Your CIOS file request: Q-METHOD/06209052.221 hotline item

-
Received:  by CIOS Mailer; Saturday 20 Jun 2009 05:22:21
Date:         Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:21:29 -0400
From:         "BROWN, STEVEN" 
Subject: Q Bibliography:  Rutherford et al. on grizzly bear conservation and decision-making workshops
To:           Q-METHOD@LISTSERV.KENT.EDU
List-Help: ,              
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 
List-Owner: 
List-Archive: 

--_000_C662225972D3sbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Rutherford, Murray B., Michael L. Gibeau, Susan G. Clark, & Emily C. Chambe=
rlain (2009 May).  Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly =
bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada.  Policy Sciences, 42(2), =
163-187.

Abstract.  We used the policy sciences as an organizing framework for a ser=
ies of workshops with stakeholders in Banff National Park on ''Interdiscipl=
inary problem solving for grizzly bear conservation and management.'' In re=
cent years, bear conservation efforts in this region have been hindered by =
acrimonious disputes about the production and use of scientific knowledge i=
n management. The workshops introduced the policy sciences as a means of th=
inking more effectively about problems, and encouraged participants to use =
this approach to develop innovative solutions to the problems of grizzly be=
ar conservation.  Each workshop addressed different aspects of the policy s=
ciences framework: (i) Standpoint Clarification; (ii) Problem Orientation; =
(iii) Social Process Mapping; and (iv) Decision-Process Mapping. In this ar=
ticle, we discuss the design and outcomes of the workshops and assess their=
 effectiveness in integrating knowledge to find common ground.

Murray Rutherford  and Emily Chamberlain are in the School of R=
esource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC,=
 Canada.  (Rutherford was the program chair for the 2005 Vancouver Q confer=
ence.)  Michael Gibeau is with Parks Canada, Mountain National Parks, Lake =
Louise, AB, Canada.  Susan Clark is in the School of Forestry and Environme=
ntal Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Q methodology played a central role in the standpoint-clarification phase o=
f this project, which in turn was critical for the remaining phases of this=
 series of interdisciplinary problem solving (IPS) workshops.  There were t=
wo Q sorts, each taken from prior interviews with workshop participants: On=
e focused on problems associated with grizzly bear conservation in Banff Na=
tional Park and surrounding area and the second on possible solutions.  The=
se two Q sorts were administered to 29 individuals from environmental organ=
izations, industry, federal and provincial agencies, scientific organizatio=
ns, local businesses, the local community, and others, many of whom had bee=
n at odds with one another concerning bear conservation.  The problem-defin=
ition Q sort produced four factors; the Q sort containing proposed solution=
s to these problems resulted in three factors.  The results are given only =
summary treatment in this article, but can be found in more detail elsewher=
e (Chamberlain, 2006; Chamberlain & Rutherford, 2005).

The structure of this process-i.e., administering the Q sorts individually =
in advance of a workshop in which participants came together to discuss the=
 results-turned out to produce consequences that proved more useful compare=
d to the process utilized previously (Brown, et al., 2004; Mattson et al., =
2006) in which the participants first gathered and then generated the Q sam=
ple and took the Q sort on the spot.  The on-the-spot strategy tended to po=
larize participants (reflected in bipolar factors), thereby rendering it di=
fficult to find common ground during the workshops and their aftermath.  Ob=
taining the Q sorts on a one-by-one basis and then providing participants w=
ith the factor results and their interpretation in advance of meeting facil=
itated contemplation that apparently made it possible for contesting partie=
s to cooperate fruitfully in the subsequent workshops, where consideration =
of alternatives and recommending policies took place.

References

Brown, S.R., Byrd, K.L., Clark, T.W., Rutherford, M., Mattson, D.J., & Robi=
nson, B. (2004).   Challenges and strategies in large-scale conservation: T=
he case of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon conservation initiative.  Society for t=
he Policy Sciences, October 21-24, Yale University School of Law, New Haven=
, CT.

Chamberlain, E.C. (2006).  Perspectives on grizzly bear management in Banff=
 National Park and the Bow River Watershed, Alberta: A Q methodology study.=
  MRM Planning Project No. 394, School of Resource and Environmental Manage=
ment, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Chamberlain, E.C., & Rutherford, M.B. (2005).  Perspectives on grizzly bear=
 conservation in the Banff-Bow Valley: Views of problems and solutions.  Un=
published report, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fr=
aser University, Burnaby, BC.

