Utilizing the Dynamic Role of Objects to Enhance Cross-Cultural Climate Change Collaborations

Scott E. Kalafatis Department of Environmental Studies, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and College of Menominee Nation Sustainable Development Institute, Keshena, Wisconsin, and Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Search for other papers by Scott E. Kalafatis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Julie C. Libarkin Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Search for other papers by Julie C. Libarkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Kyle Powys Whyte Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan

Search for other papers by Kyle Powys Whyte in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Chris Caldwell College of Menominee Nation Sustainable Development Institute, Keshena, Wisconsin

Search for other papers by Chris Caldwell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Engagements between climate scientists and communities feature challenges but are also essential for successfully preparing for climate change. This is particularly true for indigenous peoples who are proactively responding to the threats that climate change poses by engaging in collaborations with climate decision-support organizations. The potential for risks and rewards associated with engagements like these makes developing tools for comprehensively, consistently, and equitably assessing cross-cultural climate collaborations a critical challenge. This paper describes a multicultural team’s efforts to develop a survey that can assess collaborations between Native American tribes in the United States and climate science organizations. In the process, the developing survey’s oscillations between acting as a boundary object and acting as an epistemic object in the project revealed common ground as well as existing differences across the cultural, disciplinary, and professional divides involved. Delphi expert elicitation was shown to be an effective approach for negotiating a cross-cultural research effort like this one because of its ability to establish consensus while delineating gaps. This experience highlights that assessing cross-cultural climate collaborations requires that both researchers and the tools that they use have the capacity to identify both common ground and distinctions between climate scientists and the communities with which they collaborate.

Corresponding author: Scott E. Kalafatis, kalafats@dickinson.edu

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Abstract

Engagements between climate scientists and communities feature challenges but are also essential for successfully preparing for climate change. This is particularly true for indigenous peoples who are proactively responding to the threats that climate change poses by engaging in collaborations with climate decision-support organizations. The potential for risks and rewards associated with engagements like these makes developing tools for comprehensively, consistently, and equitably assessing cross-cultural climate collaborations a critical challenge. This paper describes a multicultural team’s efforts to develop a survey that can assess collaborations between Native American tribes in the United States and climate science organizations. In the process, the developing survey’s oscillations between acting as a boundary object and acting as an epistemic object in the project revealed common ground as well as existing differences across the cultural, disciplinary, and professional divides involved. Delphi expert elicitation was shown to be an effective approach for negotiating a cross-cultural research effort like this one because of its ability to establish consensus while delineating gaps. This experience highlights that assessing cross-cultural climate collaborations requires that both researchers and the tools that they use have the capacity to identify both common ground and distinctions between climate scientists and the communities with which they collaborate.

Corresponding author: Scott E. Kalafatis, kalafats@dickinson.edu

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Save
  • Adger, W. N., and Coauthors, 2014: Human security. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, C. B. Field et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 755–791, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap12_FINAL.pdf.

  • Bang, M., D. L. Medin, and S. Atran, 2007: Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 13 86813 874, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706627104.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bang, M., L. Curley, A. Kessel, A. Marin, E. S. Suzukovich III, and G. Strack, 2014: Muskrat theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as indigenous land. Environ. Educ. Res., 20, 3755, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.865113.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bennett, B. T. M., and Coauthors, 2014: Indigenous peoples, lands, and resources. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T. T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 297–317.

  • Bohaker, H., 2010: Reading Anishinaabe identities: Meaning and metaphor in Nindoodem pictographs. Ethnohistory, 57, 1133, https://doi.org/10.1215/00141801-2009-051.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Boland, R. J., and R. V. Tenkasi, 1995: Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organ. Sci., 6, 350372, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.4.350.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Borgmann, A., 1984: Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. University of Chicago Press, 310 pp.

  • Bremer, S., A. Blanchard, N. Mamnun, M. Stiller-Reeve, M. M. Haque, and E. Tvinnereim, 2017: Narrative as a method for eliciting tacit knowledge of climate variability in Bangladesh. Wea. Climate Soc., 9, 669686, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0007.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Briley, L., D. Brown, and S. E. Kalafatis, 2015: Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Climate Risk Manage., 9, 4149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.04.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, B., 2001: Thing theory. Crit. Inq., 28, 122, https://doi.org/10.1086/449030.

  • Brownson, R. C., C. Royer, R. Ewing, and T. D. McBride, 2006: Researchers and policymakers: Travelers in parallel universes. Amer. J. Prev. Med., 30, 164172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bruyneel, K., 2007: The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U.S.–Indigenous Relations. University of Minnesota Press, 313 pp.

  • Carlile, P. R., 2002: A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci., 13, 442455, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Choi, B. C. K., and Coauthors, 2005: Can scientists and policy makers work together? J. Epidemiol. Community Health, 59, 632637, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.031765.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dalkey, N., and O. Helmer, 1963: An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage. Sci., 9, 458467, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker, 2001: Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Praeger, 299 pp.

