IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v41y2012i3p624-637.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy

Author

Listed:
  • Cuppen, Eefje

Abstract

Dealing 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:3:p:624-637
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733311002289
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Robinson, John Bridger, 1982. "Energy backcasting A proposed method of policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 337-344, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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, June.
    10. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:01:p:48-60_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    12. repec:cup:apsrev:v:71:y:1977:i:02:p:567-584_26 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    15. Michel J.G. van Eeten, 2001. "Recasting Intractable Policy Issues: The Wider Implications of The Netherlands Civil Aviation Controversy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 391-414.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    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. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Stefano Pascucci, 2016. "Cross-Sector Partnerships and the Co-creation of Dynamic Capabilities for Stakeholder Orientation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 35-53, April.
    2. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    3. Lu, Chao & Liu, Hu-Chen & Tao, Jie & Rong, Ke & Hsieh, Ying-Che, 2017. "A key stakeholder-based financial subsidy stimulation for Chinese EV industrialization: A system dynamics simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-14.
    4. Manser, Kristina & Hillebrand, Bas & Driessen, Paul H. & Ziggers, Gerrit Willem & Bloemer, Josée M.M., 2015. "Activity sets in multi-organizational ecologies: a project-level perspective on sustainable energy innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PB), pages 444-455.

    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:respol:v:41:y:2012:i:3:p:624-637. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.