Keynote Address—Paradox of Trust in Unsettled Times: Can Scientists Speak Truth to Power ?

The phrase, “speak truth to power”, traces back at least to a pamphlet produced in the 1950s. Its central concern was international peace in an age of atomic and hydrogen weapons. In 2018, it has achieved a much broader meaning, including, but not limited to, speaking in defense of scientific theories, hypotheses, and facts that inconvenience people holding political power and authority. The recent letter sent out by members of the U.S. Academy of Sciences demonstrates the challenge of trust in an era when science and nominally democratic government, in the United States at least, are fundamentally at odds

Critical Review of the Complex Interactions between Trust and Credibility Associated with Conservation Science

The credibility enjoyed by natural science and scientists during most of the 20th Century has been challenged in the 21st Century. Philosophers of science have noted waning trust in science as an appropriate foundation for socio-political decisions (Haack, 2012). We propose a preliminary critical review of professional conservation literature that defines trust, explains its emergence, and acknowledges benefits and risks associated with trust. Second, we explore how trust and credibility interact to enhance or detract from scientific legitimacy

Socio-political dimensions of CCS deployment through the lens of social network analysis

AbstractThe Socio-Political Evaluation of Energy Deployment (SPEED) framework was proposed to improve understanding of energy technology deployment. It was intended to help energy policy-makers develop and implement more effective strategies to accelerate the deployment of emerging energy technologies. The theoretical underpinnings lie in the fields of sustainability science, political science, and risk perception. Part of the objectives of the SPEED framework are to identify the dominant socio-political influences on energy technology decisions and examine how policy can facilitate a societal response to climate change by contributing insights to stakeholders. The focus is at the state level because it is at the state level that emergent energy technologies are sited, permitted, and built. The purpose of this study was to examine the structure of communication about carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology from the perspective of individuals actively involved in decisions that affect deployment and diffusion. We use density of function-system networks to examine differences between states and categories stakeholders. The information is used to inform the discussion of the current structure of communication and how it might present either barriers or opportunities for CCS innovation. Five function systems are used, each divided into benefits (positive) or risks (negative) associated with CCS: Economic benefit (ECP), economic risk (ECN), environmental benefit (ENP), environmental risk (ENN), health and safety benefit (HLP), health and safety risk (HLN), political benefit (POP), political risk (PON), technical benefit (TEP), and technical risk (TEN). An additional category of CCS statements that could not be definitively assigned to one of these categories was included as an ‘other’ category (OTP and OTN). Networks were constructed for all stakeholders, each state, and each stakeholder type based on ties of shared intensity of communication about the particular frame. From these networks, density measurements were calculated and reported. In the case studies presented here, technical risk dominates communication about CCS at the state level. The economic, technical, and political system functions appear to present the greatest barrier due to largely negative communication. This study focuses on how the development of shared meaning creates ties between individuals in a CCS policy network

Integrating social power and political influence into models of social–ecological systems

Shaping policy for environmental sustainability depends upon decision-makers conceptualizing problems in ways that are either shared or similar enough to communicate about, diagnose, and act. The quality of this shared mental model of a social–ecological system (SES) is paramount to its effectiveness. Fundamentally, the mental model must integrate multiple kinds of knowledge about the system. If the decision-making body's assumptions about, description of, and solution for a problem do not to reflect the many ways stakeholders know a system, then the products of that decision-making process are viewed as illegitimate. Sustainability policy must fit the often subtle social order of the communities expected to implement it. In this essay, we discuss how a systems-based perspective can be a versatile tool for tackling these challenges of knowledge integration and decision-making in the context of a complex SES. Using social theory of Pierre Bourdieu, we construct a conceptual model that illustrates a route for integrating locally known social complexities (power, influence) gleaned from stakeholder interviews (N = 57). Stakeholders and end-user groups may dismiss any model that they perceive fails to satisfactorily account for specific, locally salient social nuances. Our approach leverages the overlapping notion of “capital” in social and ecological theory to demonstrate how reciprocal interactions between human and ecological systems can be adopted into tools for reaching viable solutions to SES problem

Om illegal jakt i Fennoskandia

Ett ökat missnöje bland delar av landsbygdsbefolkningen och jägarsamhället gentemot bevarandepolitiken för stora rovdjur har påverkat den sociopolitiskt motiverade illegala jakten på dessa arter. Denna typ av jaktbrott har legat som grund för undersökningen i ett tvärvetenskapligt internationellt samarbetsprojekt lett av forskare vid Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, vid Ultuna. Efter tre år av djupintervjuer med jägare, en enkätundersökning, jämförelser med andra delar av världen och nära samarbete med forskare i Fennoskandia avslutades projektet 2016. Föreliggande rapport fullbordar resultatförmedlingen och den avslutande diskussionen omkring forskningsresultaten från projektet och ger samtidigt uppslag för framtida forskning. För första gången presenterades hela projektet och dess medlemmar för en publik bestående av praktiker och intressegrupper runt jakt. Rapporten sammanfattar på detta sätt två dagars temadiskussioner i en workshop med 45 representanter från olika samhällssektorer, bland annat jägare- jordbruks- och naturskyddsorganisationer, länsstyrelser, Naturvårdsverket, polis och åklagare som de ser ut i länderna som utgör Fennoskandia: Sverige, Norge, Danmark och Finland. Diskussionerna handlade om social kontroll och illegal jakt, att flytta viltförvaltningen till domstolarna, EUs inflytande och olika plattformar för att förebygga illegal jakt, speciellt på stora rovdjur, som vargar. Rapporten riktar sig till både forskare och praktiker som möter problem med social accepterade, men hemliga och gömda, former av illegal jakt som i sin tur beror av statsapparatens legitimitetskris, misstro mot politik och politiker och som också är en manifestation för landsbygdens motstånd i ett modernt samhälle.The following report marks the dissemination and discussion of the research results and insights for future research produced by this project. Hence, it represents the first time the full research project and its members stand before the public and interest groups. The report synthesizes two days of workshop thematic discussions between 45 participants from societal sectors including hunting and nature conservation NGOs, county administrative boards, Environmental Protection Agencies, law enforcement, environmental attorneys and farming associations as they feature across the Fennoscandian countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland. Its discussions center on social control in wildlife crime, the juridification of hunting issues, the influence of the EU and platforms for going forward to mitigate poaching, in particular of large carnivores like the wolf. The report is an essential read for both researchers and practitioners faced with the problem of socially accepted, but secretive and hidden, forms of illegal hunting in response to governmental legitimacy crises, distrust of policy and policy-makers, and as a manifestation of rural resistance in modernity

The radicalisation of rural resistance: How hunting counterpublics in the Nordic countries contribute to illegal hunting

Populist hunting movements have risen in recent years to safeguard rural interests against nature conservation. In extreme cases this movement has been accompanied by the illegal hunting of protected species. Using Sweden and Finland as a case study, the article elucidates how the perceived exclusion of hunters in the public debate on conservation mobilised this subculture toward resistance against regulatory agencies. Establishment of an alternative discursive platform comprising several ruralities - counterpublic in Negt and Kluge's original term - allowed hunters to publicise oppositional needs, interests and rationalities in the debate, and was a key juncture in their radicalisation trajectory. Finally the paper argues that failure to grant recognition to the counterpublic radicalised some individuals beyond counterpublic by engaging in illegal hunting. This practice is marked by the termination of political debate with society and represents a danger to political legitimacy