Handling Scientific and Technical Information in ... · PDF fileScientific and Technical...

HandlingScientific and Technical Informationin Contentious Public Issues:

A Public Issues Education Approach

Kay E. HaalandRegional Faculty—Leadership and Community DevelopmentWashington State University ExtensionMount Vernon, Washington

L. Steven SmutkoExtension SpecialistDepartment of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, North Carolina

Background material, Discussion points, Handouts, Visuals

Community Development Publication CD-46A, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., September 2004

Instructor’s Guide

2 Handling Scientific and Technical Information in Contentious Public Issues, Instructor’s Guide

Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

The Workshop Curriculum ................................................................................................... 4

Sample Agenda .................................................................................................................... 6

Participant Introductions and Workshop Objectives ............................................................ 8

Introduction to the Workshop Curriculum: Setting the Stage .............................................. 9

Module 1. Public Issues Education Roles for Extension Educators ...................................... 11

Module 2. Sources of Conflict ............................................................................................ 12

Module 3. Rockslides on the Road to Agreement: Key Concepts and Principles ................ 13

Module 4. Tools and Techniques ....................................................................................... 21

The Learner’s Resources booklet (CD-46B) that accompanies this guide includes the handoutsand case scenarios for this curriculum. A compact disk (CD-46C) contains all of the visuals,including the video clips and PowerPoint slides, as well as PDF files of the Instructor’s Guideand the learning resources.

Handling Scientific and Technical Information in Contentious Public Issues, Instructor’s Guide 3

Introduction

Cooperative Extension educators share a common

mission that reaches across many different disciplines:

to enable people to improve their lives and

communities through learning partnerships and

putting knowledge to work.

rom its beginnings, Extension has provided

educational programs about public issues.

Traditionally, Extension interaction in public

issues involved Extension faculty disseminating

information through the network of county agents

to help people learn, in an objective and neutral

way, about their policy options.

Over the years, Extension public issues educators

have continued to uphold the ideals of neutrality

and objectivity. At the same time, they have

increased the scope of their work considerably.

Public issues educators now teach about natural

resource and environmental issues, community

investment, welfare reform, the school-to-work

transition, food safety, and child care. Educators

are discovering that effective education on these

matters requires working directly with a multitude

of citizens to help them identify and resolve public

issues through facilitated dialogue and information

exchange.

This new mode of public issues education creates

opportunities for Extension educators to address

issues that are ill-suited to traditional information

dissemination methods. Many of these issues,

however, are complex and potentially divisive.

Scientific and technical information – the currency

of the Extension educator – is at the heart of these

issues.

Advocates and policymakers look to science and

technical experts to help improve their decisions.

But, in many cases, the science itself is at the

center of the controversy, and Extension educators

can find themselves in an uncomfortable position.

They must decide how to provide and interpret

scientific and technical information in contentious

situations. Information provided through university

research may be considered one-sided or irrelevant.

Moreover, information is often disseminated by

warring experts, people may mistrust the source of

the data, or equal access to data may become the

focus of the debate.

Some of the confusion and complexity that

surround public issues can be directly attributed to

the way information is organized, interpreted,

communicated, and judged to be useful.

Government agencies, community groups,

advocates, and academics approach data gathering

and interpretation in different ways, with different

needs in mind. Members of these groups will

implicitly value or devalue scientific information

according to their training, life experiences, and

the rules of their professional cultures. If Extension

educators are not mindful of how to work in

situations where information is a focus of the

debate, their efforts can be compromised.

F


The Workshop Curriculum

This workshop curriculum, Handling Scientificand Technical Information in Contentious PublicIssues, is designed to improve the skills ofExtension educators who work on contentiouspublic issues. It focuses on one very importantcomponent of public issues education – thosesituations where information is likely to bedebated and discussed apart from thesubstantive issues. It is based on materialdeveloped by a consortium of organizationsinvolved in resolving environmental disputes.RESOLVE, Inc., the U.S. Institute forEnvironmental Conflict Resolution, and theWestern Justice Center Foundation sponsoredthe development of a report entitledManaging Scientific and Technical Information inEnvironmental Cases: Principles and Practices forMediators and Facilitators. A copy of this reportcan be obtained from the following Web site:http://www.resolv.org/tools_pubs.html.

This workshop curriculum is designed tofollow other training courses in public issueseducation methods, such as educationalprogram design, public issues assessment,group facilitation, conflict resolution, andcollaborative decision-making. Workshopparticipants should have some previoustraining in these topics.

Curriculum Objectives

This workshop curriculum is designed to trainExtension educators in one particular aspect ofpublic issues education: handling scientific andtechnical information. Workshop participantswill learn how to:

Identify the various roles of Extensioneducators in resolving public issues wherescientific and technical information are keycomponents.

Recognize the differences between dataconflicts and other substantive conflicts inpublic issues.

Apply appropriate methods of integratingscience and technological information intocollaborative processes.

Use “best-practice” tools and strategies to:

• Manage conflicting informationsources or contested science(including distrust in the sciencefrom an educator’s own institution).

• Manage scientific and technicaluncertainty (including lack of gooddata).

• Deal with issues that involve powerimbalances resulting from limitedaccess to information, such asenvironmental justice issues.

Curriculum Overview

The workshop curriculum is presented in fourmodules, each building on the other.

Module 1. Public Issues Education Roles forExtension EducatorsAn Extension educator can assume a numberof roles when getting involved in public issueseducation. Each role serves a useful purpose.Some educators take on multiple roles. Forexample, in some situations an educator mayassume the joint roles of convenor andfacilitator or mediator. It’s important foreducators to consider which roles are mostappropriate in a public issue educationsituation given the topic, the educator’s levelof experience in public issues education andgroup process skills, the potential risks ofgetting involved, and the time and financialresources available.

Module 2. Sources of ConflictThe conflicts surrounding public issues oftenemanate from more than one source.

Interest-based conflicts are caused bydifferences in the stakeholders’ substantiveinterests. These differences are typicallyviewed as the primary sources of conflict,the issues people are divided over.

Value-based conflicts are caused by differentways of life, ideologies, philosophies, andcriteria for evaluating ideas or behavior.

Structural conflicts are caused by unequalcontrol, ownership, or distribution ofresources. Power conflicts are structural.


Relationship conflicts are caused bystereotyping, misperception, poorcommunication, or repetitive negativebehavior.

Data conflicts are caused by lack ofinformation, misinformation, distrust in theinformation (and its sources), differentviews on what is important, differentinterpretations of data, and differentassessment procedures. Data are oftensignificant sources of conflict.

Module 3. Rockslides on the Road to Agreement:Key Concepts and PrinciplesAn educator faces a number of challengeswhen dealing with scientific and technicalinformation in a public issue dispute.Educators need to understand thesechallenges and develop appropriate methodsand techniques for addressing them. Thesechallenges are grouped for discussion asfollows:

The Nature of Knowledge

Uncertainty

Research and Information Gathering

Modeling

Stakeholders, Experts, and Other ThirdParties

Information and Conflict

The Educator’s Role

Module 4. Tools and TechniquesThis module defines the recommended “bestpractices” to use during the stages of acollaborative process. Recommended practicesare organized around the following topics:

Considering Substantive Knowledge andthe Educator

Assessing the Issue

Designing the Process

Defining the Problem

Working with Experts and Information

Negotiating and Problem-solving

Making and Implementing Agreements.

Organization of Workshop Materials

Instructor’s GuideThe workshop curriculum is presented indetailed instructor guidelines that containobjectives for each module, thumbnailillustrations of the visual aids, and discussionpoints. These elements provide the depth ofknowledge that workshop instructors need.

Case ScenariosThe curriculum uses three case scenarios togive participants opportunities to workthrough lifelike situations. Each case scenariohighlights the management of a key concept.

Managing Warring or Contested Science –Hog Heaven

Managing Scientific and TechnicalUncertainty – Feet and Inches

Dealing with Information Imbalances –Knowledge Is Power

Sample AgendaThe material contained in this curriculumpackage is designed for a 6-hour workshopsession. A sample agenda is included in thisInstructor’s Guide on page 7.

VisualsThe training package includes a compact disc(CD) containing 49 PowerPoint slides andthree video film clips. The slides are alsoloaded on the CD in printer-friendly AcrobatReader format so that they can be printed onoverhead transparencies for use without thePowerPoint program. The video clips can beshown using a computer and an LCDprojector by using one of various computermedia players. The video clips are used in theworkshop to set the stage for discussing thetopic and to illustrate the concepts presented.