  • Dilling, L., K. Lackstrom, B. Haywood, K. Dow, M. C. Lemos, H. Berggren, and S. Kalafatis, 2015: What stakeholder needs tell us about enabling adaptive capacity: The intersection of context and information provision across regions in the United States. Wea. Climate Soc., 7, 517, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-14-00001.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ewenstein, B., and J. Whyte, 2009: Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects.’ Organ. Stud., 30, 730, https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gieryn, T. F., 1983: Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 48, 781795, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Guston, D. H., 2001: Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Sci. Technol. Human Values, 26, 399408, https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hasson, F., S. Keeney, and H. McKenna, 2000: Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs., 32, 10081015, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoppe, R., 2005: Rethinking the science-policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis Prax., 3, 199215, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0074-0.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hsu, C.-C., and B. A. Sandford, 2007: The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval., 12 (10), 18, http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jick, T. D., 1979: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Adm. Sci. Quart., 24, 602611, https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalafatis, S. E., M. C. Lemos, Y.-J. Lo, and K. A. Frank, 2015: Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: The role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Global Environ. Change, 32, 3039, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keeney, S., 2009: The Delphi technique. The Research Process in Nursing, K. Gerrish and A. Lacey, Eds., Blackwell Publishing, 1–17.

  • Kirby, C., C. Haruo, K. P. Whyte, J. C. Libarkin, C. Caldwell, and R. Edler, 2019: Training is needed to collaborate ethically: Partnerships between Native American tribes and climate science organizations. Gateways: Int. J. Community Engagement, 12, in press.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Klenk, N., and K. Meehan, 2015: Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Policy, 54, 160167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knorr Cetina, K., 2001: Objectual practice. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny, Eds., Routledge, 184–197.

  • Kuhn, T. S., 1970: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, 264 pp.

  • Lemos, M. C., and B. Morehouse, 2005: The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environ. Change, 15, 5768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.09.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemos, M. C., and R. B. Rood, 2010: Climate projections and their impact on policy and practice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 1, 670682, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.71.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemos, M. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, and V. Ramprasad, 2012: Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat. Climate Change, 2, 789794, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1614.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lemos, M. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, S. E. Kalafatis, D. Scavia, and R. B. Rood, 2014: Moving climate information off the shelf: Boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive organizations. Wea. Climate Soc., 6, 273285, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00044.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ludlow, J., 2002: Delphi inquiries and knowledge utilization. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff, Eds., Wesley, 97–118, https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/ch3b2.html.

  • Maldonado, J. K., and Coauthors, 2016: The story of rising voices: Facilitating collaboration between indigenous and western ways of knowing. Responses to Disasters and Climate Change: Understanding Vulnerability and Fostering Resilience, M. Companion and M. S. Chaiken, Eds., CRC Press, 15–26.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Mandaluyong Declaration, 2011: Mandaluyong Declaration of the Global Conference on Indigenous Women, Climate Change and REDD Plus. Tebtebba Foundation, 7 pp., http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-resources/file/144-indigenous-womens-declaration-on-cc-and-redd.

  • Maynard, N. G., 2003: Native Peoples-Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop: Lessons learned. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 84 (Fall Meeting Suppl.), Abstract ED42C-01.

  • McNeeley, S. M., 2017: Sustainable climate change adaptation in Indian country. Wea. Climate Soc., 9, 393404, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0121.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNeeley, S. M., and H. Lazrus, 2014: The cultural theory of risk for climate change adaptation. Wea. Climate Soc., 6, 506519, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00027.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McNeeley, S. M., T. A. Beeton, and D. S. Ojima, 2016: Drought risk and adaptation in the interior United States: Understanding the importance of local context for resource management in times of drought. Wea. Climate Soc., 8, 147161, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-15-0042.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Medin, D. L., and M. Bang, 2014: Who’s Asking? Native Science, Western Science, and Science Education. MIT Press, 282 pp.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, A., and W. Cuff, 1986: The Delphi approach to mediation of environmental disputes. Environ. Manage., 10, 321330, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867255.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morishima, G., 2014: Climate change and indigenous peoples: A primer. Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science Rep., 53 pp., https://climatetkw.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/primer_may_2014.pdf.

  • Nicolini, D., J. Mengis, and J. Swan, 2012: Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ. Sci., 23, 612629, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pohl, C., 2011: What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43, 618626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.03.001.

  • Porter, J. J., and S. Dessai, 2017: Mini-me: Why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs? Environ. Sci. Policy, 77, 914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.004.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reo, N. J., K. P. Whyte, D. McGregor, M. P. Smith, and J. F. Jenkins, 2017: Factors that support indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative, 13, 5868, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1177180117701028.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rheinberger, H.-J., 1997: Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford University Press, 325 pp.

  • Riesch, H., 2010: Theorizing boundary work as representation and identity. J. Theory Soc. Behav., 40, 452473, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00441.x.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shackley, S., and B. Wynne, 1996: Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci. Technol. Human Values, 21, 275302, https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100302.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, L. T., 2013: Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. Zed Books, 256 pp.

  • Soares, M. B., and S. Dessai, 2016: Barriers and enablers to the use of seasonal climate forecasts amongst organisations in Europe. Climatic Change, 137, 89103, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1671-8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Star, S. L., 2010: This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Human Values, 35, 601617, https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer, 1989: Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci., 19, 387420, https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vaughan, C., and S. Dessai, 2014: Climate services for society: Origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 5, 587603, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • von der Gracht, H., 2012: Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change, 79, 15251536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whyte, K. P., 2013: Justice forward: Tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. Climatic Change, 120, 517530, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0743-2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whyte, K. P., 2017: Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the anthropocene. Engl. Lang. Notes, 55, 153162, https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Whyte, K. P., C. Caldwell, and M. Schaefer, 2018: Indigenous lessons about sustainability are not just for “all humanity.” Sustainability: Approaches to Environmental Justice and Social Power, J. Sze, Ed., NYU Press, 149–179.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Williams, T., and P. Hardison, 2013: Culture, law, risk and governance: Contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Climatic Change, 120, 531544, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 770 226 68
PDF Downloads 352 79 2