Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Science-based stakeholder dialogues are structured communication processes linking scientists with societal actors, such as representatives of companies, NGOs, governments, and the wider public. Stakeholders possess knowledge needed by scientists to better comprehend, represent and analyse global change problems as well as decision-makers’, managers’ and other stakeholders’ mental models. We will examine the relevance of three theoretical frameworks for science-based stakeholder dialogues in the context of sustainability science. These are Rational Actor Paradigm, Bayesian Learning and Organisational Learning. All three contribute to a better theoretical framework for dialogue practice and the understanding of stakeholders as actors in society and in research in particular. Furthermore, these theories are important for tool development. A combination of analytical and communication tools is recommended to facilitate stakeholder dialogues. The paper refers to examples of dialogue practice gained in the European Climate Forum (ECF).

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)

  • J.H. Christensen et al.

    Climate modelling: severe summertime flooding in Europe

    Nature

    (2003)
  • de la Vega-Leinert, A.C., Schröter, D., Leemans, R., Fritsch, U., Pluimers, J., in preparation. A stakeholder dialogue...
  • D. Dunkerley et al.

    Empowering the public? Citizens juries and the new genetic technologies

    Critical Public Health

    (1998)
  • Economist, 2003. Hot potato revisited, November 6th...
  • European Climate Forum, 2004. What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a Symposium on Key Vulnerable...
  • R.E. Freeman

    Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach

    (1984)
  • G.T. Gardner et al.

    Environmental Problems and Human Behavior

    (1996)
  • R.M. Garrison et al.

    Negotiating congruencies among multiple interpretive frameworks: elite representations of global climate change

  • S. Harrison et al.

    Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models

    Natural Resources Forum

    (2000)
  • K. Hasselmann et al.

    The challenge of long-term climate change

    Science

    (2003)
  • E. Hellström

    Conflict cultures—qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry

    Silva Fennica Monographs

    (2001)
  • M. Hemmati

    Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability—Beyond Deadlock and Conflict

    (2002)
  • J.E. Innes et al.

    Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogues

  • C.C. Jaeger

    Risk management and integrated assessment

    Environmental Modeling and Assessment

    (1998)
  • Jaeger, C.C., 2003. A note on domains of discourse. Logical know-how or integrated environmental modelling. PIK Report...
  • C.C. Jaeger et al.

    Decision analysis and rational action

  • C.C. Jaeger et al.

    Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action

    (2001)
  • G. Jesper

    Corporate legitimacy in risk society: the case of the Brent Spar

    Business Strategy and the Environment

    (1998)
  • Just, D.R., 2001. Electronic Source:...
  • A. Kahane

    Civic scenarios as a tool for societal change

    Strategy and Leadership

    (2002)
  • Cited by (172)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text