This week in class we had the
opportunity to learn about social strategies, the ADP contract agreements, and
the overall challenges of incorporating social science strategies in solving
global climate change. One thing that stood out in particular was the vast
complexity of the report we looked at on Thursday. I understand how it was THE
report for action, but actually reading it really puts it into perspective.
Furthermore, the language used in the report was import to note in regard to
its complexity. Some of the items on the agenda were written with varying
suggestiveness. Using words like shall
suggested that certain items were highly recommended to do and some were just
suggestions. I’m not sure if this is a good idea because I feel as if it
provides people an excuse to not do certain items on the agenda. At the same
time I understand that prioritizing makes things realistic for us, but from
what I know from studying persuasion and teaches children, people will tend to
do more on their agenda if not given an option. In other words, I feel like if
they made every item “not optional” by how they wrote it, and then we would
naturally try to accomplish everything on the agenda (and yes I get how much it
is).
Another
thing that stood out in our discussion of the Francis Moore article and the ADP
report in class was the idea of understanding scientific material and the time
it takes to process findings. One of my group members mentioned the statistics
regarding how long it takes to process discovery. Knowing that it takes months
at a time to get access to this type of material it poses an interesting
barrier to policy makers. If our world runs on the needed demand of quick
decision-making and policy making, how can they possibly utilize all of this
information when they would have to wait almost a third of the year before it’s
accessible? This question really makes one think about how challenging it is to
organize multiple departments together and make progress on issues like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment