Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Relationship-based Knowledge Mobilization: Systems-based KMb and consideration of risk perception for effective uptake by Anneliese Poetz

419 views

Published on

Anneliese Poetz, PhD apoetz@yorku.ca

Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Conference
Monday June 9, 4:30 – 5:00p (Room Poplar)
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Relationship-based Knowledge Mobilization: Systems-based KMb and consideration of risk perception for effective uptake by Anneliese Poetz

  1. 1. Anneliese Poetz, PhD apoetz@yorku.ca Canadian Knowledge Mobilization Conference Monday June 9, 4:30 – 5:00p (Room Poplar) Saskatoon, Saskatchewan RELATIONSHIP-BASED KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION: SYSTEMS-BASED KMB AND CONSIDERATION OF RISK PERCEPTION FOR EFFECTIVE UPTAKE
  2. 2. OUTLINE • Context • Research objectives • What I did (methodology) • What I learned from the research • Why this is important for Knowledge Mobilization
  3. 3. CONTEXT
  4. 4. KINCARDINE, ON
  5. 5. BRUCE POWER (KINCARDINE)
  6. 6. PICKERING AND BRUCE RESTART • 1997, 7 reactors in Ontario shut down (NAOP) • 1997 new legislation Nuclear Safety and Control Act, replaces Atomic Energy Control Act/AECB and enacted CNSC (CEAA) which required EA • 2005 Bruce A 1&2 returned to service (a few years prior, Pickering A Unit 4 2001-03, then Unit 1, not 2&3)
  7. 7. RE-LICENSING PROCESS (STEPS) 1) NGS submits LOI & project description to CNSC 2) CNSC issues Draft EA guidelines 3) EA guidelines subject to public review 4) CNSC commission hearing on EA guidelines 5) CNSC issues final EA guidelines 6) NGS submits draft EA study to CNSC 7) NGS submits final EA study report to CNSC 8) CNSC issues draft screening report for public review 9) CNSC commission hearing on screening report 10) CNSC commission decision
  8. 8. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
  9. 9. OBJECTIVES 1) To explore the importance of individual knowledge about risks 2) To investigate the manner in which information is exchanged and utilized 3) To explore the relationship between the public and the decision-making institutions which are entrusted with making decisions about risk
  10. 10. How can the current stakeholder consultation processes for decision making involving risks to public safety be improved?
  11. 11. METHODOLOGY
  12. 12. QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS + DOCS
  13. 13. WHAT I LEARNED
  14. 14. GLOBAL SYSTEM
  15. 15. NATIONAL SYSTEM
  16. 16. LOCAL SYSTEM
  17. 17. RELATIONSHIP MODEL FOR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT & KE Poetz, A. (2012) “Risk is a social thing, not just a mathematical thing” a model for stakeholder engagement in decision-making. Risk, Hazards and Crisis in Public Policy. Vol.3, Iss.2, Art.4: http://bit.ly/1nMJNIX
  18. 18. TYPES OF RISK PERCEPTIONS • Technical • Environmental • Political • Financial • Security
  19. 19. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT FOR KM
  20. 20. KNOWLEDGE USE FOR DM • Industry preferred to conduct their own ongoing scientific analyses (context specific, security risks) • Academic studies not used because not context- specific, not relevant for EA (specific requirements) • Answer to shareholders (it’s a business)
  21. 21. WHAT I LEARNED… • Important to understand perception of risk for all stakeholders (not just the public) • Fluid process, and always changing depending on contingencies (external events that affect the system) • Good/trusting relationships, including transparency (where appropriate) is key • KEY: facilitated in-person consultations (semi-formal) • Build relationships before you need them, maintain them after (return to community to explain decision) so they will be there when you need them again
  22. 22. HOW DOES THIS TRANSLATE TO OTHER CONTEXTS • “invisible barriers” to uptake can include risk perceptions • Wrong/inadequate information being provided for uptake info needs to be tailored to needs of audience (policy, practice, public) • Seek out areas of misunderstanding and clarify before conflict occurs (def’n transparency, Fed vs Prov EA, roles) • Realize the information needed, the risk perceptions that might be a barrier to uptake, and roles of ppl, change as events/contingencies happen and impact the ‘system’
  23. 23. REMEMBER… Things constantly change: • Relationships • The system • Information needs • Risk perceptions
  24. 24. QUESTIONS? Anneliese Poetz, PhD apoetz@yorku.ca “All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions” - Leonardo da Vinci “Risk is a social thing, not just a mathematical thing” a model for stakeholder engagement in decision-making: http://bit.ly/1nMJNIX A systems-view of decision-making for risky technologies: from global to local and local to global: http://bit.ly/1mgwDTe What’s your “position” on nuclear power? An exploration of conflict in stakeholder participation for decision-making about risky technologies: http://bit.ly/1gvBaDs
  25. 25. TECHNICAL RISK PERCEPTIONS
  26. 26. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK PERCEPTIONS
  27. 27. POLITICAL RISK PERCEPTIONS
  28. 28. FINANCIAL RISK PERCEPTIONS
  29. 29. SECURITY RISK & TRANSPARENCY
  30. 30. FAIRNESS OF PROCESS
  31. 31. DEMOCRACY OF PROCESS
  32. 32. FOR INDUSTRY: • Clearly explain mandates, processes and roles beforehand (including def’n of transparency) • Opportunities throughout and beyond decision-making processes be made available for informal, mediated discussions • Go back and explain the decision afterwards • More emphasis on relationship management (communication and conflict resolution, “attitudes”)
  33. 33. APPLICATION OF RELATIONSHIP MODEL • On-site academics to conduct environmental studies • Dependent upon relationship (trust/security clearance) • Arms-length/objective (off-site) vs. on-site ‘biased’ • Ongoing stakeholder consultation, before, during and after EA

×