Synchronizing the Logic of Inquiry with the Logic of Action: The Case of Urban Climate Policy

Policymakers often rely on scientific knowledge for making policy decisions, and many scientists aim to produce knowledge that is useful to policymakers. However, the logic of action (which guides policy) and the logic of inquiry (which guides research) do not always align. We introduce the term “logic synchronization” to characterize the degree to which the logic of policy action aligns with the logic of scientific inquiry. We use the case of urban climate policy to explore this dynamic using a purposive literature review. The framework presented here is helpful in identifying areas in which the logic of inquiry and the logic of action synchronize, creating the opportunity for both policy-relevant science and science-informed policy. It also reveals where the logics do not yet synchronize, which indicates where scientists and policy makers can productively focus their efforts. The framework introduced here can be both theoretically and practically useful for linking scientific knowledge to policy action.

The co-development of models with expert judgement suppresses model diversity and underestimates risk

It is well-understood that mathematical models are developed with the aid of expert judgement about the relevant real-world processes. Here, I first consider the influence of the mathematical model itself upon our expert judgement. Having established a two-way relationship between model and expert judgement, I then consider some epistemic concerns arising from the difficulty of separating model information from expert judgement, concluding that statistical methods for assessing uncertainty in climate sensitivity are inadequate. I offer two potential solutions to these epistemic concerns. One: pre-registration of model experiments prior to the development of a model, and another: active exploration of other possible model structures based on different starting points and (ideally) different expert input. Next, I offer some practical recommendations for communication of climate information: we must distinguish statements about a model from statements about the real world, and it could be useful to consider ending climate simulations at a threshold of temperature change rather than on an arbitrary time scale. Having identified the climate modelling community (of researchers/modellers and the mathematical and computational entities which are the models themselves) as a cognitive assemblage, I suggest that policy-relevant science and decision-making would benefit from closer examination of the kinds of models and expertise that are privileged within this system and from actively encouraging greater model diversity. The current suppression of diversity results in underestimation of risk. Although I use climate as an example, these recommendations are generalisable to other policy-relevant modelling communities.

Shifting perspectives — How the masks we wear can facilitate and inhibit channels of communication in the social-environmental policy context

Everyone shares the human condition, but we play it out in different ways. As scientists, we play a role when we work, speak and write as scientists. A recently completed EU-funded multi-disciplinary project on integrating science and policy in the context of coastal management (SPICOSA) illustrates how divorcing this role of scientist from the underlying context of a human being with values and opinions gives rise to the illusion that science can remain detached from the human messiness of the social-environmental policy context. An ongoing social-environmental conflict in Barra in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland illustrates different perspectives on marine conservation held by different roles (policy makers and local community). Our roles position us on the social grid and allow us to function in society. We speculate that working and communicating with an awareness of a shared human condition, and an acceptance of the messiness of the social-environmental policy context, enables us to consciously choose our roles as a means of facilitating effective communication and providing policy-relevant science.

Bridging the research–implementation gap: Mainstreaming biodiversity into the South African mining sector

Background: ‘Mainstreaming biodiversity’ aims to integrate biodiversity priorities directly into the policies and practices of production sectors, including the mining sector. In South Africa, the need emerged for a biodiversity guideline specifically relevant to the mining sector that would interpret a wide range of available spatial biodiversity information and frame it in a user-friendly format.Objectives: The aim of this article was to document and review the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline. This serves as a case study of a product developed to assist in bridging the gap between available biodiversity information and use of this information by a production sector.Methods: We examined the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline with reference to three factors known to be beneficial to creating policy-relevant science: a sound scientific foundation (credibility), relevance to decision-making (salience) and involvement of stakeholders (legitimacy).Results: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline was developed through collaboration between the mining and biodiversity sectors. It provides a tool that contributes to the sustainable development of South Africa’s mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It includes a single integrated map of biodiversity priority areas summarised into four sensitivity categories relevant for the mining industry, with detailed guidance on how these should inform the application of the mitigation hierarchy.Conclusion: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline has received political endorsement from the relevant regulatory government departments. A focussed training programme has promoted awareness and understanding of the Guideline. Preliminary reports indicate that the Guideline has been effective in influencing decision-making.

A Recap—The Role of Intermediaries in Communicating Science

Intermediaries serve several crucial roles in bridging scientists and society. Intrinsic to many of them are challenges key to science communication. These include determining how intermediaries can increase awareness of their organization and their messages, how intermediaries can increase their trustworthiness, how to present information to different types of audiences while retaining their credibility, and how to engage the broader public in issues of policy-relevant science. This chapter describes the five common goals, or roles, that intermediaries take on, and then briefly summarizes the various intermediaries covered in this section of the handbook. The chapter concludes by highlighting and expanding on several themes and challenges that are relevant to the communicative roles of intermediaries.

What hat are you wearing? On the multiple roles of fishery scientists in the ICES community

Trends towards a more participatory agenda in policy-relevant science imply that the roles and work tasks of scientists become more multifaceted. In Europe, the increased use of multiannual plans creates a need for fishery scientists to contribute with their expertise in a wide variety of situations. We identify and characterize four roles for scientists as developers , reviewers , judges , and messengers in arenas where management plans are produced and evaluated. Using examples of producing and evaluating management plans for pelagic fish stocks in Europe, we present different scientific roles and how they may intertwine. The examples illustrate that fishery scientists increasingly interact with advisory councils and industry stakeholders when performing roles as developers and messengers. The roles as reviewers and judges are typically affiliated with evaluation processes carried out under the auspices of the marine science and advisory organization International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). While it may be difficult to separate the roles in practice, we argue that it must be emphasized to be aware of their different requirements to ensure that scientific credibility is not compromised. By asking the question “What hat are you wearing?”, we encourage individual fishery scientists, their employers, and ICES as a network organization of expertise to reflect on roles, affiliations, mandates, and possible consequences of wearing different “hats”.