AbstractScholarship on climate information use has focused significantly on engagement with practitioners as a means to enhance knowledge use. In principle, working with practitioners to incorporate their knowledge and priorities into the research process should improve information uptake by enhancing accessibility and improving users' perceptions of how well information meets their decision needs, including knowledge credibility, understandability, and fit. Such interactive approaches, however, can entail high costs for participants, especially in terms of financial, human, and time resources. Given the likely need to scale up engagement as demand for climate information increases, it is important to examine whether and to what extent personal interaction is always a necessary condition for increasing information use. In this article, we report the results from two experimental studies using students as subjects to assess how three types of interaction (in-person meeting, live webinar, and self-guided instruction) affect different aspects of climate information usability. Our findings show that while in-person interaction is effective in enhancing understanding of climate knowledge, in-person interaction may not always be necessary, depending on the kinds of information involved and outcomes desired.
Motivated reasoning theory is a psychological theory that reads that policymakers interpret evidence in ways that fit their preferences rather than assessing it neutrally. The theory is increasingly used to explain policy processes as part of a behavioural approach to public administration, but it has limitations. As psychological research relies on experiments, the question remains what role motivated reasoning plays in real-world policy processes. Based on ethnographic observations collected during the planning phase of a large infrastructure project, this study confirms that motivated reasoning explains how people interpret information. However, it also shows that peoples' context has a great impact on their reasoning. Ultimately, we suggest that a focus on time and real-world context is essential in understanding processes of reasoning, for which methodological diversification is needed. Points for practitioners People are inclined to interpret information in light of existing attitudes, rather than approach it neutrally. They read it in such a way that it confirms their attitudes, or are critical of it when it does not. Conflicts caused by differentiating views can be better understood by looking at the attitudes that inform these views. Discussions that might seem aimless at first might have secondary functions such as building trust amongst participants.
AbstractThe aim of this study was to explore knowledge use and learning among social workers in everyday child investigation work. Research was undertaken in two Swedish children's services departments. The study applied an ethnographic approach. Methods for data collection included interviews, participant observations, reflective dialogues and a documentary analysis of case files. The social workers' knowledge sources were classified into research‐based, practice‐based and ordinary knowledge. The findings show that the social workers preferred practice‐based knowledge, which was primarily conveyed from colleagues and previous experience, and rarely consulted knowledge from sources found outside the practice setting. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the integration of knowledge was made possible through the social workers' engagement in both a verbal and a more cognitive (tacit) reasoning activity, processes that fostered learning at work. The social workers' learning was predominantly adaptive as they learned to handle tasks in a fairly routinized way on the basis of rules or procedures. The findings lend support to the notion that the use of different knowledge forms could potentially trigger learning in everyday social work.
The article deals with problematic issues regarding the forms of special knowledge use while crime investigation, legislative acts are analyzed. Based on the opinion analysis of criminalistic scientists, forms of special knowledge use divided according to different criteria into procedural and non-procedural, direct and indirect, basic and optional are detailed. The most commonly used forms are indicated, among them: appointment of forensic examinations, involvement of specialist for performing investigative actions, consulting and reference, auditing and monitoring of records, the presence of an investigator during an examination, expert questioning. Legislation changes concerning of examination by a Forensic science institution (expert) only according to the investigating judge decision or court made on the petition of one of the parties to criminal proceedings are analyzed. Positive reform aspects, as well as the argument about the loss of procedural independence of the investigator while decision making under such circumstances were highlighted; it was suggested to review the above changes. Taking into account legislation changes, the role of the specialist during the search relatively of mandatory fixation of this act by means of audio and video recording is indicated. Proposals are offered on the use of several cameras, the use of quadcopters, 3D scanners to capture of the important points for proving of the search. Problem issues existing in the units of criminalistic support during investigative actions are outlined and the mechanism of their solution is proposed. Attention is focused on the use of automated records and prospects for their development. ; Рассмотрены проблемные вопросы, касающиеся форм использования специальных знаний при расследовании преступлений, проанализированы законодательные акты. На основании анализа позиций ученых-криминалистов выделены формы использования специальных знаний, разделяющиеся по различным критериям на процессуальные и непроцессуальные, непосредственные и опосредованные, основные и факультативные и т.д. Обозначены наиболее часто используемые формы, среди которых: назначение судебных экспертиз, привлечение специалиста для проведения следственных действий, консультационно-справочная, ревизии и проверка по учетам, присутствие следователя при проведении экспертизы, допрос эксперта. Проанализированы изменения законодательства, касающиеся проведения экспертизы экспертным учреждением (экспертом) только по постановлению следственного судьи или суда, вынесенным по ходатайству одной из сторон уголовного производства. Отмечены положительные стороны реформы, а также аргументирована точка зрения об утрате процессуальной самостоятельности следователя в принятии решения при таких обстоятельствах, предложено пересмотреть указанные изменения. Учитывая изменения в законодательстве, обозначена роль специалиста во время проведения обыска относительно обязательной фиксации этого действия с помощью аудио- и видеозаписи. Даны предложения по поводу использования нескольких камер, использования квадрокоптеров, 3D сканеров для фиксации важных для доказывания моментов обыска. Очерчены проблемные вопросы, существующие в подразделениях криминалистического обеспечения при проведении следственных действий и предложен механизм их решения. Акцентировано внимание на использовании автоматизированных учетов и перспективы их развития. ; Досліджено проблемні питання, що стосуються форм використання спеціальних знань при розслідуванні злочинів. Проаналізовано законодавчі акти та думки провідних учених з цього приводу. Зроблено спробу надати пропозиції щодо використання окремих форм.
