As
part
of
the
Water
Institute's
WaterTalks
lecture
series,
Gunilla
Öberg,
Professor,
Institute
for
Resources,
Environment
and
Sustainability,
University
of
British
Columbia,
Vancouver,
BC
and
Professor,
The
Center
for
the
Study
of
the
Sciences
and
the
Humanities,
University
of
Bergen,
Bergen,
Norway
will
present:
Does
the
framing
matter?
On
dissent,
consensus,
and
scientific
controversies
in
policy-relevant
research.
This
event
will
be
offered
in
person
on
the
University
of
Waterloo
campus
in
DC
1302
from
12:00
-
1:00
p.m.
Reception
to
follow
in
DC
1301
(The
Fishbowl)
from
1:00
-
2:00
p.m.
A
large
number
of
areas
in
society
rely
on
expert
knowledge.
There
is
a
growing
recognition
that
many
of
our
present-day
systems
rely
on
a
too
narrow
definition
of
relevant
and
valuable
knowledge
and
expertise.
These
insights
have
led
to
increasing
calls
for
interdisciplinary,
trans-academic
and
cross-cultural
competency,
which
has
proven
more
challenging
than
anticipated.
Drawing
on
30-years’
experience
of
leading
and
participating
in
sustainability
research
in
areas
of
contemporary
societal
concern,
Dr.
Öberg
will
examine
common
stumbling
blocks
and
ways
forward,
including
the
ways
in
which
disciplinary
and
cultural
arrogance
hinder
the
development
of
common
ground
and
respect
for
other
ways
of
knowing.
She
will
discuss
how
a
systematic
fostering
of
humility
and
reflection
can
be
used
as
a
remedy,
for
example,
by
scaffolding
increased
awareness
of
how
differences
in
thought
styles,
writing
styles,
and
oral
expression
impact
individual,
disciplinary
and
societal
perceptions
of
quality,
reliability
and
relevance.
Dr.
Gunilla
Öberg,
professor
at
the
Institute
for
Resources,
Environment
and
Sustainability
(IRES)
at
UBC,
Vancouver,
Canada
is
inspired
by
her
deep
knowledge
in
chlorine
biogeochemistry
and
her
experience
as
a
leader
of
complex
interdisciplinary
sustainability
projects.
She
has
over
30
years’
experience
of
leading
complex
interdisciplinary
projects.
Her
present
research
deals
with
the
notion
of
expertise
and
expert
knowledge
in
complex
areas
where
science
is
uncertain
and
disputed,
and
the
silent
exclusion
of
knowledge
that
clashes
with
dominant
science,
such
as
Indigenous
knowledge.
At
present,
her
projects
deal
with
chemicals
of
concern
and
microplastics.
Questions
in
focus
are:
What
kind
of
knowledge
is
needed,
used
and
trusted?
How
does
the
knowledge
used
impact
perceived
solutions?
How
might
we
help
decision-makers
and
the
public
‘unpack’
assumptions,
values
and
preferences
that
are
embedded
in
such
knowledge?
What
might
a
more
equitable
chemicals
management
system
look
like?