CRICOS #00212KCRICOS #00212K

1

To Hunt Or To Analyse: that was the question

Queensland Pest Animal Symposium 2012

2/8/2012

Professor Deborah Blackman

University of Canberra

CRICOS #00212K

Objectives

• To consider why evidence is rejected or ignored because of permission to doubt

• To develop a more complex view of evidence based-policy

CRICOS #00212K

Presentation Overview

• Context • Socio-political affects• Evidence based policy versus policy based

evidence• Role of mental models• Model of Doubting• Applying the model to Foxes in Tasmania• Implications / Lessons Learnt• Conclusion

CRICOS #00212K

To Hunt or to Analyse

• Ascribed historical models of foxes to the Tasmanian situation

• Set up in a hunting manner rather than thinking about it as a real pest invasion

• Policy emerged over time• Not scientifically focussed initially• Has become a political matter• Is there an exit strategy?

Why is it still an issue after so long

CRICOS #00212K

An animal where it should not be

CRICOS #00212K

• The role that science did (or did not) have in deciding how the eradication programme should progress.

• When fox incursion was first identified in 1990 the Fox Free Taskforce was created to control them within Department of Primary Industries and Water

• 2006 became the Fox Eradication Programme in Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

• 2011 it has become one part of the newly created Invasive Species Branch.

Case Study Overview - Fox Eradication in Tasmania 1

CRICOS #00212K

• Data collection: – an in-depth documentary analysis of all the reports, reviews,

media releases, press reports etc. relating to the program over its history in order to (a) develop a clear timeline, (b) determine the decision points during the case history and (c) sensitise the researchers to the range of viewpoints and arguments that have been made during the period.

– semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a range of stakeholders.

• Analysis done thematically and axially. Looking for patterns and where there were strong stories

Case Study Overview - Fox eradication in Tasmania 2

CRICOS #00212K

Details of the interviews 

Stakeholder

Number*Some people are represented in more than one area.

Members of the Technical Advisory Panel 5Members of the Stakeholder Reference Committee 2Members of the Management Committee who are not employed by the Fox Eradication Program

2

Previous and current staff members of the Fox-Free Taskforce/ Fox Eradication Program

24

Senior DPIPWE staff 2Members of the Legislative Council who were part of the Public Accounts Committee

2

Key sceptics/ critics 3DPIPWE staff member who was involved in Corporate Communications

1

People who conducted a review of the Fox-Free Taskforce program

2

Member of the community who has had no involvement in the issue

1

CRICOS #00212K

Bomford and O’Brien’s criteria for Eradication 1-5

1. Rate of removal exceeds rate of increase at all population densities

2. Immigration prevented

3. All reproductive animals must be at risk

4. Animals can be detected at low densities

5. Discounted benefit-cost analysis favours eradication over control

CRICOS #00212K

Bomford and O’Brien’s criteria for Eradication 6

6. Suitable socio-political environment

“conflicting community or administrative goals or legal barriers can frustrate

eradication attempts”Bomford and O’Brien, 1995, 251.

CRICOS #00212K

Socio-political influences

• Socio-political systems and problems involve a combination of social and political factors

• Simply put they are those aspects of a situation which are driven by current social and political forces: political positioning, fads, stakeholder needs; community needs, community wants etc.

• The interplay of these will affect policy as well as the more obvious role of evidence

CRICOS #00212K

The Role of Evidence in Policy

• It is often claimed that policy needs to be based upon evidence, especially where such evidence is scientific (Parsons, 2002; Sanderson, 2003).

• It would, therefore, be logical that when there is a potential biological crisis, such as an invasive animal incursion, there would be clear policy regarding actions to be undertaken and the role that science should play in such an event.

CRICOS #00212K

• Evidence-based policy overlooks values in policy problems (Pielke 2007; Sanderson 2002).

• Three forms of knowledge which support policy: political, scientific and practical implementation. Head (2008)

• This challenges apparently rational or ‘evidence based’ policy development by drawing attention to three factors: firstly, the political and value based nature of decision making, secondly, different actors have multiple lenses and, thirdly, the complex nature of relationships and networks around the policy decision (Head, 2008:9).

Problems of Evidence in Policy

CRICOS #00212K

Mental Models

• A means by which organisations and individuals create and share meaning, enabling common understanding and development of knowledge

• Provide frameworks of value and belief systems which act as the basis for formal analysis, policy and procedure development and cultural development for both individuals and groups

• Act as a context for the interpretation and understanding of new

• Become the extent of the individual’s bounded rationality (Simon, 1991) and actions emerge as a result of the mental models currently held.

CRICOS #00212K

Mental Model Adjustment

Adapted from Blackman and Henderson, 2004, p. 260

CRICOS #00212K

Single Loop Doubting

Source: Blackman and Henderson, 2004, p. 261

CRICOS #00212K

Sources of Doubting: Accuracy

An Individual finds evidence within their current mental model which permits rejection of new evidence.