The increased salience of how to value ecosystems services has driven up the demand for policy-relevant knowledge. It is clear that advice by epistemic communities can show up in policy outcomes, yet little systematic analysis exists prescribing how this can actually be achieved. This paper draws on four decades of knowledge utilisation research to propose four types of 'possible expert' who might be influential on ecosystems services. Broad findings of a literature review on knowledge use in public policy are reported, and the four-fold conceptualisation pioneered by Carol Weiss that defines the literature is outlined. The field is then systematised by placing these four modes of knowledge use within an explanatory typology of policy learning. With how, when, and why experts and their knowledge are likely to show up in policy outcomes established, the paper then proposes the boundaries of the possible in how the ecosystems services epistemic community might navigate the challenges associated with each learning mode. Four possible experts emerge: with political antenna and epistemic humility; with the ability to speak locally and early to the hearts and minds of citizens; with a willingness to advocate policy; and, finally, with an enhanced institutional awareness and peripheral policy vision. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the utility of the analysis.
This article addresses social workers' use of knowledge by studying the rationale they provided for their actual practice decisions. Extent of knowledge use was compared across four practice decision tasks and between medical and psychiatric social work services. Data were obtained from the records of 297 clients treated by 34 experienced M.S.W. social workers in medical and psychiatric services units of two midwestern hospitals. Workers were previously trained in the approach and procedures of Systematic Planned Practice (SPP). Data were obtainedfrom SPP forms on which workers recorded their treatment decisions and rationale for each decision. Data analyzed by repeated measures (MANOVA and ANOVA's) revealed that giving of rationales, and the types of knowledge it reflected, varied significantly by the decision task and social work service. Intervention decisions were least likely to be supported by rationales, and medical services workers provided fewer rationales than psychiatric services workers. Conceptual rationales were the most frequently used, whereas rationales based on practice experience, values, research, or client wish were very little used. The implications for practice, professional education, quality assurance, and for further research are discussed.
The aim of this study was to explore whether social workers can become more explicit about their knowledge use if they are assisted in analyzing the rationales underlying their conclusions about diagnosis and treatment. By dissecting the rationales provided by 46 Swedish social work practitioners and students in response to two case vignettes describing vulnerable children and their families, and by systematically comparing the rationales generated by two methods of data collection, the study arrived at mixed results. At the general level, the analyses showed that the social workers were indeed more explicit about their knowledge use when assisted in analyzing their rationales. However, there was substantial variation across different types of argument components. While a majority of the respondents spontaneously provided basic level arguments, prompts were often required for them to make explicit the level of uncertainty associated with a conclusion, and to elicit information about specific knowledge sources. Further, most social workers failed to provide a more general explanation for why they inferred a specific conclusion from the data, even when queried. Finally, the results indicated that the knowledge underlying conclusions about treatment was more prevalent and/or explicit in social workers' reasoning than the knowledge used for arriving at conclusions about diagnosis.
Assessments of environmental issues are often expected to tackle the perceived disconnect between scientific knowledge and environmental policy making. However, their actual influence on processes of knowledge communication and use remains understudied. We provide one of the first studies of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), itself one of the first national-level assessments of ecosystem services. We explore expectations, early experiences, and implications for its role in promoting knowledge use, drawing on both documentary evidence and qualitative analysis of interviews with NEA authors and potential users. Many interviewees expected instrumental use; that is, facts directly assisting problem solving. This matches the rhetoric surrounding the NEA's creation. However, we found more early evidence of interacting conceptual uses (learning), and strategic uses (sometimes deemed misuse). Such uses depend not only on assessment outputs, such as reports, but also on the processes of communication and interaction by which these are created. Thus, planning and analysis of such assessments should deemphasise instrumental use and instead focus on the complex knowledge 'coproduction' processes by which diverse and interacting forms of knowledge use may be realised.
