The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability

Saltelli, Andrea; Benini, Lorenzo; Funtowicz, Silvio; Giampietro, Mario; Kaiser, Matthias; Reinert, Erik S.; Sluijs, J.P. van der

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.008

Cited by 87 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…KQA comprises systematic analysis of, and critical reflection on uncertainty, assumptions and dissent in scientific assessments in their societal and institutional contexts; in knowledge systems (van der Sluijs et al, 2008;Haque et al, 2017). It includes critical analysis of underlying methods and implicit and explicit narratives in scientific assessments (Saltelli et al, 2020b). The goal of KQA is to enhance societies' capacity to deal with uncertainties surrounding knowledge production and knowledge use in the management of complex sustainability issues (van der Sluijs et al, 2008).…”

Section: Knowledge Quality Assessment and The Co-qa Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other well-developed KQA tools and frameworks in the literature include the Numeral Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) notational system for qualifying quantities (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990;van der Sluijs, 2017); the six reflective lenses framework for auditing narratives of sustainability (Saltelli et al, 2020b); the five principles for responsible use of models in policy support (mind the assumptions, hubris, framing, consequences and unknowns; Saltelli et al, 2020a); and the checklist for systematic critical reflection on uncertainty and quality in scientific assessments implemented at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Janssen et al, 2005;van der Sluijs et al, 2008;Petersen et al, 2011Petersen et al, , 2013. The latter systemizes critical reflection on uncertainty and quality in six crucial phases in the process of mobilizing knowledge for action: problem framing, stakeholder involvement, indicator selection, appraisal of the knowledge base, mapping and assessment of relevant uncertainties and communication of uncertainty information.…”

Section: Knowledge Quality Assessment and The Co-qa Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Assessment in Co-developing Climate Services in Norway and the Netherlands

Bremer¹,

Wardekker²,

Jensen³

et al. 2021

Front. Clim.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate services, and research on climate services, have mutually developed over the past 20 years, with quality assessment a central issue for orienting both practitioners and researchers. However, quality assessment is becoming more complex as the field evolves, the range and types of climate services expands, and there is an increasing appeal to co-production of climate services. Scholars describe climate services as emerging from complex knowledge systems, where information moves through institutions and actors attribute various qualities to these services. Seeing climate services' qualities as derived from and activated in knowledge systems, we argue for comprehensive assessment conducted with an extended peer community of actors from the system; co-evaluation. Drawing inspiration from Knowledge Quality Assessment and post-normal science traditions, we develop the Co-QA assessment framework; a checklist-based framework for the co-creation of criteria to assess the quality of climate services. The Co-QA framework is a deliberation support tool for critical dialogue on the quality of climate services within a co-construction collective. It provides a novel, structured, and comprehensive way to engage an extended peer community in the process of quality assessment of climate services. We demonstrate how we tested the Co-QA—through interviews, focus groups and desktop research—in two co-production processes of innovative climate services; an ex post evaluation of the “Klimathon” in Bergen, Norway, and an ex ante evaluation for designing place-based climate services in Dordrecht, the Netherlands. These cases reveal the challenges of assessing climate services in complex knowledge systems, where many concerns cannot be captured in straight-forward metrics. And they show the utility of the Co-QA in facilitating co-evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Quality Assessment and The Co-qa Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge Quality Assessment and The Co-qa Assessment Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Assessment in Co-developing Climate Services in Norway and the Netherlands

Bremer¹,

Wardekker²,

Jensen³

et al. 2021

Front. Clim.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• An ethics of quantification can assist in realising that "The technique is never neutral" (Saltelli et al, 2020), meaning by this that the outcome of a policy study can be decided in advance just by the choice of the experts and disciplines called to adjudicate it (Beck, 1992). An important instance of this is when a political issue is presented/transformed into a technical one (Ravetz, 1971).…”

Section: Reasons For An Ethics Of Quantificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification

Saltelli

Fiore

2020

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifications are produced by several disciplinary houses in a myriad of different styles. The concerns about unethical use of algorithms, unintended consequences of metrics, as well as the warning about statistical and mathematical malpractices are all part of a general malaise, symptoms of our tight addiction to quantification. What problems are shared by all these instances of quantification? After reviewing existing concerns about different domains, the present perspective article illustrates the need and the urgency for an encompassing ethics of quantification. The difficulties to discipline the existing regime of numerification are addressed; obstacles and lock-ins are identified. Finally, indications for policies for different actors are suggested.

show abstract

“…We argue that performing such sensitivity analyses may be equally important in the vulnerability analysis, so planners should assess the sensitivity and robustness of alternative water management policies using multiple scenario designs and assumed probability distributions. As noted by Saltelli et al (2020), "the technique is never neutral"; rather "the choice of the methodology conditions the narrative produced by an analysis. "…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted by Saltelli et al. (2020), “the technique is never neutral”; rather “the choice of the methodology conditions the narrative produced by an analysis.”…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Exploratory Modeling of Water Scarcity Vulnerabilities and Robustness Be Scenario Neutral?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices condition the generation of narratives for sustainability

Cited by 87 publications

References 49 publications

Quality Assessment in Co-developing Climate Services in Norway and the Netherlands

Quality Assessment in Co-developing Climate Services in Norway and the Netherlands

From sociology of quantification to ethics of quantification

Can Exploratory Modeling of Water Scarcity Vulnerabilities and Robustness Be Scenario Neutral?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About