Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada

Abstract

We used the policy sciences as an organizing framework for a series of workshops with stakeholders in Banff National Park on “Interdisciplinary problem solving for grizzly bear conservation and management.” In recent years, bear conservation efforts in this region have been hindered by acrimonious disputes about the production and use of scientific knowledge in management. The workshops introduced the policy sciences as a means of thinking more effectively about problems, and encouraged participants to use this approach to develop innovative solutions to the problems of grizzly bear conservation. Each workshop addressed different aspects of the policy sciences framework: (i) Standpoint Clarification; (ii) Problem Orientation; (iii) Social Process Mapping; and (iv) Decision-Process Mapping. In this article, we discuss the design and outcomes of the workshops and assess their effectiveness in integrating knowledge to find common ground.

Appendix A: making the connections in the IPS workshop

This short piece has been written to help make some connections between the first IPS workshop, which focused on standpoint clarification, and the two subsequent workshops on problem definition (focus of workshop 2) and decision making (focus of workshop 3).

First, the mind mapping exercise was an exercise in Standpoint Clarification. It told us that each of us differs as individuals and because of this we see the grizzly bear issue from different vantage points given our values. Our mind mapping charts about which we each talked to the group revealed some insight into our own and other participants’ world views and how each of us sees ourselves fitting into the process of addressing the grizzly bear public policy challenge. We need to become sensitive to how these world views will continue to play themselves out as we get into problem orientation in our next workshop. We want to move beyond where we were when each of us came into our discussion, if at all possible toward creating strategies that encompass our differing value demands. Finding the common interest requires that both leadership and citizens better understand the value dynamics at the heart of grizzly bear management.

Standpoint clarification is just the first step, but it is crucial and the time we spent on it is necessary to dig a little deeper into how the views vary and what underlying differences might be driving them. As you know the Q study confirmed the existence of very different views about both the problems of grizzly bear management and the possible solutions.

In our first workshop, different participants stressed different aspects of problem orientation. People talked about different parts of problem solving in their own way and revealed what values they are most interested in. People usually focus on the parts of problem solving that they expect will most deprive them in the future of the values they want. In problem solving we need to attend to all the activities of problem solving and all the values at stake through an evidence-based conversation. This will be the focus of our next two workshops.

Second, concerning our values. Some participants talked about their values explicitly whereas others did not. Perhaps you could now go back and think about the eight values by re-reading the one short article handed out on values. Even though all of us are concerned about all the eight values all the time, our mind mapping exercise revealed that we rank the importance of values quite differently, especially when we consider the bear issue.

Third, grizzly bear management involves human social values, people interacting, and decision making and is therefore not easily solved by relying on disciplines (e.g., ecology), local knowledge (e.g., ranchers), agencies (e.g., federal and provincial bureaucracies) or anyone else for resolution. Our job is as a group of thoughtful community members to see whether we can discover what a common interest bear management policy would look like. If we can understand our own mind map and values (our standpoint) and those of others, then we can take these into consideration as we try to understand just what the “problem” really is that we are trying to “solve.”

Through the IPS workshops, we are trying to move beyond the ordinary, everyday understanding of the grizzly bear management issue that dominates most of the present policy debate. If we cannot, we will simply just recycle our own individual outlooks and value demands and leave the workshop in the same place we started. If we can gain a solid understanding of our own standpoint and that of others, then we can better appreciate the true nature of the challenge we all face, and possibly find practical options to move forward constructively.

As preparation for the Second workshop (October 27th 1–5 p.m. and October 28th 8:30–4:00 p.m.) I would like to ask you to continue to think about your standpoint map and the eight values, not from just an advocacy point of view, but from one wherein you can best assess what you value at base, and how you can contribute to this group of people who see and value things differently than you.