IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v37y2021i4p353-362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing M‐Tool: A standardised and inclusive mental model mapping tool

Author

Listed:
  • Karlijn L. van den Broek
  • Sina A. Klein
  • Joseph Luomba
  • Helen Fischer

Abstract

Stakeholder mental model elicitation can produce valuable insights into perceptions of complex systems such as ecosystems, economies, or the climate. These mental models can uncover crucial differences in perceptions between stakeholders and prevalent misunderstandings of the system, which can ultimately contribute to successful resource management. This paper introduces a novel tool to capture mental models: M‐Tool. M‐Tool was designed to be user‐friendly for diverse samples, and standardized to ease aggregation and comparison of mental models. With this tool, participants create influence diagrams with a fixed set of pictograms representing the system variables, and weighted arrows to display their relations. M‐Tool can be used to identify differences or changes in mental models or to co‐produce knowledge with stakeholders and develop strategies to address challenges within the system. This paper describes how to tailor the tool to a research project and discusses how M‐Tool may be suitable for diverse research applications. © 2021 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Karlijn L. van den Broek & Sina A. Klein & Joseph Luomba & Helen Fischer, 2021. "Introducing M‐Tool: A standardised and inclusive mental model mapping tool," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 353-362, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:353-362
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1698
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1698?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    2. Forrester, Jay W., 1992. "Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 42-63, May.
    3. Schaffernicht, Martin & Groesser, Stefan N., 2011. "A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 57-67, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    2. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    3. Vincenzo Vignieri, 2021. "Crowdsourcing as a mode of open innovation: Exploring drivers of success of a multisided platform through system dynamics modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 108-124, January.
    4. H A Akkermans & K E van Oorschot, 2005. "Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 931-941, August.
    5. Kunsch, P.L. & Kavathatzopoulos, I. & Rauschmayer, F., 2009. "Modelling complex ethical decision problems with operations research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1100-1108, December.
    6. Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Federico Barnabè & Martin Kunc, 2020. "Integrating qualitative system dynamics with accounting practices: The case of integrated reporting and resource mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 97-118, January.
    7. Cassidy, Rachel & Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada & Semwanga, Agnes Rwashana & Binyaruka, Peter & Chalabi, Zaid & Blanchet, Karl & Singh, Neha S. & Maiba, John & Borghi, Josephine, 2021. "Understanding the maternal and child health system response to payment for performance in Tanzania using a causal loop diagram approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    8. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    9. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    10. Brans, J. P. & Macharis, C. & Kunsch, P. L. & Chevalier, A. & Schwaninger, M., 1998. "Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 428-441, September.
    11. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    12. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    13. M H Kunc & J D W Morecroft, 2009. "Resource-based strategies and problem structuring: using resource maps to manage resource systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 191-199, February.
    14. Geeske Scholz & Martina Austermann & Kai Kaldrack & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2015. "Evaluating group model building exercises: a method for comparing externalized mental models and group models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 28-45, January.
    15. Melissa L. Finucane & Joan L. Holup, 2006. "Risk as Value: Combining Affect and Analysis in Risk Judgments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-164, March.
    16. Raffaele Giordano & Marcela Brugnach & Irene Pluchinotta, 2017. "Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 911-932, September.
    17. Armin Leopold, 2016. "Energy related system dynamic models: a literature review," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 231-261, March.
    18. Jérôme Boutang & Michel de Lara, 2016. "Risk Marketing," Working Papers hal-01353821, HAL.
    19. Martin F. G. Schaffernicht & Stefan N. Groesser, 2016. "A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 52-81, January.
    20. Kelly, Kristine L., 1998. "A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 452-464, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:353-362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.