Conflicts over knowledge, or facts, have been rapidly increasing in recent years. Consider discussions about whether or not to vaccinate children, the effects of asylum policy, or environmental impact assessments that are critically questioned. For all sorts of projects such as wind farms, airport development, or large-scale infrastructure, discussions about calculation models, assumptions, and conclusions arise. Residents, societal organizations, and governments no longer always trust each other's facts. In this context, the question arises as to how knowledge conflicts can be prevented or resolved before they lead to legal procedures and stalled decision-making.

Joint fact-finding

Research in the (semi-)public domain has traditionally been highly technocratic. Self-appointed experts determine the research questions, methods, and interpretations, while others are only allowed to react later. In a society where citizens are more assertive, trust in institutions is under pressure, and knowledge is not automatically accepted, this approach increasingly leads to distrust. Discussions then no longer revolve around substantive choices, but about the reliability of the underlying research and facts.

Joint Fact Finding offers an alternative route. By involving stakeholders from the outset in defining what should be investigated, how it should be investigated, which experts should conduct it, and what knowledge is relevant, a shared factual basis is created. This requires openness, procedural agreements, and the explicit separation of knowledge, interest, and value conflicts. Precisely this approach proves to contribute to better understanding, higher research quality, and increased trust in the outcomes, even when interests continue to clash.

Would you like to know what Joint Fact Finding can do for you? Or how you can effectively use it as a facilitator? Then download the full article via the button below.

Senior consultant

Jeroen Medema