IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v41y2024i2p368-389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi‐stakeholder structured dialogues: Five generations of evolution of dialogic design

Author

Listed:
  • Yiannis Laouris
  • Kevin Dye

Abstract

The paper reviews the evolution of Interactive Management, later referred to as Structured Democratic Dialogue, starting from the early 1970s up to this date. The authors propose a generational classification scheme consisting of five periods based primarily on whether some or all stages of the process were implemented synchronously or asynchronously and whether the participants' presence was physical, virtual or hybrid. Other aspects such as modifications in the steps of the process; the evolution of the software; domains of applications; file management; methods of collecting or recording contributions, votes, clarifications and preparation of reports; and key players are also considered and reported within the context of the primary scheme. The paper considers key advances achieved at each generational stage in terms of process or software, discusses associated challenges and concludes with a view towards the future of the emerging fifth generation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiannis Laouris & Kevin Dye, 2024. "Multi‐stakeholder structured dialogues: Five generations of evolution of dialogic design," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 368-389, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:41:y:2024:i:2:p:368-389
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2971
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2971?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. J Rosenhead, 2006. "Past, present and future of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 759-765, July.
    2. Laouris, Yiannis & Michaelides, Marios, 2018. "Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 918-931.
    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. Lo Shih-Hui & Lian Shih-Ming & Chang Reed-Joe, 2024. "The Growth Dynamics of the Restaurant Industry from Single Store to Chain Store in Taiwan: A Systems Thinking Perspective," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 1141-1159, December.
    2. Romina Laouri & Ilke Dagli & Derya Beyatli & Marios Michaelides & Mustafa Damdelen & Yiannis Laouris, 2024. "Reimagining Famagusta: The Dialogic Design Theory of Change in action," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 1043-1067, December.

    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. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm & Fernando Schramm, 2023. "Problem Structuring Methods in Social-Ecological Systems," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 461-478, June.
    2. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    3. Laouris, Yiannis & Romm, Norma RA, 2022. "Structured dialogical design as a problem structuring method illustrated in a Re-invent democracy project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(3), pages 1072-1087.
    4. Michaelides, Marios & Laouris, Yiannis, 2024. "A cascading model of stakeholder engagement for large-scale regional development using structured dialogical design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(1), pages 307-323.
    5. Driouchi, Tarik & Leseure, Michel & Bennett, David, 2009. "A robustness framework for monitoring real options under uncertainty," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 698-710, June.
    6. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    7. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    8. Kristan Cockerill & Lacy Daniel & Leonard Malczynski & Vincent Tidwell, 2009. "A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 211-225, August.
    9. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    10. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    11. Luke Houghton & Larry Crump, 2016. "Temporal Events and Problem Structuring," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 324-340, May.
    12. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    13. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    14. Ya Li & Zhichang Zhu & Catherine M. Gerard, 2012. "Learning from Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity to Systems Thinking," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 209-220, March.
    15. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    16. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    17. Vaz-Patto, Constança M.R.P. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F., 2024. "Rethinking urban quality of life: Unveiling causality links using cognitive mapping, neutrosophic logic and DEMATEL," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 316(1), pages 310-328.
    18. Helfgott, Ariella & Midgley, Gerald & Chaudhury, Abrar & Vervoort, Joost & Sova, Chase & Ryan, Alex, 2023. "Multi-level participation in integrative, systemic planning: The case of climate adaptation in Ghana," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(3), pages 1201-1217.
    19. Romina Laouri & Ilke Dagli & Derya Beyatli & Marios Michaelides & Mustafa Damdelen & Yiannis Laouris, 2024. "Reimagining Famagusta: The Dialogic Design Theory of Change in action," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 1043-1067, December.
    20. Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri & Moein Khazaei & Fatemeh Alinasab-Imani, 2020. "The Critical Heuristics of Iranian Banking Credit System: Analysis of the Antithetical Opinions of the Beneficiaries," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 363-392, June.

    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:srbeha:v:41:y:2024:i:2:p:368-389. 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/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    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.