Published on

coordination & support action

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

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1.    FP7  Coordina,on  and  Support  Ac,ons     KNOW-­‐4-­‐DRR     Enabling  knowledge  for  disaster  risk  reduc,on  in   integra,on  to  climate  change  adapta,on     Kickoff  Mee,ng   Milan,  11-­‐12  June  2013     What  knowledge  are  we  talking  about?     Bruna  De  Marchi   SVT  (Centre  for  the  Study  o   the  Sciences  and  the   f   Humani7es)  University  of  B   ergen,  Norway  
  2. 2.   Some  s,muli  for  subsequent  group  work      detail:   Discussion  in  groups  to   •  main  knowledge  aspects  each  par7cipant   would  like  to  be  considered  in  the  project;     •  what  are  the  most  relevant  issues  to  be   discussed;     •  what  are  the  main  objec7ves  to  be  met  with   WP1  and  WP2.    
  3. 3. Why  knowledge  sharing?   Different  -­‐  and  possibly  contradictory    -­‐purposes   •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •    More  exchange  of  “data”   Increased  understanding       Improved  management   Integra7on  in  a  systemic  view   Manipula7on   Concilia7on   Partnership   …  
  4. 4. Knowledge  integra7on   •  Is  integra7on  possible/desirable?   •  What’s  the  difference  between  integra7on   and  “piling  up”  of  different  types  of   knowledge?  
  5. 5. Pre-­‐condi7ons  for  knowledge    integra7on     •  Recogni7on  that  different  types  of  knowledge  are   embedded  in  different  world  views.   •  Recogni7on  that  knowledge,  values  and  beliefs   are  intertwined.   •  Awareness  that  risk  and  uncertainty  are   conceived  of  and  dealt  with  according  to   different  “value  systems”.  
  6. 6. René    Descartes  (Natural  philosopher,  France,  1637)    vs.     Olafur  Grimsson  (Poli7cal  Scien7st  and  President  of  Iceland,  2010)      «    …  we  should  develop  prac7cal  knowledge   (philosophy)  in  order  to  become  masters  and   posessors  of  nature  (maîtres  et  possesseurs  de  la   nature).»  (Decartes,  1637)                “In  modern  socie7es  …  there  has  been  a  belief  that   the  forces  of  nature  can't  impact  the  func7oning  of   technologically  advanced  socie7es.  But,  in  Iceland,   we  learn  from  childhood  that  forces  of  nature  are   stronger  than  ourselves,  and  they  remind  us  who   are  the  masters  of  the  universe.“  (Grimsson  2010)  
  7. 7. Tradi7onal  and  scien7fic  knowledge   •  Incompa7ble  world-­‐views  impossible  to   reconcile  …   OR     •  Different  codes  to  represent  the  world  
  8. 8. •  Knowing  beeer,  loosing  more  (White  et  al   2001)   •  Mobiliza7on  and  integra7on  of  knowledge   •  Gap  with  what  is  known  and  what  is  done   •  Monitor  results  of  past  decisions   •  Local  tradi7onal  vernacular  science   appreciated  now,  when  it  has  virtually   disappeared  
  9. 9. “Water  under  the  ground  has  much  to  do   with  rain  clouds.  Everything  depends  on  the   proper  balance  being  maintained.  The  water   under  the  ground  acts  like  a  magnet   aerac7ng  rain  from  the  clouds,  and  the  rain   in  the  clouds  also  acts  as  a  magnet  raising   the  water  table  under  the  ground  to  the   roots  of  our  crops  and  plants”     PORTION  OF  1971  STATEMENT  OF  HOPI  RELIGIOUS   LEADERS.  (ZION  CANYON)    
  10. 10. (Un)available  knowledge   Men7on  of  the  merits  of  local,  tradi7onal,   vernacular  knowledge  is  recurrent  (and   fashionable)  …     But  unfortunately     …  by  now  it  is  mostly  gone  
  11. 11. Stone  Tablets  
