Experience Based Knowledge in a Science Policy Context

科学政策背景下基于经验的知识

• 批准号: 0349907
• 负责人: Bonnie McCay
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Rutgers University New Brunswick
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2004
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2004-03-15 至 2008-02-29
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0349907&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Experience; Based; Knowledge; Science; Policy

In recent decades the roles of lay experts as sources of information useful to policy have been recognized and subjected to scrutiny. The present study examines the role of such experienced-based knowledge (EBK) in marine fisheries management, where non-scientists have substantial knowledge about natural and technical systems that derives from their occupations. This knowledge, although qualitatively different from research-based knowledge, has been important in policy outcomes. The question to be examined is what are the implications of this storehouse of experienced based-knowledge for the development of science-based policy? This question is addressed through a comparative study that will examine how EBK appears within the policymaking institutions, how EBK relates to professional or technical expertise, and what difference experience-based knowledge (EBK) makes to policies and their outcomes. The research will compare various approaches to public participation, e.g. advisory panels, public forums, and cooperative research projects, that are currently used in the management of Atlantic cod fisheries in New England, Canada and the European Union. This study is coordinated with an EU-funded examination of these questions, concerning North Sea cod. The US system has a number of formal and informal mechanisms of participation, which often take an adversarial and even litigious form. The EU fisheries science process involves almost no formal public input. The Canadian approach has been similar to the EU in this regard, but has recently begun to open up. Two hypotheses are examined. 1) The rules and practices governing public participation in and the scrutiny of scientific deliberations have an influence on scientific outcomes. Where EBK is high and where the rules and practices permit its consideration the outcomes will reflect the content of the EBK. 2) User group satisfaction with policies will be greater where EBK is recognized by the policy process and has an influence on outcomes. Both hypotheses would be predicted by the literature on public participation in policy. The science studies literature, on the other hand, would suggest that these hypotheses would not be confirmed because in situations of high EBK, in particular where rules and practices give space to lay experts, scientists will respond by intensifying their boundary work. These hypotheses will be examined through both comparisons among cases and among differing rules and practices within cases. The practices to be examined include negotiated rule making, stakeholder forums, the use of advisory panels and collaborative research. The impact of public openness itself, e.g. sunshine laws and litigation, will be examined along with the role of informal interactions among stakeholders. Research methods include documentary research, interviews, observations of meetings of scientists, advisory panels and other public forums, and comparative analysis of data from formal surveys between the US and the European cases. This is made possible by existing data for the US cases and data gathering that will be carried out by the EU project. In pilot activities for the study September 2003-August 2004 (NSF #0322570) a graduate research assistant has interviewed participants in cooperative research and related fisheries meetings in New England and Canada and at one international meeting. Since public participation in science policy is a critical question in all forms of environmental policy, findings that improve our understanding of these processes promise broad application. Results will be disseminated through presentations and discussions in national and international policy networks in which the investigators participate, as well as at meetings of relevant professional associations and in scholarly and scientific publications.

近几十年来，非专业专家作为对政策有用的信息来源的作用已得到承认，并受到审查。本研究审查这种基于经验的知识(EBK)在海洋渔业管理中的作用，在这种情况下，非科学家对其职业产生的自然和技术系统有大量知识。这些知识虽然在性质上不同于以研究为基础的知识，但在政策成果中很重要。要审查的问题是，这一经验基础知识宝库对制定以科学为基础的政策有何影响？这一问题将通过一项比较研究来解决，该研究将审查EBK如何出现在决策机构中，EBK如何与专业或技术专长相关联，以及基于经验的知识(EBK)对政策及其结果有何影响。这项研究将比较新英格兰、加拿大和欧盟目前在大西洋鳕鱼渔业管理中使用的各种公众参与方法，例如咨询小组、公共论坛和合作研究项目。这项研究与欧盟资助的关于北海鳕鱼的这些问题的审查相协调。美国的制度有许多正式和非正式的参与机制，通常采取对抗性甚至诉讼的形式。欧盟渔业科学进程几乎不涉及正式的公共投入。加拿大的做法在这方面与欧盟类似，但最近开始开放。对两个假设进行了检验。1)管理公众参与和审查科学审议的规则和做法对科学成果有影响。在EBK较高且规则和惯例允许其考虑的情况下，结果将反映EBK的内容。2)当EBK被政策过程认可并对结果产生影响时，用户群体对政策的满意度会更高。这两种假说都会被有关公众参与政策的文献所预测。另一方面，科学研究文献表明，这些假设将不会得到证实，因为在EBK较高的情况下，特别是在规则和实践为非专业人员提供空间的情况下，科学家将通过加强他们的边界工作来应对。这些假设将通过案例之间的比较以及案例内不同规则和做法之间的比较来检验。要审查的做法包括通过谈判制定规则、利益攸关方论坛、使用咨询小组和合作研究。将审查公开本身的影响，例如阳光法律和诉讼，以及利益攸关方之间非正式互动的作用。研究方法包括文献研究、访谈、对科学家会议、咨询小组和其他公共论坛的观察，以及对美国和欧洲案例的正式调查数据的比较分析。美国案件的现有数据和欧盟项目将进行的数据收集使这一点成为可能。在这项研究的试验活动中(国家科学基金会0322570号)，一名研究生研究助理在新英格兰和加拿大以及一次国际会议上采访了合作研究和有关渔业会议的与会者。由于公众参与科学政策在所有形式的环境政策中都是一个关键问题，因此，提高我们对这些过程的理解的发现有望得到广泛应用。结果将通过调查员参与的国家和国际政策网络以及相关专业协会的会议以及学术和科学出版物的介绍和讨论来传播。