EVOLvINC: EValuating knOwLedge INtegration Capacity in multistakeholder governance

Abstract

Research and policy processes in many fields, such as sustainability and health, are increasingly relying on transdisciplinary cooperation among a multitude of governmental, nongovernmental, and private actors from local to global levels. In the absence of hierarchical chains of command, multistakeholder governance may accommodate conflicting or diverse interests and facilitate collective action, but its effectiveness depends on its capacity to integrate systems, transformation, and target knowledge. Approaches to foster such governance are nascent and quickly evolving, and methodological standards to facilitate comparison and learning from best practice are needed. However, there is currently no evaluation approach that (i) comprehensively assesses the capacity for knowledge integration in multistakeholder governance, (ii) draws on the best available knowledge that is being developed in various fields, and (iii) combines a systematic and transferable methodological design with pragmatic feasibility. We brought together 20 experts from institutions in nine countries, all working on evaluation approaches for collaborative sciencepolicy initiatives. In a synthesis process that included a 2-day workshop and follow-up work among a core group of participants, we developed a tool for evaluating knowledge integration capacity in multistakeholder governance (EVOLvINC). Its 23 indicators incorporate previously defined criteria and components of transdisciplinary evaluations into a single, comprehensive framework that operationalizes the capacity for integrating systems, target, and transformation knowledge during an initiative's (a) design and planning processes at the policy formulation stage, (b) organization and working processes at the implementation stage, and (c) sharing and learning processes at the evaluation stage of the policy cycle. EVOLvINC is (i) implemented through a questionnaire, (ii) builds on established indicators where possible, (iii) offers a consistent and transparent semiquantitative scoring and aggregation algorithm, and (iv) uses spider diagrams for visualizing results. The tool builds on experience and expertise from both the northern and southern hemispheres and was empirically validated with seven science-policy initiatives in six African and Asian countries. As a generalized framework, EVOLvINC thus enables a structured reflection on the capacity of multistakeholder governance processes to foster knowledge integration. Its emphasis on dialog and exploration allows adaptation to contextual specificities, highlights relative strengths and weaknesses, and suggests avenues for shaping multistakeholder governance toward mutual learning, capacity building, and strengthened networks. The validation suggests that the adaptive capacity of multistakeholder governance could be best enhanced by considering systems characteristics at the policy formulation stage and fostering adaptive and generic learning at the evaluation stage of the policy cycle.

System Thinking and Citizen Participation Is Still Missing in One Health Initiatives – Lessons From Fifteen Evaluations

“…The tool was later scrutinised in a more generic context. The second tool b) was developed in collaboration with experts from transdisciplinary research, sustainability sciences and international development research: Evaluating knOwLedge Integration Capacity in multi-stakeholder governance (EVOLvINC) (13). First, the case studies from the NEOH group (H-O) were used to test the NEOH tool and all employed the concept of mapping the system in which the initiative is situated and then use these data to answer 80 questions relating to six aspects: systemic thinking, planning, transdisciplinary working, sharing, learning, and the systemic organisation (14).…”

“…The EVOLvINC tool arranges the same six aspects used in the NEOH tool along the three stages of the project life cycle (13), but the aspects are operationalized in 3-5 criteria (Figure 1). Each criterion is measured by 3-5 indicators articulated as questions that are scored on a four-level Likert scale.…”

“…In another attempt, the EU COST Action (TD1404) "Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH)" characterised OH and proposed a framework to assess the added value of integrated approaches by comparing knowledge integration (assessed with a specific tool) to the outcomes achieved or expected from the theory of change of a given initiative (11,12). A method for evaluating knowledge integration capacity in multi-stakeholder governance (EVOLvINC) was derived from the NEOH tool in collaboration with experts from transdisciplinary research, sustainability sciences, and international development research (13,14).…”

Antimicrobial resistance control efforts in Africa: a survey of the role of Civil Society Organisations

“…This growing concern is compounded by weak and fragmented public and animal health systems across the region and a high burden of infectious disease, with 62% of disability-adjusted life years in the Africa region attributable to infectious diseases [ 3 ]. A One Health (OH) approach is needed because AMR occurs, and is transmitted, across humans, animals, and the environment, through both direct and indirect contact [ 4 , 5 ].…”

Systemic factors for enhancing intersectoral collaboration for the operationalization of One Health: a case study in India

“…This top-down approach has its disadvantages in the policy process, such as effectiveness with respect to acceptability, local adaptation, and dynamics of change [ 14 ]. In response to the perceived weakness of the top-down perspective, the bottom-up approach [ 15 ] provides a platform to analyse the multitude of actors who interact at the operational (local) level on a particular issue, with specific reference to problem-solving [ 16 – 19 ], which might contribute to the sustainable operationalization of OH.…”