Experience Based Knowledge in a Science Policy Context

In recent decades the roles of lay experts as sources of information useful to policy have been recognized and subjected to scrutiny. The present study examines the role of such experienced-based knowledge (EBK) in marine fisheries management, where non-scientists have substantial knowledge about natural and technical systems that derives from their occupations. This knowledge, although qualitatively different from research-based knowledge, has been important in policy outcomes. The question to be examined is what are the implications of this storehouse of experienced based-knowledge for the development of science-based policy? This question is addressed through a comparative study that will examine how EBK appears within the policymaking institutions, how EBK relates to professional or technical expertise, and what difference experience-based knowledge (EBK) makes to policies and their outcomes. The research will compare various approaches to public participation, e.g. advisory panels, public forums, and cooperative research projects, that are currently used in the management of Atlantic cod fisheries in New England, Canada and the European Union. This study is coordinated with an EU-funded examination of these questions, concerning North Sea cod. The US system has a number of formal and informal mechanisms of participation, which often take an adversarial and even litigious form. The EU fisheries science process involves almost no formal public input. The Canadian approach has been similar to the EU in this regard, but has recently begun to open up. Two hypotheses are examined. 1) The rules and practices governing public participation in and the scrutiny of scientific deliberations have an influence on scientific outcomes. Where EBK is high and where the rules and practices permit its consideration the outcomes will reflect the content of the EBK. 2) User group satisfaction with policies will be greater where EBK is recognized by the policy process and has an influence on outcomes. Both hypotheses would be predicted by the literature on public participation in policy. The science studies literature, on the other hand, would suggest that these hypotheses would not be confirmed because in situations of high EBK, in particular where rules and practices give space to lay experts, scientists will respond by intensifying their boundary work. These hypotheses will be examined through both comparisons among cases and among differing rules and practices within cases. The practices to be examined include negotiated rule making, stakeholder forums, the use of advisory panels and collaborative research. The impact of public openness itself, e.g. sunshine laws and litigation, will be examined along with the role of informal interactions among stakeholders. Research methods include documentary research, interviews, observations of meetings of scientists, advisory panels and other public forums, and comparative analysis of data from formal surveys between the US and the European cases. This is made possible by existing data for the US cases and data gathering that will be carried out by the EU project. In pilot activities for the study September 2003-August 2004 (NSF #0322570) a graduate research assistant has interviewed participants in cooperative research and related fisheries meetings in New England and Canada and at one international meeting. Since public participation in science policy is a critical question in all forms of environmental policy, findings that improve our understanding of these processes promise broad application. Results will be disseminated through presentations and discussions in national and international policy networks in which the investigators participate, as well as at meetings of relevant professional associations and in scholarly and scientific publications.