| |
Abstract/Syllabus:
|
Karl, Herman, and Lawrence Susskind, 11.941 Use of Joint Fact Finding in Science Intensive Policy Disputes, Part I, Fall 2003. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare), http://ocw.mit.edu (Accessed 08 Jul, 2010). License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
Bob Alverts, in his guest lecture, focuses on natural resource management in rural eastern Oregon. (Photo courtesy of Bob Alverts.)
Course Highlights
This course features lecture notes from guest lecturers and a full reading list.
Course Description
11.941 and 11.942 make up a one-year seminar. The goal of this seminar is to explore the role of science and scientists in ecosystems and natural resources management focusing on joint fact finding as a new approach to environmental policy-making. Increasingly scientists and science organizations are confronting a conundrum: Why is science often ignored in important societal decisions even as the call for decisions based on sound science escalates? One reason is that decision-making is often driven by a variety of nonscientific, adversarial, and stakeholder dynamics. Thus, even though science helps inform choices, it is only one of many values and interests considered by each stakeholder. In response to this emerging challenge, scientists, and science agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey, are embarking upon research that explores the problems of incorporating science into value-laden societal decisions. This research includes designing experiments that will assess the appropriateness of using the new and emerging approach of Joint Fact Finding to address some of the Nation's most contentious environmental conflicts. In the first few sessions we will examine the problems of using science in environmental disputes. In following sessions, students will analyze and discuss cases that involved or that should have involved Joint Fact Finding of various kinds.
Special Features
Technical Requirements
RealOne™ Player software is required to run the .rm files found on this course site.
Syllabus
The goal of this seminar is to explore the role of science and scientists in ecosystems and natural resources management focusing on joint fact finding as a new approach to environmental policy-making. Increasingly scientists and science organizations are confronting a conundrum: Why is science often ignored in important societal decisions even as the call for decisions based on sound science escalates? One reason is that decision-making is often driven by a variety of nonscientific, adversarial, and stakeholder dynamics. Thus, even though science helps inform choices, it is only one of many values and interests considered by each stakeholder.
In response to this emerging challenge, scientists, and science agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey, are embarking upon research that explores the problems of incorporating science into value-laden societal decisions. This research includes designing experiments that will assess the appropriateness of using the new and emerging approach of Joint Fact Finding to address some of the Nation's most contentious environmental conflicts. In the first few sessions we will examine the problems of using science in environmental disputes. In following sessions, students will analyze and discuss cases that involved or that should have involved Joint Fact Finding of various kinds. During the second half of the seminar, students will concentrate on gathering information to assist in resolving the Cape Wind project, the dispute concerning the placement of wind farms in waters adjacent to Nantucket. Students will lay the groundwork for a collaborative project that includes Federal and State agencies, academic institutions and non-profits.
The seminar, which will operate as a workshop, will be interactive and dependent upon a high degree of student participation and initiative. Students will have the opportunity to discuss real-life situations with guest speakers that include senior level Federal policy makers. Students will be expected to undertake a project that analyzes the role of Joint Fact Finding in the Cape Wind controversy. Early in the semester we will discuss project options. The projects could take the form of individual research papers or a role-play simulation developed by the class as a team that introduces participants in the Cape Wind controversy to the concept of Joint Fact Finding. The projects could be part of a joint USGS/MIT working paper series.
Major Themes
There are three major themes in this course:
Theme A (Lectures #1 through 6): The challenge of using scientific and technical information in environmental policy-making
During sessions in this theme we will discuss the ways in which scientific information is normally used in the policy-making process. The points of view of the scientist and policy maker will be considered. We will explore why scientific information is not used and how it is misused.
Theme B (Lectures #7 through 14): Introduction and development of the Joint Fact Finding Approach
In this theme we explore collaborative approaches as a better way to incorporate science into environmental policy. A simple hypothesis that we will test is "the more you involve the people most affected by a policy decision in the design of the supporting scientific inquiry, the greater the chance that they will use and value the results in decisions that get made." To help resolve the most contentious environmental disputes, citizens across the nation are increasingly using collaborative processes to seek consensus. We will discuss collaborative approaches as a foundation for citizen stewardship groups and the role these groups play in sustainable development and environmental policy-making.
