Difference between revisions of "User:Signatiu"

Revision as of 15:30, 14 April 2015

This is the user page of Sonja-Maria Ignatius.

DARM course (2015)

Assignment 1.

What is shared understanding?

Shared understanding is an ambitious goal of open policy practice. When shared understanding is attained, all parties or individuals concerned with the topic can understand each others views about it. Shared understanding does not mean that everyone agrees on the topic but rather than everyone understands what others think about the topic and why. In shared understanding the principle is not to find the one best option but to identify one or more poor decision options that can be rejected. This principle I find very interesting and I would like to learn more about it. Shared understanding can be achieved with skillful execution of open policy practice.

In my previous job at Finnish Environment Centre me and my colleagues studied the different uses of Paimionjoki watershed. Important part of the study was to get different interest groups together to create a basis for decision-making on improving the state of the lakes and rivers. There were many different groups with partly different interests: recreational fishermen, summer cottage owners, tourists, farmers, authorities, hydropower company... By getting people together the researchers and hopefully also the attendees of the study gained a better understanding, yet of course not a complete shared understanding. Working together helped to clarify some misunderstandings: people were afraid that the water level would sink if some measures were done by the hydropower company, although this was not the case. Also it became evident that people from different groups had many common goals. For instance many farmers also had summer cottages and were avid fishermen.

Shared understanding can help to make decisions because people understand each other better and this way can become more willing to make compromises as well. On the other hand, if there are people who can´t stand each other, decision making will not become easier but maybe even harder.

I realized that it was difficult for the people to understand that the researchers are not going to do the actual measures of rehabilitation. This should have been communicated more clearly to avoid possible disappointment.

What are the main differences between open assessment and most other assessment approaches?

Open assessment aims at producing relevant information for decision making and thus supporting the process of achieving better (=more acceptable and holistic) decisions. Open assessment attempts to improve societal decision-making by organizing scientific information and value judgments. A crucial, distinctive element from other assessment approaches is openness. In open participation anyone who has something to say about the topic of assessment can join the assessment. Anyone can promote a statement, and it is considered plausible unless it is invalidated. This is important, because anybody can have useful information about the topic regardless of his organization. All statements and arguments are under consideration and must be defended or attacked. The process aims at falsifying irrelevant or invalid statements.

Open assessment allows people who are really interested in the question and want to contribute to the decision making to participate. This is very different from traditional steering group work where the participants are named to be representing their organization. It might be that these people are not the actual experts but are there because of their status. Also they might not have motivation or time to contribute to the assessment. In open assessment it is possible for a large number of people to contribute to the decision making.

Notes (under process): I think the role of open assessment in actual decision making should be made clearer. Open assessment can produce crucial information but it does not necessarily affect decision-making. The linkages of open assessment and decision making are interesting. What is important is how the results of open assessment are actually taken into account in decision making. Also, how much should the decision-makers be active in the open assessment stage?

What people are interested in is that their opinions are taken into account even if they are chosen to be rejected. The process is as important as the actual outcome (explain why).

If a person opens up an assessment without promoting it, it is unlikely to get many contributions: promoting the assessment to get more participants also takes effort.

The description of open assessment is pretty theoretical and I can understand that people have difficulties in imagining how it will work out in real life. Added to the formal description it is very important to get cases and test the method of open assessment and open policy practice. It is important to identify important steps and think how we can make the first steps of using open assessment more easy to take. You shouldn´t be required to adopt the whole package at once.

Open assessment requires facilitation because otherwise it can become a mess. This is what people are afraid of. The use of online tools such as Opasnet and its possibilities for statistical analyzes is stressed in using open assessment. Opasnet is one of possible tools but open assessment shouldn´t be coupled only with it. Also, it is important to remember that the website itself does not solve anything but it is only the platform. Good process management is needed. Online material allows everyone to participate. However, in practice a lot of personal contact is needed. A lot of work can be done and usually will be done outside Opasnet even if the documentation is in Opasnet: this can be an obstacle, but on the other hand a lot of communication is needed to get people really involved. People will not feel involved by only writing on a webpage, they need more connection. How to get people work together and become motivated in writing in Opasnet should be paid attention to, as well as how to design the actual process of open assessment and its linkage to decision making.

I think added to a facilitator there should be a core team who will be most responsible for the assessment. On top of this there can be and hopefully will be a lot of contributors. However, in my opinion it is important to have an active core team who will also steer the discussion. The core team will have a lot of contact with each other. How to organize the work of this core team is important. This question arises in developing monitoring of climate adaptation. If the core team works well together and writes in Opasnet, they can motivate their colleagues and other people as well.