Design thinking can deepen the collaboration between scientists and society: Lessons from the innovation economy
Abstract
Now, more than any time in recent memory, scientists are stepping forward, eager to bring science to bear on environmental issues. The time could not be more ripe; we have the best tool ever developed by human kind for understanding cause and consequence: science itself. And we have an impressive tool kit for communicating science honed through decades of engagement. Despite these advances, we face a head wind. Public trust in experts is on the decline. Society's deep polarization means that wading into societal issues brings us uncomfortably close to the deep end of politics. The expertise that is required to tackle the thorniest of environmental problems is not just technical but also requires addressing differing value systems and pervasive issues of inequity. If we have robust science, honorable intentions, and good communication strategies, what's missing? It's all about design thinking, especially 1) empathy with users, 2) a discipline of prototyping, and 3) a tolerance for failure. In this talk, we share lessons in design thinking from the University of Washington's Climate Impacts Group and Washington Ocean Acidification Center, cornerstones of our new environmental institute, EarthLab. Connecting deeply and authentically with the experiences of user communities is at the core of our work. Collaboration is an iterative process centered on prototyping adaptive strategies in partnership with users. Using this approach, the Climate Impacts Group informs decision making ranging from culvert design to the Endangered Species Act, building long-term capacity for adaptation at every stage of the process. In partnership with the shellfish industry, the Washington Ocean Acidification Center pioneers adaptive strategies to sustain shellfish production—and shellfish producers—in a rapidly changing ocean. Finally, we will open the messy can of worms that is tolerance for failure. How can we afford failure in the context of declining public trust and support for science, and at a time when the stakes are so high? Practically speaking, can an assistant professor or soft-money researcher afford failure if he or she doesn't have tenure? Can a small business owner risk investment in a prototype that might fail? But, ultimately, how can we not afford to push the limits of innovation in addressing the pressing issues of the day?
- Publication:
-
AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts
- Pub Date:
- December 2017
- Bibcode:
- 2017AGUFM.U42A..01M
- Keywords:
-
- 6319 Institutions;
- POLICY SCIENCES