 Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us today for another webinar series. The GUESSI webinar series serves as a platform for the GUESSI network members to share experience and expertise in evidence synthesis and share potential collaboration. As you see, you are all muted by default, so if you want to ask your question, please raise your hand to be unmuted so that you can ask your question directly to the presenter or you can submit your questions and comments using the question panel. For those who are joining us for the first time, an overview of today's stakeholder engagement webinar series, stakeholder engagement is an integral part of all systematic reviews to some degree. However, there has been a little discussion of this important process and systematic review guidance to date, particularly in the field of environmental management and conservation. This series discusses various aspects of engaging with stakeholders, like describing the ranges of methods available, outlining experiences from various systematic review experts, and discussing issues with the context. The benefits of training engaging directly with decision makers and communicating review results. So today's webinar series is the second webinar in the stakeholder engagement webinar series, and it's about managing knowledge production and context of conflict by Dr. Annika Nielsen. So Dr. Annika Nielsen is an interdisciplinary researcher focusing on the politics of Arctic change environmental governance and the co-production of knowledge at the science policy interface. She works as an independent researcher including engagement with KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and the Nordland Research Institute in Norway. She has recently been engaged in the Arctic Council's Arctic Resilience Assessment and in the Bartons region study for adaptation action for a changing Arctic. Dr. Nielsen has a PhD in environmental science as well as over 20 years of professional experience as a science writer before entering academia. Once again, thank you Dr. Nielsen for joining us today. I'm very happy that you're joining today and I'm very happy to have this opportunity to meet with you. I have not worked that much with systematic reviews. I've had a way, drew me into some work but my experience really comes from other fields. I'm more of a, sometimes I call myself an undisciplined researcher but towards the political science field and as Nadja said with an interest in politics of Arctic change. But I've worked with several scientific assessment processes relating to pollution in the Arctic and social issues in the Arctic. And also in my own research looked at knowledge production about climate change in the Arctic. And scientific assessments in a sense have many similarities to systematic reviews in that they build on a strong belief in knowledge as an important input in policymaking and decision making. And while I fully agree on the importance of knowledge for good decisions, I wouldn't question that. It's important to remember that knowledge is really only one aspect of decision making and one aspect that needs to inform decision making in society. And maybe even more important, knowledge is often contested, even if it's based on available scientific evidence. And in some cases even the knowledge production process as such, the scientific process is contested. There used to be a notion that all would be well if only science could speak truth to power. But we know today from many studies of the science policy interface that the picture is much more complex and actually from my perspective, more interesting, but I study these processes. For those of you who try to influence policy and try to systematize available knowledge, it just makes it more challenging. But it has implications for the power of systematic reviews and for the role of systematic reviews, not least in relation to stakeholder engagement, which of course is the topic for the seminar series. And as Nadja said, I'm a researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden and mainly engaged in Nordic Centre of Excellence working on issues related to resource extraction and sustainable Arctic communities. And I will take some of the examples from that field today because it is definitely one in which knowledge and contested issues and conflicts are very much in place. But before going into the details, I want to give a little bit more of the context we're moving in and why the topic of looking at stakeholder engagement as part of a contested knowledge issue is very relevant at this moment in time. I would argue that we have today a shifting landscape of contested futures. And it's, if we go back in time, it seems, if you go back in time a long time, you know, things seem to be just continue as they were. If we go back in time maybe 30 years, there was a notion that everything is progress, everything is going to be better. Today we live in a time where that's not so easy to say anymore. We live in a times of very rapid social and environmental change where the ground is shaking. And that means that the future is being renegotiated. So we kind of just so where do we want to go. And the stakes are quite high. It's not as if we can get everything we want. And that creates, in a sense, a tense situation in and of itself. Where you also have a situation where common aspirations, such as getting better material welfare, being able to travel. Everyone having a good economy is no longer seen as sustainable, at least not the way it has been practiced by Western countries so far. And that of course challenges the people who are in power today, the people who are in a good situation today. So new knowledge, for example, about