Integration

In the end, it is all about communication, relationships and fairness. Clark et al (2011) provided the overarching framework of boundary work and boundary objects as the way science, policy and action can be linked in negotiation support systems. Aristotle 1 already knew that it was the combinations of pathos , ethos and logos that conveyed the salience, legitimacy and credibility of a speaker. We can now link that to the public/policy, local and science-based dimensions of the knowledge systems we explored throughout the tools presented here. The default assumption has to be that we deal with the most complex of situations, multiple stakes and multiple knowledge systems (or claims to knowledge), where all ‘evidence’ is contested as representing a political bias, until proven otherwise. Fairness perceptions and the relevance of relationships, beyond what standard economics deals with, remain hard to grasp (Pagiola et al 2005, Ariely 2008, van Noordwijk et al 2012). Learning can shift knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations but generally requires a safe space, shielded from the daily routine and not confined by the trenches that all institutions tend to form around them. Given the tools that are available, effectively supporting negotiations in learning landscapes requires that the team involved is aware of the complexities and through its own composition crosses the boundaries between disciplines, culture, gender, age and experience. Affinity of team members with the different stakeholders can bring the complexity of the real world into the team itself but can also help in communicating results. If we value diversity for the strength, buffering and filtering it provides in ecological systems, we need to embrace it ourselves. As stated in the introduction, this volume aims to provide guidance and learning points for the integration and process aspects of negotiation support. A number of steps have been identified but need not necessarily be followed in order. In negotiation systems, the steps become part of an iterative process that is flexible and reflexive, allowing learning to take place at each step. For a class of problems where the primary stakeholders can see eye to eye, the concept of outcome mapping (Earl et al 2001) within the negotiation process can be used. For each boundary partner, outcome challenges, that is, changes in behaviours that will contribute to the common objectives, are identified. Progress markers are defined to monitor whether the process is getting closer to reaching the outcome, which is mostly non-linear in many ways.

---

• Exibir fonte