Introduction
How do people establish scientific knowledge or the effectiveness of technologies? Since the late 1980s many writers in the social studies of science and technology (STS) have accounted for this in terms of heterogeneous resources mobilized by diverse agents spanning different realms of social action (Law 1986, Latour 1987, Clarke and Fujimura 1992), that is, what I call "heterogeneous construction" (Taylor 1995). In the environmental arena heterogeneous construction is, in effect, self-conciously organized through the frequent use of workshops and other "organized multi-person collaborative processes" (OMPCPs). This paper describes my own process of making sense of the workshop form for generating environmental knowledge and further inquiry.
Before proceeding notice that heterogeneous construction expands the object of inquiry to include the actual process of generating knowledge, not only the final product (contra the conceptual primacy philosophy of science still gives to justification over discovery). Morover, the heterogeneity of resources, agents, and realms of social action means that it is not possible for that process to contribute solely to the generation of knowledge. There are always many other products, one of which is highlighted in this paper, namely, the capacity to pursue further inquiry. Thus "knowledge and inquiry" in the title. (Science educators face an equivalent tension between conveying established product and generating capacity to inquire.)
My process of making sense of the workshop form was catalyzed by participating during the spring and summer of 2000 in four innovative, interdisciplinary workshops. By reflecting on these workshops and drawing on other experience I identified six angles for thinking about why a workshop (or OMPCP) might be needed to address the complexity of environmental issues. I used the six angles to review the four workshops. This led me to dig deeper into how workshops work when they do and assemble a list of heuristics and some open-ended questioning. One of these heuristics, as will become evident shortly, involves making space for the audience to bring their own knowledge to the surface. One member of the audience for my first presentation on this topic offered to help me develop a more systematic set of principles for bringing about successful workshops. The outcome, included as an appendix, provides a basis for further inquiry on workshops and the process-product relationship more generally.
Warming up audience involvement--Two contrasting cases
Before I describe the four workshops or the six angles with which I reviewed
them, I want to make space for readers' thinking about the process and product
of environmental analysis. My intention is to engage readers--perhaps
critically--with what I subsequently present. This involves an exercise,
preceded, in order to warm up your thoughts, by a brief account of two
contrasting cases.
Case 1: As a young researcher I was hired by the "Institute"--an economic and
social research organization based in Melbourne, the major city of the southern
Australian state of Victoria--to help undertake a detailed analysis of the
future of a salt-affected irrigation region. The Kerang region, 240 kilometers
north of Melbourne, is an agricultural region where farmers irrigate some
pasture, for grazing by beef or dairy cattle and sheep, and irrigate some
crops. Soil salinization is a chronic problem; during the middle 1970s, after
some very wet years, the problem was acute. The rise in salinity, following a
decline in beef prices, threatened the economic viability of the region. In
late 1977 the Ministry of the state government responsible for water resources
commissioned the Institute's study. An agricultural economist from the
Ministry and the principal investigator from the Institute formulated a project
to evaluate different government policies, such as funding regional drainage
systems, reallocating water rights, and raising water charges. This evaluation
would take into account possible changes in farming practices, such as
improvements in irrigation layout, drainage, and water management, and changes
in the mix of farm enterprises. The analysis was to be repeated for different
macroeconomic scenarios as projected by the Institute's national forecasting
models.
The central part of the project--my main task--was the construction of the
Kerang Farm Model (KFM), which, using an optimization technique called linear
programming, would determine for representative farms the mix of farming
activities that produced the most income. Different factors, such as water
allocation, could be changed and the effect on the income and mix of activities
ascertained. Although some refinements were omitted to meet the Ministry's
deadline, the KFM was sufficiently flexible to allow evaluation of the required
range of factors, yet not so complex so as to be unmanageable.