Considerable effort can be undertaken to make it permissible to reject the new information rather than to accept or assimilate it.

• Example of this can be seen in the climate change debate; individuals continually use their evidence to show how their view is accurate and the alternative explanations are invalid (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004).

CRICOS #00212K

Doubt emerges where the person receiving the stimulus has apparent cause to mistrust the source of the new stimulus.

There is evidence of this problem within the ‘knowledge stickiness’ literature where Szulanski (1995, 2000).

Sources of Doubting: Source

CRICOS #00212K

• An individual may choose to doubt or reject a new stimulus because they consider it to be irrelevant to them in some way.

• Individuals is scan their environment for ideas or news and overlook evidence because it does not seem to be important to them.

Sources of Doubting: Relevance

CRICOS #00212K

CRICOS #00212K

Examples of Forms of Doubting Applied to the Fox Eradication Case Study - 1

Type of Doubt What is Doubted HowAccuracy Science The data are challenged because

of the way they have been collected or stored

    Credibility of the evidence    New science so is it ‘true’ or just an

unfounded experiment  Outcome The likelihood of eradication is

questioned

CRICOS #00212K

Type of Doubt What is Doubted HowSource Fox Free Taskforce The early team was seen as ‘gung ho’,

unprofessional and unreliable

    Doubters make arguments against the team

    Team is accused of ‘making it all up’

  Government Tasmania has a history of mistrust of government

  Media Mostly negative press supporting doubters and encouraging doubt

    Always questioning ‘are there foxes in Tasmania’

  Scientists Seen to be pushing the agenda for their own gain

    Not seen to ‘prove’ the issue

    Lack of response or ‘push back’ to media stories led to assumption they

were accurate

Examples of Forms of Doubting Applied to the Fox Eradication Case Study - 2

CRICOS #00212K

Type of Doubt What is Doubted HowRelevance 1080 The use of 1080 leads to mistrust and

a view that this is an excuse to use it    Causes confusion about its use and

concerns over dogs etc.  Currency People argue that they cannot see

evidence and so not happening now so not interesting

Examples of Forms of Doubting Applied to the Fox Eradication Case Study - 3

CRICOS #00212K

Examples of responses to the two new scats reportedJust two sets of scats? Did these foxes just fly into Tasmania for one day or were the scats blown across Bass Strait by the recent strong winds.Or, is somebody cheating? Posted by: John Williams of Hobart 05:08pm Monday 19th March If anyone rips off Centrelink, there is big trouble. Now the fox farce force is ripping off Canberra, what is going to happen? Come-on Mr Wilkie, ask a few questions next time you are there. Posted by: Don Rumney of Acton 03:21pm Saturday 17th March Forde M at 11.11 am Friday 'small numbers' of DNA-fox containing scats but none linked to actual foxes anbd no to scats from the same fox. Justifying the fox eradication program as a precaution for the release of multiple foxes might have been acceptable for 3, 4, 5, even 6 years but without any authentic proof of foxes established in Tasmania after 11 years? When does DPIPWE and the Commonwealth rethink its 'war on foxes'? Posted by: DAvid Obendorf of West Hobart 11:29pm Friday 16th March 

CRICOS #00212K

Link to the required factors?

1. Rate of removal exceeds rate of increase at all population densities - don’t know

2. Immigration prevented - no

3. All reproductive animals must be at risk - don’t know

4. Animals can be detected at low densities - yes

5. Discounted benefit-cost analysis favours eradication over control – don’t know

6. Suitable socio-political environment - NO

CRICOS #00212K

IMPLICATIONS

• Problem is if never see a fox then (a) is it a success or (b) were they never there?

• Need to rethink the sixth element and manage both the intervention and the community in a more thoughtful way.

CRICOS #00212K

Solutions for Doubting

• Prevention

• Perturbation

CRICOS #00212K

Conclusion: To Hunt or to Analyse

• Need to rethink the order of events for a particular context

• Not wrong to hunt but was not clearly communicated and became an issue

• Need to analyse the socio-political first and then set up a plan that reflects those ideas

CRICOS #00212K29

THANK YOU

Questions????

CRICOS #00212K

References

• Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M. (2004), “Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press”, Global Environmental Change, 14: 25-136, www.eci.ox.ac.uk/ publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf (accessed 25/6/2012).

• Head, B. (2008). ‘Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy’. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67 (1): 1-11.

• Pielke, R.A. 2007. The Honest Broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.

• Sanderson, I. 2002. 'Making Sense of 'What Works': Evidence Based Policy Making as Instrumental Rationality?'. Public Policy and Administration 17: 61-75

• Simon, H.A., (1991), “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning”, Organization Science, February, 2 (1): 125-134.

• Szulanski, G. (1995), “Unpacking Stickiness: an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practice inside the firm”, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 437-441.