|
Stakeholders and ScienceRoger A. Pielke, Jr. In the past ten years, recognition of the importance of stakeholders has been one of the most dramatic changes in science. People who are affected by and use the results of research – who are variously lumped together under the terms "end users," "decision makers," and "stakeholders" – have in many areas of science become accepted as important participants in aspects of the research process. This is particularly true in the atmospheric and related sciences where the connections of research and society are often significant. The change in perspective stands in sharp contrast to what some of my colleagues have referred to as the "loading dock" model of science, where researchers (and even those involved with operations, e.g., weather forecasting) simply provide a product without much concern for its use. For those of us interested in the interface of science and stakeholders, recent trends have been welcome. But like many trends in science, stakeholder involvement in the research process runs the risk of becoming a passing fad if it does not contribute to the shared goals of the scientific community and the broader society of which it is a part. Thus, it is important to carefully consider the different ways that science and society interact through stakeholder involvement in the research process. I can think of three important ways: A "Customer Service" approach. The public, through its elected representatives, provides tens of billions of dollars in support for science and technology. Some of this support is targeted at grand questions that broaden our perspectives; other parts go to the development of useful knowledge with immediate applications. All of the support is subject to accountability and questions about the effective use of scarce resources. Thus, in recent years (and particularly since 1993 with the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act), federal science agencies have begun to take steps to enhance their ability to ask their "customers" questions such as "how are we doing?" "How might we do better?" As a matter of practice this could involve surveys or focus groups, but necessarily requires input from the stakeholder. The results from such feedback can play an important role in improving government performance. Of course, those in the private sector might rightly note that this perspective is not news to them – it would be difficult to stay in business without satisfied customers! A "Benefit/Cost" approach. Often, proponents of science are asked by those paying the bills to justify why investments in these areas make sense. This of course is neither new nor unique to science. But what is new is the increased attention that the science community has paid to documenting the value of its work. For example, in recent years the National Science Foundation has added to its proposal review criteria research's broader impact on society. This stands in sharp contrast to even the recent past in the atmospheric sciences when in the 1980s the entire multi-billion dollar National Weather Service Modernization was, in part, justified by a $15,000 study of dubious academic merit! To the extent that benefits and costs of science are effectively considered in the research process, scientific priorities can be set with a more accurate expectation of societal benefits. But it is also important to recognize that a "benefit/cost" approach can just as easily be conducted in the context of the "loading dock" model of science, which would not necessarily involve stakeholder input. How one approaches delineation of benefits and costs depends on whether one asks, "What is the value of this particular science?" or "How might we conduct science to ensure that it has value?" A "User-Centered Research" approach. People who conduct research often use the term "units of analysis" to refer to the characteristics of the phenomenon being studied. For a chemist the unit of analysis might be the atom or the molecule; for a political scientist it might be the election or the nation-state; for an ecologist it might be the ecosystem or the plant, and so on. There is a group of scholars with backgrounds in many disciplines whose focus is on how people – in groups or as individuals – make decisions in the context of scientific information. For these scholars, stakeholders (or more accurately, decisions made by stakeholders) are the units of analysis. Researchers with this perspective often hold improved decision making in the context of science as an explicit goal of their work. A good example of this type of work is supported by NOAA's Office of Global Programs. As I have observed the trend of increasing recognition of the importance of stakeholders in the research process over the past decade, I have also begun to note with some concern that often the practice of adopting a more stakeholder-focused approach to science confuses the approaches described above. There should be a healthy overlap among the three perspectives – e.g., one must typically interact with and solicit stakeholders in doing "user-centered research," a good "benefit-cost" study should be based on solid research not predetermined answers, "user-centered research" often provides knowledge of costs and benefits and gathers information about stakeholders as well, etc. But it is of critical importance that the science community understands the importance and distinctive value of each of the three approaches. Confusion can lead to dissatisfaction among stakeholders and scientists alike, and to the extent that "customer satisfaction" and "cost/benefit" are viewed as surrogates for "user-centered research," the lack of knowledge at the interface of stakeholders and science (which has been a frequent topic in the WeatherZine) will persist, largely un-addressed. It is critical that stakeholders have a means to provide direct feedback to the scientific community and its overseers, that decision makers have some basis for comparing the relative value of alternative scientific activities based on their expected societal benefits, and that scholars develop knowledge based on rigorous research at the interface of stakeholders and science. All three perspectives are mutually reinforcing and contribute to science in service to society, but to achieve this objective requires that we recognize the different interfaces of stakeholders and science. — Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Comments? thunder@ucar.edu WeatherZine #24 Home Page
| Comments and Feedback
| Site Map |
