Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands

Ecological Economics

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 579-591

  Cuppen, Eefje ^a   Breukers, Sylvia ^b   Hisschemöller, Matthijs ^a   Bergsma, Emmy ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Biomass; Deliberation; Participation; Q methodology; Stakeholder dialogue; Stakeholder selection

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; FACTOR ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; RESEARCH WORK; STAKEHOLDER;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 72049123470     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ackhoff R. Redesigning the Future (1974), John Wiley & Sons, New York
2. Agterbosch S. Empowering Wind Power. On Social and Institutional Conditions Affecting the Performance of Entrepreneurs in the Wind Power Supply Market in the Netherlands (2006), Utrecht University, Utrecht
3. ANP. Kabinet beteugelt inzet biobrandstoffen. Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau . 9-10-2008. (Newspaper).
4. Arnstein S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (1969) 216-224
5. Barry J., and Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28 (1999) 337-345
6. Breukers, S. 2006. Changing institutional landscapes for wind power implementation. A geographical comparison of institutional capacity building: The Netherlands, England and North-Rhine Westphalia. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
7. Breukers S., and Wolsink M. Wind power in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energy Policy 35 (2007) 2737-2750
8. Brodbeck F.C., Kerschreiter R., Mojzisch A., Frey D., and Schulz-Hardt S. The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent. European Journal of Social Psychology 32 (2002) 35-56
9. Brown S.R. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science (1980), Yale University Press, New Haven and London
10. Clarke A.H. Understanding sustainable development in the context of other emergent environmental perspectives. Policy Sciences 35 (2002) 69-90
11. Coglianese C. The limits of consensus. The environmental protection system in transition: toward a more desirable future. Environment 41 (1999) 1-6
12. Collins H.M., and Evans R. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2002) 235-296
13. Crawford M., Rutter D., and Thelwall S. User Involvement in Change Management (2003), NCCSDO, London
14. Cuppen, E. Putting perspectives into participation: Constructive Conflict Methodology for stakeholder dialogues. Forthcoming.
15. Davies B.B., and Hodge I.D. Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics 61 (2007) 323-333
16. Davies B.B., Blackstock K.L., and Rauschmayer F. 'Recruitment', 'composition', and 'mandate' issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (2005) 599-615
17. Dryzek J.S., and Berejikian A. Reconstitutive democratic theory. American Political Science Review 87 (1993) 48-60
18. Dryzek J.S., and Niemeyer S. Discursive representation. American Political Science Review 102 (2008) 481-492
19. Dunn W.N. Methods of the second type: coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Policy Studies Review 7 (1988) 720-737
20. Dunn W.N. Using the method of context validation to mitigate type III error in environmental policy analysis. In: Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R., Dunn W.N., and Ravetz J.R. (Eds). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis (2001), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London 417-436
21. Ellis G., Barry J., and Robinson C. Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (2007) 517-551
22. Energietransitie. Biomassa, hot issue. Slimme keuzes in moeilijke tijden (2008), SenterNovem, Utrecht
23. Goodin R.E., and Dryzek J.S. Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society 34 (2006) 219-244
24. Gregory R., MacDaniels T.L., and Fields D. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (2001) 415-432
25. Hekkert M.P., Suurs R.A.A., Negro S.O., Kuhlman S., and Smits R.E.H.M. Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (2007)
26. Hisschemöller M. De democratie van problemen (1993), VU Uitgeverij, Amsterdam
27. Hisschemöller M. Participation as knowledge production and the limits of democracy. In: Maasen S., and Weingart P. (Eds). Democratization of Expertise? Exploring New Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (2005), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 189-207
28. Martin G.P. 'Ordinary people only': knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociology of Health & Illness 30 (2008) 35-54
29. Hisschemöller M., and Hoppe R. Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In: Hisschemöller M., Hoppe R., Dunn W.N., and Ravetz J.R. (Eds). Knowledge, Power and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis (2001), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London 47-72
30. Hoffman L.R. Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 (1959) 27-32
31. Hoffman L.R., and Maier N.R. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (1961) 401-407
32. Huitema D., Van de Kerkhof M., and Pesch U. The nature of the beast: are citizens' juries deliberative or pluralist?. Policy Sciences 40 (2007) 287-311
33. Janis I.L. Victims of Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (1972), Houghton-Mifflin, Boston
34. Jehn K.A., Northcraft G.B., and Neale M.A. Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1999) 741-763
35. Mason R.O., and Mitroff I.I. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases and Techniques (1981), Wiley, New York
36. Mayer I.S. Debating Technologies: A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory Policy Analysis (1997), Tilburg University Press, Tilburg
37. McKeown B., and Thomas D. Q Methodology (1988), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Beverly Hills, London, New Delhi
38. Mitroff I.I., and Sagasti F. Epistemology as general systems theory: an approach to the design of complex decision-making experiments. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3 (1973) 117-134
39. Rittel H., and Webber M. Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4 (1973) 155-169
40. Robbins P., and Krueger R. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Professional Geographer 52 (2000) 636-648
41. Schmolck, P., 2002. Pqmethod. www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/pqmethod/.
42. Schön D.A., and Rein M. Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies (1994), Basic Books, New York
43. Schweiger D.M., Sandberg W.R., and Ragan J.W. Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy and consensus. The Academy of Management Journal 29 (1986) 51-71
44. Simon H. The structure of ill-structured problems. Artifical Intelligence 4 (1973) 181-201
45. Stasser G., and Titus W. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (1985) 1467-1478
46. Stephenson W. Correlating persons instead of tests. Character and Personality 4 (1935) 17-24
47. Swedeen P. Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 190-208
48. Van Asselt M., and Rijkens-Klomp N. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change 12 (2002) 167-184
49. Van de Kerkhof M. Debating Climate Change: A Study of Stakeholder Participation in a Integrated Assessment of Long-Term Climate Policy in the Netherlands (2004), Lemma, Utrecht
50. Van de Kerkhof M. Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences 39 (2006) 279-299
51. Van Eeten M. Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of The Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (2001) 391-414
52. Webler T., Tuler S., and Krueger R. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27 (2001) 435-450
53. Wolsink M. Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting core beliefs concerning space making for waste infrastructure. Urban Studies 41 (2004) 2669-2690