• Like
  • Save
 

Steps methods #3 power, uncertainty, plurality

on

  • 398 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
398
Views on SlideShare
393
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://steps-centre.org 4
http://unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Steps methods #3 power, uncertainty, plurality Steps methods #3 power, uncertainty, plurality Presentation Transcript

    • STEPS Pathways Methods PART 3 Issues of methods and power around uncertainty and plurality Professor Andy Stirling Co-director, STEPS Centre www.steps-centre.org www.sussex.ac.uk/spru www.multicriteria-mapping.org
    • INPUTS (aspects taken into account within practice of research or appraisal) problems, options, pros / cons, issues, uncertainties, perspectives INPUTS (things that are taken into account) Pro blems, options, pros / cons, issues, uncertainties, perspectives narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative Challenges for Research and Appraisal How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance? OUTPUTS (aspects that are conveyed outwards into wider discourse) ’Plural conditional’ conclusions… … if X then A … if Y then B …
    • narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative decision analysis Challenges for Research and Appraisal How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?
    • narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative citizen’s juries Challenges for Research and Appraisal How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?
    • narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative citizen’s juries participatory rural appraisal q-method deliberative mapping scientometric mapping open space multi-criteria mapping extended foresight citizen’s juries decision analysis stakeholder negotiation sensitivity analysis cost-benefit analysis risk assessment interactive modelling structured interviews narrative-based participant observation multi-site ethnographic- methods citizen’s juries consensus conference open hearings dissenting opinions Challenges for Research and Appraisal How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance? spot-the- narrative
    • spot-the- narrative narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative citizen’s juries decision analysis participatory rural appraisal stakeholder negotiation q-method sensitivity analysis deliberative mapping scientometric mapping open space cost-benefit analysis risk assessmen t interactive modelling structured interviews narrative-based participant observation multi-site ethnographic- methods citizen’s juries consensus conference open hearings dissenting opinions multi-criteria mapping extended foresight Power Closes Down Research and Appraisal Institutions privilege blinkered scope, marginal analysis, incumbent interests … evidence-basing, liability, insurance, agency remits, fiduciary responsibility stakeholder negotiation cost-benefit analysis risk assessment
    • narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative citizen’s juries decision analysis participatory rural appraisal stakeholder negotiation q-method sensitivity analysis deliberative mapping scientometric mapping open space cost-benefit analysis risk assessmen t interactive modelling structured interviews narrative-based participant observation multi-site ethnographic- methods citizen’s juries consensus conference open hearings dissenting opinions multi-criteria mapping extended foresight Power Closes Down Research and Appraisal A responsibility for neutrality means independent innovation research and policy appraisal should deliberately counter pressures for closure spot-the- narrative
    • narrow broad closing down opening up expert / analytic participatory / deliberative Building Methods Repertoires Basis both for practical project methods – and systematic STEPS methodology ‘visions workshops’ ‘dynamic MCM’ ‘particip. epidem.’ ‘top-bottom comparison’ ‘network analysis’ ‘insider ontologies’
    • appreciative process: A: ENGAGE ACTORS help appreciate alternative pathwaysBASIC STEPS B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS C: CHARACTERISE DYNAMICSD: REVEAL STRATEGIES
    • A: ENGAGE ACTORS - together: 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback STEPS METHODOLOGY appreciative process: help appreciate alternative pathways ‘Stages’ are distinct but mutually co-constituting. Sequence is heuristic, iterative and recursive. Tasks always relevant but not always equally crucial. Tasks can be addressed in different ways. ‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ must in some way consider – if not address - all stages & tasks.
    • STEPS METHODOLOGY appreciative process: APPRECIATE PATHWAYS B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together: 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback help appreciate alternative pathways ‘Stages’ are distinct but mutually co-constituting. Sequence is heuristic, iterative and recursive. Tasks always relevant but not always equally crucial. Tasks can be addressed in different ways. ‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ must in some way consider – if not address - all stages & tasks.
    • B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS: 1: review relevant histories 2: explore challenges/opportunities 3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses 4: look at actors’ strength/weakness 5: examine decision/branch points 6: identify winners/losers 7: attend to issues of power/politics 8: seek critical feedback STEPS METHODOLOGY APPRECIATE PATHWAYS A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together: 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback help appreciate alternative pathways appreciative process: ‘Stages’ are distinct but mutually co-constituting. Sequence is heuristic, iterative and recursive. Tasks always relevant but not always equally crucial. Tasks can be addressed in different ways. ‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ must in some way consider – if not address - all stages & tasks.
    • A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together: 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope key possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback D: REVEAL POLITICAL ACTIONS 1: review relevant histories 2: confirm key protagonists 3: explore forms of agency 4: define possible interventions 5: review winners/losers 6: examine possible responses 7: establish accountabilities 8: seek critical feedback C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS: 1: review relevant histories 2: explore challenges/opportunities 3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses 4: look at actors’ strength/weakness 5: examine decision/branch points 6: identify winners/losers 7: attend to issues of power/politics 8: seek critical feedback STEPS METHODOLOGY APPRECIATE PATHWAYS help appreciate alternative pathways appreciative process: ‘Stages’ are distinct but mutually co-constituting. Sequence is heuristic, iterative and recursive. Tasks always relevant but not always equally crucial. Tasks can be addressed in different ways. ‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ must in some way consider – if not address - all stages & tasks.
