Josiah Skogen (Indiana University), Michael Goldsby (Washington State University), Samantha Noll (Washington State University)
Wicked problems are defined as complex challenges that require multifaceted solutions, involving diverse scientific fields. The technical expertise scientists provide is part of the solution. Unfortunately, there can be paralysis as various value commitments within the scientific community collide when solutions are contemplated. This can provide policy-makers with the impression that the science is incomplete and unable to provide policy advice. For example, consider climate change plans in the city. In an effort to reduce the impact of a changing climate on urban citizens and ecologies, a wide range of cities are developing such plans in consultation with urban ecologists and conservation biologists. It is easy to assume then that these two fields can equally contribute to city climate change plans, especially in light of the fact that both are given a privileged position in environmental policy discussions (Shrader-Frechette 1993).
However, constructive interactions have been infrequent between urban ecologists and conservation biologists involved in the crafting of climate change mitigation strategies and in fact, members of these groups are commonly unaware of each other’s work (McDonnell 2015). We argue that one of the reasons for the lack of collaboration is the following: urban ecologists and conservation biologists are guided by seemingly incompatible values. While urban ecology draws from a wide range of disciplines that are focused on human and ecological interactions, conservation biology often favors ecological restoration and place-based management approaches without considering social systems (Sandler 2008). This apparent conflict results in a failure of coordination between the two fields. However, this need not be so.
In the case described above, key values guiding the two fields appear to be in conflict. However, when taking broader impacts goals into account, the values at the heart of urban ecology and conservation biology are not only consistent, but complementary. Unfortunately, scientists are rarely trained to consider the implications of their value commitments. As such, conflict can arise from talking past each other with respect to their broader impact goals.
We have recently been awarded a fellowship to help scientists explore values guiding their research and thus better realize their broader impact goals. Specifically, we adapted a tool for promoting interdisciplinary collaboration (The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative) to help scientists better articulate and realize the values underlying their work. Our work is focused on helping them advocate for their solutions, but it can also be used to show how two disparate fields have common goals. The poster will describe the status of our project.
