Civic Science and Salmon Recovery Planning in Puget Sound

Abstract

Today, science and scientists as experts no longer hold sway as unquestioned authoritative sources of objective information in many policy debates. This has led to growing frustration on the part of government officials and scientists over their inability to have science exert as meaningful a role as they think appropriate in the consideration and selection of policy alternatives. Given this development, what can be done to restore or otherwise ensure that the appropriate science and scientists are integrated into the policy process so that they matter to policy outcomes? There is general agreement that traditional top-down, one-way (from scientists to others), linear models for conceptualizing the role of science and scientists in the policy process are not capable of capturing the changed political, social, and "scientific" realities of the contemporary policymaking context. Many have gravitated to the concept of civic science/scientists as a new and improved model. Yet, despite clear progress in reconceptualizing the role of science in the policy process, there are gaps in the literature when it comes to actual applications of civic science. As McNie correctly notes: "it is essential that we develop a more robust understanding of experience and practical experiments regarding how relationships [and institutions] are constructed and managed across the science-society boundary" (p. 29). This research develops lessons for civic science in the policy process by exploring an innovative collaborative governance effort by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries and the Shared Strategy for Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound (Washington). The integration of science into the salmon recovery process in this case relied on a series of actions that the Technical Recovery Team (TRT) took to bridge the traditionally separate science and policy spheres in order to increase the certainty of science impact, specific steps taken to establish and maintain the TRTs role as an authoritative, credible source of science, and the embrace of a results-oriented, adaptive learning approach.

Collaboration within the Puget Sound Marine and Nearshore Science Network

“…Results were related to relevant frameworks describing high-impact, successful collaborative research (Cummings and Kiesler 2005;Jakobsen, Hels, and McLaughlin 2004;Maglaughlin and Sonnenwald 2005;Weber 1998;Weber, Leschine, and Brock 2010). In addition, relevant qualitative findings were used to discuss trends and potential opportunities in communication patterns identified through network analysis.…”

Converting Community Knowledge into Catchment Nutrient Limits: A Constructivist Analysis of a New Zealand Collaborative Approach to Water Management

“…Another key LU&WQP research institution maintains that "science centric management alone will not be enough to address these [water quality] issues" (Wedderburn et al 2011: 25). The sentiments expressed by Weber et al (2010), that moves to collaborative governance require a change in knowledge governance, are evident here.…”

“…This was possible given that the limit setting process was structured, and its implementation orchestrated, in such a way that local knowledge was slotted into the conventional sequence without hindering or threatening the political imperative for epistemic authority. Hence, notwithstanding the general agreement that adherence to the linear knowledge governance model is inadequate in the contemporary collaborative governance context (Folke et al 2005;Pielke 2007;Scholtz and Stiftel 2005;Weber et al 2010), the imperative to uphold scientific and political authority continues to anchor it steadfastly in place. On this basis, if community involvement follows the format seen in this case study, the sustainability mandate to open up knowledge-making to local knowledge is more likely to see the linear model entrenched rather than supplanted.…”

“…This is an important question to ask in the context of the sustainability paradigm now embodied in legislation across Western democracies. With a mandate for the simultaneous delivery of social, ecological, cultural and economic values and resource uses, the move to collaboration is seeking not only the involvement of communities in policy-making, but increasingly the embrace of local knowledge alongside that of science (Folke et al 2005;Scholz and Stiftel 2005;Weber et al 2010). For example, Weber et al (2010: 236) maintain that:…”

“…Notwithstanding the ongoing work in this direction (see Cash et al 2006;Lane et al 2011;Landstrom et al 2011;Voinov and Bousquet 2010;Wallington et al 2010;Weber et al 2010;Whatmore 2009), in contentious natural resource decision-making settings, integrating scientific with local knowledge represents a profound a shift in knowledge governance. It constitutes as authoritative and reliable both scientific and local knowledges.…”