Ways of knowing – out-of-sync or incompatible? Framing water quality and farmers’ encounters with science in the regulation of non-point source pollution in the Canterbury region of New Zealand

Abstract

This paper examines farmers' ways of knowing water quality and their encounters with the science used in policy to address the cumulative effects of agriculture. Drawing on constructivist theories of knowledge and discussions with farmers in two locations of New Zealand's South Island region of Canterbury, the research identifies a significant divergence between farmers' conception of the water quality problem compared to the issue's policy framing. In theory, and increasingly in practice, ways of knowing are assumed merely outof-sync and their integration or coproduction possible and necessary. This paper poses the question: what if the ways of knowing of farmers and science have become incompatible? The presented research indicates incompatibility that derives from epistemic practices that mobilise different ontologies at different scales. It is shown how the predictive practices of science present what appear to be insurmountable obstacles to integration or coproduction. It is argued that collaborative governance needs to find ways to work with divergent ways of knowing -not for the purpose of integration or coproduction but co-existence.

A close examination of the role and needed expertise of brokers in bridging and building science policy boundaries in environmental decision making

“…Its success faltered when the science was not adequately localised and not appropriately scaled. Many of these issues arose from data gaps and limitations, available technologies and resources, at the operational level, as well as political and organisational imperatives within the knowledge system (Duncan et al, 2016;van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam, 2017;Wyborn et al, 2019).…”

Transdisciplinary weed research: new leverage on challenging weed problems?

“…Furthermore, efforts to ‘do things differently’ may challenge established institutions and understandings of the nature of weed research, which may generate misunderstandings, tension and resistance (Schut et al ., ). In some situations, integration of knowledge and agendas across stakeholders and sectors may be difficult or impossible (Duncan, ).…”

“…On the other hand, divergence of interests and views among stakeholders impedes mutual understanding (Morriss et al ., ), may involve irreconcilable differences in worldviews and knowledge systems (e.g. Duncan, ), and may give rise to considerable social conflict (Leeuwis, ). Because of this range of interests, values and perspectives, any particular ecosystem sustainability challenge is best viewed as comprising a set of diversely defined problems (among which weeds may or may not be salient) that together constitute a multifaceted ‘bundle’ of problems, rather than any single problem.…”

Fisheries Volume 44 Number 4 April 2019

“…It is important for researchers to understand that stakeholders who participate in research may have different needs or objectives. These differences in priorities might make it diffi cult for scientists and harvesters to relate to one another because the perception of common interests may not be obvious (Lupia 2013 ;Duncan 2016 ). Through building relationships and engaging in twoway communication, scientists can work towards demonstrating and/or creating common ground with harvesters and managers alike.…”