Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo

Expert elicitation can be valuable for informing decision-makers on conservation and wildlife management issues. To date, studies eliciting expert opinions have primarily focused on identifying and building consensus on key issues. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks of a strict focus on consensus, and it is important to understand and emphasize dissent, too. This study adopts a dissensus-based Delphi to understand conflict among dingo experts. Twenty-eight experts participated in three rounds of investigation. We highlight disagreement on most of the issues explored. In particular, we find that disagreement is underpinned by what we call conflict over values and conflict over evidence. We also note the broader role played by distrust in influencing such conflicts. Understanding and recognizing the different elements shaping disagreement is critical for informing and improving decision-making and can also enable critique of dominant paradigms in current practices. We encourage greater reflexivity and open deliberation on these aspects and hope our study will inform similar investigations in other contexts.

Automated summary

Expert elicitation is a valuable method for informing decision-makers, with a focus on consensus. However, this study emphasizes the importance of understanding and acknowledging dissent in dingo expert opinions. The study reveals disagreement on various issues, driven by conflict over values and evidence, as well as a role played by distrust. Recognizing and analyzing the elements shaping disagreement is crucial for decision-making improvement and challenging current paradigms.