A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy
AbstractDealing with unstructured issues, such as the transition to a sustainable energy system, requires stakeholder participation. A stakeholder dialogue should enhance learning about a problem and its potential solutions. However, not in any form will a stakeholder dialogue be effective. Part and parcel to the development of methodologies for stakeholder dialogue is the evaluation of those methodologies. The aim of this paper is to show how a methodology for stakeholder dialogue can be evaluated in terms of learning. This paper suggests three criteria for the evaluation of learning in stakeholder dialogue: (1) an operationalizable definition of the desired effect of dialogue, (2) the inclusion of a reference situation or control condition, and (3) the use of congruent and replicable evaluation methods. Q methodology was used in a quasi-experimental design to analyse to what extent learning took place in a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. It is concluded that the dialogue had a significant effect: the dialogue increased participants’ understanding of the diversity of perspectives. This effect is traced back to particular methodological and design elements in the dialogue.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.
Volume (Year): 41 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
Stakeholder dialogue; Participation; Learning; Q methodology; Biomass; Evaluation;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Thomas C. Beierle & David M. Konisky, 2000. "Values, conflict, and trust in participatory environmental planning," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 587-602.
- Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
- Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
- Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
- Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
- De Marchi, B. & Funtowicz, S. O. & Lo Cascio, S. & Munda, G., 2000. "Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 267-282, August.
- Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
- Alfons Bora & Heiko Hausendorf, 2006. "Participatory science governance revisited: Normative expectations versus empirical evidence," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 478-488, August.
- Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
- Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
- Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 362-383, 06.
- Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
- Andy Stirling & Sue Mayer, 2001. "A novel approach to the appraisal of technological risk: a multicriteria mapping study of a genetically modified crop," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 529-555, August.
- Robinson, John Bridger, 1982. "Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 337-344, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.