Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo

Abstract

Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision‐makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus‐based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty‐eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call “conflict over values” and “conflict over evidence.” We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision‐making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

Eliciting Expert Judgements to Underpin Our Understanding of Faecal Indicator Organism Loss from Septic Tank Systems

“…Further, the judgements made for these scenarios were supported by available evidence from the literature that reports FIO delivery loads from STS relative to distance to watercourse thresholds, i.e., 100 % delivery if STS are located <50 m to a watercourse and significant reduction to negligible levels if STS are situated >200 m from a watercourse (Gill and Mockler, 2016). As the factors varied in the intermediate scenarios, uncertainty increased demonstrating that experts attached different levels of importance to the factors and interactions thereof (Donfrancesco et al, 2023). However, these scenarios were highly debatable due to limited evidence on the influence of, for example, 50 m distance or slope of 5-25 % even if the effluent movement risk was high (Jansen et al, 2020).…”

A problem formulation framework for the application of in silico toxicology methods in chemical risk assessment

“…Also, the framework proposed by the authors assumes that the deliberations will generate a consensus and that “Failure to reach consensus on the specific problem to be addressed leads to misunderstandings and an inability to create appropriate solutions" (ibid., p. 187). We argue that this is a weakness in the PF frameworks we have reviewed, as it is well documented that in cases of societal relevance where there is large uncertainty, it is generally the case that people—including the experts—do not reach a consensus, and that more research and deliberations can lead to hardened positions (Donfrancesco et al 2023 ; Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993 ; McIlroy-Young et al 2021 ). Notably, little, if anything, is known about how different producers or users of in silico model predictions prioritize among different PF components or sources of uncertainty.…”

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

“…Most people were either ambivalent or considered AGDs to be acceptable ( Figure 1 ), but those who considered AGDs to be unacceptable may be categorised into two main groups based on their stated reasons for unacceptability: (1) those who see AGDs as unethical or harmful, and (2) those who feel that AGDs will be unsuccessful in managing wild elephant movements ( Table S4 ). These opinions may be due to “conflict over values and conflict over evidence”, as highlighted by Donfrancesco et al [ 72 ]. If scientific evidence can be provided on the effectiveness of AGDs from preliminary trials with wild elephants, it will help develop consensus with the latter group.…”

“…Stakeholders’ interests and ideas about managing wildlife, especially on controversial management tools may differ [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Public opinion can also be stronger when it comes to large, charismatic, and symbolic species [ 73 , 74 , 75 ].…”