Theme C (Lectures #15 through 22): Cape Wind Project
We will investigate the background of this dispute to place wind turbines in shoal water off the Nantucket coast. Then we will explore Joint Fact Finding as an approach to help resolve the dispute.
Calendar
Theme A: The Challenge of using Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental Policy-Making |
1 |
Introduction and Overview |
2 |
Discussion of Readings |
3 |
Guest Participant: P. Patrick Leahy, Assoc. Director for Geology, USGS (Invited) |
4-5 |
Discussion of Readings |
6 |
Guest Participant: Stanley Ponce, Senior Advisor for Partnerships and Business Policy, USGS (Invited) |
Theme B: Introduction and Development of the Joint Fact Finding Approach |
7-11 |
Discussion of Readings |
12 |
Natural Resource Management in Rural Eastern Oregon
Guest Participant: Robert Alverts, Science Advisor, Office of the Regional Biologist, USGS (Invited)
Guest Participant: Christine Turner, Research Geologist, USGS (Invited) |
13 |
Guest Participant: Michael Mery, Chair Tomales Bay Watershed Council (Invited; TBWC Embodies the Principles and Concepts Discussed in this Theme; the Importance of a Neutral Mediator) |
14 |
Framing a Joint Fact Finding Mission Statement in a Contested Ecosystem Management Situation |
Theme C: Cape Wind Project |
15 |
Cape Wind Controversy and Wind Energy in General |
16 |
Current Status of Wind Power in General and Off Shore Wind Power in Particular |
17 |
NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) |
18 |
Discussion of Readings |
19 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present the Overview of the wind Controversy |
20 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present Pro-View of the Controversy |
21 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present the Con-View of the Controversy |
22 |
Class Presentation |
|
|
|
|
Further Reading:
|
Readings
Readings must be completed before the class number noted.
Theme A: The Challenge of using Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental Policy-Making |
1 |
Introduction and Overview |
|
2 |
Discussion of Readings |
Adler, P. S., R. C. Barret, M. C. Bean, J. E. Birkhoff, C. P. Ozawa, and E. B. Rubin. Managing Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental Cases: Principles and Practices for Mediators and Facilitators. 2000, pp. 5-21.
Kendler, H. H. "Should Scientists Remain Objective?" Science 301 (2003): 310-311. |
3 |
Guest Participant: P. Patrick Leahy, Assoc. Director for Geology, USGS (Invited) |
Sarewitz, D., and R. A. Pielke. "Prediction in Science and Policy." In Prediction: Science, Decision-making and the Future of the Nation. Edited by D. Sarewitz, Jr. R. A. Pielke, and Jr. R. Byerly. Island Press, 2000, pp. 11-21. |
4 |
Discussion of Readings |
McCreary, S. "Resolving Science-intensive Public Policy Disputes-reflections on the New York Bight Initiative." In The Consensus Building Handbook. Edited by L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 1999, pp. 829-858.
Smith, M. E. "Chaos, Consensus and Common Sense." The Ecologist 25, no. 2/3 (1995): 80-85. |
5 |
Discussion of Readings |
Jacobs, K. L., S. N. Luoma, and K. A. Taylor. "CALFED an Experiment in Science and Decision-making." Environment 45, no. 1 (2003): 30-41.
S. McCreary, J. Gamman, B. Brooks, L. Whitman, R. Bryson, B. Fuller, A. McInerny, and R. Glazer. "Applying a Mediated Negotiation Framework to Integrated Coastal Zone Management." Coastal Management 29 (2001): 183-216. (Read pp. 202-209.) |
6 |
Guest Participant: Stanley Ponce, Senior Advisor for Partnerships and Business Policy, USGS (Invited) |
Susskind, L. E. "The Need for a Better Balance between Science and Politics." In Environmental Diplomacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 63-78. |
Theme B: Introduction and Development of the Joint Fact Finding Approach |
7 |
Discussion of Readings |
Leshner, A. I. "Public Enagement with Science." Science 299 (2003): 977.
