Armitage, D., de Loë, R., Edwards, T., Gerlak,
A., Hall, R., Huitema, D., Ison, R., Livingstone, D., MacDonald, G., Mirumachi,
N., Morris, M., Plummer, R.,  B. Wolfe (2015) Science-policy processes fortransboundary water governance Ambio
(in press).
ABSTRACT: In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.
ABSTRACT: In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.
Wallis,
P., Iaquinto, B., Ison, R.L., Wrigley, R. (2014) Governing irrigation
renewal in rural Australia, International
Journal of Water Governance 4, 19-36.  
Ison,
R.L., Allan, C., Collins, K.B. (2015) Reframing water governance praxis:
does reflection on metaphors have a role? Environment
& Planning C: Government and Policy (in press)
Ison,
R.L., Collins, K.B.,  Wallis, P. (2014) Institutionalising social learning:
Towards systemic and adaptive governance, Environmental
Science and Policy DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.11.002 
ABSTRACT This paper critically 
examines how public policy makers limit policy and other institutional 
design choices by a failure to appreciate (i) how situations may be 
characterised or framed; (ii) how practices that generate neologisms 
(invented terms or concepts) or reify (make into a thing) abstract 
concepts can displace understandings, and (iii) the epistemological 
bases of governance mechanism choices. An inquiry into the coining of 
the neologisms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems is reported and the 
implications for research and policy practice explored. As practices, 
neologising, reifying, categorising and typologising have unintended 
consequences – they remove us from the primary experiences and 
underlying emotions that provided the motivation for formulating these 
concepts in the first place. The failure to institutionalise the 
understandings and experiences that sit behind the invention of the 
terms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems (or similar framing choices such as 
‘problematique’, ‘messes’, ‘lowland real-life swamps’, ‘resource 
dilemmas’ or ‘complex adaptive systems’) present systemic constraints to
 institutionalising social learning as an alternative yet complementary 
governance mechanism within an overall systemic and adaptive governance 
framework. Ultimately situations usefully framed as ‘wicked’,’ such as 
water managing and climate change are problems of relationship – of 
human beings with the biosphere. Re-framings, such as institutions as 
social technologies and other research and praxis traditions concerned 
with the breakdown of relationships may offer ways forward in the 
purposeful designing and crafting of more effective institutions.
                
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment