Frameworks for evaluating decision-maker engagement with science

Abstract

In what ways are decision-makers participants in science communication? Do they actively engage with scientific concepts? If they do actively engage, what is valuable about those processes and their outcomes? In this thesis I explore institutionally-based decision-makers through a communication lens and reflect on how they compare with current definitions of lay publics. I focus primarily on the processes of communication and their value rather than processes of decision-making. This work marks a departure from the current framings of decision-makers in the public engagement with science discourse where they are considered sponsors or stakeholders outside public engagement processes, or in a deficit mode passively receiving expert advice. Likewise the Science-Policy Gap discourse, with its focus on the relationship between science and policy, recognises the importance of decision-maker engagement, but still views them as stakeholders who should use science to inform decisions.

I asked decision-makers for their perspectives on the value of science communication and what it looks like to them. They were public servants from the natural resource management (NRM) sector in Australia and South Africa who had participated in two specific science engagement programs. Their science communication landscape included a wide variety of modes reflecting their institutional status. They initiate engagement with science and are also invited to participate and engage in activities ranging from seminars to knowledge co-production processes. Their institutional setting also imposes constraints, however, determining what issues are salient and providing limited time to weigh up different sources of science and other knowledge. Within this landscape, NRM decision-makers demonstrated the key traits of publics. They are highly educated but still lay people in complex decision contexts, forming and re-forming around relevant issues. They are also emergent or unknown with high degrees of individual staff turnover, private consultants filling gaps in capacity, and unintended audiences engaging and using science-based outputs. I argue that framing decision-makers as publics for science, therefore is not only a more accurate representation of reality, it gives us the tools to both recognise and analyse the communicative nature of engagement activities like knowledge co-production. It also opens the scope of what might be considered valuable about these processes and what it takes for science to “inform” decisions.

Decision-makers value four key aspects of science engagement processes and these should be considered in evaluation. Firstly, engagement activities can provide an opportunity and resources for decision-makers to access not only science but other relevant knowledge particularly the practical knowledge of colleagues. The communication process itself is valued where it promotes dialogue and deliberation which can lead to new framing of issues and ideas for how science can be applied. Transparent and fair communication processes may give subsequent decisions legitimacy. Such legitimacy is highly valued by decision-makers but is unlikely to be achieved through reference to science alone. Outcomes are also valued including individual learning and social interaction that builds and strengthens professional relationships. Robust engagement may also result in cross-institutional impact such as new group stories about policy priorities. Show more