Disagreements about the information on which decisions are based fuel disputes. This is particularly true when strong interests are involved in decision-making. It is common for disputing parties to seek support for their views from researchers or other experts. Support is sought especially when attempts are made to influence a court decision or political solution to a controversial issue. Experts are thus drawn into the dispute, and the conflict of interests between the parties escalates into a battle for authority among experts.

On the one hand, this phenomenon is related to neurobiology: when questioned, people have a defensive reaction that reduces their cognitive abilities. Defensiveness and clinging to one’s own certainties prevent flexible information processing and the kind of new, creative thinking that integrates different perspectives, which is needed to solve problems. For this reason, investing in the quality of processes and dialogue is not separate from the substance.

Joint fact-finding (JFF) is a method which has been lon used in the United States as part of the resolution of knowledge-intensive public disputes. The title of Clinton Andrews’ book on the subject is descriptive: Humble Analysis. The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding. (2002, Praeger). Humble analysis offers an alternative to expert disputes over authority. In a conflict situation, reliable information that is accepted by all parties cannot be obtained without a common understanding of the methods that should be used to produce reliable information.

In joint fact-finding (JFF) processes, the responsibility for finding a consensus solution is given to a group representing different interests rather than to a single decision-maker. The group’s task is to negotiate what kind of knowledge production process would best meet the needs of all parties in terms of scientific quality, transparency, etc. The group’s negotiation work is structured and assisted by a professional facilitator. Unlike many other interfaces between research and practice, collaborative knowledge production is not science- and research-driven, but rather based on the need to solve an acute problem. Participatory methods, such as citizen science, can also be combined with this approach.

The starting assumption is that parties with conflicting interests interpret the same data and information sources in different ways. For this reason, the parties to a dispute should jointly define 1) the issues to be resolved, which would be the focus of joint analysis and input from external experts, 2) the questions to be answered in the process, 3) who the appropriate external experts would be, 4) the best way to gather information and answer the questions, 5) the limitations of different methods, and 6) how to proceed once the analysis has been completed.

The aim of joint fact-finding processes is to produce scientifically credible, publicly convincing information that is reliable from the perspective of all parties and relevant for decision-making. The processes are tailored and scaled according to the problem at hand. The end result may be, for example, a jointly agreed synthesis of the impacts of a measure or a jointly agreed method for monitoring environmental information. JFF supports joint learning and its processes can also be combined with other methods, such as systematic scientific assessment practices (e.g. scientific panels).

Joint fact-finding would be a useful approach in Finland in situations where a dispute centres on a report or research data, but the parties involved have drifted far apart and there is no trust between them. Such cases can be found in many areas, starting with the biodiversity of Finnish forests and the means of protecting it.

In today’s world, similar challenges apply more generally to the knowledge base for decision-making and impact assessment. When politics becomes polarised and knowledge production fragmented, when public trust in authorities and expert knowledge erodes, and when active citizens have open access to various sources of information and experts through information networks, the importance of synthesised and jointly constructed knowledge comes to the fore. In a world of fragmented information, the importance of evidence-based policy making is increasingly emphasised. The scientific basis of decisions is one element on the path to sustainable and credible decision-making, but at the same time it must be possible to resolve knowledge-intensive disputes between experts with differing views.

In such a world, collaborative knowledge production would have several advantages: it may not help to build grand narratives, but it can help to resolve thorny practical problems by building small but meaningful islands of shared knowledge. It helps to avoid protracted disputes by building a common understanding of difficult knowledge contradictions more effectively than expert disputes in the media. Another advantage of these processes is shared learning: the parties learn about the construction of science and expert knowledge and about the uncertainties involved. At the same time, they learn about each other’s interests, which helps to build effective dialogue.

Launching such processes would require a willingness to experiment, a new type of positioning of expert and authority roles, and a dose of patience and humility on the part of all parties. A key challenge may be the need to abandon the direct use of power as a substitute for tested knowledge.

Features of joint fact-finding:

• The parties to the dispute contribute their own knowledge to a common pool, and the knowledge base is built together;
• The parties define the tasks of external experts and the group of experts needed to solve the common problem.
• Both facts and values are included in the discussion, and efforts are made to identify them accurately.
• Besides written sources, information is discussed face-to-face in a dialogue involving experts, decision-makers and other stakeholders.
• The process pays special attention to ‘translating’ expert and research knowledge into an easily understandable form.
• The process aims to achieve a common understanding. At the same time, areas of established consensus, disagreement and uncertainty in research/scientific knowledge are identified
• The process is facilitated by a professional facilitator