Mattson, D.J., Byrd, K.L., Rutherford, M.B., Brown, S.R., & Clark, T.W. (20=
06).  Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mapping conten=
ding perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 392-405.

--_000_C662225972D3sbrownkentedu_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Rutherford, Murray B., Michael L. Gibeau, Susan G. Clark, & Emily C. Ch=
amberlain (2009 May).  Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for=
 grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada.  Policy =
Sciences, 42(2), 163-187.



Abstract.  We used the policy sciences as an organizing framewo=
rk for a series of workshops with stakeholders in Banff National Park on &#=
8216;‘Interdisciplinary problem solving for grizzly bear conservation=
 and management.’’ In recent years, bear conservation efforts i=
n this region have been hindered by acrimonious disputes about the producti=
on and use of scientific knowledge in management. The workshops introduced =
the policy sciences as a means of thinking more effectively about problems,=
 and encouraged participants to use this approach to develop innovative sol=
utions to the problems of grizzly bear conservation.  Each workshop ad=
dressed different aspects of the policy sciences framework: (i) Standpoint =
Clarification; (ii) Problem Orientation; (iii) Social Process Mapping; and =
(iv) Decision-Process Mapping. In this article, we discuss the design and o=
utcomes of the workshops and assess their effectiveness in integrating know=
ledge to find common ground.



Murray Rutherford <mbr@sfu.ca> and Emily C=
hamberlain are in the School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simo=
n Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.  (Rutherford was the program=
 chair for the 2005 Vancouver Q conference.)  Michael Gibeau is with P=
arks Canada, Mountain National Parks, Lake Louise, AB, Canada.  Susan =
Clark is in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale Universi=
ty, New Haven, CT, USA.



Q methodology played a central role in the standpoint-clarification phase o=
f this project, which in turn was critical for the remaining phases of this=
 series of interdisciplinary problem solving (IPS) workshops.  There w=
ere two Q sorts, each taken from prior interviews with workshop participant=
s: One focused on problems associated with grizzly bear conservation in Ban=
ff National Park and surrounding area and the second on possible solutions.=
  These two Q sorts were administered to 29 individuals from environme=
ntal organizations, industry, federal and provincial agencies, scientific o=
rganizations, local businesses, the local community, and others, many of wh=
om had been at odds with one another concerning bear conservation.  Th=
e problem-definition Q sort produced four factors; the Q sort containing pr=
oposed solutions to these problems resulted in three factors.  The res=
ults are given only summary treatment in this article, but can be found in =
more detail elsewhere (Chamberlain, 2006; Chamberlain & Rutherford, 200=
5).



The structure of this process—i.e., administering the Q sorts individ=
ually in advance of a workshop in which participants came together to discu=
ss the results—turned out to produce consequences that proved more us=
eful compared to the process utilized previously (Brown, et al., 2004; Matt=
son et al., 2006) in which the participants first gathered and then generat=
ed the Q sample and took the Q sort on the spot.  The on-the-spot stra=
tegy tended to polarize participants (reflected in bipolar factors), thereb=
y rendering it difficult to find common ground during the workshops and the=
ir aftermath.  Obtaining the Q sorts on a one-by-one basis and then pr=
oviding participants with the factor results and their interpretation in ad=
vance of meeting facilitated contemplation that apparently made it possible=
 for contesting parties to cooperate fruitfully in the subsequent workshops=
, where consideration of alternatives and recommending policies took place.=




References



Brown, S.R., Byrd, K.L., Clark, T.W., Rutherford, M., Mattson, D.J., & =
Robinson, B. (2004).   Challenges and strategies in large-scal=
e conservation: The case of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon conservation initiativ=
e.  Society for the Policy Sciences, October 21-24, Yale Universit=
y School of Law, New Haven, CT.



Chamberlain, E.C. (2006).  Perspectives on grizzly bear management =
in Banff National Park and the Bow River Watershed, Alberta: A Q methodolog=
y study.  MRM Planning Project No. 394, School of Resource and Env=
ironmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.



Chamberlain, E.C., & Rutherford, M.B. (2005).  Perspectives on =
grizzly bear conservation in the Banff-Bow Valley: Views of problems and so=
lutions.  Unpublished report, School of Resource and Environmental=
 Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.



Mattson, D.J., Byrd, K.L., Rutherford, M.B., Brown, S.R., & Clark, T.W.=
 (2006).  Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mappi=
ng contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 3=
92-405.






--_000_C662225972D3sbrownkentedu_--