Karl, H. A., and C. E Turner. "Incorporating Science into Decision-making." Science 300 (2003): 1370.
Walker, G. B., and S. E. Daniels. "Natural Resource Policy and the Paradox of Public Involvement - Bringing Scientists and Citizens Together." In Understanding Community-based Ecosystem Management. Edited by G. J. Gray, M. J. Enzer, and J. Kusel. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc., 2001, pp. 253-269. |
8 |
Discussion of Readings |
Ozawa, C., and L. E. Susskind. "Mediating Science-intensive Disputes." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 5, no. 1 (1985): 23-39.
Ehrman, J. R., and B. L. Stinson. "Joint Fact Finding and the Use of Technical Experts." In The Consensus Building Handbook. Edited by L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, and J. Thomas-Larmer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1999, pp. 375-399. |
9 |
Discussion of Readings |
Andrews, C. J. Humble Analysis - the Practice of Joint Fact Finding. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002, p. 200.
Read the following:
Preface
"Joint Fact Finding," Chapter 1, pp. 3-16
"Lessons Learned," Chapter 16, pp. 165-176
"Elements of a Successful Joint Fact Finding," Chapter 17, pp. 177-186 |
10 |
Discussion of Readings |
Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker. Working through Environmental Conflict - the Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001, p. 299.
Read the following:
Preface, pp. xi-xiv
Chapter 1, pp. 1-13 |
11 |
Discussion of Readings |
Daniels, S. E. and G. B. Walker. Working through Environmental Conflict - the Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2001, p. 299.
Read the following:
"Systems Thinking," Chapter 6, pp. 97-106
Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D. H. Guston, J. Jager, and R. B. Mitchell. "Knowledge Systems for Sustainable Development." In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. (In press)
Powell, K. "Open the Floodgates." Nature 420 (2002): 356-358. |
12 |
Natural Resource Management in Rural Eastern Oregon
Guest Participant: Robert Alverts, Science Advisor, Office of the Regional Biologist, USGS (Invited)
Guest Participant: Christine Turner, Research Geologist, USGS (Invited) |
Kusel, J., S. C. Doak, S. Carpenter, and V. E. Sturtevant. "The Role of the Public in Adaptive Ecosystem Management." InSierra Neveda Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress 2. Vol. 2. Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources, 1996, pp. 611-624.
Shindler, B., and K. A. Cheek. "Integrating Citizens in Adaptive Management: A Propositional Analysis." Conservation Ecology 3, no. 1, 14 (1999).
Turner, C. E. "An Experience in John Day, Oregon - the Need for USGS Agenda-less Science in Collaborative Partnerships." An Internal USGS Report. 2003. |
13 |
Guest Participant: Michael Mery, Chair Tomales Bay Watershed Council (Invited; TBWC Embodies the Principles and Concepts Discussed in this Theme; the Importance of a Neutral Mediator) |
Mery, Michael. Notes on the Tomales Bay Watershed Council and Environmental Issues.2003, p. 4.
McVicker, G., and T. Bryan. Community-Based Ecosystem Stewardship. 2002, p. 4. |
14 |
Framing a Joint Fact Finding Mission Statement in a Contested Ecosystem Management Situation |
|
Theme C: Cape Wind Project |
15 |
Cape Wind Controversy and Wind Energy in General |
Background on the Cape Wind Controversy and Wind Energy in General.
NY Times Magazine article. |
16 |
Current Status of Wind Power in General and Off Shore Wind Power in Particular |
Susskind, L., and P. Field. "The Mutual-Gains Approach." In Dealing with an Angry Public. New York: The Free Press, 1996, pp. 37-59.
Readings on the Current Status of Wind Power in General and Off Shore Wind Power in Particular. |
17 |
NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) |
Readings on NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard). |
18 |
Discussion of Readings |
Readings on the Cape Wind Controversy. |
19 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present the Overview of the wind Controversy |
|
20 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present Pro-View of the Controversy |
|
21 |
Invited Guest Participant to Present the Con-View of the Controversy |
|
|
|
|
|
Rating:
0 user(s) have rated this courseware
Views:
18370
|
|
|
|
|