environmental change and impact and the impact of the consequences of the decisions and the lifestyle we have. That type of information is actually often perceived as an existential threat. It's not just new neutral information, it challenges people to question their life choices and their lifestyles. And sometimes even their identity. We also live at a time where power relations are shifting in many different ways. Geopolitical power relations are shifting towards Asia compared to the old world, but also among generations. Young generation, large populace of young generation coming with different values, different ideals. We see this in Sweden, which is where I sit, with Greta Thunberg and her challenging politicians about why aren't you doing anything about climate change and getting young people all over the world to actually call on the older generation. So what are you doing? You're destroying our future. So those people are invoting power in not too many years. And on top of it, we have a virtual media landscape that creates completely new conditions for communication, much more rapid, but also creating media bubbles. So we live in a completely different landscape than I would say 20, 30 years ago, which is when I started working on these issues. And that means that also knowledge becomes contested. And there is a renegotiation of the role of science in society. And that creates a need to recognize what science can do and what it cannot do. And thereby also I would say what systematic reviews can do and what they cannot do. And first of all, and this is something Sheila Jasenoff wrote, has written a lot about it. I put one reference in the end slide. I have the full references for these papers that were kind of cornerstone papers in the development of this thinking is we have to recognize that knowledge is not something neutral objective that's there. It's something that is negotiated and co constructed in a dialogue between whatever we are studying, whether it's an ecosystem or society and those who are studying it with those are researchers, whether it's politicians or whoever. It's it's a knowledge comes out of a relationship where people are involved, not only people but also institutional structures. And while it might be possible to answer specific quiet scientific question in a reasonably objective manner, the body of knowledge that is produced and highlighted in political decision making is a product of a number of social and political processes, ranging from science funding the organization of academia power relations in society. And that is, I think, fairly well recognized now by many people but not necessarily by by people who work in hardcore natural sciences, where it's seen as something bad, whereas when I describe it is more an observation that's that's how it how it functions is it's not I don't put a value in it that it would be negative that that's the case. But it also means that it becomes very difficult to make a clear distinction between what is a stakeholder and what is a knowledge producer. In today's webinar in the series Neil Hadaway gave a more general introduction to stakeholder engagement and I assume some of you have have listened listen to that as well. And here I want to highlight that it's not really possible to differentiate between the knowledge producers and stakeholders what you may call stakeholders are also knowledge providers, or at least knowledge holders, while those of you may recognize those who you make recognize as experts very often have their own stake in in the process and in the knowledge production processes, whether it be systematic review or empirical research. These things can for example be related to career, or other social rewards, not only what you may initially think of as stakes in a political issue. But knowledge pro both knowledge producer and who's a stakeholder requires some reflection. Third, and this is something that comes very much from insights from studying scientific assessment, there was a large project that global environmental assessments, looking at them evaluating them, which was reported by Michela in 2006 that scientific credibility is not sufficient, but that it must be accompanied also by salience and process legitimacy. And it came from an observation that you have loads of scientific assessments, but only a few of them actually have an impact on policy. And even if they were had very high scientific credibility, it did not guarantee having having any impact. And what they showed by looking at many of these processes, both internationally and in national context is that, and this one is probably fairly obvious to you that the question posed by the assessment have to be seen as relevant to the people who are trying to reach and that might be pretty obvious what is might be less recognized is that the knowledge production process must be perceived as legitimate. And how what is legitimate depends on who you ask for a scientist, a natural science person that scientific process itself creates legitimacy. And in the systematic review processes we tend to think of that the transparency and the systematic matter of a review process would create a process legitimacy. But that's not necessarily true for all audiences. For example, it might not be relevant for an audience who would rely on a world tradition as more legitimate than written written evidence. So what is what is a legitimate process depends who you're trying to reach. And unfortunately, what is credible, salient and legitimate to one target audience may not be equally credible, salient and legitimate to another target audience who also need to be convinced. So, but but looking at these three aspects at least makes you think of what you have to