Reflecting on boundary dynamics in a case study setting: Insights from systemic intervention & STS

1. Reflecting on boundary dynamics in a case study setting: Insights from systemic intervention & STS Virginia Baker & Wendy Gregory Integrative Research for Sustainability Group, ESR

2. Based on previous publication: Baker, V., Fowles, J., Gregory, W. & Phillips, D.  (2008) Making boundaries Malleable: Systemic Intervention in a Contested Setting, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol 3, no 3, pp31-43.

3. Presentation outline • Case study - purpose & background • Theoretical approaches to boundaries • Boundary critique (systems thinking) • Hoppe’s typologies of boundary work (STS) • Strategies for boundary work (research design, ethics, methods) • Conclusion

4. Study Purpose & Background • New Zealand government (Ministry of Health) funded study • To investigate allegations of exposure (current and historical) to dioxins for residents living in proximity to the former Ivon Watkins Dow chemical plant in Paritutu, New Plymouth.

5. New Zealand Auckland Wellington New Plymouth Christchurch

9. Case / setting characteristics Conflict • Long standing historical conflict between government and community • Polarised views • Community distrustful (many concerned about adverse health effects) Boundaries hardened • Community activists vs industry/government/policy/science • Science contested (historically part of problem, not solution)

10. Key dynamics & assumptions • Boundaries become hardened by conflict • Boundary softening is an important activity for interventions to transform an intractable conflict into a search for shared understandings and possible solutions • Better understanding of boundary dynamics can improve the effectiveness of boundary work

11. Midgley’s Boundary Critique: Marginalisation

12. Midgley’s Boundary critique: Margins, ethics, rituals

13. Hoppe’s boundary work Interdisciplinary: • Science, technology and society (STS) • Knowledge utilisation (KU) strand of policy studies Social constructivist theory of boundary traffic and boundary work Focus on power relations between science and policy

14. Hoppe’s boundary work The science and policy relationship • Power struggle • Demarcation and coordination Dialectic and parallel development • Scientisation of politics • Politicisation of science Typology of eight models of boundary work

19. Where our case fits … • Pragmatist • Dialogue based • Advocacy area • Science ‘owned’ • Dispositional or discourse coalition model

20. Critical success factors for this boundary work • Research design (policy-research nexus) • Ethics for authentic dialogue • Methods for authentic dialogue • Bridging technologies

21. Research Design (Policy-research nexus) Involvement of third party (ESR) Project split into 2 Phases Phase I: Community consultation Phase II: Scientific study (two surveys, multi-pathway exposure modelling, blood sampling and analysis)

22. Ethics for authentic dialogue • Listen to local concerns and ensure science addresses these to best extent possible • Involve those most affected by the issue in the study design • Active listening, acknowledgement of community expertise, open information sharing, being accessible, making decisions transparent

23. Methods: making workable space for dialogue Consultation (stakeholder analysis) • Paritutu Community Health Liaison Group maintained only as ‘ceremonial’ decision making • Actual dialogue, decision preferences and negotiations done in ‘one on one’ interviews (identity work)

24. Methods: making dialogue work to reshape Dialogue helped to re-establish agreed ‘facts’ • Sharing international literature • Revisit previous NZ govt studies Rhetorical bridges (mirroring) • “jigsaw” metaphor • ‘moving forward’

25. Bridging technologies • Help to transform conversation or dialogue into durable ‘facts’ • 1. Survey tools – making voices and anecdote into data • 2. GIS modelling – visual representations allow for sophisticated mirroring and overlay - refining local knowledge into data • Support shared understandings, shared exploration

26. Spatial Prediction Model of Soil TCDD

27. Limitations BUT … The bridging tools (and the scientific judgements underpinning) privilege what can be validated within existing knowledge/power relations Uncertainties and many community concerns remained anecdotal and therefore outside the durable cartographies Tension: • Privileging and representing local knowledge vs scientifically defensible study

28. Lessons … • ‘Independent’, third party crucial BUT fraught • Dialogue and rhetorical bridging is key to successful boundary work • Bridging technologies can create durable knowledge, but ‘facts’ still contested • Local knowledge is key for bridging

29. Conclusion • Government and community relationship was the most visible aspect of boundary and boundary work • Boundary critique (Midgley) useful in explaining visible dynamics of conflict • Hoppe articulates less visible knowledge/power boundaries between science and policy • Both theories support that pragmatism and dialogue based approaches are key in designing interventions for contested situations

30. Key references • Midgley, G. (2000) Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology and Practice Kluwer: New York • Hoppe, R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus Poiesis Prax 2005:3 pp199-215 • Baker, V., Fowles, J., Gregory, W. & Phillips, D.  (2008) Making boundaries Malleable: Systemic Intervention in a Contested Setting, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol 3, no 3, pp31-43

31. Acknowledgements ESR Ltd Jeff Fowles (toxicologist) Nick Garrett (statistician) Felicity Marriott (research assistant) David Phillips (programme manager) Ruth Pirie (GIS – spatial analysis) Keriata Stuart (Maori adviser) Air and Environmental Sciences Ltd Mathew Noonan (toxico-kinetic modelling) Craig Stevenson (air dispersal modelling) Ministry of Health http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/238fd5fb4fd051844c256669006aed57/e7fe671ed87fabd1cc256fea00762da6?OpenDocument#1