  12. 12. Local  knowledge  ….     ANEYOSHI,  Japan  —  The  stone  tablet  has  stood   on  this  forested  hillside  since  before  they  were   born,  but  the  villagers  have  faithfully  obeyed  the   stark  warning  carved  on  its  weathered  face:  “Do   not  build  your  homes  below  this  point!”       Mar7n  Fackler,  Tsunami  Warnings,  Wri7en  in  Stone,   NYT  April  20,  2011    
  13. 13. …  or  tourist  aarac,on?     Considered  “just”  as  ar,facts  of  historical-­‐ cultural  curiosity,    over  the  years  many  of  these   stone  tablets  have  been  moved  to  grounds   where  they  are  more  visible  to  locals  and   tourists.    
  14. 14. Subs,tu,on  vs.  integra,on     “Scien7fic”  informa7on  erasing  tradi7onal   knowledge  instead  of  building  upon  it.     The  case  of  L’Aquila  earthquake  (2009)    
  15. 15. Knowledge  and  informa,on   •  Knowledge  is  different  from  (and  more  than   informa7on   •  Informa7on  is  based  on  knowledge   •  Occasional  informa7on  may  be  assimilated   rapidly  -­‐  but  it’s  hardly  effec7ve  if  it  is  not   grounded  in  knowledge  of  the  addressee  (e.g.   US  Na7onal  Parks  warnings  and  instruc7ons)     •  Knowledge  acquisi7on  (including  awareness)   is  a  long  term  process    
  16. 16. •  Interests  to  be  considered  to  grant   par7cipa7on  
  17. 17. •  Knowledge  –acquired/produced  and   disseminated-­‐  always  linked  with  stakes   (interests):  what,  what  for,  for  whom   •  E.g  provide  informa7on  (supposedly)  based  on   scien7fic  knowledge  in  order  to  reassure,   prevent  panic,  etc.   •  Different  narra7ves  about  decisions  taken   AND  inten7ons  undermining  them  
  18. 18. GetReadyBerkeley     No  One's  Prepared  Un,l  Everyone's  Prepared       hep://  
  19. 19.   WP  1   Who  knows  what     about  disaster  risk  and  mi,ga,on         •  Objec,ves  :   This  WP  is  aimed  at  sharing  among  the  partners  the  most   systema7c  possible  view  of  the  main  factors  that  characterize   today  the  knowledge  development  and  sharing  process  within   and  across  the  four  social  groups,  comprising  scien7sts,  public   sector,  private  sector,  and  the  civil  society.  The  final  outcome   of  this  WP  is  a  common  paper  represen7ng  a  shared  and   agreed  upon  reference  of  what  are  the  crucial  issues  to   explore  via  the  coordina7on  ac7vi7es  and  to  be  achieved  in   terms  of  knowledge  management  for  improved  decision   making  in  DRR.      
  20. 20. WP1  Outputs   A  summary  on  the  main  findings  related  to  shortcomings,  barriers   and  bridges  related  to  the  exchange  and  sharing  of  knowledge   among  and  across  the  different  groups  will  be  developed  …     A  second  output  of  this  WP  will  be  the  delinea7on  of  the  process   and  the  criteria  to  iden7fy  the  most  relevant  stakeholders  and  how   they  will  be  asked  or  invited  to  par7cipate  in  the  different   coordina7on  ac7vi7es.       The  knowledge  mapping  deriving  from  the  previous  summary  will   serve  as  a  basis  for  a  sort  of  “social  network  analysis”  iden7fying   the  type  of  links  exis7ng  among  the  various  stakeholders.          
  21. 21. WP  2     Mapping  knowledge  and  informa,on  flows   through  the  coordina,on  ac,vity  among   stakeholders  of  different  social  groups     •  Objec,ves:    In  WP2  knowledge  across  social  groups  and  stakeholders   will  be  mapped  so  as  to  understand  how  decision  making   process  is  taking  place  and  what  are  the  main  obstacles   into  more  effec7ve  sharing  so  that  decisions  are  using   available  knowledge  and  in  the  mean7me  acceptable  to   the  “civil  society”  at  large  and  par7cularly  to  the   communi7es  that  must  implement  such  decisions.