Using collective intelligence to solve complex environmental issues: a case study on marine literacy

McCauley, V. ., McHugh, P. ., Davison, K. ., & Domegan, C. . (2019). Collective intelligence for advancing ocean literacy. Environmental Education Research, 25, 280-291.

Oceans provide many benefits, such as raw materials and food, coastal protection, water quality enhancement, carbon sequestration, and tourism and recreation. A lack of ocean literacy—an understanding of the relationship between humans and oceans—can prevent people from adopting pro-environmental behaviors that help protect and conserve the marine environment. The purpose of this research was to demonstrate how an approach called Collective Intelligence (CI) may be used to solve complex environmental issues. This study used CI to promote ocean literacy and share the results and best practices of the CI methodology.

Collective Intelligence is a research approach that encourages stakeholders to collaborate to debate ideas, issues, and potential solutions. This approach has been successful in encouraging stakeholders to brainstorm and consider new alternatives or ideas. CI involves a facilitator, who leads a discussion with invested stakeholders and guides them to a group consensus. CI is regarded as beneficial because the facilitator empowers the group of stakeholders to work together to make a decision. For example, CI may be used to help a group of government officials, policymakers, and community members collectively develop a coastal resiliency plan.

This study evaluated the marine education systems across eight European countries: Denmark, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. While the authors describe the overall process of CI, they only present the results from the study conducted in Ireland. The researchers assembled a working group of five individuals, chosen based on their stakeholder roles, to help select potential participants for the study. The group included two teacher trainers, a marine education policy worker, an aquarium educator, and a marine change agent (a professional who studied science communication and outreach). The working group identified 60 prospective participants. The authors grouped these prospective participants into one of three stakeholder groups: 1) Incumbents, 2) Challengers, and 3) Regulating Agencies. Incumbents included stakeholders who wanted to preserve the current marine education system; Challengers were identified as those who worked with the current system, but frequently questioned it; Regulating Agencies defended the current system. The researchers recruited all 60 participants via email to participate in the study, and received responses from 25 individuals (9 incumbents, 11 challengers, and 5 regulating agency workers).

The CI process included two phases: 1) Idea Generation and 2) Argumentation. For the first phase, the researchers held an online discussion and asked each participant to identify five barriers to teaching 12-19 year-old students about the ocean. Participants generated 128 barriers. Following this online forum, the authors grouped the barriers into 15 categories. Almost half of the categories identified issues associated with formal education, followed by informal education/public awareness, and lastly politics as a barrier to ocean literacy.

The second phase involved a one-day workshop held in 2016 to discuss the barriers, which included 14 of the original 25 participants. During the workshop, the authors used structural mapping software to help the group identify relationships among barriers by exploring whether one barrier influenced or aggravated others. The analysis indicated that all other barriers ultimately stemmed from a lack of political support for ocean literacy. After voting on four pathways of how barriers might influence each another, the stakeholders concluded that a lack of awareness of career opportunities in the marine environment negatively impacted the student's willingness to increase their ocean literacy. Participants then proposed 60 actions to address the barriers. The facilitator encouraged open discussion and guided participants through a voting process to identify feasible, impactful, and timely solutions. Examples of these solutions included integrating conservation education into water sport camps, promoting a national media campaign, and developing short-term courses for students.

The researchers concluded that the CI process effectively guided participants through the process of identifying barriers and potential solutions, and it allowed participants to actively engage with each other. These interactions encouraged individuals to work as a cohesive unit and instilled a sense of ownership and pride in the decision made.

This study had limitations. The participants were selected by a working group of professionals rather than randomly recruited to participate, and the findings likely cannot be generalized beyond this study. In addition, the results are only representative of marine education professionals in Ireland, and results may differ in other geographic locations or sociopolitical contexts. While the researchers desired equal representation across the three stakeholder groups, regulating agency workers were under-represented. Lastly, phase two of the research only included 14 stakeholders; a larger group with more participants may have produced different results.

The authors highlighted that while CI is not a one-size-fits-all solution, environmental educators may find this methodology useful to help promote environmental literacy and generate ideas to solve complex problems. For example, educators can implement CI methodology into discussions for traditionally controversial topics, such as climate change.

The Bottom Line

<p>This research explored how Collective Intelligence (CI) may be used to address complex environmental issues. This research investigated barriers and potential solutions for teaching adolescent students about the ocean. The researchers recruited 60 marine education professionals in Ireland to participate in an online discussion, a one-day workshop, and a facilitated discussion. They found that the CI process encouraged participants to work together and created a sense of ownership and pride.</p>

Research Partner