Participants: Nina Burkardt, Mark Lorie (convener), Beth Richards, Len Shabman, Diane Tate
Our discussion focused on the issue of the neutrality of a CADRe facilitator/leader and what that means for the decision-making process within CADRe. The issue was somewhat nebulous when we began, and so we discussed a variety of topics related to stakeholder values and preferences and the subtle ways that a CADRe leader can influence how values and preferences are used in a decision process. A CADRe leader has to be impartial and unbiased so that there can be some level of objectivity in the decision-making process.
Eventually, this seems to boil down to two basic realities about CADRe and the context in which it is used. First, it is clear that CADRe is predominantly a social and political process and not a scientific process. The objective of a science process is generally to discover facts. The objective of a CADRe process is to arrive at informed conclusions about how a public resource should be managed given public preferences and values. But there is research to suggest that people’s values and preferences are vague until they are confronted with decision problems (see writings by Paul Slovic and Robin Gregory). Therefore, the values and preferences that will guide decision-making actually take shape during the decision process. So the CADRe process is one of defining and framing an issue and negotiating to find solutions. And the CADRe leader can have significant influence over all of this.
Further, the fact that CADRe is fundamentally a political should be accepted and respected by analysts, researchers, modelers and any other professionals involved with CADRe processes. Our society is governed by the political decision-making process and that is just how it is. We often hear analysts complain that “politics got in the way” of sound, science-based decision-making. That politics will influence or dominate environmental and natural resources decision-making is completely unavoidable. One might argue that it is, in fact, desirable that decisions are guided by public preferences as long as the role of science in decision-making is understood. The fact that societal forces may shape values and preferences does not mean that CADRe facilitators cannot be impartial in their guidance of the process.
The second reality about how CADRe functions is that all people have prejudices and biases, including facilitators, modelers and those who try to combine those two roles in leading CADRe processes. All people have ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad. And the professionals who might get involved with a CADRe process will have strong ideas and attitudes about how water should be managed and how those decisions should be made.
Accepting these two realities about CADRe seems to change the way we think about neutrality, impartiality and objectivity. In a science process, these issues are dealt with by adherence to the scientific method (so research can be replicated), by relying on measurable outcomes (so that biases are minimized), and through the peer review process (so results can be checked and verified). In CADRe, values and preferences are key factors, but they are often vague and unmeasurable. The CADRe leader facilitates the process of defining the key values and preferences. Since the person leading the process has significant influence and unavoidable biases, CADRe must incorporate a different set of principles to ensure neutrality and objectivity. The discussion highlighted a few themes on what these principles might be.
First, it is crucial that a broad cross-section of stakeholders be involved in a CADRe process. Any stakeholder who can influence the decision should be involved. This can lessen the chance that someone will work outside the CADRe process to influence the decision. Broad representation of stakeholders can also be thought of as peer review for the process of framing the problem and defining value and preferences. Adequate representation of stakeholders ensures that all important segments of the public are involved and therefore the associated values and preferences will be incorporated. Further, it is important that effective representatives of stakeholders be involved—they must have some influence, they should be able to communicate well etc. Having a broad range of stakeholders means that they can serve to balance each other and the potential biases of the CADRe leader. The nature of stakeholder involvement and the techniques used is also crucially important.
A second principle that was discussed in order to ensure neutrality and objectivity for CADRe was transparency. There are two levels of transparency. Internal transparency refers to the CADRe leaders being transparent (honest) with themselves. This is a necessary precondition in order for them to be honest with other participants about their own biases etc. External transparency refers to the degree to which the process is open and understandable to all participants. It includes the CADRe being honest and open. It also includes the methods by which intermediate decisions are made (such as about data collection, modeling techniques). In addition, the ability of stakeholders to access models, data and information is also a part of external transparency.
None of this is new ground for most people involved with CADRe. But these issues are still important for two reasons. One, these issues are insufficiently researched and articulated for the CADRe community. Much can be learned from other fields such as planning theory, decision analysis, political sciences, and dispute resolution. But there needs to be research and guidance on what these topics mean specifically for CADRe. The second reason they are important is that many people who are involved with CADRe processes are not really part of the CADRe community. People who are primarily scientists, modelers, analysts, or administrators probably have not thought about these issues. And the notion that decision-making can be the same as a scientific process is often deeply engrained in people’s minds, making it difficult to address the issues described above in a CADRe process. More research, more writing and guidance, and more outreach will help.
There are many topics related to this discussion that need more research and synthesis of existing research. Here are a few:
- How are values and preferences formed in CADRe and what does this mean for how CADRe processes should be designed and managed?
- What techniques should a CADRe rely on to demonstrate internal transparency and ensure external transparency?
- What do these issues of neutrality and objectivity mean for the models used in CADRe? How is this different from principles of modeling that apply to scientific/research processes?
Themes along these lines should be included in the CADRe research agenda.
Revised 21 Jan 2009
© 2009 Institute for Water Resources |