have in mind and try to look at your own process from the outside from the view of who you're trying to reach. And I think one of the things that have. I have had to think hard about more and more having my own background comes from actually being a science journalist initially, and having worked with science communication and we we. I think we have been a bit naive that if we can only come with new tools and approaches and flashier way of presenting our material and better language, it would be able to reach but we have. I come to realize that that's not where the problem is often the problem lies somewhere else is not a matter of being a good communicator only. So we need to critically assess how we think about science communication. And we need to think about it in the very beginning of the knowledge and process it's not a matter of translating scientific results to flashy usable language for for decision makers. And on top of it sometimes something I mentioned earlier, we live in a time where you have media bubbles that create parallel knowledge landscapes and factor systems and various different groups frame the whole issue in different ways. There are several examples so that are quite well studied in the view of vaccinations child vaccination is very clear examples where you have a strong strong scientific basis and strong public health incentives to to vaccinate for many of what's called childhood diseases while also quite a substantial group of people well educated people don't believe in it don't believe those messages. And of course climate change is a is another classic one where there's also quite a bit of research showing how the how that links the the the media bubbles and the knowledge resistant links to to to political ideologies. So, we need to be humble. We also need to be humble about the limits of science and limits of knowledge. It cannot science cannot solve all of society's challenges, they can only it can only address specific questions, and the questions post also depends on who has power to post questions. And but what what questions are not because they're not scientific. And we need to think about can knowledge really be objective in an unequal world where some actors have a voice have do not have a voice in defining what is relevant. This photo is from the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Keterna in Sweden in 2013. The Arctic Council is a is a collaboration among the Arctic count, eight Arctic countries in the circumpolar north. But it also shows the, you know, the diplomatic car coming and you have representatives of the Sami community in the background saying new Arctic mining. And what the power relations in these pictures are quite obvious and they were also obvious actually inside the meeting where I happen to be. And it goes beyond scientific question it comes in a history of colonialism questions about human rights indigenous peoples rights that includes not only the explicit political processes when conflicting interest against each other, but also power of defining what knowledge is and what knowledge is relevant when assessing the impacts of mining. So the, the link sometimes they used to be we need to keep science and politics apart but you can't. They're always intertwined. And we need to recognize the limits of science and that some issues are political at their core. And I have some examples here from from resource extraction in the Arctic based on ongoing research in two projects one is within the Nordic center of excellence Rex resource extraction and sustainable Arctic communities. And the other is a project where I was involved at the start which is focusing on mapping the impacts of mining using multiple knowledges. And where a systematic review of published literature, kind of rather classic in the systematic review sense is only one aspect, and where another aspect is empirical work together with the Sami reindeer herding community to gather their knowledge that is often not written down or documented and actually dismissed as just feelings or opinions, especially when you start getting in in in situations where it's contested land use. A company wants to open a mine on land that has traditionally been used for reindeer herding, for example. In Rex one one question relates to need to process is related to environmentally environmental impact assessment. And currently the focus is quite local in the emphasis on potential impacts on the environment such as water, soil, air and biodiversity at the kind of biotope and species level. And if you look at these the social and economic aspects are not disgusting at all the same detail that knowledge is not weighed in counted. Another question is what scale should be in focus. Is it the very local impacts of mining of, you know, the kind of close vicinity to a mine, or is it the large scale system that the fact that the mind generates the building of roads and railroads requires energy has maybe pollution that's we via river far down downstream, all of these issues. Where you draw the line for whether environmental impact assessment that the company has to do is is should be responsible. Even if it's control nothing control of the mining companies. And even questions such as when we talk about economic fence consequences, should the focus be on the national economy, the next 10 years or the local economy in the next 100 years. And these are questions that go to the heart of how we define sustainable development, where the local focus currently is often not very well articulated. For the three mk project and by now you had a chance to look at it a little bit I invite you to take a look close look at the lower image here. What do you see it. I mean it's contradictory