK plastic packaging value chain: A stakeholder perspective
2022, Sustainable Production and ConsumptionDialogic science-policy networks for water security governance in the arid Americas
2021, Environmental Development