The realisation of the advantages offered by e-learning accompanied by the use of various emerging information technologies has resulted in a noticeable shift by academia towards e-learning. An analysis of the use, knowledge and adoption of emerging technologies by academics in an Open Distance Learning (ODL) environment at the University of South Africa (UNISA) was undertaken in this study. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use, knowledge and adoption of emerging e-learning technologies by the academics from the selected schools. The academics in the Schools of Arts, Computing and Science were purposively selected in order to draw on views of academics from different teaching and educational backgrounds. Questionnaires were distributed both electronically and manually. The results showed that academics in all the Schools were competent at the use of information technology tools and applications such as emailing, word-processing, Internet, myUnisa (UNISA's online teaching platform), and Microsoft PowerPoint and Excel. An evaluation of the awareness of different emerging technological tools showed that most academics were aware of Open Access Technologies, Social Networking Sites, Blogs, Video Games and Microblogging Platforms. While the level of awareness was high for these technologies, the use by the academics was low. At least 62.3% of the academics indicated willingness to migrate to online teaching completely and also indicated the need for further training on new technologies. A comparison of the different schools showed no statistically significant difference in the use, knowledge and willingness to adopt technology amongst the academics.
This paper analyses how scientists, policy makers and water users engage with scientific knowledge and uncertainties during a lengthy and complex decision-making process (2000–2014) about water quality, freshwater resources and climate adaptation in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt estuaries. The research zooms in on lake Volkerak-Zoom. Interviews confirm that 'negotiated knowledge', shaped by the agricultural sector, NGO's and water managers can lead to strategies to improve water quality problems. One such a strategy, based on negotiated knowledge, is to create an inlet to allow limited tides and inflow of saline waters in Lake Volkerak-Zoom. Meanwhile, during negotiations, monitoring showed an autonomous decline in the annually returning algal blooms, leading to new uncertainties and disrupting the negotiations. At another negotiation arena, water users and policy makers repeatedly disputed scientific assessments about costs and benefits regarding additional freshwater supply for agriculture and the knowledge underlying proposed decisions was still considered uncertain in 2014. Several strategies have been observed to deal with uncertainties in decision making, such as deconstruction of certainties, creation of deadlines for decisions and selection of preferred solutions based upon the 'No-regret principle'. The risk of a lengthy decision making process can be reduced when the responsible authorities recognize, acknowledge and give an equal role to these behavioural strategies to address uncertainties. Tailor-made strategies are needed to make knowledge use more efficient, for example, joint-fact-finding (in case of disputed knowledge and ambiguity), additional research and monitoring (in case of epistemic uncertainty) or commissioning research whereby temporarily a protected environment is created to allow research without political interference (in case of ontic/structural uncertainty).
This paper analyses how scientists, policy makers and water users engage with scientific knowledge and uncertainties during a lengthy and complex decision-making process (2000–2014) about water quality, freshwater resources and climate adaptation in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt estuaries. The research zooms in on lake Volkerak-Zoom. Interviews confirm that 'negotiated knowledge', shaped by the agricultural sector, NGO's and water managers can lead to strategies to improve water quality problems. One such a strategy, based on negotiated knowledge, is to create an inlet to allow limited tides and inflow of saline waters in Lake Volkerak-Zoom. Meanwhile, during negotiations, monitoring showed an autonomous decline in the annually returning algal blooms, leading to new uncertainties and disrupting the negotiations. At another negotiation arena, water users and policy makers repeatedly disputed scientific assessments about costs and benefits regarding additional freshwater supply for agriculture and the knowledge underlying proposed decisions was still considered uncertain in 2014. Several strategies have been observed to deal with uncertainties in decision making, such as deconstruction of certainties, creation of deadlines for decisions and selection of preferred solutions based upon the 'No-regret principle'. The risk of a lengthy decision making process can be reduced when the responsible authorities recognize, acknowledge and give an equal role to these behavioural strategies to address uncertainties. Tailor-made strategies are needed to make knowledge use more efficient, for example, joint-fact-finding (in case of disputed knowledge and ambiguity), additional research and monitoring (in case of epistemic uncertainty) or commissioning research whereby temporarily a protected environment is created to allow research without political interference (in case of ontic/structural uncertainty).