Learner’s ResourcesHandouts pertaining to each module, a copyof the slides, and the case scenarios arecontained in a separate Learner’s Resourcebooklet.


Using and Applying the Materials

This workshop curriculum contains a fullpackage of materials to guide the instructorthrough a step-by-step application of thecurriculum. However, the authors fullyappreciate the fact that there are nearly asmany ways to teach public issues education asthere are ways to apply it in practice. With thisin mind, users of this curriculum areencouraged to use and apply the materials inany way that is consistent with its objective,that is, to enhance the ability of Extensioneducators to work effectively on public issues.Borrow, apply, and adapt these materials toincrease their use and effectiveness in yourown public issues education programs.


Workshop Activities Timing Materials

Handling Scientific and Technical Information in Contentious Public IssuesSample Agenda for a 6-Hour Workshop

Participant Introductions and Workshop ObjectivesIntroduce participants.Present workshop objectives.

Introduction to the Curriculum: Setting the StageShow Video Clip 1: An Extension agent discusses a public issue that occurred inhis county and how people distorted scientific information to their advantage.Follow with a discussion of contentious issues that participants have beeninvolved in where data and information were part of the conflict.

Module 1. Public Issues Education Roles for Extension EducatorsDiscuss specific roles workshop participants have filled when working on publicissues. Briefly discuss roles that are most affected by data and informationissues.

Module 2. Sources of ConflictIllustrate how data conflicts are different from conflicts based on relationship,structure, values, and interests. Identify reasons for data conflicts.

Break

Module 3. Rockslides on the Road to AgreementShow Video Clip 2: Citizens of Cameron County, Texas, discuss a problem fromtheir different viewpoints and form a Coexistence Committee. Before showingthe clip, ask the group to pay attention to what they see and hear about dataand information. Ask participants to report on what they saw and heardregarding data and information in the problem definition stage.

Show Video Clip 3: The Cameron County Coexistence Committee develops asolution to a problem. Ask participants to report on what they saw and heardregarding data and information in the problem solution stage.

Present Modules 3.1 through 3.7, drawing on examples from thevideo clip.

Lunch Break

Module 4. Tools and TechniquesPresent and discuss the overview of tools and techniques. Divide the class intothree groups. Distribute the three case scenarios by assigning a differentscenario to each group. Ask the participants to take turns reading the casesaloud so everyone is familiar with all three cases.

Present Modules 4.1 – 4.3 with a brief discussion.

Present Module 4.4 with emphasis on situation mapping. Use the situationportrayed in the Cameron County video clips. Build a situation map together.Ask each group to develop a situation map using its case scenario and toanswer Question 1 in the case scenario. Each group presents its situation mapand answer to Question 1. Discuss and record major themes and lessons.

Break

Present Module 4.5. Discuss Slide 46 briefly. Ask each group to answerQuestion 2 in the case study. Each group presents its answer to Question 2.Discuss and record major themes and lessons. Demonstrate the FocusedDiscussion Method using Slide 47. Discuss.

Present Modules 4.6 and 4.7. Briefly discuss Slides 48 and 49. Ask each groupto answer Question 3 in the case study. Each group presents its answer toQuestion 3. Discuss and record major themes and lessons.

Wrap-up and Evaluation: Adjourn

10 minutes10 minutes Slides 1 – 3

25 minutes Video Clip 1Slides 4 – 8

30 minutes Slide 9Handout 1

15 minutes Slides 10 – 12Handout 2

15 minutes

20 minutes Video Clip 2,Slide 13Handout 3

20 minutes Video Clip 3

35 minutes Slides 14 – 27

1 hour

30 minutes Case scenarios 1 – 3Slides 28 – 30Handout 4

15 minutes Slides 31 – 36

45 minutes Slides 37 – 45Handout 5

15 minutes

30 minutes Slides 46, 47Handout 6

15 minutes


Introductions and Workshop Objectives

Time required: 20 minutes

Handouts: None

Objectives

1. Allow participants to introduce themselvesand relay their learning expectations forthe day.

2. Outline the workshop objectives.

3. Identify workshop ground rules and otherconventions.

Background and Discussion Points

Participants will learn how to:

Identify the various roles of Extensioneducators in resolving public issueswherein scientific and technicalinformation are key components.

Recognize the difference between dataconflicts and substantive conflicts.

Apply appropriate methods for integratingscientific and technical information intocollaborative processes.

Use tools and techniques to:

• Manage conflicting informationsources or contested science (includingdistrust in the science from aneducator’s own institution).

• Manage scientific and technicaluncertainty (including lack of gooddata).

• Deal with issues that involve powerimbalances, such as environmentaljustice issues.

Visuals

ObjectivesYou will learn to...

� Identify the various roles of Extension educators

in resolving public issues wherein scientific and

technical information are key components.

� Recognize the difference between data conflicts

and substantive conflicts in public issues.

slide 1 slide 2 slide 3

Objectives

You will learn to...

� Apply appropriate methods for integrating scienceand technical information into collaborativeprocesses.

� Use tools and techniques to:

�Manage warring information sources or contestedscience, including distrust in the science from your owninstitution.

�Manage scientific and technical uncertainty, includinglack of good data.

�Deal with issues that involve power imbalances, such asenvironmental justice issues.

HandlingScientific and Technical Informationin Contentious Public Issues:

A Public Issues Education Approach



Handouts: None

Objectives

1. Provide a rationale for the topic.

2. Introduce the subject material.


Show Video Clip 1. Extension educators areoften involved in public issues that arecontentious – that is, people disagree aboutthe problem, the solution, or both. In manycases, the conflict centers on science,information, and technical information.

Display Slide 4. Public issues educators teachabout natural resource and environmentalissues, such as land use, and family andconsumer issues, such as welfare reform, thetransition from school-to-work, food safety,and child care. Educators are discovering thateffective education on these matters requiresworking directly with a multitude of citizens tohelp them identify and resolve public issues

through facilitated dialogue and informationexchange.

Display Slide 5. This new mode of publicissues education creates opportunities forExtension educators to address issues that areill-suited for traditional informationdissemination methods. Many of these issues,however, are complex and potentially divisive.They often involve extensive amounts ofinformation, and some of that information hasa narrow focus. A clear understanding of theproblems and potential solutions requiresconsiderable effort on the part of stakeholders.Scientific and technical information—thecurrency of the Extension educator—is at theheart of these issues.

Display Slide 6. Advocates and policymakerslook to science and technical experts to helpimprove their decisions. But in many cases, thescience itself is at the center of thecontroversy, and Extension educators can find

Introduction to the Curriculum – Setting the Stage

Visuals

slide 7 slide 8 video clip 1


4

Traditional Roles in

Public Issues Education

�Creating materials

�Presenting the policy options

�Providing alternatives and consequences

�Remaining objective and neutral

The scope of your work has

increased.

� You have more opportunities to workdirectly with citizens and agencies toidentify and resolve issues.

�Many issues are complex, contentious, andpotentially divisive.

�Many issues are “data intensive.”

� Science itself can be at the center of thecontroversy.

Information Controversies

� Information is often disseminated by warring

experts.

� People can mistrust the source of the data.

� Equal access to data can become a focus of the

debate.

Are you clear about how to

work in situations where

information is the focus of the

debate?

If you are not, your efforts can

be compromised.

Source of MaterialsManaging Scientific and Technical Information

in Environmental Cases: Principles and

Practices for Mediators and Facilitators.

RESOLVE, Inc.

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Western Justice Center

www.ecr.gov

(30 sec.) An Extension agent describes acontroversial public issue that has dividedhis country. He talks about how peopledistorted scientific information to theiradvantage.

Video Clip 1


themselves in an uncomfortable position:They must decide how to provide andinterpret scientific and technical information incontentious situations. Information providedthrough university research may be consideredone-sided or irrelevant. Moreover, informationis often disseminated by warring experts,people may mistrust the source of the data, orequal access to data can become the focus ofthe debate.

