title: An Interface between science and law:  What is science for members of New Zealand's Environment Court?

authors: Forret, Joan Boyce

subjects: scientific evidence

abstract: This study investigates the interface between science and law with reference to models of science described by members of New Zealand's Environment Court.  The aim of the research is to identify differences and consistencies between the members of the Court in the way that they articulate their understanding of science and of scientific evidence.  This research also aims to locate those individual models of science within a wider philosophical discourse concerning the nature of science.

The research adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach that focuses on understanding the detail of contextual interactions arising from interviews with eight Environment Judges and 13 Commissioners.  The interview group comprised all of the judges of the Court during the research period (1999 - 2000) and all but one permanent Commissioner.

The analysis of interviews show a wide range of views concerning the scope and nature of science.  Criteria significant to each individual's model of science have been identified as a series of micro themes.  Those micro themes differ between individuals as to the combinations of criteria significant when locating the boundary between science and non-science.

The analysis of interviews also identifies three macro themes that describe whether and how individuals differentiate science, technology and expertise.  That analysis identifies a group of interviewees, comprising both judges and commissioners, that equates science with expertise without distinction as to any knowledge component or process considerations.  The analysis of interview responses adopts a boundary-work approach that identifies how individuals locate the boundary between science and non-science through their articulation of the micro themes significant to their model of science.

The study contributes to the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law within modern society.  That discourse commonly addresses the appropriate legal framework to assess questions involving scientific expertise and invariably describes the legal process and the role of expert and decision maker within that process.  However, that discourse rarely articulates the meaning of the terms science, scientist, or technology, assuming that science is a self-evident concept, its meaning having universal application and acceptance.  This research challenges that approach and identifies wide differences in the models of science held by individual decision makers and differences in their expectations of evidence from expert witnesses.

Aside from the implications of the research results for the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law, this research also has practical implications for the evaluation of expert scientific evidence within an adversarial system of law, and for expert evidence before the Environment Court.  Suggestions to improve communication both within the Court and between the Court and parties appearing before it are made with a view to identifying consistent and fair expectations of experts and their evidence.

text: An Interface between science and law:  What is science for members of New Zealand's Environment Court? This study investigates the interface between science and law with reference to models of science described by members of New Zealand's Environment Court.  The aim of the research is to identify differences and consistencies between the members of the Court in the way that they articulate their understanding of science and of scientific evidence.  This research also aims to locate those individual models of science within a wider philosophical discourse concerning the nature of science.

The research adopts a qualitative and interpretive approach that focuses on understanding the detail of contextual interactions arising from interviews with eight Environment Judges and 13 Commissioners.  The interview group comprised all of the judges of the Court during the research period (1999 - 2000) and all but one permanent Commissioner.

The analysis of interviews show a wide range of views concerning the scope and nature of science.  Criteria significant to each individual's model of science have been identified as a series of micro themes.  Those micro themes differ between individuals as to the combinations of criteria significant when locating the boundary between science and non-science.

The analysis of interviews also identifies three macro themes that describe whether and how individuals differentiate science, technology and expertise.  That analysis identifies a group of interviewees, comprising both judges and commissioners, that equates science with expertise without distinction as to any knowledge component or process considerations.  The analysis of interview responses adopts a boundary-work approach that identifies how individuals locate the boundary between science and non-science through their articulation of the micro themes significant to their model of science.

The study contributes to the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law within modern society.  That discourse commonly addresses the appropriate legal framework to assess questions involving scientific expertise and invariably describes the legal process and the role of expert and decision maker within that process.  However, that discourse rarely articulates the meaning of the terms science, scientist, or technology, assuming that science is a self-evident concept, its meaning having universal application and acceptance.  This research challenges that approach and identifies wide differences in the models of science held by individual decision makers and differences in their expectations of evidence from expert witnesses.

Aside from the implications of the research results for the discourse concerning the relationship of science and law, this research also has practical implications for the evaluation of expert scientific evidence within an adversarial system of law, and for expert evidence before the Environment Court.  Suggestions to improve communication both within the Court and between the Court and parties appearing before it are made with a view to identifying consistent and fair expectations of experts and their evidence.

year: 2006

title: Community outcome processes as a forum for community governance

authors: Leonard, Lorraine

subjects: New Zealand

abstract: Research for this report is part of a project on evaluating the quality of planning and governance
under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This is the first of two complementary reports aiming to develop and
test a methodology for evaluating the LGA community outcomes processes and the related
monitoring and reporting frameworks and apply it to selected councils. This report focuses on
interrogation of community outcome processes facilitated by local authorities as a forum for
community governance. Out of this study we have developed a generic framework for
deliberative engagement.

text: Community outcome processes as a forum for community governance Research for this report is part of a project on evaluating the quality of planning and governance
under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This is the first of two complementary reports aiming to develop and
test a methodology for evaluating the LGA community outcomes processes and the related
monitoring and reporting frameworks and apply it to selected councils. This report focuses on
interrogation of community outcome processes facilitated by local authorities as a forum for
community governance. Out of this study we have developed a generic framework for
deliberative engagement.

