A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy

Abstract

System dynamics, Complex systems, Collaborative modeling, Public participation, Interdisciplinary,

Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods

“…There have been several contributions to the policy sciences field that highlight the pitfall of trying to solve a problem without exactly knowing what the problem is (e.g. Cockerill et al 2009;Van de Kerkhof 2006a, b). This pitfall has been referred to as 'type III error', which means 'solving the wrong problem' (Mitroff 1974;Raiffa 1970: p264;cited in: Dunn 2001).…”

A roadmap for gene drives: using institutional analysis and development to frame research needs and governance in a systems context

“…It engaged a disciplinarily and geographically diverse group in the assessment of gene drive cases and made use of systems thinking and mapping to explore intersectional issues that fall in between disciplines and sectors (Cockerill, Malczynski, and Tidwell 2009;Flood 2010). It also embraced other principles of responsible innovation (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013) by reflecting on the motivations and ethics of gene drive research; anticipating contingencies, uncertainties, and governance needs upstream of gene drive deployment (Wiek et al 2012;Guston 2014); and calling for responsiveness to the concerns of public(s) and stakeholders early in gene drive research and deployment.…”

“…Specific prompts were used to encourage participants to think about intersectional issues (like ethics and ecological risk), and collaborative systems modeling (CSM) was used as a tool to map relationships among variables in governance systems and feedback loops (Cockerill, Malczynski, and Tidwell 2009). On the first morning, presentations focused on three case studies of gene drives, which are described in detail elsewhere in this volume (ie vectors of human disease, ecological pests, and agricultural pests), and proposed a framework for considering ethical issues posed by gene drives (Thompson 2018).…”

“…The method used at the workshop was adapted from CSM (Cockerill, Malczynski, and Tidwell 2009), which is based on system dynamics in its use of causal loop diagrams to depict feedback loops, and positive or negative correlations among variables within systems (Sterman 2000). Small breakout groups using CSM focused on the three meso-level case studies discussed at the workshop, gene drives for: reducing mosquito-borne disease, eradicating invasive species or rodents on islands, and controlling agricultural pests.…”

Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services

“…Examples include endangered wildlife management (Beall and Zeoli, 2008), climate change adaptation (Bizikova et al, 2009), watershed management (Brown Gaddis et al, 2007;Videira et al, 2009), water resource planning (Cockerill et al, 2009;Kallis et al, 2006), land use planning Prell et al, 2007), sustainable forest management (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2005;Standa-Gunda et al, 2003), tourism management (Patterson et al, 2004), balancing conservation and development goals (Sandker et al, 2010), public sector administration (Van den Belt et al, 2010), and marine spatial planning (Scott et al, 2016). Increasing participation, the use of deliberation, and the application of social-ecological systems approaches become particularly pertinent to valuation of ecosystem services when realising that the inherent uncertainty of complex systems implies gives rise to multiple legitimate understandings (Garmendia and Stagl, 2010).…”