information but even if you recognize that after a while, it usually takes a little while before you see it. Your eyes drawn to one picture but not the other. I will say is it drawn to people needing jobs that would come from a mine or is it people having their livelihoods threatened, such as ranger herders, or do you see another small detail in an environment that's already encroached and maybe you think destroyed or is it is it actually doing something to pristine environment. Are you looking at a local system or a global system. So these are some examples of how, how knowledge is not as simple as one would want to be. And I want to, since my guess is that most of you may not come from a background of philosophy of science I want to place. What I have discussed part into a framework of more theory theoretical understanding of the role of science society. In an early recognition of the complexity of knowledge in relation to decision making came with the notion of wicked problems. In 1973, which really was a way to describe what cause, cause problems that have multiple causes, maybe nonlinear dynamics, often lacking definitive solutions and linked to alternative policy frames. Climate change is a very, very good example of a wicked problems. You cannot describe it in a simple science. You cannot reduce it to one single scientific question that you can answer. You can certain aspects of it you can, you know, the atmospheric dynamics you can study with scientific methods. You cannot address the whole problem of climate change in society with only scientific methods. It's too, it's too complex. A next step in the sense in the recognition of the complexity and the role of science in society, what's called post-normal science notion that Funtowit and Roberts wrote about in 1993. And they really focused on the scientific management, certainly they recognize the wicked problems. So what does one do with it? What do you do it as a scientist with something like this? But they remain within the scientific paradigm, but add then a commitment to solving it with specific activities and dialogue, for example, management of uncertainty that is inevitable. I think IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a very good example of a body that was created with that kind of thinking in mind. You have all kinds of examples of how they try to manage uncertainty while staying within a scientific paradigm and even if it's a very much of a science policy interface, trying to safeguard the scientific credibility by always managing that interface. However, I think what we see now is that very role and status of science in society is challenged. And it's of course very problematic in the sense of the consequences of factor assistance, some of which I mentioned earlier. But one could also turn around and see it as positive that it's also recognition of alternative epistemologies, alternative ways of knowing, for example, the upgrading of local and indigenous knowledge, and the kind of recognition that scientific methods are not the only ways of knowing. And that each way of knowing has its kind of strengths and weaknesses so you can start having a dialogue around that. That's the positive aspect of it, but of course you have to get to the dialogue in order to get the positive aspects and not get stuck in the factor assistance and all that. So, then what are the implications of all of this for systematic reviews you might think that this was kind of a detour for what you're really interested in systematic reviews so In this, what we tried to do with me together with a colleague, Rasmus Klokolas, and we tried to put this all into a kind of a heuristic framework that could help guiding systematic reviews and this is published and you can find it. Oh, you get the reference at the end. So what I would like to do is kind of go around, go around this circle. And the importance is important this to think of, where are you, what kind of problem do you have when you're, what do you problem, what kind of problem do you want to address. What, how do you have to think when you think about stakeholder involvement and kind of knowledge production in general. So, so starting in the lower right corner, what type of conflicts are you talking about we can start in the beginning is it the knowledge based conflict. Normal science and systematic reviews might serve you quite well, especially if you can define the issue clearly enough. However, if it's a wicked problem you may have to think differently. Going into the inner circle if the if it is a knowledge based problem that the stakeholder involvement might be more of a consultation. Objectivity might be relevant to talk about and you know, generality becomes a measure of quality. However, if it's a wicked problem. Now let's have to think of which direction I'm going because I don't see the whole picture in my, my screen so I have to look at a paper. If you go one step up and look at post normal science, you have a more wicked problem. A recognition that it's co constructed your view on knowledge, you get a different view on knowledge that you have to take into account. And the measure of quality here would be stakeholder relevance maybe more than, or not instead of but in addition to to what you would think of as scientific quality. It's not just any scientific study that's relevant to include. It's one that actually addresses the issue that needs to be addressed according to stakeholders. And your stakeholder involvement. The goal might be to think of social learning how do you create a process in which the various actors can actually learn from each other. Which is a different type of task than only consulting them and asking them for something you might have to