    • phenomena under scrutiny (all key aspects of pathways) • “systems” and “contexts” • “scales” and “levels” • “actors” and “networks” • “values” and “interests” • “frames” and “narratives” • “causes” and “effects” • “knowledges”,“incertitudes” • “positives” and “negatives” • “structures” and “agents” • “actions” and “reactions” • “imaginations” and “visions” interpretive challenge STEPS METHODOLOGY help appreciate alternative pathways
    • SCOPING of breadth of contexts FOCUSING on depth of particularities LINKING relations and perspectives aspects of methods STEPS METHODOLOGY Inductive appreciation of contexts Broad descriptive accounts Diverse evaluative views Attend to key dimensions of heterogeneity. Envelope of different understandings Illustrative mottos : “start with the big picture”; “see wood for trees” “better roughly accurate than precisely wrong“ Tightening deductive kinds of focus Targetted, ordered, thick accounts Particular systematic disciplinary rigour Key parameters of homogeneity. Deeper, forensic attention to detail Conditionally more subtle individual understandings. Illustrative mottos "the devil's in the detail“ “thick not thin accounts” Informed both by scoping and focusing Exploring fruitful axes for cross-interrogation Mutual critical deconstruction ‘Plural and conditional’, appreciation Illustrative mottos “beauty (truth) are in the eyes of beholders“ "it takes all sorts to make a world“ “agree on reasons for disagreement” phenomena under scrutiny (all key aspects of pathways) • “systems” and “contexts” • “scales” and “levels” • “actors” and “networks” • “values” and “interests” • “frames” and “narratives” • “causes” and “effects” • “knowledges”,“incertitudes” • “positives” and “negatives” • “structures” and “agents” • “actions” and “reactions” • “imaginations” and “visions” help appreciate alternative pathways
    • environment plural frames Knowledges and Pathways ‘system’ under-determined realities local people time ‘effect’ ‘cause’ diverse pictures ‘scope’ ‘linking’ ‘pathway’ ‘focus’
    • SCOPING breadth of contexts FOCUSING depth of particularities LINKING relations and perspectives STEPS METHODOLOGY Interpretive style Interactive style Group Deliberative style Temporal dimensions Reflexive dimensions ‘Positive’ style Quantitative style Monitoring / surveillance Uncertain hazard analysis Natural experiment Interdisciplinary challenge Transdisciplinary oversight Plural conditional advice Precautionary appraisal Complex resilience analysis Post-normal science Critical literature review Influence mapping Alternatives assessment Millstone critical realism Social network analysis In-depth case study Discourse analysis Semantic structures Top-bottom comparison Semi-structured IVs Empathetic role play In-depth, open IVs participant observation MCM interviews Iterative Q method Cross-frame interrogation Open space approaches Participatory soft systems Participatory appraisal Ethnographic immersion Targeted focus groups Iterative questionnaire Iterative group MCM Deliberative dissensus Bring power to powerless Open network analysis Critical systematic review Agent-based modelling Repertory grids Interactive models / GIS Deliberative polling Sensitivity analysis Interval analysis Diversity mapping Historiographic research Futures literatures Extended foresight Imaginaries analysis Visioning / backcasting Cross-scenario exploring Do-it-yourself panels Power tools Co-operative research Accountability process Critical web access Participatory design Dissonance exploration towards a methods repertoire help appreciate alternative pathways
    • SCOPING breadth of contexts GROUNDING depth of particularities TRIANGULATING relations and perspectives STEPS METHODOLOGY Do-it-yourself panels Power tools Co-operative research Accountability process Critical web access Participatory design Dissonance exploration Historiographic research Futures literatures Extended foresight Imaginaries analysis Visioning / backcasting Cross-scenario exploring Open space approaches Participatory soft systems Participatory appraisal Ethnographic immersion Targeted focus groups Iterative questionnaire Iterative group MCM Deliberative dissensus Bring power to powerless Critical literature review Influence mapping Alternatives assessment Millstone critical realism Social network analysis In-depth case study Discourse analysis Semantic structures Top-bottom comparison Semi-structured IVs Empathetic role play In-depth, open IVs participant observation MCM interviews Iterative Q method Cross-frame interrogation Monitoring / surveillance Uncertain hazard analysis Natural experiment Interdisciplinary challenge Transdisciplinary oversight Plural conditional advice Open network analysis Critical systematic review Agent-based modelling Repertory grids Interactive models / GIS Deliberative polling Precautionary appraisal Complex resilience analysis Post-normal science Sensitivity analysis Interval analysis Diversity mapping ... back to process: Contrasting configurations of methods are used in different contexts to meet specific methodological tasks at various stages in the social appreciation of alternative social, ecological and technological pathways. Each stage and task is thus situated in a space defined by different aspects of appraisal (scoping, focusing and linking) and by contrasting styles and dimensions of particular methods (outlined in the underlying grid). In this way, the overarching STEPS methodological framework helps inform both the selection and ordering of a diversity of methods suitable for addressing different aspects and dimensions in the ‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’ of alternative pathways. help appreciate alternative pathways A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together: 1: review relevant histories 2: analyse associated networks 3: snowball salient interests 4: prioritise most marginal 5: examine power relations 6: identify basic pathway visions 7: be alert for hidden plurality 8: seek critical feedback B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS 1: review relevant histories 2: elicit notions of systems 3: explore related narratives 4: address Sustainability values 5: scope key possible pathways 6: review aspects of incertitude 7: differentiate perspectives 8: seek critical feedback D: REVEAL STRATEGIES 1: review relevant histories 2: confirm key protagonists 3: explore forms of agency 4: define possible interventions 5: review winners/losers 6: examine possible responses 7: establish accountabilities 8: seek critical feedback C: MAP DYNAMICS for each pathway: 1: review relevant histories 2: explore challenges/opportunities 3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses 4: look at actors’ strength/weakness 5: examine decision/branch points 6: identify winners/losers 7: attend to issues of power/politics 8: seek critical feedback APPRECIATE PATHWAYS