Participatory geographic information systems for the co-production of science and policy in an emerging boundary organization

Abstract

► Boundary organizations (BO) and participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) frameworks both apply to spatially explicit research at the science–policy nexus. ► BO benefits from the attention to process and relationships within the policy community provided by PGIS. PGIS benefits from the explicit recognition of science as a stakeholder group in BO. ► Fusing approaches allows for deeper examination of the processes shaping the science–policy interface and create opportunities for BO projects funded by science to become accountable to policy. Boundary organizations are designed to stabilize the relationship between science and policy communities. The literature emphasizes that products (i.e., boundary objects) should be salient, legitimate, and credible to both communities. The related field of participatory geographic information systems (PGIS) focuses on creating useful products (i.e., maps and geographic information systems) in an explicitly political environment. PGIS focuses more directly on the ways in which people may engage with information and power dynamics between actors. We argue that the epistemological parallels between PGIS and boundary organization research create an opportunity to fuse approaches to the advantage of both fields. Combining approaches facilitates communication and provides opportunities to negotiate conflict between science and policy. We apply the frames to a public information project conducted in a water resource decision-making boundary organization in Phoenix, Arizona. Through participatory action research, we evaluate the extent to which relationships between saliency, legitimacy, and credibility across change through time and interact with one another. We find that the boundary organization framework provides a unique role for science in framing questions and evaluating the feasibility of environmental management solutions. However, it neither guides the process of generating boundary objects nor adequately conceptualizes heterogeneity within the policy community. PGIS highlights processes internal to the policy community driving low levels of political support for initial maps of public information programs. Credibility improved after participants discussed why they felt maps lacked legitimacy, and credibility. Discussion among policy makers at a meeting convened by scientists improved legitimacy and credibility. Despite policy involvement in the process of generating research questions, the saliency of the map remained low. Policy stakeholders viewed the map as a necessary precursor to more usable science in the future rather than a as boundary object per se. The framework developed and applied in this paper is relevant to research centers and projects that intend to link policy and science that have stronger formal ties of accountability to science through funding.