create a workshop setting you might have to create create a trust social trust that actually makes it possible to learn. And hopefully then go to the, the outer circle and end up in a situation where you have a destructive conflict. And I will go into different kinds of conflicts later but a destructive conflict is one that is no one really wants and it's not moving anything forward. It's not helping anyone. Different views on what knowledge is actually is or what knowledge is relevant. Some I think certain knowledge is just feelings or myths, or that other knowledge is some kind of bogus science. And when it comes to measures of quality, then you might have to think of, can you at least get to a point where you can get a mutual recognition and a common sense of what what we're talking about. To get beyond where you are in a situation of a destructive conflict. Getting to a constructive conflict where you can start teasing it apart and actually move forward. And in stakeholder involvement, you might have to think of, what are the power relations between different groups, can you create a situation where everyone actually has a chance to speak and share their knowledge and perspectives. What does equality in practice mean? Does it mean changing the settings? Rasmus Glokolaisen, for example, has worked with doing assessments, impact assessment together with the Sámi community without anyone from the outside in a facilitated process where you can kind of isolate one point in time from a situation where it's actually quite conflictual, but that of course also requires resources. And it's a question of who has resources to put into the process. So that's what equality in practice is. There you can think of all kinds of dimensions. It can be gender dimensions, it can be different ethnic groups, it can be different practices, it can be different countries. There are all kinds of dimensions that need to be taken into account when looking at equality in practice. And as I said, conflicts can have many different dimensions and here's some to help you sort out what might be relevant. Is it that you can think of when you consider whether to do a systematic review and when you consider planning it? Is it a destructive or a constructive conflict that you're dealing with? If a destructive conflict and people aren't talking to each other and they're ready to hit each other in the head, it might be a different approach that you need to take than if you already have a constructive dialogue. And it's a matter of looking more specifically at finding facts. Is it based on different facts or different knowledges? Is it a knowledge-based conflict to start with or is it a different type of conflict? Maybe conflict based on interests or is it based on different perceptions of reality? Or as I said, incommensurable specific interests. If you have a piece of land in northern Sweden, you cannot use the same piece of land for a mine, for reindeer herding and for tourism and for wind power. Those interests are likely to be incommensurable. You cannot solve that with more knowledge. It's a political process that has to be carried out that can move that forward. And then we have the more loaded issues. Is the conflict based on perceptions of past wrongdoings? The colonial heritage does play a role in northern, across the Arctic and I think in many, many other parts of the world. What does that do to the discussion? And linked to that, what role and sense of power or powerlessness are there among the participants, both past and present? And what role do emotions play? That can be hope or we really want to invest in this mine because we're going to earn a lot of money and that will not only be good for a company, but it could even be important for a country. In the case of Greenland, for example, as a means towards independence from Denmark, so really high stakes. Or fear, fear of losing your livelihood, fear of losing your place of where you live, fear of losing something that's important to your identity. And I think having a starting, reflecting on what kind of conflict you're dealing with can narrow down what a systematic review in the classical sense can actually be useful for and what it cannot be useful for and where there might be other means of moving further. And this is in a sense a summary of some of the things I've said that that you can use in a sense as a guide. A summary of the two previous slides can use this guide for doing that assessment yourself before starting a systematic review. Is the question one well-defined, closed-framed, or is it a wicked problem? Is it potentially irreconcilable problem definition or coexisting diverging questions? Is the evidence there in published scientific and grey literature or can be gathered from quantitative or qualitative scientific analysis? Or is it a matter of filling primary data gaps highlighted by stakeholders as exploring interpretations through social learning? Or do you actually have to start a whole new process of generating evidence in joint fact findings? And that might not be then a systematic review processing in more classical definition. And the review team then has different roles in the normal science column. It's experts and scientific independence becomes important, whereas in a post-normal science involving stakeholders in framing the whole process, making it legitimate. For example by identifying research questions and seeking consensus becomes important. Whereas in a conflict management situation, you have to be careful to try to force a consensus which the risk is that some people will walk out. And instead involving stakeholders directly in answering the questions which then becomes kind of contradicted to some of the norms in systematic