Display Slide 7. Some of the confusion andcomplexity that public issues provoke can bedirectly attributed to the way information isorganized, interpreted, communicated, andjudged to be useful. Government agencies,community groups, advocates, and academicsapproach data gathering and interpretation indifferent ways and with different needs inmind. Members of these groups will implicitlyvalue or devalue scientific informationaccording to their training, life experiences,and the rules of their professional cultures. IfExtension educators are not mindful of how towork in situations where information is a focusof the debate, their efforts can becompromised.

Display Slide 8. The Handling Scientific andTechnical Information in Contentious PublicIssues workshop curriculum is designed toimprove the skills of Extension educators inworking on divisive public issues. It focuses onone very important component of publicissues education – those situations whereinformation is likely to be debated anddiscussed apart from the substantive issues. Itis based on material developed by aconsortium of organizations involved inresolving environmental disputes. RESOLVE,Inc., the U.S. Institute for EnvironmentalConflict Resolution, and the Western JusticeCenter Foundation sponsored thedevelopment of a report entitled, ManagingScientific and Technical Information inEnvironmental Cases: Principles and Practices forMediators and Facilitators (Adler et al.).

Training Tip

Involve participants by asking them to discusscontentious issues that they have been involvedin where data and information were part of theconflict.



Handout

Handout 1, “Public Issues Education Roles forExtension Educators” (p. 24-25, Learner’sResources)

Objectives

1. Participants become aware of the multipleroles of an Extension educator.

2. Participants identify the roles that arerelevant when dealing with scientific andtechnical information in contentious publicissues.

3. Participants consider the roles that aremost appropriate for them, given thesubstantive topic, their level of experience,the potential risks of getting involved, theirgroup process skills, and the time andfinancial resources available.

4. Participants understand how their roleschange when information becomes thefocus of the debate.


Display Slide 9. An extension educator canplay a number of roles when getting involvedin public issues education. Each role serves auseful purpose. The roles highlighted in greenon the graphic are those that emphasize thedata and information aspects of being a publicissues educator. Some educators take onmultiple roles – for example the joint roles ofconvenor and facilitator or mediator. It’simportant for educators to consider whichroles are most appropriate in a public issueseducation situation, given the following: thetopic, the educator’s level of experience inpublic issues education, the educator’s groupprocess skills, the potential risks of gettinginvolved, and the time and financial resourcesavailable.

Module 1. Public Issues Education Roles for Extension Educators

Training Tip

Ask the participants to discuss public issues theyhave dealt with and their roles in the educationprocess: How appropriate was your role, given thesituation? How do you think your role changeswhen information becomes the focus of thedebate?

Visuals

slide 9

Technical Expert

Process DesignerRoles of the Extension Educator

Catalyst

Facilitator

Connector/Bridger

Convenor

Coordinator

Data CollectorDiplomat

Evaluator

Collaborator

Information Provider/Resource Provider/Translator (of research)

Listener

MediatorMentor

Networker

Organizer

Coach/AdvisorProcess Observer

Process Supporter

Program Developer

Public Relations/Media Relations

Sponsor/Host

Trainer/Educator

Transitioner



Handout

Handout 2, “Sources of Conflict” (p. 26,Learner’s Resources)

Objectives

1. Participants understand that public conflictcan have many sources and that thosesources can be identified.

2. Participants learn five sources of conflict.

3. Participants learn the causes of dataconflicts.


Display Slide 10. Ask participants to discusspublic issues conflicts with which they arefamiliar. Ask them to list reasons why peoplewere in conflict. Tease out Moore’s five sourcesof conflict by referring to the handout. Discusswhy data conflicts might be particularly vexingfor Extension educators.

Display Slide 11. The conflicts surroundingpublic issues often emanate from more thanone source. Data are significant sources ofconflict.

Interest-based conflicts are caused bydifferences in the stakeholders’substantive interests. These differencesare typically viewed as the primarysources of conflict, the issues thatpeople are divided over.

Value-based conflicts are caused bydifferent ways of life, ideologies,philosophies, and different criteria forevaluating ideas or behavior.

Structural conflicts are caused byunequal control, ownership, ordistribution of resources. Powerconflicts are structural.

Relationship conflicts are caused bystereotyping, misperception, poorcommunication, or repetitive negativebehavior.

Display Slide 12. Data conflicts are caused bylack of information, misinformation, distrust ofthe information (and its sources), differentviews on what is important, differentinterpretations of data, and differentassessment procedures.

Module 2. Sources of Conflict

Visuals


Relationships

Structure

Values

DataInterests

Negotiable

Hard to Negotiate

Sources of ConflictSources of Conflict

Working with Scientific and Technical

Information in Contentious Public Issues

Data Conflicts

� Lack of information

�Misinformation

� Distrust of the information, the sources, or both

� Different views on what is important

� Different interpretations of data

� Different assessment procedures


Time required: 1 hour and 15 minutes

Module 3 introduction: 20 minutes for each10-minute video clip and its discussionModules 3.1 through 3.7: 5 minutes each,including questions and discussion

Handout

Handout 3, “Rockslides on the Road toAgreement” (p. 27-29, Learner’s Resources)

Objectives

1. Participants become familiar with conceptsand principles that frame how we thinkabout the challenges of handling scientificand technical information in public issueseducation.

2. Participants understand the relationshipbetween key concepts and principles andmethods and techniques for meeting suchchallenges.


Certain principles frame how we think aboutthe challenges of dealing with scientific andtechnical information in public issueseducation. Public issues educators need tounderstand these key concepts and principlesso they can develop ways to meet suchchallenges.

Module 3. Rockslides on the Road to Agreement: Key Concepts and Principles

Training Tip

Before showing Video Clip 2, ask the group topay close attention to what they see and hearabout the use of data and information. After thegroup has viewed the clip, ask participants toreport how data and information were used andpresented in defining the problem. Discuss howdata and information can be used bothnegatively and positively. Data and informationcan magnify the conflict as well as clarify theissues.

Prior to showing Video Clip 3, ask the grouponce again to pay close attention to what theysee and hear about the use of data andinformation. After the group has viewed the clip,ask participants to report on how data andinformation were used in solving the problem.

Initiate a group discussion: Why are thereimportant differences between the use of dataand information in defining and solving a publicissue?

Visuals

slide 13 video clip 2 video clip 3

“Rockslides”Key Concepts and Principles



(10 min.) The setting is Cameron County,Texas. Stakeholders describe whathappened when the US EPA introduced alist of pesticides that it proposed to ban inan effort to protect the Aplomado falcon, anendangered species.

Video Clip 2

(5 min. ) Cameron County stakeholdersdescribe how they resolved the issuesrelated to farming cotton and protectingthe falcon.

Video Clip 3



Handouts: None


Good scientific analysis is neutral. It doesnot seek to support or refute the claims ofany party in a dispute. It is also objective.Any scientist who knows the rules ofobservation of a particular field of studycan, in principle, obtain the same results.But scientists are not necessarily neutraland objective in the ways they frameproblems or choose assumptions.

Display Slide 14. Science rarely providesdefinitive, unequivocal answers. Allinformation is subject to questions of validity,accuracy, authenticity, and reliability. Everytype of knowledge (be it scientific, “local,” orcultural) has standards of quality that can beexamined, debated, or shaped. There isusually room for reasonable people to disagreeon both the methods by which knowledge isgenerated and the evidence used tosubstantiate it. Thus, what is examined, how itis examined, who examines it, and when it isexamined are all negotiable.

Many people think that science isconducted wholly in the realm of testableknowledge. Subjective knowledge –including past experiences, intuition,hunches, and values about what facts areimportant – often enters into the scientific

process, particularly in framing questionsfor research.

Display Slide15. Complex public issues, suchas the environment, public health, orcommunity development, often deal withsystems. Reductionism – seeking tounderstand the system by looking only at itsunits and their interrelationships – is prone toinducing error. The whole is different than thesum of the parts. For example, severalcomplex, overlapping factors affect salmonhabitat.

Module 3.1. On the Nature of Knowledge

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: Knowledge andinformation are important, but they don’t alwaysgive us the answers we are looking for to resolvea controversy. Sometimes we have information,but others are unwilling to accept it. Have youbeen in a similar situation? How was ithandled? What worked? What didn’t?

Visuals

slide 14 slide 15

On the Nature of Knowledge

� Scientific research rarely provides definitive,unequivocal answers. All information is subject toquestions of validity, accuracy, authenticity, andreliability.

�We can examine and debate information, but notalways test. Subjective awareness, includingintuition and hunches, often plays a role.

