Transcript Slides of lection #1

Social science for the
Integrated Assessment of
environmental risks and problems.
DAY 1: An general overview of approaches,
methods and project examples.
Dr. J. David Tàbara
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology
Autonomous University of Barcelona
www.uab.cat/icta
Why social sciences?
• Environmental problems are social
problems
• Environmental problems are created and
suffered by humans
• Environmental problems are best
understood by examining relationships
between social-ecological systems
The current situation…
Environmental problems are increasing
interrelated, creating multiple constraints
Globe map of natural hazards
The disappearance of the Aral Sea
Satellite pictures taken in 1973
The disappearance of the Aral Sea
Satellite pictures taken in 1973, 2004
The disappearance of the Aral Sea
Satellite pictures taken in 1973, 2004 and 2008
It was the fourth largest interior sea of the world
Some misconceptions about
social scientists…
Using focus groups deliberation
techniques on climate change
Sociology as science (I)
- Its results can be falsified and
accumulated.
- It has an array of consolidated methods.
- It integrates a number of social science
disciplines.
- It’s a rational explanation of the social
world (the science of ‘common sense’)…
Sociology as science (II)
- It looks at social realities which exist in
the social world, to some extent similarly
as physical realities exist in the natural
world.
- Such as social needs or public values.
Sociology as science (III)
-
-
Some tools of analysis: concepts, ideal
types, models, theories…
Process: induction-deduction / circle of
science.
METHODS MUST BE LINKED TO
THEORIES
The research process
Socioenvironmental science =
•
•
•
Theory about human behaviour or agency
+ Methods
+ Field work in an specific soc. env. context
• Social-environmental science is SCIENCE (and
technology) IN CONTEXT
MODERATION AND
FACILITATION OF
PARTICIPATORY
INTEGRATED ASSESMENT
FOCUS GROUPS.
Dealing with complex environmental problems and
risks requires structured processes to integrate….
Evaluation
SCIENCE,
EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE /
SCIENTISTS,
EXPERTS
POLICY /
DECISION
MAKERS
Decision
INTEGRATED
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
AND METHODS
THE GENERAL
PUBLIC,
STAKEHOLDERS,
NON-EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE
Communication
Integrated Assessment
focus groups
Definition:
 A participatory rich-information procedure based on
dialogue;
Aimed at integrating expert and non-expert
knowledge to support complex decisions related to
environmental risks and sustainability.
Integrated Assessment
focus groups
Procedure:
 A meeting of 6-10 people, with the facilitator.
 Use of different sources of information, with Integrated
Assessment models (IAMs, including socioeconomic
factors).
 Important role of the facilitator (‘integrator’).
 Crucial influence of the criteria of participants’ selection:
heterogeneity, based on maximum representation of
diversity.
 Sessions of about 2:30 hours, from 1-5 sessions,
depending on the issue and resources.
Ulysses project (1996-1999)
 Focal themes: climate change
& urban sustainability
(lifestyles).
 Over 30 Researchers from 10
research European centres.
 Over 600 European citizens
participated in the
consultation-dialog process.
 Participants: mainly citizens
from the general public, but
also some complementary
policy panels composed of
opinion leaders, public
representatives and business
managers.
Kasemir, B.; J. Jäger; & C.
Jaeger, M. T. Gardner, M.T.
(Eds). 2003. Public
Participation in Sustainability
Science. A handbook.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
How to run focus groups
Practice: running focus groups
SOME QUESTIONS:
• WHAT are the most important environmental problems
and/or risks affecting now or potentially in the near future
Ashgabat and Turkmenistan?
• HOW should these risks/problems should be dealt? With
what measures?
• WHO should be most involved in dealing with these
problems/risks
• WHEN should we act and WHERE?
Chose a moderator, a note-taker and read instructions about
how to moderate and participate in a Focus Group
THE GOOD MODERATOR – INTEGRATOR:
The aim of a discussion group it is not always to arrive to a consensus.
Actually, in many cases this is just not possible. The important thing is to
assure that the act-moderator is encouraging and let all the diversity of
opinions to be expressed. Someone´s opinion may change the general
one, from the learning process that takes place during the discussion.