reviews of scientific independence. So you can see here where systematic review may not be the relevant tool to move forward in an issue where you have a contest. What do you think it might be about consensus knowledge? And the stakeholder group also comes very different roles. Is it you only consult them about something you already know what you're doing? Or do they actually have decision-making authority and early involvement in the planning? Or they may not form a group at all and might have several different meetings because they don't do each other in a productive manner. And you might have expertise in facilitation to get a quality in practice actually getting everyone a chance to be heard. I talked a lot about stakeholders and I had this slide first in the beginning and then I moved it to the end. But I think it's also important to think who is a stakeholder. Is it knowledge users? Which is the more classical way of thinking about it? Or affected parties directly or indirectly? Or a knowledge provider? And as earlier I said that the line between knowledge provider and stakeholders is not necessarily so clear. We also have to think of what status different stakeholders have. Do they have legal rights and sharp rules about consultation? That can sometimes not in all countries, but sometimes be the case in environmental impact assessment, but not in all countries. It varies. Do they have rights by ethical norms such as human rights, indigenous peoples rights, not sharp legal requirements? Or maybe they have a status by the power, economic, political or brute force power. The companies for example, or maybe by soft means they can affect your reputation by shaming or endorsing you. So there you have to think about different roles of stakeholders. And then in summary, I'm reasonably in time I see to summarize and this is repetition of what the question that you might want to keep in mind in planning for a systematic review in an issue area where some conflicts could be an issue. Is the issue in focus mainly about knowledge or facts that can be assessed in a systematic manner? Or does it include other dimensions such as conflicting interests, conflicting worldviews? What role can your review process play in a larger context of the issue at hand? You're not the only knowledge process, you're not the only process that's possible to take. And in assessing that, is the systematic review likely to reduce or exacerbate conflicts? How will the larger context affect your credibility and legitimacy of your review process? And you should never assume that it's neutral. You go in there and you might think you are objective and neutral, but you affect the context, you affect the situation. And that's of course often the ambition. What's the point otherwise of doing work? But it's easy as a scientist to think that you're neutral when you aren't. And you might also want to think about what other processes regarding knowledge and power can you affect and be affected by. So that is in summary and here are some of the cited literature and resources that I mentioned. And you will get the slides, you will have this in your inbox or however that is being distributed. So you don't have to sit and try to copy it. And there's just where you can reach me and at REXAC org you can see if you're interested specifically in art resources and extractive industries can see a little bit about what we're doing in that project. So that's it. And I'm very open for your questions and comments. Thank you Dr. Anika Nielsen. This was a very interesting presentation. So we will take questions right now. Hello, Mahmoud. Yes, hello. Are you listening to me? Yes, we are. Yeah, well, first of all, thank you very much for this wonderful talk actually. It's very constructive and I got one comment here. I agree with the speaker regarding to implementation this engagement framework and from the high level. Sound is good if you like implementing this framework in Sweden and European country, but I can't see it's very challenging when it comes to logic. Since we have faced a lot of issues regarding to limited access to like public structure in a day with the human resource and health research, we got like a lack of funding. And also we got problem that everybody knows that that's knowledge translation difficulties. So I didn't know this is my first comment. I didn't know how this fit from the high level perspective, from, sorry, from level perspective. My second question is back to your theoretical framework, which is good. Actually, there's two components here when you speak about the view of logic. I couldn't see the cultural perspectives where the cultural, I mean, the trans-cultural issue in that model. And also you speak nicely about how you, I mean, in terms of a process, how you involve the stakeholder involvement. But I couldn't see. Can you repeat what you said just? So back to your model. So yeah, I've got two issues in your models here that I need to ask. So in your model, there's a way, the process of viewing knowledge. And the other one is how to so-called involvement. So, but as you can see in your model, I couldn't see that. I'm talking from like a long perspective, where the cultural and trans-cultural issue will fit in terms of, yeah. So I couldn't see that in terms of viewing the knowledge because I would say that cultural issues will impact definitely the way of people or scientists to view the knowledge. Other issue is regarding to the stockholder involvement. So in logic perspective, we go back to social injustice. It's a big dilemma to involve literacy, low education, low social economics. So where empowerment could fit? So I'll just summarize and conclude what I'm trying to say here is that that