Re-evaluating our role in Re-evaluating our role in participatory research participatory research Dr Jayne Glass, Postgraduate Research Associate Sustainability Studies seminar series 25 th November 2011 OING THINGS DIFFERENTLY: OING THINGS DIFFERENTLY:
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Re-evaluating our role in participatory Re-evaluating our role in participatory researchresearch
Dr Jayne Glass, Postgraduate Research AssociateSustainability Studies seminar series
DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY:DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY:
Outline• How can we tackle ‘wicked’ problems?– Increase transdisciplinary capacity– Facilitate knowledge integration– Enhance potential for social learningRoad map for a powerful research ‘space’
• Reading the map: using the Delphi technique• The method in action• An intermediary role for researchers?
Before we dive in…
Participation = ?
For example, Scott (2011); Reed (2008)
Tackling ‘wicked’ problems
“a problem of interaction” (van Bueren et al. 2003)
ResearchTransdisciplinary
Transdisciplinary research approaches
Based on Mobjörk (2010); Rist et al. (2007)
Situated in the ‘real world’
Building bridges between
knowledges
An overall social learning process
1. Increasing transdisciplinary capacity
Based on Gibbons et al. (1994)
Scientific knowledge
Produced by communities of academic scientists Operates in a space autonomous from social interests and goals
Mode 1
Heterogeneous knowledge production sites
Close interactions between scientific, technological and industrial actors Flexible and open forms of research Continuous re-evaluation and redefinition of expertise
Mode 2
GAP: Defined ‘spaces’ for open communication
2. The knowledge integration challenge
Pohl et al (2010): Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production
Academic knowledge
Non-academic
knowledge
AGO
RA
Agora
Academic knowledge
Non-academic
knowledge
BO
Bridging organisation
Co-production of knowledgeGAP: Action-oriented research in the agora?
3. Potential for social learning
Reed et al (2010): What is social learning?
DEMONSTRATE THAT:
Some depth of conceptual change or change in understanding has take place in the individuals involved
A degree of breadth for this change to go beyond individuals to become situated within wider social groups
Occurred through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network
SOCIAL LEARNING
GAP: Create better atmospheres for communication and deliberation
A conceptual road map
Glass (2011): PhD thesis
Flexible research space, within which it is possible to facilitate iterative deliberation, learning and the collaborative production of knowledge
A: Increase transdisciplinary
capacityA1: Address ‘real world’ problems collaboratively and acknowledge the local contextA2: Develop practical outcomes that bring about a degree of change
B: Facilitate knowledge integration
B1: Integrate multiple perspectives B2: Recognise and understand values
C: Enhance potential for social learning
C1: Create an ‘atmosphere of trust’C2: Rethink assumptions and jointly solve problems
A collaborative learning process which produces
mutually endorsed, practical outcomes for positive change
Iter
ativ
e de
liber
atio
n
Reading the map: using the Delphi technique
The Delphi techniqueConventional Delphi: driving towards consensus
• Decision-making tool or ‘what should be’• Series of written questionnaires• Participants driven towards consensus through feedback• Often quantitative convergence methods
See, for example: Kuo et al. (2005); Tolley et al. (2001)
The Delphi technique
Turoff (2002): The Policy Delphi
Policy Delphi: exploring complexity 1. Formulating the issues
2. Exposing the options
3. Determining initial positions on the issues
4. Exploring the reasons for disagreements
5. Evaluating the underlying reasons
6. Re-evaluation
• Dependable group opinion• Exploring complex policy issues• Less focus on consensus• More qualitative approach
The Delphi technique
Glass et al. (submitted)
Methodological challenges
• High drop-out rates• Selection of panel members (expert bias)• Panel size• Constraining panellists’ creativity
Q: How can we use the road map to address these issues and refine the method?
AcknowledgementsThe Henry Angest FoundationProject supervisors: Prof Martin Price (UHI)Prof Alister Scott (Birmingham City University)Dr Charles Warren (University of St Andrews)
The Sustainable Estates Advisory Group:
Thank you to Micah Stanbridge for the use of his photographs
References I• Glass, J.H., Scott, A.S. and Price, M.F. (2011). Developing a sustainability assessment tool for upland
estates. In: S.J. Marrs, S. Foster, C. Hendrie, E.C. Mackey, and D.B.A. Thompson (eds.) The Changing Nature of Scotland. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp. 425-429.
• Glass, J.H., Scott, A.S. and Price, M.F. (submitted). The power of the process: adapting the Delphi technique for applied sustainability research. Please contact Jayne for a copy of the submitted manuscript.
• Kenyon, W., Hill, G. and Shannon, P. (2008). Scoping the role of agriculture in sustainable flood management. Land Use Policy, 25, 351-360.
• Kuo, N.-W., Hsiao, T.-Y. and Yu, Y.-H. (2005). A Delphi-matrix approach to SEA and its application within the tourism sector in Taiwan. Environmental Impact Assessment, 25, 259-280.
• McCrum G., Blackstock, K., Matthews, K., Rivington, M., Miller, D. and Buchan, K. (2009). Adapting to Climate Change in Land Management: the Role of Deliberative Workshops in Enhancing Social Learning. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 413-426.
• Mobjörk, M., 2010. Consulting versus Participatory Transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(8) 866-873.
• Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmerman, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Ifejika Speranza, C., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267-281.
References II• Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.
Raymond, C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), 1.• Rist, S., Chidambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zimmermann, A. (2007). Moving
from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: The role of social learning process in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 23-37.
• Scott, A.J. (2011). Focussing in on focus groups: Effective participative tools or cheap fixes for land use policy? Land Use Policy, 28(4), 684-694.
• Tolley, R., Lumsdon, L. and Bickerstaff, K. (2001). The future of walking in Europe: a project to identify expert opinion on future walking scenarios. Transport Policy 8, 307-315.
• Turoff, M. (2002). The Policy Delphi. In: H.A. Linstone and M. Turoff, eds. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Available online from: http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/.