Dear Colleagues,

Weaving has always fascinated me, both the process and its possible results. Teaching and research over the past ten years have given me the gift of significant time in the Peruvian Andes, where pieces woven by experienced hands tell beautiful and detailed stories of place and culture, but only if one learns how to read them. That’s how I view my first month at CRC, the start of a weaving-in-progress that included attendance at the Chesapeake Bay Commission meeting, the National Council on Science and the Environment conference in Washington DC, a CRC strategic planning mini-retreat, and a portfolio of meetings of various parts of the Bay Program, plus getting to know the work and the people of the CRC.

A thread of a certain color started to emerge as being a major element of the tapestry; actionable science (a term highlighted at the NCSE conference). Actionable science is defined as scholarship with the potential to inform decision-making, improve the design or implementation of public policies, and/or influence public and/or private sector strategies, planning, and behaviors that affect the environment. Actionable science includes not only information, but also guidance on the appropriate use of that information; in a nutshell, actionable science links science to action.

Recognize the thread? There are two primary ways this is described: the loading dock model, and the co-production model. The loading dock model is a linear process, where a scientist delivers a product to a “loading dock”, where it is picked up by the manager and then used (or not) in making decisions. A classic example is the loading dock of published literature. It is interesting to note that science communication, no matter how well done, does not guarantee uptake into decision-making, because it is analogous to simply telling managers or the public that the product is on the dock. The loading dock approach works best when the manager’s needs have been specifically articulated, and the scientific answers apply at the appropriate spatial and temporal scale for the manager’s use. Because resource management problems often do not meet these specific conditions, an alternative approach, termed coproduction, has necessarily arisen. Coproduction involves collaboration among managers, scientists, and other stakeholders, who, after identifying specific decisions to be informed by science, jointly define the scope and context of the problem, research questions, methods, and outputs, make scientific inferences, and develop strategies for the appropriate use of science. Collectively and individually, we have a wealth of experience in both, and both are needed; the challenge is in using the right shade of “actionable science” thread that the pattern calls for.

While actionable science is a relatively new term, and literature is limited, it is unanimous in concluding actionable science must be credible (scientifically sound), salient (relevant to a management decision), and legitimate (fair and respectful of stakeholders’ divergent values) to be a strong and resilient thread, and that it is most reliably produced by iterative collaboration between scientists and managers. So, the analogy becomes clear: actionable science is a dominant thread color, scientists and managers and residents are the warp and weft, and the picture that we are trying to weave is a restored Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. My objective is that we all weave with strong thread and collectively design the pattern, and I couldn’t be more thrilled at being in a position to assist in the weaving.

All the best,

Denice