Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo

V. Donfrancesco; B. L. Allen; R. Appleby; L. Behrendorff; G. Conroy; M. S. Crowther; C. R. Dickman; T. Doherty; B. A. Fancourt; Christopher E. Gordon; S. M. Jackson; C. N. Johnson; M. S. Kennedy; L. Koungoulos; M. Letnic; L. K. P. Leung; K. J. Mitchell; B. Nesbitt; T. Newsome; C. Pacioni; J. Phillip; B.V. Purcell; E. G. Ritchie; B. P. Smith; D. Stephens; J. Tatler; L. M. van Eeden; K. M. Cairns

Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo

V. Donfrancesco, B. L. Allen, R. Appleby, L. Behrendorff, G. Conroy, M. S. Crowther, C. R. Dickman, T. Doherty, B. A. Fancourt, Christopher E. Gordon, S. M. Jackson, C. N. Johnson, M. S. Kennedy, L. Koungoulos, M. Letnic, L. K. P. Leung, K. J. Mitchell, B. Nesbitt, T. Newsome, C. PacioniJ. Phillip, B.V. Purcell, E. G. Ritchie, B. P. Smith, D. Stephens, J. Tatler, L. M. van Eeden, K. M. Cairns

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call "conflict over values" and "conflict over evidence." We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

Original language	English
Article number	e12900
Number of pages	14
Journal	Conservation Science and Practice
Volume	5
Issue number	3
Publication status	Published - Mar 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Open Access - Access Right Statement

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Cite this

Donfrancesco, V., Allen, B. L., Appleby, R., Behrendorff, L., Conroy, G., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T., Fancourt, B. A., Gordon, C. E., Jackson, S. M., Johnson, C. N., Kennedy, M. S., Koungoulos, L., Letnic, M., Leung, L. K. P., Mitchell, K. J., Nesbitt, B., Newsome, T., ... Cairns, K. M. (2023). Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo. Conservation Science and Practice, 5(3), Article e12900.

@article{f4f5530fd784478da4a18685798e6aa5,

title = "Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo",

abstract = "Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call {"}conflict over values{"} and {"}conflict over evidence.{"} We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.",

author = "V. Donfrancesco and Allen, {B. L.} and R. Appleby and L. Behrendorff and G. Conroy and Crowther, {M. S.} and Dickman, {C. R.} and T. Doherty and Fancourt, {B. A.} and Gordon, {Christopher E.} and Jackson, {S. M.} and Johnson, {C. N.} and Kennedy, {M. S.} and L. Koungoulos and M. Letnic and Leung, {L. K. P.} and Mitchell, {K. J.} and B. Nesbitt and T. Newsome and C. Pacioni and J. Phillip and B.V. Purcell and Ritchie, {E. G.} and Smith, {B. P.} and D. Stephens and J. Tatler and {van Eeden}, {L. M.} and Cairns, {K. M.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.",

year = "2023",

month = mar,

language = "English",

volume = "5",

journal = "Conservation Science and Practice",

issn = "2578-4854",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",

number = "3",

}

Donfrancesco, V, Allen, BL, Appleby, R, Behrendorff, L, Conroy, G, Crowther, MS, Dickman, CR, Doherty, T, Fancourt, BA, Gordon, CE, Jackson, SM, Johnson, CN, Kennedy, MS, Koungoulos, L, Letnic, M, Leung, LKP, Mitchell, KJ, Nesbitt, B, Newsome, T, Pacioni, C, Phillip, J, Purcell, BV, Ritchie, EG, Smith, BP, Stephens, D, Tatler, J, van Eeden, LM & Cairns, KM 2023, 'Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo', Conservation Science and Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, e12900.

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo

AU - Donfrancesco, V.

AU - Allen, B. L.

AU - Appleby, R.

AU - Behrendorff, L.

AU - Conroy, G.

AU - Crowther, M. S.

AU - Dickman, C. R.

AU - Doherty, T.

AU - Fancourt, B. A.

AU - Gordon, Christopher E.

AU - Jackson, S. M.

AU - Johnson, C. N.

AU - Kennedy, M. S.

AU - Koungoulos, L.

AU - Letnic, M.

AU - Leung, L. K. P.

AU - Mitchell, K. J.

AU - Nesbitt, B.

AU - Newsome, T.

AU - Pacioni, C.

AU - Phillip, J.

AU - Purcell, B.V.

AU - Ritchie, E. G.

AU - Smith, B. P.

AU - Stephens, D.

AU - Tatler, J.

AU - van Eeden, L. M.

AU - Cairns, K. M.

PY - 2023/3

Y1 - 2023/3

N2 - Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call "conflict over values" and "conflict over evidence." We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

AB - Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call "conflict over values" and "conflict over evidence." We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:73908

M3 - Article

SN - 2578-4854

VL - 5

JO - Conservation Science and Practice

JF - Conservation Science and Practice

IS - 3

M1 - e12900

ER -

Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species : a case study on the Australian dingo

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this