At the public meeting to present the study's findings some local agricultural
extension officers raised objections to the study's having endorsed irrigation
of pasture over irrigation of crops. This ran contrary to the advice they had
been giving to farmers ever since the decline in beef prices. Subsequent
reanalysis, incorporating generous increases in crop yields into the KFM's
parameters, was completed rapidly. The result favoring pasture irrigation was
robust and could be attributed to beef prices having recovered by this time in
the late 1970s. The Ministry, meanwhile, focused its attention simply on
results indicating that water charges were not a primary limiting factor on
farm enterprises or viability. These results eclipsed others concerning the
larger range of options that the Institute had been commissioned to analyze and
additional issues about the environmental future of the region that emerged
during the study. Their focus suggests that justifying an increase in water
charges had been the Ministry's primary concern all along. In any case, the
Ministry were unable to implement this change and nothing more then became of
our analysis (Taylor 1995).
Case 2: Three years ago I made time to begin facilitation training with the
Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA). ICA's techniques have been
developed through several decades of "facilitating a culture of participation"
in community and institutional development. Their work anticipated and now
exemplifies the post-Cold War emphasis on a vigorous civil society. ICA
workshops elicit participation in planning in a way that bring insights to the
surface and ensures the full range of participants are invested in
collaborating to bring the resulting plan to fruition (Burbridge 1997, Spencer
1988, Stanfield 1997).[1]
This was evident, for example, in community-wide planning during 1993 in the
West Nipissing region of Ontario (300 kilometers north of Toronto), sponsored
by the Economic Development Comission (EDC). At that time, industry closings
had increased the traditionally high unemployment to crisis levels. Although
the projects resulting from the 1993 planning process are too numerous to
detail, a follow-up six years later concluded that there were many
accomplishments in the areas the process had identified. Overall, the economic
base was stronger and more diversified, depending less on provincial and
national government social welfare programs. Moreover, the initial projects
spawned many others, allowing the EDC to shift from a superintending role to
that of a catalyst. The community now sees itself as responsible for these
initiatives and developments; the initial EDC-ICA planning process has become
lost in the past (West Nipissing Economic Development Corporation 1993,
1999).
Although the economic future is the focus of both these cases, the contrast
between them raises many issues shared in environmental analyses. I tease
these issues out later in the paper. For now, it is time for the exercise.
Guided freewriting about workshop experiences
Freewriting is a powerful way to clear mental space so that thoughts
about an issue can emerge that had been below the surface of your attention.
In a freewriting exercise, you should not take your pen off the paper. Keep
writing even if you find yourself stating over and over again, "I don't know
what to say." What you write won't be seen by anyone else, so do not go back
to tidy up sentences, grammar, spelling. You will probably diverge from the
topic, at least for a time while you acknowledge other preoccupations. That's
OK--it is one of the purposes of the exercise. However, if you keep writing
for seven to ten minutes, you will probably be pleasurably impressed by the
insights you have (or remind yourself of)--that is another of the aims of the
exercise (Elbow 1981). For those of you who are rolling your eyes and are
tempted to skip the exercise, let me ask you to subject your scepticism to
empirical test and try it.
Please continue for seven minutes where this sentence leads off: "When I look
back on workshops in which I have felt really engaged--or, from the negative
side, really disengaged--the thoughts or feelings or experiences that come to
mind include..."
Kerang Nipissing
> 1 person's knowledge and Y Y
research skills needed (circum-scri
bed fields
only)
> 1 party involved in X Y
environmental issue
conduct ongoing assessment X Y
that environmental
complexity necessitates
create knowledge > X Y
Sum participants' >
any single participant's
ensure investment in the X Y
product of the
collaboration
create capacity for X Y
productive engagement in
multi-party collaborations
pre-workshop Participants contributed key articles for others to read, but
these were not distributed in advance.
Day 1 Introductions from Group F O on process of Social,
on dialogue & ground rules interaction as a in small
possible product, once groups
articulated &
communicated G (O):
Different approaches
explored using
restoration ecology as
a shared case
Day 2 (O nixed suggestion by F G: More discussion Social,
and others for sessions in in small
which participants would groups
learn from each other.) F:
More on dialogue O: What do
we want to say to the
outside? -> G: Discussion
Day 3 O: Needed--Synthesis, G: More discussion Group
Achieving visions & social
Communication G:
Discussion on role of
narrative (re-story-ing)
Day 4 F: Reflection on becoming G: ASF proposal & -
ready to speak O: Product farewells
needed -> G: Work on one
participant's
suggestion--American
Science Foundation (ASF)
founding document
("Declaration of
Independence")
post-workshop Key articles still not distributed. OpEd by O & another
participant in Denver Post (July) A well-attended symposium at
the August meetings of the Ecological Society of America
included six workshop participants and two others.
2.
"How does nature speak?," Pori, Finland, 22-24 May 2000
pre-workshop Workshops with international guests each August since 1996.
Sub-project: Finnish anthology of new essays by Finnish
participants; target--spring '01 May Days (presentations by
Environmental Social Science Doctoral students from Finalnd &
two international guests) immediately preceding Pori workshop
Day 1 F: Process Themes to chew G (F): Continue to Homework
on concerning our elaborate on "what (F): Prep
interactions and process as the project looks on shared
a group O: How does nature like to me" G (F): case of
speak? Themes & Topics G Connections--where developing
(F): Freewriting -> Go the projects of a local
around on "What the project others connect with climate
looks like to me." yours. G (F): change
"Focused policy
conversation" review for
Tampere
Day 2 G (O): Freewrite: "I know G: Case -
what I can do to help move study--Tampere local
from individual view to climate change policy
common project" G: Concept G: Freewrite: "What
maps of each person's is stabilizable &
project what needs more
playing with" ->
shared reflection
Day 3 O: Book back on the agenda. Lunch before -
G (O/F): Freewrite on departures
tension b/w individual
pieces & book as common
project G (F): Report on
the case for your essay. G
(F): Compose 5 statements
you are taking away -> Go
around G: Appreciations
post-workshop ?
3.
"Developing a Research Agenda for Linking Biogeophysical and Socio-economic
Systems," Tempe, 5-8 June 2000
pre-workshop Precirculated O's proposal plus white papers
Day 1 G: Introductions & Pre-assigned Working Social
brainstorming about Groups (WGs) on criteria
challenges requiring to select challenges &
interdisciplinary research research areas G: Reports
from WGs
Day 2 WGs on challenges & New pre-assigned WGs Social
research areas mapping research areas to
challenges
Day 3 WGs mapping research G: WG reports Outline Social
areas to challenges + presented by O
overlooked areas
Day 4 G: WG reports Areas G: discussion (cont.) -
covered in WGs but not in
outline Other overlooked
areas Title Reaching a
broader audience Writing
post-workshop Report "Nature and Society: An imperative for Integrated
Environmental Research" produced by Kinzig (O) following her
outline (see day 3), with greater and lesser input from
steering committee. Released November
4.
"Helping Each Other to Foster Critical Thinking about Biology and Society,"
Cambridge, 29-31 July 2000
pre-workshop Participants invited to submit proposals for experiential
sessions, in which "instead of telling us what you have
thought or found out, you will lead other participants to
experience the issues and directions you are exploring"
Day 1 - - G: Brief introductions
Longer spoken
autobiographies, centered
around how each
participant connected with
the focus of this
workshop. Freewriting:
"What the 'Helping Each
Other to Foster Critical
Thinking' endeavor looks
like to me"-> Go around
Day 2 G: Autobiographies Two Third (abbreviated)
continued. partici-p participant-led session
ant-led
sessions
Day 3 G: Freewriting: "What - -
is stabilizable and
what needs more playing
with"-> Go around
Sub-groups: Remaining
participants presented
on their concerns
Focused conversation
review of experience
post-workshop One participant initiated a project with two others to monitor
the curriculum development each is undertaking with a view to
increasing representation of women and their perspectives in
biology.
Review
of workshops from the six angles
NCEAS Finland NSF CCT
> 1 person's knowledge and Y Y Y too small &
research skills needed short
> 1 party involved in ~ ~ (soc. ~ (unrep- too small &
environmental issue sci. resentative short
researchers of
only researchers
or others)
conduct ongoing assessment - - - -
that environmental
complexity necessitates
create knowledge > ~ Y ~ Y
Sum participants' > (pre-determin
any single participant's ed)
ensure investment in the X Y X (exc. $$ ~
product of the for
collaboration researchers)
create capacity for X Y ? Y
productive engagement in (increment-al
multi-party collaborations ly?)
Open Questions
Acknowledgements