� Complex public issues often deal with systems.The whole is different than the sum of its parts.

Temperature

Forestry

Practices

Farming

Practices

Flow

Salmon Habitat



Handouts: None


Display Slide 16. Uncertainties are alwayspresent. We will never know enough to makeperfect decisions. Uncertainty allows partici-pants in a debate to develop competingtechnical analyses to support their conflictingpolicy arguments. Three types of uncertaintiestend to arise in science-oriented public issues:

Uncertainties from measurements orobservations that are not complete.

Uncertainties from conflictingmeasurements.

Uncertainties over competing orincomplete theoretical frameworks. Theseuncertainties make it difficult to explainand interpret the available information.

Most decisions have unintendedconsequences, not merely calculated risks, sideeffects, or trade-offs. These consequences arereal, and people respond to them.

Display Slide 17. For example, the issue ofbreaching dams for salmon is fraught withuncertainty. Dams are only one of severalfactors contributing to the decline of thesalmon fishery in the Pacific Northwest.Scientists are uncertain about how salmonpopulations might respond to the breachingor removal of dams along their spawning

reaches. Without reductions in other factorsleading to population declines, the costs ofdam removals and breaching may outweighthe benefits. When many uncertainties exist,competing theories and solutions predomi-nate. This can create an arena in which anydecision may be questioned, debated, andnegated.

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: Uncertainty is a factof life, and stakeholders often find themselvesfaced with uncertainty. They are just not going toget all the information they would like to make adecision. What issues have you dealt with whereuncertainty was a factor? Where were theproblems?

Module 3.2. On Uncertainty

Visuals

slide 16 slide 17

On Uncertainty

� Biological and social uncertainties are facts of life.We will never know everything we need to makeperfect decisions and predict all their impacts.

� Uncertainties arise from:

� Insufficient measurements or observations.

�Conflicting measurements.

�Competing or fragmentary theoretical frameworks.

�Most decisions have unintended consequences, notmerely calculated risks, side-effects, or trade-offs.

Should We BreachDams for Salmon?



Handouts: None


Display Slide 18. Stakeholders often face theneed or desire for more information than isavailable. Too much data, however, canoverwhelm decision-makers. Credibleinformation commissioned or produced bysome stakeholders may be distrusted byothers.

The process of generating, compiling, andanalyzing technical information is oftennot coordinated with the public issueseducation effort. Information gatheringcan get too far ahead of decision-makingor be seriously delayed by it.

Display Slide 19. Information and researchcost money, usually a lot of money.Stakeholders are faced with the need tobalance their desire for information with theirability to pay for it.

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: Stakeholders oftenface difficulties in gathering information. Howmuch information is enough; what’s credible andwhat is not; how do stakeholders trust what isavailable? What issues have you worked onwhere information gathering became part of thecontroversy itself?

Module 3.3. On Research and Information Gathering

Visuals

slide 18 slide 19

On Research and Information

Gathering

� Stakeholders often face a need or desire for moreinformation than is available. However, too muchdata can be overwhelming.

� Credible information commissioned or producedby some parties may be distrusted by others.

� The presumption that people implicitly trustscientists is not necessarily true.

� Information and research cost money, usually a lotof money.

Information

NeedsProblem

Too Much, Too Little



Handouts: None


Display Slide 20. The promise of modelingmay seduce stakeholders into believingmodels are infallible. All models contain someelements of uncertainty. The real world thatthey mimic is extremely complex, while themodel is built on simplified assumptions. Anumber generated by a model is a singularvalue; it cannot predict a future state withabsolute certainty. Stakeholders mustunderstand that any output from a model isbased on a range of different quantities, witheach quantity having its own probability ofbeing true.

Although models are excellent illustrativetools, they are rarely predictive.

Sometimes scientists use models to refuteclaims supported by another model. Themodels may appear to be in opposition,when, in fact, they are not comparablebecause they are designed with differentassumptions or because they are based ondifferent theoretical foundations. Forexample, geologic and atmosphericmodels are both used as predictors ofglobal climate change, but the results ofthe two models may yield differentconclusions.

Display Slide 21. Even though these two“models” of how apples are made appearidentical, each results in a different outcome –a Red Delicious apple or a Macintosh apple.Stakeholders sometimes fail to inquire aboutthe assumptions and objectives of themodeler, and they confuse model results withreal-world consequences.

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: Modeling can helpstakeholders understand systems, but theycannot replicate “Mother Nature.” Who has hadexperience using models in a controversy? Howeffective were they for the stakeholders?”

Module 3.4. On Modeling

Visuals

slide 20 slide 21

On Modeling

�The promise of modeling may seduce

stakeholders into believing models are

infallible.

�Models may appear to be in opposition,

when in fact they are designed with

different assumptions. They are not

comparable.

Watch What YouCompare

Sunlight + Photosynthesis + Water + DNA =

Red Delicious

Sunlight + Photosynthesis + Water + DNA =

Macintosh

They are both

apples, but they

differ in taste,

color, and

shape.


Module 3.5. Stakeholders, Experts, and Other Third Parties


Handouts: None


ON SCIENTISTS

Display Slide 22. Uncertainty and divisionexist even among scientists. However,scientists with apparent disagreements amongthemselves often are in less disagreement thanothers may perceive.

In some instances, the role of expert andthe role of stakeholder may besynonymous. Scientists becomestakeholders when the issue is also thesubject of their professional work or whenthey have a personal stake in the issue. Inthese cases, the impartiality of their advicemay be questionable.

ON STAKEHOLDERS

Some stakeholders may not trust thescientist, the science, or both.

People enter issue discussions withunequal scientific and technical resources.This condition, called informationasymmetry, can lead to distrust amongstakeholders.

Some stakeholders are unwilling or unableto do their homework. This may result insome stakeholders remaining poorlyinformed and holding up the progress ofthe rest of the group.

People’s tolerance for complexity andambiguity varies.

ON ALL OF US

Display Slide 23. Life experiences influenceeach party’s view of the issues. Your lifeexperiences may influence how you perceivethis drawing. Does the illustration evoke animage of a young woman facing away or anold woman in profile?

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: The people directlyinvolved in a controversy may cause their ownproblems. If stakeholders don’t do theirhomework, they become ineffective negotiators.Scientists may be so attached to their researchthat they lose their objectivity. Have you run intoany of these situations? What was the problem,and how did the group handle it?

Visuals

slide 22 slide 23

On Stakeholders, Experts, and

Other Third Parties

� ON SCIENTISTS

� Uncertainty and division exist even among scientists, but

disagreements may be less intense than you think.

� Scientists with a stake in the issue may not be sufficiently

impartial.

� ON STAKEHOLDERS

� Some are unable or unwilling to do their homework.

� People’s tolerance for complexity and ambiguity varies.

� ON ALL OF US

� Life experiences influence our view of the issues.

Life ExperiencesInfluence OurPerceptions



Handouts: None


Display Slide 24. Politics and underlyingvalues often affect political decisions, evenwhen a profusion of scientific information isavailable. Scientific information is not asubstitute for value choices.

Information that is usable by allstakeholders requires trust in theinformation and the methods by which itwas produced. When people perceive thatthe science has been generated from aparticular point of view or with a particularoutcome in mind, their trust is diminished.

It is often the quality of thecommunication, not the technicalinformation itself, that stands in the way offinding common ground.

If scientists or technically orientedstakeholders do not understand the realconcerns of the other stakeholders, thenscience – no matter how well applied – willnot solve the problem.

Reductionist thinking—as in “Here is theproblem, these are the options”—doesn’tdeal with the potential for unintendedconsequences.

Display Slide 25. Scientific and technologicalcomplexity can play a role in escalatingconflict by creating “mystery,” by obfuscatingoptions, or by alarming or overwhelmingpeople with too many countervailing ideas. Asthe number of stakeholders, diversity ofstakeholders, and intensity of the issuesincrease, additional technological complexitycan be the flame that ignites the powder keg.

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: Stakeholders’decisions, even though they are grounded in“good science,” have been stopped cold by apolitical decision based on a different set ofvalues. Sometimes scientific and technicalcomplexity just overwhelms people, making aconflict worse. Have you been involved in acontroversy where one of those dynamics tookplace? What happened?

Module 3.6. On Information and Conflict

Visuals

slide 24 slide 25

On Information and Conflict

� Politics and underlying values often affectpolitical decisions, even when a profusion ofscientific information is available.

� Information that is usable by all stakeholdersrequires trust in the information and the methodsby which it is produced.

� Scientific and technical complexity can escalateconflict, alarming and overwhelming people withtoo many counter-ideas or unclear options.

Ite

ns

it

Div

ersity

of Prt

ies

ny

Complexity CanEscalate the Conflict

Low

Number of Parties

High

Few Many

High

a


Module 3.7. On the Educator’s Role

Training Tip

Initiate a group discussion: The potential for aneducator or facilitator to bias the discussion of acontroversial issue is always present. Have youbeen in a situation where you thought that hadoccurred or where a stakeholder accused thefacilitator of bias? What happened?

Visuals

slide 26 slide 27

On the Educator’s Role

� We tend to think in terms of agreements,

solutions, and decisions. In many complex

problems, it may not be possible for stakeholders

to find a solution.

� The educator’s biases can infiltrate the process –

for example, when framing the issue.

Maintaining Neutrality


Handouts: None


Display Slide 26. When we work with groupsdealing with a vexing public issue, we tend tothink in terms of agreements, solutions, anddecisions. When we are unable to reach asolution we may consider the effort a failure.

Display Slide 27. Public issues educators oftenplay a critical role in framing or reframingscientific and technical issues. The educator’sbiases can infiltrate the process.


Time required: 2 hours and 30 minutes

30 minutes for this introduction5 minutes each for Modules 4.1 through 4.3.45 minutes for Module 4.430 minutes for Module 4.530 minutes for Modules 4.6 and 4.7

Handouts

Case Scenario 1, “Hog Heaven”(p. 37-38, Learner’s Resources)Case Scenario 2, “Feet and Inches” (p. 39)Case Scenario 3, “Knowledge Is Power”(p. 40-41)Handout 4, “Tools and Techniques for PublicIssues Educators” (p. 30-33)

Visuals

Objectives

1. Participants become familiar with “bestpractices” – the tools, techniques,methods, and procedures they can use tohelp decision-making groups grapple withthe challenges posed by disagreementsover scientific and technical information.

2. Participants learn that best practices canbe applied at different times during thedecision-making process.

3. Participants learn to discern practices thatmay be situation-specific and tounderstand how they might apply thosepractices.

4. Participants learn to appreciate the “art” ofpublic issues education.

Module 4: Tools and Techniques


Display Slides 28 and 29. Group-processstrategies tend to be tacit, reactive, andimprovisational. They are developed andrefined through experience and should beconsidered more as “rules of thumb” thanhard and fast techniques.

There is no recipe for every situation.Applying these practices in specificsituations requires familiarity with thetechniques and professional judgment thatis learned through experience.

None of these practices is infallible orapplicable to every situation.


Tools and

Techniques



Introduction

� The setting we work in can be chaotic. Our focus should

be to help people proceed thoughtfully through a decision-

making process.

� Group process strategies should be considered more as

“rules of thumb” rather than hard and fast techniques.

� Guidelines are not applicable to every case.

� Multiple discussions of the legal, social, economic, and

technical issues are often required.

Tools and Techniques: When

� Assessing an issue

� Designing a process

� Defining the problem

�Working with experts

� Negotiating and problem-solving

�Making and implementing agreements


The setting in which Extension educatorswork can be chaotic. Assisting people toproceed thoughtfully through a decision-making process is an integral part of whatwe do.

Educators must be prepared to guide agroup through multiple discussions of thelegal, social, economic, and technicalissues at hand to ensure that peopleunderstand the issues and can effectivelyevaluate the information and thechallenges surrounding its use andapplication.

Educators must recognize that situationsvary from case to case.

Display Slide 30. The tools, techniques,methods, and procedures used by a publicissues educator can be categorized by whenthey are applied during a decision-makingprocess. The stages of the process are:

1. Assessing the issue

2. Designing the process

3. Defining the problem

4. Working with experts

5. Negotiating and problem-solving

6. Making and implementing agreements

Assessing the issue. This is the initial phaseof both the decision-making process andany educational effort associated with it. Atthis stage, examine and evaluate theproblem and its potential for educationalintervention.

Designing the process. Once you havedecided that you can effectively developand carry out a public issues educationeffort, take the time to design methods fordoing so. This should be done beforeconvening a group of stakeholders, butwith the ideas and assistance of somegroup members. After officially conveningthe group, work with the stakeholders toestablish the procedures and protocolsthat will govern their interactions anddecision-making. You also need to consider

Module 4: Tools and Techniques, continued

appropriate educational techniques andinterventions as you prepare the agendaand day-to-day activities of the group.

Defining the problem. In this stage, you canhelp the group focus on the problem andwork to establish common definitions ofthe issues to address and resolve.

Working with experts. This is the stage inwhich you use methods and techniques toencourage the flow of information amongthe experts and the group participants.

Negotiating and problem-solving. This is thedeliberation stage. The stakeholders areactively discussing the issues and seekingworkable options.

Making and implementing agreements. Inthis final phase of the decision-makingprocess, the stakeholders agree on acourse of action, put it in writing, ratify theagreement, assign responsibilities forcarrying it out, and maintain avenues forrenegotiation, if necessary.

Training Tip

Divide the class into three groups and distributethe three case scenarios by assigning a differentscenario to each group. Ask three participants(one from each group) to take turns reading thecases aloud so everyone is familiar with all threecases. Let participants know that the casescenarios will be used throughout Module 4 toillustrate tools and techniques.



Handouts: None

Visuals


Before beginning any educational effort,public issues educators should assess theirown knowledge of the issue to beaddressed.

In addition to applying tools and tech-niques over the life of the process, we alsoneed to consider approaches relative tothe level, amount, type, and scope ofsubstantive knowledge that we and ourpublics possess.

Display Slide 31. Although we needn’t beexperts in the technical field with which weare working, to be effective “process people”we need to be sufficiently grounded in theissues and language of the topic. This will helpsharpen our insights, ask better questions, andkeep up with the group.

If you are a technical expert in the field athand, don’t become the science advisor –leave that role for someone else.Otherwise, your impartiality could becomejeopardized. Use self-restraint. If you feelcompelled to share your knowledge, askthe group for permission first.

Be prepared to manage the different kindsof substantive expertise the stakeholdersbring to the table. It’s useful to rememberthat different professions are schooled indifferent kinds of problem-solving. Findways that each can contribute to thesolution, building on each other’sknowledge and disciplines withoutnegating the expertise of the other.

If you lack experience or knowledge, don’thesitate to partner with someone who hasit.

Module 4.1. Substantive Knowledge and the Educator

slide 31

Substantive Knowledge and the

Educator

�Get immersed in the issues and language of

the topic.

�Use self-restraint if you have expertise in

the area.

�Prepare to manage different kinds of

expertise.



Handout: None


Display slide 32. Complete a preliminaryissues assessment to identify key players anddetermine their level of scientific and technicalsophistication.

Form a coordinating committee early withkey stakeholders represented. Have thecommittee identify potential scientific andtechnical issues.

Identify potential information needs anddata conflicts, the kinds of data thestakeholders are relying on, the sources oftheir information, and the potentialimpacts, risks, and benefits that are likelyto emerge (Carpenter and Kennedy).

Discuss the stakeholders’ variousperceptions of “risk” and “precaution.”Find out how their ideas apply to the case.Risk preferences can vary widely amongstakeholders, so it’s useful to know.

Perceptions about risk and precaution have todo with how people feel about the uncertaintyof potential harmful activities and where theirtolerance for risk begins and ends.

Precaution, in a public issue decision-makingprocess, is based on the principle that weshould not expose humans and the environ-ment to hazards if it is not necessary.Advocates of “precautionary principles”believe that when an activity creates threats tohuman health or the environment, precau-tionary measures should be taken even ifcause-and-effect relationships are not fullyestablished scientifically (Tickner, Raffens-perger, and Myers). The precautionaryprinciple says that decision-makers have ageneral duty to take preventive action to avoidharm before scientific certainty [of harm] hasbeen established (www.rachel.org). Themindset is “better safe than sorry.”

Risk is the degree of probability of a loss ornegative impact. Risk assessment is a processin which hazards and expected hazards areevaluated to determine their harm to humanhealth and the environment. Cost-benefitanalyses are often included with riskassessment.

