Because the interdisciplinary science required to address the RESCUE-relevant challenges involves simultaneously many variables and forcings, and is driven more by operational than strategic needs, global change researchers tend not to give policy makers exactly what they want, when they want it. However, researchers have developed valuable information, especially in the form of best practices, scientific consensus and guidelines or targets, that can be fed into research policy development for the benefit of policy makers and through transfer of knowledge to other stakeholders. The RESCUE initiative thus aims at facilitating the dialogue between the scientists, the other relevant actors, the policy makers and the civil society.
Key questions to be addressed
- How to encourage policy makers to guide research and educational priorities on global change issues?
- How to reconcile the short-term perspective of policy makers, the mid- to long-term perspectives of research funding and performing organisations, and those of the researchers and educators in global change science, especially through participatory processes?
- How to motivate the relevant actors and stakeholders to develop a common science strategy for tackling global change issues?
- How could global change-related activities contribute to the strengthening of the European Area, especially through policy development, integration and implementation?
- How to communicate scientific results, including their associated uncertainties, to the public and more generally to the civil society?
- How to best develop good communication tools specific to global change research and the required interdisciplinarity, tailored to different audience targets?
Activities / Workplan
During the RESCUE launching conference, the WG already developed a draft vision on the knowledge system, in either a closed, uniform system or an open, diverse system.
This vision is now being elaborated and has been sub-divided into topics or domains covered by several sub-groups.
The “domains” and sub-groups are entitled as follows:
- Organising/running science;
- Learning/feedbacks;
- Demand for knowledge;
- Processes for engagement;
- New problems and tensions;
- Incentives and metrics;
- Redistribution of power and authority.
For each of these “domains”, the sub-group team has been assigned to write the following elements:
a. State of the art (ie., how this topic is discussed so far in the literature and any trends). This should be limited to one page.
b. Overall vision to 2020 (based on notes from RESCUE launching conference)
c. Roadmap – what needs to happen for the vision to be achieved (by 2012, 2015, 2020).
d. Note that a road map could have several roads.
e. Examples of “good practice” – niches that could be fostered to achieve the vision.
Each of these sub-groups has been communicating by e-mail, teleconferences and/or skype conferences. Background material is being posted on the virtual Working Group website and the drafts are posted there as well. The virtual office also stores all e-mails sent to the WG as a whole.
Steps a. "state of the art", and b. "vision" have been completed.
Several of the sub-groups are directly addressing methods, although in the area of "science/policy interface" they are generally referred to as "processes" rather than "methods". And the kinds of processes dealt with in the WG are all inherently communication processes. This all part of the WG thinking about an open knowledge system, as opposed to the rather closed system of today.
A meeting will be held in April 2010 to draw recommendations based on the WG vision, the suggested pathways to achieve that vision and the results of the broader stakeholder interviews. The list of science policy makers / stakeholders is not yet fully established, and will be further discussed when the vision paper drafts for each domain are available.
Activities / Timeline
by 1 October 2009: Notes from Paris Meeting distributed
until 1 February 2010: Sub-groups work on the “domains” (suggested length: 4-5 pages)
by 1 December 2009: “a” and “b” (state of the art & vision)
by 19 February 2010: “c” and “d” (road map & good practice
by 28 February 2010: Draft executive summary (by Chair and Vice-Chair)
by 28 February 2010: Develop protocol for discussions with policy makers / stakeholders
by 31 March 2010: Each WG member discusses the draft Executive Summary with (at least) one science policy maker/ stakeholder. This discussion will check the relevance of our vision, the feasibility of our road map, important pathways that we might have omitted and further examples of good practice.
by mid-April 2010: WG members provide feedback to the whole group on their meetings
20-21 April 2010: WG meeting to develop recommendations
by the end of April 2010: WG to revise final report on the basis of its meeting and to circulate their draft report
Membership
Chair:
Dr. Jäger, Jill (AT)
Vice-Chair:
Prof. Berkhout, Frans (NL)
Members:
Dr. Banaszak, Ilona (SK)
Prof. Chabay, Ilan (SE)
Dr. Cornell, Sarah (UK)
Dr. de Wit, Bert (NL)
Prof. Langlais, Richard (SE)
Dr. Mills, David (UK)
Dr. Moll, Peter (DE)
Dr. Nikitina, Elena (RU)
Prof. Petersen, Arthur (NL)
Dr. Pohl, Christian (CH)
Dr. Tàbara, Joan-David (ES)
Prof. Tuinstra, Willemijn (NL)
Dr. van Kerkhoff, Lorrae (AU)
