Experience Based Knowledge in a Science Policy Context

近几十年来，外行专家作为政策有用信息来源的作用得到了承认，并受到了审查。本研究报告探讨了这种基于经验的知识（EBK）在海洋渔业管理中的作用，在海洋渔业管理中，非科学家对来自其职业的自然和技术系统有大量的知识。这种知识虽然与基于研究的知识有质的不同，但在政策成果方面很重要。需要审查的问题是，这一经验丰富的知识库对制定以科学为基础的政策有何影响？ 这一问题是通过一项比较研究来解决的，该研究将审查基于经验的知识如何出现在决策机构中，基于经验的知识如何与专业或技术专门知识相关联，以及基于经验的知识对政策及其结果有何影响。这项研究将比较公众参与的各种方法，例如咨询小组、公共论坛和合作研究项目，这些方法目前用于新英格兰、加拿大和欧洲联盟的大西洋鳕鱼渔业管理。这项研究与欧盟资助的关于北海鳕鱼的这些问题的检查相协调。美国的制度有许多正式和非正式的参与机制，这些机制往往采取对抗甚至诉讼的形式。欧盟渔业科学进程几乎不涉及正式的公众投入。加拿大在这方面的做法与欧盟相似，但最近开始开放。两个假设进行检查。1)关于公众参与和监督科学审议的规则和做法对科学成果有影响。如果EBK较高，并且规则和做法允许考虑，则结果将反映EBK的内容。2)如果EBK得到政策进程的承认并对结果产生影响，用户群体对政策的满意度就会更高。这两种假设都可以从公众参与政策的文献中得到预测。另一方面，科学研究文献表明，这些假设不会得到证实，因为在高EBK的情况下，特别是在规则和实践为外行专家提供空间的情况下，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中不同规则和做法之间的比较来审查。将审查的做法包括谈判制定规则、利益攸关方论坛、利用咨询小组和合作研究。将沿着审查公开本身的影响，如阳光法和诉讼，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、观察科学家会议、咨询小组和其他公共论坛，以及对美国和欧洲案例之间正式调查数据的比较分析。 美国病例的现有数据和欧盟项目将进行的数据收集使这成为可能。 在2003年9月至2004年8月的研究试点活动中（NSF #0322570），一名研究生助理采访了在新英格兰和加拿大举行的合作研究和相关渔业会议以及一次国际会议的与会者。 由于公众参与科学政策是所有形式的环境政策中的一个关键问题，因此，提高我们对这些过程的理解的研究结果有望得到广泛的应用。 调查结果将通过在调查人员参加的国家和国际政策网络中的介绍和讨论以及在相关专业协会的会议上和在学术和科学出版物上传播。

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.