Reasonable risk is a concept that acceptssome level of risk for an activity. When there isan issue of risk, decision-makers consider howmuch damage or harm is tolerable. People andpolicymakers are willing to accept a certainlevel of risk. Policymakers may determinewhether the damage and potential damage

Module 4.2. Assessing the Issue

Visuals

slide 32 slide 33

Assessing the Issue

� Identify key players; consider their level of

scientific and technical sophistication.

� Identify and assess the issues:

� Potential information needs and data conflicts

�Kinds of data the parties are relying on

� Sources of information

� Potential impacts, risks, precautions, and benefits that

are likely to emerge

Assessing the Issue

Question assumptions that science-

related issues are actually at the core of

the controversy. A narrow scientific

focus may miss or distort the issues or

process.


are great enough to regulate via governmentintervention (Raffensperger and de Fur). Themindset is this: “How much harm is tolerablebefore it becomes intolerable?”

Display Slide 33. Question your ownassumptions that data-related issues areactually at the core of the controversy. It’simportant not to reduce or trivialize institu-tional racism, power relationships, riskpreferences, and economics. A narrowscientific focus may miss or distort the issuesor process. For example, in conflicts thatinvolve the location of resources, people mayuse science to thwart the location of un-wanted land uses. The issue is not science, perse, but equity and justice.

Coach the stakeholders during the initialmeetings phase on different approachesthey might use to resolve information-intensive issues. As much as possible, getthem to think about how information willbe jointly gathered and examined.

Module 4.2. Assessing the Issue, continued



Handout: None


Display Slide 34. Design a process strategythat anticipates and intentionally incorporatesthe scientific and technical issues. Anticipateand help organize the roles of the experts.Strategies that work include a technicalcommittee that reports to the whole groupand a moderated panel discussion where theparticipants can ask the experts questions.

Timing is critical. Actively coordinate thegathering and analysis of scientific andtechnical information. Pace the datagathering and flow so information isavailable when it’s needed.

Display Slide 35. Develop a process thatallows the stakeholders to define the informationthey need, where they will get it, when theyneed it, and what they will do with it.

Determine how much of the process needsto be behind closed doors versus in thepublic eye – the political balancing ofpublic input versus private deliberation.Know the legal requirements. Ensure theproper level of confidentiality for scientificand technical discussion throughdocuments, contracts, or ground rules.

Display Slide 36. Support the flow ofinformation by using design strategies:

1. Advise stakeholders to appoint a technicalstudy team. The team can be composed ofoutside experts, process participants, orboth.

2. Organize a “science summit” wherein theexperts isolate disagreements, clarify whatdoes not need to be contested, and searchfor areas of agreement.

3. Organize a moderated panel discussionwherein the stakeholders can ask questionsof the experts.

4. Develop poster sessions that provideopportunities for stakeholders and expertsto exchange views.

5. Ask experts and stakeholders to createbackground papers together and makepresentations to the group.

6. Facilitate a “fish bowl” science discussionwherein a panel of scientists discusses theissues while being observed by anaudience of stakeholders.

7. Organize a session wherein experts areinvited to draft proposed language for anegotiating document.

Module 4.3. Designing the Process

Visuals



� Design a process strategy that anticipates and

intentionally incorporates the scientific and

technical issues.

� Timing is critical. Pace the data gathering and

flow so information is available when needed.

� Ensure the proper level of confidentiality through

documents, contracts, or ground rules.


� Develop a process that allows the stakeholders as

a group to:

�Define the information they need.

�Decide where they will get it.

�Decide what they will do with it.

�Determine how it will be incorporated in their decision-

making process.


� Examples of information and learning strategies:

� Technical study team appointed by parties

� Science summit

�Moderated panel discussion

� Poster sessions

� Jointly created background papers

� Facilitated “fish bowl” science discussion

� Session where experts are invited to draft proposedlanguage for a negotiating document



Handout: Handout 5, “Situation Mapping”(p. 34-35, Learner’s Resources)


Display Slide 37. It is useful to generatemultiple descriptions of the scientific andtechnical problems as opposed to aninflexible, single-problem definition. Grapplingwith descriptions will often stimulate bothscientists’ and stakeholders’ understanding ofhow problems are linked to each other.

A definition of the problem to be solvedoften rests on the results of the technicalstudies that frame it. Is there disagreement

among stakeholders about the studies thatshould be undertaken and the researchmethods that should be used to define theproblem? If there is, the stakeholders mustnegotiate together on the studies to beundertaken and the methods to be used inproducing and analyzing them.Don’t focus on data and data analysis tooearly. It’s usually more important tounderstand the legal, political, social, andeconomic contexts. This will helpdetermine how the scientific and technicaldata fit into the big picture.

Module 4.4. Defining the Problem

Visuals




Defining the Problem

� Generate multiple descriptions of the scientific

and technical problems as opposed to an

inflexible, single-problem definition.

� Jointly agree on studies to be undertaken and

methods to produce and analyze them.

Defining the Problem:

Situation Mapping

�A situation map is a visualization tool.

�It “maps” the elements and relationships of

a situation.

�It helps participants understand the situation

and begin to identify information needs.

Situation Mapping

� Begin with a map chassis – a core fragment to get

people thinking and involved.

� Elements are parties, issues, and activities –

nouns.

� Relationships are verbs on lines that connect

elements.

Element ElementRelationship

Situation Mapping:

Prompting Questions

� Involve participants in revising the map by asking

prompting questions

�What are the central issues in the situation?

�Who are the key stakeholders in this situation? How do

they interact?

�What actions, behaviors, or practices should be

included?

�What connects with what? In which way or direction?

Situation Mapping

� Situation mapping is creative, not evaluative.

� Ideas should be generated, not critiqued

� Situation maps can be either a single worldview,

or a shared worldview.

� Strive for dynamic complexity, not detail

complexity.

� It is more important to understand the dynamics that

give rise to the situation than to depict the details that

constitute it.

Protectingthe falcon

FarmingCotton

US EPAUS Fish &Wildlife

Farmers

PesticideUse

Bans

Situation Map:

The Cotton-Pesticide-Falcon Issue

Necessa

ryfo

r

Interacts with

Make a living

Dep

end

on

Responsib

lefo

r

Impacts


FarmingCotton


Farmers

PesticideUse

Bans

Situation Map:


Necessa

ryfo

r

Interacts with

Make a living

Dep

end

on

Responsib

lefo

r

Impacts

Add “information linkages.”

Situation Mapping:

Focusing on Data

� Draw information linkages – who has data about what?

� For each “human” element (person, organization):� Who has data?

� Is the information viewed as credible by all?

� For each “nonhuman” element:� Is the information complete? What additional information is

needed?

� For each relationship:� How much information is needed to understand interactions

between elements? How complete does it need to be?

� Identify information deficiencies.

� Establish priorities for collecting information.


FarmingCotton


Ag.Industry

WildlifeRefuge

Farmers

PesticideUse

LocalEconomy

Bans

Impacts

Situation Map:


Necessa

ryfo

r

Interacts with

Enables

Supports

Make a living

Dep

end

on

Supports

SupportRes

ponsible

for

Man

ages

Supports


Display Slide 38. Use situation mapping(Daniels and Walker) to identify data needs.Situation mapping is a visualization processthat helps people graphically represent asituation to create a shared and systemicunderstanding of it. It is particularly useful inthe early stages of defining the problem andcan be used to help participants pinpoint dataand information needs.

Display Slide 39. The process begins with a“map chassis” – a core fragment that getspeople thinking and involved in editing andadding to the map

Elements are parties, issues, and activities –nouns that are represented by polygons.

Relationships are verbs on lines thatconnect elements.

Display Slide 40. The facilitator asks theparticipants some prompting questions tostimulate responses for editing and adding tothe draft map:

What are the central issues in thesituation?

Who are the key stakeholders in thissituation? How do they interact?

What actions, behaviors, or practicesshould be included?

What connects with what? In what way ordirection?

Display Slide 41. Situation mapping iscreative, not evaluative. The purpose ofsituation mapping is to understand thesituation, not to jump to generating newsolutions or debating potential changes. It is abrainstorming exercise in which the rule ofthumb is to separate the process of generatingideas from the process of evaluating them.

