IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v38y2007i2p195-210.html

Role-playing simulation as a communication tool in community dialogue: Karkonosze Mountains case study

Author

Listed:
  • Karolina Krolikowska

    (University of Wroclaw, Poland, kakrol@uni.wroc.pl)

  • Jakub Kronenberg

    (University of Lodz, Poland, j.kronenberg@gmail.com)

  • Karolina Maliszewska

    (Office of the Committee for European Integration, Poland, karolina_maliszewska@mail.ukie.gov.pl)

  • Jan Sendzimir

    (ASA, Austria, sendzim@iiasa.ac.at)

  • Piotr Magnuszewski

    (Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland, piotr.magnuszewski@pwr.wroc.pl)

  • Andrzej Dunajski

    (University of Wroclaw, Poland, dunajski@biol.uni.wroc.pl)

  • Anna Slodka

    (University of Lodz, Poland, aslodka@poczta.onet.pl)

Abstract

This article describes a process of role-playing simulation (RPS) as it was used during an educational exercise in community dialogue in the Karkonosze Mountains region of southwest Poland. Over the past decade Karkonosze National Park, a regional tourist magnet, has provided an excellent example of environmental conflict emerging from the tensions between nature protection and economic development. The project we describe herein, a course called “Dynamics of Sustainable Development,†was designed to give students the direct experience of challenges in solving difficult social-ecological problems with many linked conflicts and tensions. We focused on RPS to emphasize factors crucial to compromise. Because teaching students about conflict solving was our main objective, the second indirect but expected experience was to stimulate discussions among real stakeholders. Although RPS itself was not performed in the presence of the real stakeholders, their participation was ensured by inviting them for a final public debate where they got a chance to express their opinions about what they heard from the students. RPS offered the course participants not only a closer look at the conflict in the Karkonosze related to sustainable development, but also an insight into the general psychological background and evolution of conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Karolina Krolikowska & Jakub Kronenberg & Karolina Maliszewska & Jan Sendzimir & Piotr Magnuszewski & Andrzej Dunajski & Anna Slodka, 2007. "Role-playing simulation as a communication tool in community dialogue: Karkonosze Mountains case study," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 38(2), pages 195-210, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:38:y:2007:i:2:p:195-210
    DOI: 10.1177/1046878107300661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878107300661
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1046878107300661?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. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 321-344.
    2. Joldersma, Cisca & Roelofs, Ellie, 2004. "The impact of soft OR-methods on problem structuring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 696-708, February.
    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. T E van der Lei & W A H Thissen, 2009. "Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1198-1206, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Litsiou, Konstantia & Polychronakis, Yiannis & Karami, Azhdar & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Relative performance of judgmental methods for forecasting the success of megaprojects," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1185-1196.
    4. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.
    5. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    6. L A Franco & M Meadows, 2007. "Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(12), pages 1621-1629, December.
    7. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    8. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    9. Mike Metcalfe & Saras Sastrowardoyo, 2016. "Sense-making Innovative Systems: Prestigious MOOCs," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 437-451, May.
    10. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Structured analogies for forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 365-376.
    11. Konstantinos Nikolopoulos, 2010. "Forecasting with quantitative methods: the impact of special events in time series," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 947-955.
    12. Stekler, H. O., 2003. "Improving our ability to predict the unusual event," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 161-163.
    13. Anita Williams Woolley, 2011. "Playing Offense vs. Defense: The Effects of Team Strategic Orientation on Team Process in Competitive Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1384-1398, December.
    14. Goodwin, Paul, 2002. "Forecasting games: can game theory win?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 369-374.
    15. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people's shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80, January.
    16. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    17. Akrivi LITSA & Fotios PETROPOULOS & Konstantinos NIKOLOPOULOS, 2012. "Forecasting the Success of Governmental "Incentivized" Initiatives: Case Study of a New Policy Promoting the Replacement of Old Household; Air-conditioners," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, February.
    18. J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green, 2005. "Demand Forecasting: Evidence-based Methods," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 24/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    19. Annielli Cunha & Danielle Morais, 2019. "Problem structuring methods in group decision making: a comparative study of their application," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1081-1100, December.
    20. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2002. "Assessing game theory, role playing, and unaided judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 345-352.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:simgam:v:38:y:2007:i:2:p:195-210. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.