year: 2008-01

title: He whakaemi kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine

authors: Manuirirangi, Hōri

abstract: Ko te whāinga o tēnei tuhingaroa, hei whakaemi kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine. I whāia e au te āhua o te tipu o te rākau hei hanga i aku kōhinga kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine. Ko te ūpoko tuatahi, ko ngā pakiaka, arā te tīmatatanga o Ngā Ruahine. I konei ka tirohia ngā kōrero mō ngā waka tawhito mete whakapapa hoki o ngā tūpuna tāngatawhenua o Ngā Ruahine. Whai muri i tēnā, he wāhanga e pā ana ki te haeretanga mai o Aotea waka, ā, ka tirohia hoki tētehi kōrero tawhito mō te wehenga o ngā iwi o Aotea.
Mai i ngā pakiaka ka piki ake ki te tinana o te rākau. Koinei te wāhanga e pā ana ki ngā korero whenua o Ngā Ruahine. Kei te ūpoko tuarua nei, ka āta tirohia ngā kōrero mō ngā tongi o te rohe o Ngā Ruahine, me ngā take kōrero e whakawhanaunga ana i te tangata ki te whenua. Kei te ūpoko tuarua anō hoki ētehi whakaaturanga whenua mō te rohe o Ngā Ruahine, hei āwhina i te kaipānui.  
Mai i te tinana, ka aro atu ki ngā peka o te rākau i raro i te ūpoko tuatoru. Koinei te wāhanga nui o tēnei tuhingaroa, nā te tokomaha o ngā toronga o ngā peka nei. I roto i te ūpoko tuatoru, ka tirohia ētehi kōrero mō ia hapū o Ngā Ruahine. Mai i ngā kōrero mō ngā rohe whenua o ia hapū, ki ngā kōrero mō ngā marae me ngā pā tawhito o ērā hapū, ā, tae atu hoki ki ngā tūpuna rongonui me ā rātou mahi whakaari.  
Hei te mutunga, ka herea katoatia ngā kōrero o te tuhinga nei i raro i te ūpoko tuawhā, kia kite ai , he aha ngā hua e pūawai ai i tēnei tuhinga. Koinei te whakamutunga o ngā kōrero, arā ko te whakakapīnga o ngā kōrero.  
Ko tēnei tuhingaroa, he whakaemi kōrero mai i ngā kaumātua o Ngā Ruahine, ā, he mea tango mai hoki ētehi kōrero i ngā pukapuka, ko ēnei kōrero kua whakatakotoria i roto i tēnei tuhingaroa hei whakawhāriki iho ki te aroaro o te tini. Ko te tūmanako, he tuhinga rangahau tēnei hei āwhina i ngā rangatahi o Ngā Ruahine, kia rongo ai rātou i ngā kōrero kāore i te tino rangona i ēnei rā, kia mau hoki ngā kōrero a ngā kaumātua o Ngā Ruahine, kei ngaro. Erangi, he whakamōhio tēnei, he tīmatanga anahe tēnei tuhingaroa mō te kaupapa nei. Ko te tūmanako, he hua anō ka puta i tēnei rangahau, hei whāngai i ngā manu hiakai o Ngā Ruahine.

text: He whakaemi kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine Ko te whāinga o tēnei tuhingaroa, hei whakaemi kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine. I whāia e au te āhua o te tipu o te rākau hei hanga i aku kōhinga kōrero mō Ngā Ruahine. Ko te ūpoko tuatahi, ko ngā pakiaka, arā te tīmatatanga o Ngā Ruahine. I konei ka tirohia ngā kōrero mō ngā waka tawhito mete whakapapa hoki o ngā tūpuna tāngatawhenua o Ngā Ruahine. Whai muri i tēnā, he wāhanga e pā ana ki te haeretanga mai o Aotea waka, ā, ka tirohia hoki tētehi kōrero tawhito mō te wehenga o ngā iwi o Aotea.
Mai i ngā pakiaka ka piki ake ki te tinana o te rākau. Koinei te wāhanga e pā ana ki ngā korero whenua o Ngā Ruahine. Kei te ūpoko tuarua nei, ka āta tirohia ngā kōrero mō ngā tongi o te rohe o Ngā Ruahine, me ngā take kōrero e whakawhanaunga ana i te tangata ki te whenua. Kei te ūpoko tuarua anō hoki ētehi whakaaturanga whenua mō te rohe o Ngā Ruahine, hei āwhina i te kaipānui.  
Mai i te tinana, ka aro atu ki ngā peka o te rākau i raro i te ūpoko tuatoru. Koinei te wāhanga nui o tēnei tuhingaroa, nā te tokomaha o ngā toronga o ngā peka nei. I roto i te ūpoko tuatoru, ka tirohia ētehi kōrero mō ia hapū o Ngā Ruahine. Mai i ngā kōrero mō ngā rohe whenua o ia hapū, ki ngā kōrero mō ngā marae me ngā pā tawhito o ērā hapū, ā, tae atu hoki ki ngā tūpuna rongonui me ā rātou mahi whakaari.  
Hei te mutunga, ka herea katoatia ngā kōrero o te tuhinga nei i raro i te ūpoko tuawhā, kia kite ai , he aha ngā hua e pūawai ai i tēnei tuhinga. Koinei te whakamutunga o ngā kōrero, arā ko te whakakapīnga o ngā kōrero.  
Ko tēnei tuhingaroa, he whakaemi kōrero mai i ngā kaumātua o Ngā Ruahine, ā, he mea tango mai hoki ētehi kōrero i ngā pukapuka, ko ēnei kōrero kua whakatakotoria i roto i tēnei tuhingaroa hei whakawhāriki iho ki te aroaro o te tini. Ko te tūmanako, he tuhinga rangahau tēnei hei āwhina i ngā rangatahi o Ngā Ruahine, kia rongo ai rātou i ngā kōrero kāore i te tino rangona i ēnei rā, kia mau hoki ngā kōrero a ngā kaumātua o Ngā Ruahine, kei ngaro. Erangi, he whakamōhio tēnei, he tīmatanga anahe tēnei tuhingaroa mō te kaupapa nei. Ko te tūmanako, he hua anō ka puta i tēnei rangahau, hei whāngai i ngā manu hiakai o Ngā Ruahine.

year: 1998