The first wave of watershed analysis reports, completed in late 1994, reflect this problem. They contain carefully written narratives, comprehensive tables, and electronically-generated maps, all on familiar subjects: soil, vegetation, wildlife, fish habitat, roads, sediment, and so on. And the subjects may be grouped under new headings, such as "issues" or "conditions," but they remain discreet and separate, revealing little about the processes and interactions occurring between them, and, therefore, little about the "processes and interactions occurring within the watershed." People who reviewed these reports, including the team members themselves, began talking about the need for "synthesis." At this time "synthesis" in connection with watershed analysis was still an informal idea. Like art, beauty, or quality, it was in the eye of the beholder; "I may not be able to define it, but I'll know it when I see it."
"Teams can promote synthesis by looking for connections and relations between the major ecological features and processes in the watershed. For example, stream channel classification may be needed to understand fisheries use, and also to understand sediment transport processes and how they influence fish habitat. Synthesis depends heavily on close interdisciplinary work." (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale - Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Aug. 1995, p.8).
This discussion sheds some light on the meaning of "synthesis" as it relates to watershed analysis, but the analysis teams, if they are to "do synthesis," need a more concrete description of what it is and how to get it.
Applying this concept of synthesis to watershed analysis, a resource specialist might draw - from the pool of available information - a connection between two topics, such as "roads," and "water quality" (Fig. 2).
Pools of Information: Pools of information can be hypothetical, such as all the information about a watershed, including all ownerships, history (written and unwritten), processes, and so on. They can also be real, such as all the information in a set of encyclopedias. Figures 1 and 2 portray simple pools of information, occupied by only two pieces of information, ripe for synthesis. In reality, if the relationship between two or more pieces of information has yet to be discovered, those pieces are likely to be residing in a large, hypothetical jumbled pool of un-sorted and un-distilled information, hiding, actually, and the relationship between the two is not likely to be discovered (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 represents a typical pool of information about a watershed before the analysis begins. One of the first tasks teams are faced with is to compile and sort through available information, representing different subject matter, from different sources, at different scales, with different levels of detail.
Sorting: Pools of information that have been sorted present a different picture and offer an advantage - for synthesis - over unsorted pools (Fig. 4).
Pools of information can be sorted and arranged in many ways - alphabetically, chronologically, numerically, geographically, categorically, and so on. Within any pool of information, every sort will conceal some relationships but reveal others, so that different sorts lead to different discoveries. For example, an encyclopedia sorted chronologically, rather than alphabetically, would reveal relationships associated with time. And if we had an encyclopedia sorted by geographic reference, we could look up a location, say Tallahassee, Florida, and find out about all the events, people, and natural history related to Tallahassee, but we would not be likely to discover relationships between inventions made at different locations, or at different points in time. When we propose to sort information, we need to realize that a single sort will not lead to discovering all the relationships residing in our pool of information: we need to sort with some idea about the kinds of relationships we are looking for.
Watershed analysis teams have for the most part succeeded at compiling information from a wide range of topics, converting it into usable formats, and organizing or sorting it into meaningful categories. Typically, their results are like Figure 4 (although their reports will deal with twelve or more topics instead of just four), and their reports present a large amount of information that is well-sorted, but has yet to be distilled and synthesized.
Distilling: Even after sorting, the amount of information contained in a pool could well exceed the capacity of a single human brain so that discovering a relationship between just two pieces of that information will still be impossible. One way to solve this problem is to distill the information within each topic, that is, condense, summarize, and extract its essence. Like synthesis itself, there isn't a formula for doing this. The human brain has to consider all the information within the topic, then pull out the most important information with an eye toward its intended use. Examples include students highlighting passages in textbooks (with an eye toward the final exam), reporters creating headlines (with an eye toward grabbing attention), and scientists drawing conclusions (with an eye for capturing their discoveries). For large pools of information, synthesis requires that the information be both sorted and distilled (Fig. 5).
Watershed analysis teams have not often been able to distill their information the way it's shown in Figure 5, and this has hindered their ability to synthesize: discover relationships between categories or topics.
While synthesis itself remains a mysterious process that takes place within the human brain, the seeds of synthesis are few: a pool of available information, within which related pieces of information wait to be discovered or detected, and a brain to make the connection. If the amount of information within the pool is beyond the grasp of a single brain (as it usually is), then it has to be sorted and distilled.
During both modes, teams tend to follow the same general process. Working independently, each team member begins with raw material (data, maps, etc.), goes through a process (to compile, convert, organize, analyze, etc.), and winds up with a product or products (write-up, maps, tables, etc.). Then the team reconvenes and repeats the sequence, this time beginning with write-ups, maps, and tables from all the members (raw material), converting it into a reportable format (process), and developing a report chapter, graphic material, and perhaps appendix material (products).
Teams can improve their use of synthesis by incorporating three techniques into each of the six steps of the analytical process:
First, for each step of the analysis, while team members are working independently and before the team reconvenes, have each team member distill their information - extract and highlight the most important, significant pieces:
Second, have each team member sketch their distilled information onto a base map of the watershed. This too, should be done for each of the six steps of the analysis, and it should be done before the team reconvenes at the end of each step. This will be most effective if all team members are working with blank base maps - showing only the boundary of the watershed and perhaps the stream pattern - at two scales: one for report size paper, and one for wall size. The small maps facilitate exchanges between individual team members and can be compiled into the report, the large maps facilitate team interactions and discussions.
Third, toward the end of each step of the analysis, reconvene the team and have all members look at and consider all of the distilled information and sketch maps together, so that they can detect dominant relationships, interactions, and connections between subjects within the watershed. Combining these techniques with the alternating modes and repeated patterns of team activity form a simple model for synthesis (Fig. 6).
This model takes advantage of the two kinds of sorting that are most common to resource specialists: by subject matter (soils, vegetation, wildlife, and so on), and geographic reference. The model, however, introduces a new twist by having specialists perform the second sort - geographic reference - after all their other information has been sorted and distilled. Processes and interactions occurring across the watershed that would otherwise remain invisible, are likely to be revealed through this relatively simple technique, if it is applied during each step of the analysis.
You can reach Dave at (503) 636-0548
