Search

Reflexive and deliberative knowledge co-production processes are increasingly used in dealing with contemporary sustainability challenges. These processes come with the need to develop ways to properly assess and understand their impact. In our case study, a three-year-long knowledge co-production process aimed at evaluating the Dutch nature policy, we observed that the actors involved valued and understood the impact of the process differently. Actors' understandings of impact were also affected by political developments in the context surrounding the co-production process. Our empirical analysis focused on three dimensions of impact assessment (function of knowledge co-production, perceived pathway to impact, and problem identification) and identified four coexisting 'rationales' that actors used in their valuations of impact: accountability, instrumental, network and transformativ e rationales. Although the rationales appear incompatible, each emphasizing different ideas on how impact is achieved, in practice, individual actors drew on multiple rationales simultaneously in their assessment of the co-production process' impact. Specific national and provincial political dynamics, related to goal achievement of the nature policy, influenced how actors used the rationales. Actors increased the use of the accountability and transformative rationales as policy deadlines drew near. Our findings have implications for designing knowledge co-production processes. The coexistence of impact rationales complicates a responsive approach to process design that aims to consider the knowledge demands of diverse actors. Nevertheless, we argue that combining impact rationales is desirable, given the nature of and reasons for knowledge co-production, and provide recommendations for dealing with their coexistence in practice. • Perceptions of what counts as impact differ among actors in knowledge co-production. • We identify four 'impact rationales' actors use in judging knowledge co-production. • These include accountability, instrumental, network and transformative rationales. • Impact rationales determine actors' assessment of knowledge co-production. • Political dynamics increase appeal of accountability and transformative rationales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When discussing mixed methods research from a methodological point of view, it must be acknowledged that they have been developed from rather simple research designs to complex and multilayered frameworks in which qualitative content analysis (QCA) is seemingly a key method for analyzing non-numeric data. This can be attributed to the versatile procedures and functions for which QCA can be used. Against this background, we describe and analyze the roles of QCA within different advanced mixed methods designs. First, we outline the implementation of QCA within a typical methodological framework, which consists of three hierarchical layers. Second, mixed methods research designs and the role of QCA in several design types are characterized. Third, three design types stemming from studies from educational sciences and sports science are presented. With these three elements, we demonstrate that QCA can be used in different roles ranging from dominance to subordination, thus implementing different rationales. Finally, we formulate some conclusions and suggestions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is scant research on Australian municipal tree managers’ motivations for street tree planting and the rationales for street tree species selections. Tree managers from 129 city councils across Australia were surveyed to address this knowledge gap. This paper presents the findings from 115 (89%) usable survey responses. Tree managers reported four primary motives for street tree planting: visual and aesthetic (97%), environmental (92%), socio-cultural and community (87%), and health (70%). In contrast, tree species characteristics (97%), management and maintenance issues (92%), visual and aesthetic benefits (89%), site environmental factors (80%) and problems caused by different species (70%) were reported to govern street tree species selection. In spite being the primary motives for planting, considerations for socio-cultural and community benefits (61%) and environmental benefits/ecosystem services (61%) had minor influence on street tree species selection. In absence of established research, Australian city councils’ institutional culture is biased by personal opinions on potential threats to city’s vital infrastructure posed by street tree, resulting in the mismatch between planting and species selection principles. Future research correlating species characteristics to specific ecosystem services/disservices might help Australian city councils to adopt an ecosystem services based approach to street tree planting and species selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Delphi technique was largely developed to avoid the problems of freely interacting groups such as dominant individuals and pressure to conform to the majority view. Our review of the social psychological literature reveals some obstacles to Delphi achieving its full potential relative to other cheaper and easier methods of aggregating judgment. We identify residual normative and informational pressures towards consensus that potentially reduce process gain that might otherwise be achieved. For instance, panelist confidence may act as a signal of status rather than be a valid cue to expertise, whereas consensus appears to have a strong influence on the final outcome that can reduce its accuracy when there are valid minority opinions. We argue that process gain in Delphi must occur through those further from the "truth" changing their opinion more than those closer to the truth, with the general direction of opinion change being towards the truth. For such virtuous opinion change to occur we suggest the need to both facilitate opinion change and provide good cues as to where the truth lies. Research on Judge Advisor Systems shows that people usually do not change their opinion as much as they should, giving too much weight to their own opinion and too little to the views of others—this bias can be reduced by increasing involvement and motivation. In addition, we propose that the best way to provide good cues as to the direction of the truth is to elicit rich reasoning from panelists about the judgment or choice in question, then use this as feedback. We suggest practical ways of focusing and deepening panelists’ consideration and evaluation of such reasoning—such that all proffered opinions are well-evaluated. Additionally, we propose a model of opinion change in Delphi for use as a paradigm for future process-orientated research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]