Integrating the Views of Citizens

Transdisciplinary researchers have investigated how we can integrate the views of citizens regarding both goals and means into policy analysis. Our colleagues at td-net discuss how a scientific research process and societal process of addressing challenges must be integrated here.

The open-minded and collaborative approach advocated for team research can be replicated in the policy arena. Citizens can be gathered together, provided with relevant information, and encouraged to collectively identify the best policies.

· Citizen juries and consensus conferences are two formal strategies for doing so.

· A consensus development panel relies instead on disinterested experts but follows a similar approach.

· Soft systems methodology is a newer strategy that stresses having participants map the problem at hand.

· The above strategies work best when addressing a particular problem. Future-search conferences are more open-ended, but gather citizens to first identify broad goals and then discuss how to achieve these.

See David McDonald, Gabriele Bammer and Peter Deane, Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. ANU Press 2009:

Scholz, Roland W., Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge, also discusses methods for integrating citizen viewpoints:

· Multi-attribute utility analysis addresses how different evaluative criteria can be integrated, and what misperceptions arise.

· Mediation identifies interest groups and interests, and identifies misperceptions and sources of conflict.

· Future workshops encourage unconventional solutions.

· Experiential case encounters encourage insiders to change sides and see the problem from others’ perspectives.

Hovland, I. (2005). Successful Communication: A Toolkit for Researchers and Civil Society Organisations. Overseas Development Institute, London, UK. Full text online at: http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=155&title=successful-communication-toolkit-researchers-civil-society-organisations (viewed 21 December 2011). describes some methods for gathering small groups of stakeholders to map problems:

· Problem tree analysis

· Force field analysis

Hirsh Hadorn et al.'s chapter on "The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research" in Hirsh Hadorn et al., Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, pp. 19-42, makes a useful distinction among systems knowledge (the typical focus of interdisciplinary studies), target knowledge (involving the various norms and values of stakeholders--which shape their views), and transformative knowledge (of the context and of how to operationalize identified changes). Citizens can usefully provide input on each of these.

Paul D. Hirsch, J. Peter Brosius, et al. " Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: An integrative framework," Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 31 (2013),99-122, warn us that compromises regarding both process and outcomes may be necessary in tackling complex problems. They urge an open conversation regarding both the goals and values of all stakeholders. They outline a set of questions that can be asked of stakeholders to identify tradeoffs, and determine whether particular changes provide greater benefits than costs. The goal is to ensure that all voices are heard and valued.