National Academies Press: OpenBook

Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop (2005)

Chapter: 3 Useful Framework for Understanding Forecasting Efforts

« Previous: 2 Case Material
Suggested Citation:"3 Useful Framework for Understanding Forecasting Efforts." National Research Council. 2005. Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11204.
×

III
USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING FORECASTING EFFORTS

As input to the meeting, the workshop organizers drafted a background paper for discussion purposes that identified several themes that were thought to be constructive in thinking about the challenges of connecting research about climate to action.5 The concepts were discussed by participants and the two items described below distill what about the themes resonated most with participants’ experience. They are presented as a scaffolding of ideas, or way of thinking about the challenges that confront scientists, decision makers, and program managers in producing and using climate forecasting information.

1. Systems for Linking Knowledge to Action

As an analytical tool, it can be useful to think about linking research and decision making from a systems perspective. One term that many participants found useful in describing the assemblage of institutions and activities that produce and utilize climate information is knowledge-action system.6 These systems are generally viewed as organized efforts to harness science and technology in support of social goals. Such systems have been developed at the national and international levels for social goals ranging from food production and health to manufacturing competitiveness, and defense. In general, they encompass the set of relationships, actors, institutions, and organizations that set priorities, mobilize funds, do the R&D, review publications/promotions, facilitate practical application and reinvention, and provide evaluative feedback on performance. Such systems are not generally designed from scratch, but rather evolve through time as a result of multiple and only partially integrated interventions. This is seen, for example, in the evolving role of FUNCEME in Brazil, from primarily a meteorology agency to one that integrates climate and weather information with hydrology, soil sciences, other natural resource sciences, and social responses. It does so with broadening relationships with international, national, state, and local partners. While far from complete, the efforts in Colombia to link climate forecasting to public health efforts demonstrate the emergence of a knowledge-action system and the mobilization of both existing and new resources to solve a variety of social health challenges.

2. The Challenge of Producing Information That Is Salient, Credible, and Legitimate

Workshop participants used a pragmatic working definition of what constituted an effective system for linking knowledge to action: Such systems may be considered more “effective” to the extent that a greater proportion of the potentially relevant knowledge that science has to offer is actually taken into account by users when making their decisions about which actions to take.

5  

The discussion paper is available on the workshop Web site <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/sustainabilityroundtable/Decision_Support_Rountable_Main.html> and is an unpublished document that was provided to participants as a possible framework for discussions.

6  

The formal title of the Workshop referred to “Decision Support Systems,” reflecting current usage in the United States (e.g., in the core documents of the Climate Change Science Plan). Participants pointed out that this term has a substantial and not particularly distinguished history of use in which it implies a rather narrow and technocratic approach to computer-assisted decision making. (See, e.g., the special issue of Agricultural Systems Vol. 74(1), Oct 2002, on “Probing the enigma of the decision support system for farmers: Learning from experience and theory.” See also “A brief history of decision support systems” by DJ Power, Editor, DSS Resources.com <http://www.dssresources.com/history/dsshistory.html>. Participants preferred to use the full phrase “systems for linking knowledge to action” or, for short, “knowledge-action systems.” This phrase is not without its own problems, but it is adopted here as preferable to “decision support systems” for use, at least in international contexts.

Suggested Citation:"3 Useful Framework for Understanding Forecasting Efforts." National Research Council. 2005. Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11204.
×

What are the general attributes of such relatively effective systems? Workshop participants discussed a hypothesis based on earlier work that systems for linking knowledge to action are more likely to be effective to the extent that they produce information that is perceived by users to be simultaneously salient, credible, and legitimate (Cash et al., 2003; Clark et al., in review). These three terms are not precisely defined but have been differentiated as follows:

  • Salience relates to the perceived relevance of information: Does the system provide information that decision makers think they need, in a form and at a time that they can use it? For example, farmers in some areas need to know something about the timing of first rains, as opposed to average expected precipitation over a season; or emergency preparedness managers need to have forecasts early enough to start preparations for potential natural hazards.

  • Credibility addresses the perceived technical quality of information. Does the system provide information that is perceived to be valid, accurate, tested, or, more generally, at least as likely as alternative views to be “true”? For example, do other scientists agree with underlying assumptions of a model? Or does ground-truthing of general research reveal that the general findings hold in a specific place?

  • Legitimacy concerns the perception that the system has the interests of the user in mind or, at a minimum, is not simply a vehicle for pushing the agendas and interests of other actors. The term fairness has been used to characterize legitimacy, but was felt by some workshop participants to convey an overly negative or suspicious view of the system. Questions about legitimacy often take the form of concerns about process or the peer group that the forecaster belongs to. For example: Who is involved in producing the knowledge? How were those involved selected? When and how are stakeholders engaged? How are R&D agendas set?

As described in the paper, the challenge of designing effective systems for linking knowledge and action—systems that produce information that is perceived to be salient, credible, and legitimate—is complicated by two aspects of the linkages among these criteria (or dimensions). First, it appears that if a system is perceived to be seriously lacking on any one of these dimensions, its likelihood of producing influential information falls significantly. (In other words, no amount of investment in, say, credibility, will make up for a serious shortfall in salience.) Second, it appears that the attributes of salience, credibility, and legitimacy are tightly linked: efforts to enhance one may either enhance or degrade another, depending on the circumstances and the strategies used. For example, greater involvement of stakeholders may increase salience (the right questions are asked) and legitimacy (a more transparent process ensues), but credibility might decrease (the science may appear to be politicized).

The art of designing effective systems for linking knowledge to action thus can usefully be viewed as the art of designing institutions (processes, organizations, norms) that balance such tradeoffs in ways that produce information perceived by users to meet simultaneously at least minimum standards of saliency, credibility, and legitimacy. How this has been done in efforts to bring knowledge about climate and its variability to bear on practical problems around the world was the focus of most of the comparative analysis conducted at the Workshop. Lessons learned emerging from those comparisons are summarized in the following chapter “Components of Effective Systems.”

Suggested Citation:"3 Useful Framework for Understanding Forecasting Efforts." National Research Council. 2005. Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11204.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"3 Useful Framework for Understanding Forecasting Efforts." National Research Council. 2005. Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11204.
×
Page 8
Next: 4 Components of Effective Systems »
Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting: Summary of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $21.00 Buy Ebook | $16.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Academies' Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability hosted a workshop "Knowledge-Action Systems for Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecasting" in 2004 to discover and distill general lessons about the design of effective systems for linking knowledge with action from the last decade's experience with the production and application of seasonal to interannual climate forecasts. Workshop participants described lessons they had learned based on their experiences developing, applying, and using decision support systems in the United States, Columbia, Brazil, and Australia. Some of the key lessons discussed, as characterized by David Cash and James Buizer, were that effective knowledge-action systems: define and frame the problem to be addressed via collaboration between knowledge users and knowledge producers; tend to be end-to-end systems that link user needs to basic scientific findings and observations; are often anchored in "boundary organizations" that act as intermediaries between nodes in the system - most notably between scientists and decision makers; feature flexible processes and institutions to be responsive to what is learned; use funding strategies tailored to the dual public/private character of such systems; and require people who can work across disciplines, issue areas, and the knowledge–action interface.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!