Situation mapping can be used to reflectindividual perspectives. It can also be usedto map the shared viewpoints that makeup a group’s perception of a situation. Forexample, representatives of one

stakeholder group can develop their ownsituation map and compare it with themaps of other stakeholder groups to learnhow others see the situation differently.Alternatively, a diverse group of stake-holders can work together to develop asingle, composite view of the situation. Inthe latter case, no participants should beexpected to necessarily hold the completeview, but they should be able to see theirparticular viewpoint represented in it.

The objective of situation mapping is notto accurately depict a particular situationin all its detail and minutiae. Rather,situation mapping should be used tocapture the dynamics that give rise to theparticular situation. According to Danielsand Walker, situation maps should “seek toportray the fundamental forces that drive,reinforce, and constrain the choices thatthe stakeholders might be interested inpursuing.”

Creating a MapEngage the participants in an exercise tocreate a map that represents the situationpresented in the Cameron County video,focusing on the information needs of thestakeholders.

Materials needed: A drawing surface, such as awhite board, chalk board, flip chart paper, or ablank overhead transparency and overheadprojector; colored markers, chalk, or pens.This exercise can be carried out in one of twoways:

Small group mapping. Ask the participantsto work in small groups and developsituation maps that can then be comparedand discussed.

Composite mapping. Work with the entiregroup to develop a composite map.

Both methods are described on pages 29-30.

Module 4.4. Defining the Problem, continued


Begin by introducing a map chassis such asthat illustrated on Slide 42 or one you developon your own. Remind the group that mapelements – such as parties, issues, andactivities – are drawn as polygons and labeledwith nouns (for example, “cotton farming” or“U.S. EPA”). Relationships are represented bylines and can have arrows that indicate thedirection of the relationship. The lines arelabeled with verbs (for example, “supports,”“bans,” “is responsible for”). Lines can be solidor broken to represent relationships ofdiffering strengths.

Remind the group that the map chassis ismerely a way to get started. The objective is toedit and revise the map so that it reflects theparticipants’ views of the Cameron Countysituation.

Small-Group Mapping

1. Divide the participants into small groups ofthree or four people. Hand a half-sheet offlip chart paper and colored markers toeach group. Ask the group to appoint areporter who will present their finishedproduct to the other groups.

2. Instruct each group to develop a situationmap that represents what they saw andheard on the video clip about theCameron County cotton-falcon issue. Givethem 15 minutes to create their map.

3. Display Slide 40, “Situation MappingPrompting Questions.” Repeat thequestions to stimulate their thinking:

• What are the central issues?

• Who are the key stakeholders? How dothey interact?

• What actions, behaviors, or practicesshould be included?

• What connects with what? In whichway or direction?

4. Remind the groups that this is abrainstorming process. The rule of thumbis to generate ideas and get them on

paper, then evaluate and refine thoseideas. Remind them also to focus oncapturing the dynamics that give rise tothe situation, and not to worry too muchabout capturing every detail.

5. When the participants have completedtheir group map, introduce the mapchassis with additional information linkages(display Slide 43). The red lines in Slide 43indicate information linkages between the“human” elements (such as people,organizations, and interest groups) and the“nonhuman” elements (such as places,actions, and resources).

6. Ask the participants to identify and drawinformation linkages in their maps.

7. Next, ask them to identify the followingdata and information parameters (displaySlide 44):

For each element that describes a person,organization, or interest group:

What data and information does this entityprovide?

Are the data viewed as credible by allstakeholders?

For each “nonhuman” element (a thing or anaction):

Is information complete?

What additional information is needed?

For each relationship:

Is more or better information needed tounderstand the interaction betweenelements?

Establish priorities for collecting information anddata.

8. Instruct the participants to present theircompleted situation maps identifying thekey elements, the relationships amongthem, and the information parameters thatcharacterize the situation.

9. Debrief the exercise with a short discussionof how the maps differed among groupsand why.



Composite Mapping

1. Your role will be to facilitate thedevelopment of the composite situationmap. The map chassis should be displayedon a format that is large enough to beeasily seen by all participants. A large whiteboard, chalkboard, flip chart paper (tape 3or 4 pages together), or overheadprojector are suggested formats. (If youuse an overhead transparency, write small.If you want to use Slide 42, you will needto redraw it since it is too large in itsoriginal form).

2. Beginning with the map chassis, ask thegroup to edit and refine the map to reflectwhat they know about the CameronCounty situation.

3. Display Slide 40, “Situation MappingPrompting Questions.” Repeat thequestions to stimulate their thinking:

• What are the central issues?

• Who are the key stakeholders? How dothey interact?

• What actions, behaviors, or practicesshould be included?

• What connects with what? In what wayor direction?

4. Add new elements and relationships as thegroup responds. Before committing anynew items to the drawing, ask forconfirmation by the group members.

5. If controversial elements or linkages areproposed, denote them with a questionmark. Record tangential or crosscuttingremarks in the margins. When in doubtabout how to represent an issue on themap, ask the participants to guide you.

6. Continue to add and modify elements andrelationships until no more additions ormodifications are offered.

7. Next, introduce the new map componentof information linkages (display Slide 43).Ask the participants to identify informationlinkages between the “human” elements

(people, organizations, and interest groupsthat possess information) and the“nonhuman” elements (places, actions,and resources) that are the subject of theinformation.

8. Next, ask them to identify the followingdata and information parameters (displaySlide 44):

For each element that describes a person,organization, or interest group:

What data and information does this entityprovide?

Are the data viewed as credible by allstakeholders?

For each “nonhuman” element (a thing or anaction):

Is information complete?

What additional information is needed?

For each relationship:

Is more or better information needed tounderstand the interaction amongelements?

Establish priorities for collecting information anddata

9. Review the map with the group to be surethat all members are satisfied with theirproduct.

Note: If time does not permit leading thegroup through the situation mapping exercise,you may display Slide 45, a “completed”situation map.


Training Tip

Use the case scenarios. After discussing theslides and guiding learners through mapping theCameron County situation, ask each group todevelop a situation map using its case scenarioand to answer Question 1 in the case scenario.



Handout

Handout 6, “Facilitating a Focused Discussion”(p. 36, Learner’s Resources)


Display Slide 46. Keep the scientists on targetwith what is relative to the group. Meet withthem ahead of time to find out what they arepresenting and make sure it is relevant to thedecisions that need to be made.

When scientists present models, maps, orgraphs, be sure to allow time for thescientists to clarify the assumptions behindthe data and to explain how the stake-holders can understand or appreciate themaps or models.

Encourage scientists to use plain languageand good visuals, such as photos, maps,and cartoons.

Politely interrupt the speaker when he orshe slips into jargon or acronyms.

Ask the experts to explain theirunderstanding of the pertinent risks,benefits, and cautions, as well as how thatinformation applies to the facts at hand.

When access to scientific and technicalexpertise is unequal, discourage overlysophisticated presentations by just oneside. PowerPoint presentations, slickgraphs, and complex maps can create asense that certain solutions are pre-

destined. Instead of or in addition to thesekinds of presentations, try using jointlyconstructed visuals like flow charts that allthe parties can understand.

Encourage lay stakeholders to rely on thepersuasiveness of evidence generated bygood scientific methodology, not onquantity of information alone or on thepersonality of the scientist.

Display Slide 47. The purpose of a focuseddiscussion (Stanfield) is to bring theparticipants together mentally: to get them“all on the same page.” The discussion maybe short or long, depending on the situation.Focused discussions are particularlyappropriate after a presentation or a video orwhen the participants were asked to readsomething to prepare for the discussion.

The value of a focused discussion is that ithelps the participants identify and focus onthe real significance of the issue beingdiscussed. It helps them put events intoperspective. And it gives participantscommon understandings of the issues.Each focused discussion is tailor-made forbest results – questions have to be relevantto the subject and the group.

Module 4.5. Working with Experts and Information

Visuals

slide 46 slide 47

Working with Experts and

Information

� Keep the scientists on target with what is relative

to the group.

� Have scientists explicitly discuss the assumptions

behind their data.

� Encourage scientists to use plain language and

good visuals.

� Ask experts to state their understanding of the

pertinent risks, benefits, and cautions.

Working with Experts:

Focused Discussion Method� Level 1 – Clarification

� “Are there any questions about points of fact or clarification?”

� Level 2 – Reflection

� “How do you feel about what you just heard?”