Moderation should be simply a civilized structured conversation:
1. First of all, the moderator encourages the different participants to introduce
themselves/ to know a bit of each other.
2. He helps to create a collective reflection and not only the sum of individual
visions.
3. The moderator-integrator (MI), in opposition to the simply moderator,
incorporates to the discussion new knowledge and opinions expressed by the
group, in addition to other knowledge coming from different resources, in order to
formulate new questions and conclusions.
4. The MI makes sure that all the different opinions have been expressed and
facilitates the participant ´s involvement, so that a greater diversity of views will
arise. He/She must avoid confrontation among participants.
5. The MI keeps a comfortable and friendly ambiance and controls the time,
warning the participants about it when necessary.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The MI avoids questions which answer is whether “yes” or “no”.
He/she asks for explanations.
At the same time, the MI tries to avoid never-ending speeches from
a “spontaneous expert” that may prevent the others from talking.
The MI helps the conversation going from the more general topics
to the concrete ones until it gets to relevant conclusions, which may
not be shared by everyone in the group.
The MI is after all a professional, so he/she respects everybody ´s
opinion, and most important, he/she respects the participants. The
MI takes seriously every single contribution and thanks all of them.
The participants are always right; they just have different languages
to express themselves.
The MI encourages the participants, has a good sense of humour
and avoids defensive attitudes.
Additionally, there are some other things that are never said, and which belongs
to the knowledge of the moderator. Concretely the moderator-researcher:
•
•
•
•
Knows how to stare and how to use the faces (i.e. to look with attention to
one participant or to stop looking to another one), as well as the body
language, avoiding tension.
Uses strategically the humour sense and the breaks.
Can show himself ingenuous or be super interested when it is needed, to
make participants believe that what they are saying is important and
relevant (although we may think the opposite). Sometimes the most
important part of the discussion appears in the less expected moment.
Wears, or tries to identificate himself with the language or even the
manners of the participants (the empathy is on the basis of the qualitative
methodology; I have seen sociologists buying leather jackets to interview
drug-addicted people), so as to make them to behave as if we were close
friends…
THE GOOD PARTICIPANT:
•
•
•
•
The participants can and should criticise the concepts, ideas and
interventions of the others (not them), so interruptions are possible.
Actually, it is possible and it must be done to comment the ideas of the
other participants, since the important fact is to create discussion, not a set
of monologues. SO, HE IS READY AND GOES TO:
LEARN. He is ready to learn from the others. He is observant and he is
creative and open.
GIVE OPINIONS AND KNOWLEDGES IN A SINCERE WAY AND TO
CHANGE OR TO IMPROVE THESE OPINIONS AND
KNOWLEDGEMENTS IN CASE IT IS NECESSARY. He is ready, if it is
necessary, to change his own opinion from the expressed ideas of their
meeting partners. A part from the assumption of their own opinions or
knowledges could not be correct or enough. And he contributes these
knowledges and opinions in a sincere and clear way.
RESPECT HIS PARTNERS. He avoids personal criticisms or defensive
interventions. He respects and pays attention to the collectives that usually
have more difficulties to speak (women, elder people, with less studies,…).
A template of a discussion guide
Introduction:
Welcome; Personal introduction of moderator; Introduction: Research organisation and sponsor
Purpose of the study; Selection criteria for participation; Indication of data collection by video or, audio
tape, questionnaire; Guarantee of anonymity; Personal Introduction of participants; Name, professional
activity, expectations for the meeting; General discussion rules; Talk openly: We want to know your very
opinion; Listen to others with tolerance
Topic X
Stimulating: What comes into your mind when you hear X? When did you hear of X, do X for the first
time?; What are the reasons for the controversy about X?
Contrasting: Some people say, that X should be stopped. What's your opinion on this?
Integration of all participants: Mr. X gave us his view of that topic. What do the others think about that?
Do you agree with that?
Closing of topic: Now we talked for a while about X. Is there anything we forgot? What else do you want
to say? ;We talked for a while about X, and I would like to move the discussion to an other issue, namely Y.
Topic Y
Ending of discussion: Consensus round: What can you agree on? What is your least denominator?
Feed-back round: How did you feel during the discussion?;What did you like? What can be improved?
Thanks you participation; Information about availability of summary of results, timing of reimbursement
Good-bye