IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v114y2017icp138-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry

Author

Listed:
  • Duckett, Dominic George
  • McKee, Annie J.
  • Sutherland, Lee-Ann
  • Kyle, Carol
  • Boden, Lisa A.
  • Auty, Harriet
  • Bessell, Paul R.
  • McKendrick, Iain J.

Abstract

Based on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, this paper critiques the transparency and legitimacy of participatory scenario planning, considering a case study of scenario development for the livestock industry within Scotland. The paper considers the extent to which the case study approximates the conditions for ‘ideal speech situations’ and how these conditions could be applied more widely in participatory scenario planning. The authors explore the rationale for participatory scenario planning within the science–policy interface with critical reference to the corporate context in which scenario planning has evolved. The aim is to optimise the potential for its use in the context of socio-technical and environmental governance. Researcher co-reflections on the case study are mapped within a matrix of indices representing conditions for ideal speech situations. Further analytical categories highlight the extent to which ideal speech was approximated. Although many of the constraints on achieving ideal speech situations reflect intransigent, practical logistics of organising participatory exercises, our novel approach enables the systematic identification of some important issues and provides a conceptual framework for understanding how they interrelate that may prove useful to practitioners and theorists alike.

Suggested Citation

  • Duckett, Dominic George & McKee, Annie J. & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Kyle, Carol & Boden, Lisa A. & Auty, Harriet & Bessell, Paul R. & McKendrick, Iain J., 2017. "Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 138-151.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:138-151
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516301913
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.034?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cees Leeuwis, 2000. "Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 31(5), pages 931-959, November.
    2. Wright, George & Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Teaching scenario planning: Lessons from practice in academe and business," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 323-335, April.
    3. Clark, William & Mitchell, Ronald & Cash, David & Alcock, Frank, 2002. "Information as Influence: How Institutions Mediate the Impact of Scientific Assessments on Global Environmental Affairs," Working Paper Series rwp02-044, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Philippe Durance & Michel Godet, 2010. "Scenario building: Uses and abuses," Post-Print hal-02864615, HAL.
    5. Marc Gramberger & Katharina Zellmer & Kasper Kok & Marc Metzger, 2015. "Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): a new approach tested in climate change adaptation research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 201-214, February.
    6. Thomas Dietz & Alicia Pfund, 1988. "An Impact Identification Method For Development Program Evaluation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 8(1), pages 137-145, September.
    7. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    8. O'Brien, F. A., 2004. "Scenario planning--lessons for practice from teaching and learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 709-722, February.
    9. Attar, Arif & Genus, Audley, 2014. "Framing public engagement: A critical discourse analysis of GM Nation?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 241-250.
    10. Wynne, B., 1975. "The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 108-158, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    2. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Finger, Robert & El Benni, Nadja & Gocht, Alexander & Sørensen, Claus Aage Grøn & Gusset, Markus & Pfeifer, Catherine & Poppe, Krijn & Regan, Áine & Rose, David Christian & Wolf, 2022. "Scenarios for European agricultural policymaking in the era of digitalisation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Johanna Jacobi & Aymara Llanque, 2018. "“When We Stand up, They Have to Negotiate with Us”: Power Relations in and between an Agroindustrial and an Indigenous Food System in Bolivia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    5. Naoko Nishimura & Nobuhiro Inoue & Hiroaki Masuhara & Tadahiko Musha, 2020. "Impact of Future Design on Workshop Participants’ Time Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-25, September.
    6. Ahmet Yavuz Çamlı & Florina Oana Virlanuta & Bedrettin Türker Palamutçuoğlu & Nicoleta Bărbuță-Mișu & Şeref Güler & Deniz Züngün, 2021. "A Study on Developing a Communicative Rational Action Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Kabak, Özgür & Ülengin, Füsun & Önsel Ekici, Şule, 2018. "Connecting logistics performance to export: A scenario-based approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 69-82.
    8. Rodrigo W. Dal Borgo & Pedro M. Sasia, 2021. "From Profit to Purpose: How Electric Utility Multinationals Visualize Systemic Change and Adaptation of Organizational Ethical Culture through Scenarios for 2040," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.

    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. de Bruin, Jilske Olda & Kok, Kasper & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke Alberttine, 2017. "Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 269-282.
    2. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.
    4. Kunc, Martin & O'Brien, Frances A., 2017. "Exploring the development of a methodology for scenario use: Combining scenario and resource mapping approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 150-159.
    5. Frith, David & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2020. "Opening the ‘black box’ of scenario planning through realist synthesis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Rowland, Nicholas J. & Spaniol, Matthew J., 2017. "Social foundation of scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 6-15.
    7. Crawford, Megan M., 2019. "A comprehensive scenario intervention typology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    8. Mahsa Mesgar & Diego Ramirez-Lovering & Mohamed El-Sioufi, 2021. "Tension, Conflict, and Negotiability of Land for Infrastructure Retrofit Practices in Informal Settlements," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Kovacic, Zora & Giampietro, Mario, 2015. "Empty promises or promising futures? The case of smart grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P1), pages 67-74.
    10. Sheida Abdoli & Farah Habib & Mohammad Babazadeh, 2018. "Making spatial development scenario for south of Bushehr province, Iran, based on strategic foresight," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1293-1309, June.
    11. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    12. Murat Sartas & Piet van Asten & Marc Schut & Mariette McCampbell & Moureen Awori & Perez Muchunguzi & Moses Tenywa & Sylvia Namazzi & Ana Sole Amat & Graham Thiele & Claudio Proietti & Andre Devaux & , 2019. "Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Zhou, Zhongbing & Qin, Quande, 2020. "Decoding China's natural gas development: A critical discourse analysis of the five-year plans," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    14. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Ugo Rizzo, 2014. "Moving'diversely'towards'the'green'economy.'CO2'abating'techno organisational'trajectories'and'environmental'policy'in'EU'sectors," SEEDS Working Papers 0914, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    15. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    16. Isaac Agyemang & Adrian McDonald & Steve Carver, 2007. "Application of the DPSIR framework to environmental degradation assessment in northern Ghana," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(3), pages 212-225, August.
    17. Samuel Adjei-Nsiah & Cees Leeuwis & Ken Giller & Thom Kuyper, 2008. "Action research on alternative land tenure arrangements in Wenchi, Ghana: learning from ambiguous social dynamics and self-organized institutional innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 389-403, September.
    18. Cuicui Xiao & Jingbo Zhou & Xingxing Shen & Jonathan Cullen & Susie Dobson & Fanran Meng & Xiaoxia Wang, 2022. "Rural Living Environment Governance: A Survey and Comparison between Two Villages in Henan Province of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Bianka Shoai Tehrani & Pascal da Costa & Danièle Attias, 2016. "Three investment scenarios for future nuclear reactors in Europe," Post-Print hal-00997005, HAL.
    20. Pereira, Cristiano Gonçalves & Lavoie, Joao Ricardo & Garces, Edwin & Basso, Fernanda & Dabić, Marina & Porto, Geciane Silveira & Daim, Tugrul, 2019. "Forecasting of emerging therapeutic monoclonal antibodies patents based on a decision model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 185-199.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:114:y:2017:i:c:p:138-151. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.