Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
they had provided data in the map data collection phase. This stage of participation
was mediated by two other people: a scientist capable of lending additional support
to the research approach, and an administrator of the grant funding the research
project, who could validate the importance of stakeholders in research and remind
them of the organization's commitment to conducting research that is considerate
of their needs and concerns.
To begin, participants were told that the entire meeting would be tape recorded
and then they would be given a short presentation of the research and the interpre-
tation of its potential uses, both to me and to them. The process that had been used
to develop the maps was discussed and the questions and concerns that had been
expressed in the previous research step were summarized. Questions following the
presentation related to concerns over the credibility of the data collection methods,
and the political ramifications of the economic proxy. There was a general progression
from aggressive statements that criticized the study outright to more collaborative
statements focusing on ways we could work together to improve the underlying
data and its representation.
In relation to the different mapping choices, stakeholders initially questioned
how the buffers were created as well as the reliability of information they had
provided about water information programs, making statements like:
I think some of this would be great information if I could rely on it
I don't know if I'm
confident I can provide information to you that would give you that radius. City represen-
tative 1
...
To reassure her, a university researcher unaffiliated with the project summarized
the iterative research process we were all involved in and normalized the level of
disagreement emerging over the data for City representative 1. He said:
This is often the sort of process - you start something, you initiate it, you take a stab at it,
and you get some of it right and some of it wrong and you correct it and keep going. So
that's what this is all about. Making a mid course correction.
As the conversation continued, it became increasingly clear that providing
individual maps to survey respondents had created concern over the way the politics
of funding for public information campaigns, especially among agencies with water
supply management responsibilities. Ultimately, this uncovered concern over
the implications of different data representation techniques that had not been
anticipated. For the municipal governments, especially, there was concern that
water management policies that mandate public information would make other
cities, without those mandates, appear to be lagging in their efforts. As one partici-
pant noted:
Another thing that is going to happen with things like brochure distribution is that The City
of (X) is required to provide brochures
The City of (Y), we're not
under the same restrictions by ADWR (Arizona Department of Water Resources)....when
you put something like that down on a map, we're going to look very poor
to every new account
...
...
So something
...
needs to be noted. City representative 3