model will be definitely fit in high-logic. It's very applicable, but when it comes to apply what you have said in logic perspective, it's very challenging at the moment. So we need to like working to modify. I'm not saying we defy, but we need to find the solutions or how this brilliant actually, I like the framework actually, I like it so much. But in terms with respect to logic perspective, like I'm talking from South Africa, I didn't do this myself. Yeah, so I'm from University of Cape Town, Department of Education, Evidence Based Research Unit. So I can see a question and let's see if I can. I think that the the trans-cultural issue is not explicit in here. I agree with that and it could be made much more explicit, but actually the trans-cultural issue is very much present in the context of the Arctic in relation, for example, to indigenous peoples. And larger society. And I think what one could think of is elaborating because you have the trans-cultural issue. There are both in a sense can be, view of knowledge can look very different, different worldviews to start with. And also things like what you see as quality in one culture is not necessarily the same thing as you see as quality in another. So I think I agree with you. You could, in a sense, the trans-cultural issue applies to several aspects here and could be brought out much stronger than we did in our article. And when it comes to issues of social injustice and illiteracy, I think that that can very much be elaborated further than I did when you taught equality in practice. Because that actually refers to the thing that you can't, it's not enough to, you know, or you send out invitations to take part in something. People have no possibility to take part in it, even if they would want to, because they can't leave their job, because they have to earn a living. How do you then create a situation that actually makes it possible for them to take part? And that, of course, is context-specific. You can't provide one answer for South Africa that's also relevant for Northern Sweden. You have to know the social context in which you're working. And that, I think, is true also when you talk about social learning. How do you create a setting where people actually can listen and talk to each other in a constructive manner that is not the same in Stockholm, Sweden, in Northern Sweden, or in South Africa. You have to know the cultural context you're in. So I very much agree with that. Those are things that I think should be elaborated on further. I agree with you there. Thank you very much. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your question. And of course, these are often not things that you can, you know, it's not a simple question. More to put thoughts in your head that you probably need to think about and mull over and discuss with your colleagues. And as the previous person talked about, you have to discuss it with your colleagues in the specific context that where you're working, whether it's the cultural context or the type of issue you're asking. And I think that's my point in reflect. So we have Monica Morrison who wants to ask a question. Monica, can you hear us? It's very much really, really useful and relevant. And I'm working in Northern Botswana where we currently have the issue of elephant control and management. So all of this is speaking to what's going on here. But what I wanted to ask you was, how important is it to have transdisciplinary teams. When you're looking at something so complex as planning a systematic review with at all of these stages and possibly at the outermost ring, which is, which is heavily conflicted. Who does what where do you start, you know, you're putting together a team to do this. No, you disappeared the end of a question but I got as far as who do you involve in planning these kinds of projects. And I think, I mean, the, the thing is, I think to realize that it's not sufficient with expertise in the, in the specific question in scientific question you need in a sense expertise in the cultural context you're working. That could be local involvement in and of itself or it can be in some context, maybe someone in anthropology, or it can also be someone with expertise in facilitation. How do you run a workshop in a specific context so it works. That is knowledge in and of itself in the three mk project we were quite a diverse group. I'm not involved anymore because I've left SCI where where the project is, but, but we had some people who are experts in systematic reviews and the methodology. We have one person as much localize and my colleague who co author of the article who was worked very closely with some communities directly so and worked a lot with facilitation issues and then I was involved. Looking at the stakeholder mapping and doing those kinds of work in that kind of work initially. But I think it, I think a good way of start is to actually ask yourself, what type of knowledge do I need and think broader than relating to the question and think about the process. You need knowledge about how to set up the process. I hope that answers your question. Thank you, Dr. Annika Monica, we're sorry we lost you at the end, so I hope Dr. Annika answered your question. But you can always contact her through her email as she said. And I don't think we have other questions. So, thank you Dr. Monica for being here with us for this webinar. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. It was, and I really appreciate the questions that came and make me also have to think further. That's, that's what's nice. And thank you everybody for joining us today. So please stay tuned for the coming stakeholder engagement webinar series next month up until February 2020. Thank you. Bye.