� Level 3 – Interpretation

� “How does the information just presented affect the issues at

hand?”

� Level 4 – Action

� “Based on what you just heard, what needs to happen?”


In a focused discussion, the facilitator leads agroup from surface observations of a situationto in-depth understanding and a response tothe situation. It works well with unsophisti-cated and anxious participants as well as withconfident and strong-willed ones. Thefacilitator uses focused questions to engageparticipants in the discussion. The questionsare designed to fit the situation and they areprepared in advance. It doesn’t hurt to writemore than you’ll probably need.

The focused discussion moves the participantsthrough four sequential levels of thought.Questions at Level 1 should be easy to answeras this introductory phase helps break the ice.Here are descriptions and examples of eachlevel.

Level 1 questions focus the participants’attention, identify realities (what is directlyobservable), and clarify information. These firstquestions elicit facts. They ask whatparticipants have heard, seen, read, orotherwise learned about the situation. Thesequestions help to ensure that everyone dealswith the same information:

1. “What caught your attention when youread the article?”

2. “What stuck in your mind?””

3. “What were the main points?”

4. “What points didn’t you understand, orwhich ones need clarification?”

Level 2 questions bring out people’semotional responses. They are concerned withfeelings, moods, memories, and associations.Questions at Level 2 help participants describehow they feel about something, whether theylike it, whether it angers or excites them. Thequestions help reveal the participants’ initialresponses to the situation.

1. “What does it remind you of?”

2. “How do you feel about what you justheard; are you skeptical, intrigued?”

3. “What was your gut reaction?”

Level 3 questions build on the objective dataand feelings from Level 1 and Level 2. Theydraw out the significance of the informationand help build a story of what is happening.The “story” may answer some of the “why”questions within the situation and reveal thevalues held by members of the group. Level 3questions may consider alternatives andoptions.

1. “How does the information presented fitwith the topic at hand?”

2. “What do you see as strengths andweaknesses of what you just heard?”

3. “What is an insight here?”

4. “How will this affect our work?”

5. “What does all this mean?”

Level 4 questions make the discussionrelevant for the future. The questions use theinformation discussed in Levels 1, 2, and 3 andlead the participants to make short- or long-term decisions or choices based on thatdiscussion. Level 4 questions help bring thediscussion to a close.

1. “What are some of the first steps we needto take to implement those changes?”

2. “What are some changes that can be madeto resolve the problem?”

3. “What is our response?”

4. “What decision is called for?”

5. “What are the next steps?”

As a general rule, use three or more questionsat Level 1 (perhaps more with an unsophisti-cated or anxious group). You need enoughquestions to get all the significant facts anddata and enough basic questions to engagethe participants in the discussion. Similarly, askenough Level 2 questions to get at theemotions and feelings that the variousparticipants are willing to share. Level 3 maytake more questions than Level 1 or 2 simplyto deal with all the information that has beendiscussed. It’s a good idea to come preparedwith more questions than you’ll probablyneed. Level 4 will probably only need three orfour questions to bring closure to thediscussion.


During the focused discussion, should theresponses and information be recorded, yes orno?

NO, if the primary purpose of the discussion isto get the group warmed-up and ready towork together. It’s the conversation that’simportant. Recording adds an artificialelement to a good conversation.

YES, if you are using the discussion as a lead-inand the group needs the information forfurther work. Facilitators often use Level 1questions as a warm-up activity. Noinformation is recorded. Then, because theother information is needed for the rest of themeeting, responses are recorded from theremaining focus questions.

Training Tip

Use the case scenarios. Discuss Slide 46briefly. Ask each group to answer Question 2 inthe assigned case scenario. Ask each group topresent its answer to Question 2. Discuss andrecord major themes and lessons. Discuss theFocused Discussion Method using Slide 47 andthe handout.



Handouts: None

Visuals


Display Slide 48. Frame the discussion onhow the group can find a livable solution.Discourage negotiation styles that imply“right” and “wrong.”

Sometimes participants defend their ownposition not on its merits, but by the lackof others’ data: “Show me the data!” goesthe cry. In these instances, remindparticipants that this is a joint search forcommon understanding and that the onusof proof should not be placed on anysingle participant or group.

Privately explore the best and worstalternatives to a negotiated agreement tounderstand how each party proposes tohandle scientific uncertainties if there is noagreement. This is a reality check for them.

Work toward jointly producing andanalyzing the technical information thatwill lead to developing criteria forevaluating options and eventuallydeveloping the options.

Help the scientists, technical experts, andstakeholders understand that compromisesolutions are not inherently bad.

The greater the uncertainty, the moreadaptive the solutions should be.

Module 4.6: Negotiating and Problem-Solving

slide 48

Negotiating and Problem-

solving

� Frame the discussion on how the stakeholders as a

group can find a livable solution.

� The greater the uncertainty, the more adaptive the

resulting solution should be.

� Explore the best and worst alternatives to a

negotiated agreement to understand how each

party proposes to handle scientific uncertainties if

there is no agreement.



Handouts: None

Visuals


Display Slide 49. Help stakeholdersunderstand when they have enoughagreement on technical issues to go aheadand negotiate solutions.

When agreements are based on keyscientific assumptions, make thoseassumptions as explicit as possible. Explorehow to monitor the assumptions anddetermine what to do if those assumptionsturn out to be different or untrue.

Try to help craft an agreement that allowsfor change, so if they are wrong about thescience, they can revisit and renegotiatethe issues.

In many complex problems the rightaction may be no action – a well-informedpublic may be the best result of theprocess. Sometimes “some improvement”is all that can be attained, and that’s OK.

Module 4.7. Making and Implementing Agreements

Training Tip

Use the case scenarios. After briefly discussingSlide 49, ask each group to discuss Question 3 inthe assigned case scenario. Ask each group topresent its answer to Question 3. Discuss andrecord major themes and lessons.

slide 49

Making and Implementing

Agreements

� Help parties understand when they have enoughagreement on technical issues to go ahead andnegotiate solutions.

� When agreements are based on key scientificassumptions, make those assumptions as explicitas possible.

� Try to help craft an agreement that allows forchange, so if the stakeholders are wrong about thescience, they can revisit and renegotiate the issues.

Adler, P. S., R. C. Barrett, M. C. Bean, J. E.Birkhoff, C. P. Ozawa, and E. B. Rudin.(2000). Managing Scientific and TechnicalInformation in Environmental Cases:Principles and Practices for Mediators andFacilitators. Washington, DC: RESOLVE, Inc.Online: http://www.resolv.org/press/index.html

Carpenter, S. and W.J.D. Kennedy. (1988).Managing Public Disputes. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Daniels, S. E. and G. B. Walker. (2001).Working Through Environmental Conflict:The Collaborative Learning Approach.Westport, CT: Praeger.

Montague, P. (1999, July 1). Rachel’sEnvironment & Health News, No. 657. “TheUses of Scientific Uncertainty.” NewBrunswick, NJ: Environmental ResearchFoundation. Online: http://www.rachel.org/

Distributed in furtherance of the acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&TState University commit themselves to positive action to secure equal opportunity regardless of race, color, creed, national origin,religion, sex, age, or disability. In addition, the two Universities welcome all persons without regard to sexual orientation. North CarolinaState University, North Carolina A&T State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local governments cooperating.

09/04/bs—gm/115 CD-46AEO4-44529

Moore, C.W. (1986). The Mediation Process.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Raffensperger, C. and P. de Fur. (1997, Mar. 6).A Paradigm Shift: Rethinking EnvironmentalDecision Making and Risk Assessment. Paperpresented to Risk Analysis PolicyAssociation Meeting. Online: http://www.biotech-info.net/paradigm_shift.html

Stanfield, R.B. (Ed.). (1997). The Art of FocusedConversation: 100 Ways to Access GroupWisdom in the Workplace. Toronto:Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs.

Tickner, J., C. Raffensperger, and N. Myers.(1998). The Precautionary Principle inAction: A Handbook. Windsor, ND: Scienceand Environmental Health Network.Online: http://www.biotech-info.net/precautionary.html

References

115 copies of this public document were produced at a cost of $1,122.80.00 or $9.76 per copy.

Handling Scientific and Technical Information in ... · PDF fileScientific and Technical...

Documents

Transcript of Handling Scientific and Technical Information in ... · PDF fileScientific and Technical...