**2. Methodology**

The need for the proposed dynamic policy model arises from a process of critical reflection focusing on policymaking and adjusting to unpredictable phenomena climate change in this case. The reflection draws from the biggest teacher of survival tactics under challenging, unpredictable and dynamic conditions—Mother Nature.

As a methodology, critical reflection informs on ways that improve practice. It involves the ability to unearth, examine and change firmly entrenched assumptions leading to central changes in perspectives [9]. In seeking to challenge established positions and change them, critical reflection pays attention to the power dimensions of assumptive thinking. It examines how power dimensions affect the envisaged or proposed changes that may deliver desired outcomes [10]. In this chapter, the focus is challenging some tenets of the policy cycle arguing that in making or amending policy, not all components of a policy need to go through the cycle. Some important technical components can avoid the cycle if the policymaking process has mechanism to analyse and interpret relevant data that has a bearing on policy specifics, that is, codes and standards. This is the essence of the proposed learning and self-adjusting policy. In principle, such a policy can deliver an optimal policy regime provided the adjustments are driven by adequate and appropriate data.

Four traditions of thinking guide critical reflection as applied here. The first is reflexivity. This relates to how a researcher is aware of biases of analytic focus on his or her relationship to the field of study and the ways that cultural practices involve consciousness and commentary on themselves [11]. In this research, it was important to be reflexive considering our experiences as authors specifically as researchers, practitioners and concerned citizens in the climate change, sustainable development and broader social development spaces. Also important is our preference for the trans-, inter- and multidisciplinary research—a desirable approach in the sustainable development discourse. As a result, the concepts that inform the proposed policymaking approach are eclectic drawing from climate change, policymaking, biological science and computer technology. This reflects our academic training, experiences and practice.

A second consideration is reflective practice. This pertains to an awareness of the gap between theory and practice [12]. As authors, we are aware of this, often with first-hand experience on observing policymaking and its implementation and sometimes lack of implementation because of power dynamics in the policy space. The third component of critical reflection is deconstructionism. This relates to questioning the notion of generating knowledge in a progressive and nonconflictual manner [13]. Critical reflection interrogates power relations and in this case questions (and even threatens) the role of politicians, lobbyists and public service bureaucrats in the policy cycle. The fourth and final tradition of thinking in this methodology is critical social theory. Its importance to the arguments in this chapter is the argument that the use and interpretation of knowledge are social constructed [10]. This means it is possible to change or improve the same knowledge as well as its use and interpretation. This is important as the proposed model involves the use of artificial intelligence—a largely feared and in some cases a politically unpopular practice [14].

Despites these and other advantages, critical reflection also has weaknesses. Among the many weaknesses, a relevant one is that reflection is centred on

*Biomimicry, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence for a Dynamic Climate Change Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84406*

individuals and not groups. Proposing a new approach to policymaking that in some cases eliminates the human element may not be everyone's cup of tea. Nevertheless, we advance such a model noting the urgency of policies that rapidly react to both the present and potential drivers and adverse impacts of climate change avoiding some sometimes misplaced human reluctances to deal with the problem head-on. Now, it is important to emphasise that we are not in any way suggesting humans make a wholesale delegation of their role to technology. Instead, we seek to improve policymaking for the benefit of humanity, and technology has a role in that endeavour. In advancing this view, a glimpse into the dynamics of policymaking is critical.
