Abstract
Environmental governance is of growing concern in a world that is more interconnected and interdependent than ever and threatened by climate change and the depletion or contamination of natural resources that are often shared by multiple stakeholders. Governance at the local, national, and international level requires representatives of diverse stakeholder groups with often competing ideologies and interests to make decisions collaboratively (Buck et al. 2001; Folke et al. 2005; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). This collaborative decision-making often takes place in formalized groups who are given the responsibility for developing governmental regulations that determine how natural resources will be used and protected.
Funded by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1408169—2014 (The National Science Foundation funded this study through the Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) mechanism to support our exploratory work in the early stages of development on our integrated methodology as a novel and potentially transformative, interdisciplinary perspective and methodology. Christina Wasson was Principal Investigator (PI) and Gluesing was Co-Principal Investor (Co-PI) on the research grant. Ken Riopelle contributed analytical expertise in social and semantic network analysis.)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The meeting transcripts were created by taking the meeting minutes available online at the city’s website and elaborating them to create an abbreviated transcript for each meeting. This transcript was annotated using conversation analysis and issue framing and imported into Atlas.ti for coding.
- 3.
DHB: Accelerating the Diffusion of Innovations: A Digital Diffusion Dashboard Methodology for Global Networked Organizations. Award No. SES-0527487
- 4.
y (t) = AWy (t − 1) + (I − A)y (0) (t = 1, 2, …)y(t) is an opinion vector of n × 1 dimensions at time t. Matrix A is a diagonal matrix of n x n where n represents the influential nodes in the network and the diagonal, aii, is an indicator of susceptibility to another’s influence from 0 to 1. Matrix W is an interpersonal influence matrix, which is row stochastic (rows sum to 1) and the diagonal, wii, is equal to 1-aii. If wii = 1, then a person is completely closed-minded, and if wii = 0 then a person is completely open-minded. I is an identity matrix where the diagonal is equal to 1. y(0) is a vector of people’s initial opinions.
- 5.
References
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Buck, L. E., Geisler, C. C., Schelhas, J., & Wollenberg, E. (Eds.). (2001). Biological diversity: Balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Carlsson, L., & Sandstrom, A. (2008). Network governance of the commons. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 33–54.
Danowski, J. A. (1993). Network analysis of message content. In G. Barnett & W. Richards (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences XII (pp. 197–222). Norwood: Ablex.
Danowski, J. A. (2011). Mining organizations’ networks: Multi-level approach. In I.-H. Ting, T.-P. Hong, & L. S. L. Wang (Eds.), Social network mining, analysis and research trends: Techniques and applications (pp. 205–230). IGI Global: Hershey.
Danowski, J. A. (2013). WORDij version 3.0: Semantic network analysis software. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Danowski, J. A., Gluesing, J., & Riopelle, K. (2011). The revolution in diffusion caused by new media. In A. Vishwanath & G. Barnett (Eds.), The diffusion of innovations: A communication science perspective (pp. 123–144). New York: Peter Lang.
Dewulf, A., & Bouwen, R. (2012). Issue framing in conversations for change: Discursive interaction strategies for “doing differences”. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48(2), 168–193.
Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., & Bouwen, R. (2011). An interactional approach to framing in conflict and negotiation. In W. A. Donohue, R. G. Rogan, & S. Kaufman (Eds.), Framing matters: Perspectives on negotiation research and practice in communication (pp. 7–33). Peter Lang: New York.
Dominguez, S., & Hollstein, B. (Eds.). (2014). Mixed methods social networks research: Design and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686.
Friedkin, N. E. (1998). The structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedkin, N. E. (2014). Social justice in local systems of interpersonal influence. In J. McLeod, Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 229–242). New York: Springer.
Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (2014). Two steps to obfuscation. Social Networks, 39, 12–13.
Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. (2011). Social influence network theory: A sociological examination of small group dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gloor, P. (2006). Swarm creativity: Competitive Advantage through collaborative innovation networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gloor, P. (2010). Coolfarming: Turn your great idea into the next big thing. New York: American Management Association.
Gloor, P., & Cooper, S. (2007). Coolhunting: Chasing down the next big thing. New York: American Management Association.
Gluesing, J. (2012). Mixing ethnography and information technology data mining to visualize innovation networks in global networked organizations. In S. Dominguez & B. Hollstein (Eds.), Mixing methods in social network research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jia, P., A. Mirtabatabaei, N. E. Friedkin, & F. Bullo. (2016). Opinion dynamics and the evolution of social power in influence networks. SIAM Review (Forthcoming).
Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.
Lesfrud, Lianne. (2013). When worlds collide: The intersection of meaning-making between hearings and media for Alberta’s oil sands. Ph.D. dissertation, Strategic Management and Organization, University of Alberta.
Lubell, M. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 537–559.
Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2009). The world wide web of research and access to knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7(3), 218–233.
Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2015). Knowledge machines: Digital transformations of the sciences and humanities (infrastructures). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nagendra, H., & Ostrom, E. (2012). Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 104–133.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.
Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Putnam, L. L., & Holmer, M. (1992). Framing, reframing, and issue development. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation (pp. 128–155). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Riopelle, K. (2012). Being there: The power of technology-based methods. In B. Jordan (Ed.), Advancing ethnography in corporate environments: Challenges and emerging opportunities (pp. 38–55). Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek.
Robbins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social scientists. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Roncoli, C., Orlove, B. S., Kabugo, M. R., & Waiswa, M. M. (2011). Cultural styles of participation in farmers’ discussions of seasonal climate forecasts in Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(1), 123–138.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Katherine, F. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wasson, Christina. (1996). Covert caution: Linguistic traces of organizational control. Ph.D. Dissertation, Anthropology, Yale University.
Wasson, C. (2000). Caution and consensus in American business meetings. Pragmatics, 10(4), 457–481.
Wasson, Christina. (n.d.) Integrating conversation analysis and issue framing to illuminate collaborative decision-making activities (Under review).
Wasson, Christina & Julia Gluesing. (2015). A wicked methodology for the analysis of wicked problems: Integrating the analysis of meetings and networks. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the ISSS – August 2015 Berlin, Germany.
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington: Island Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix
The following is a brief description of the primary software tools used in this study, namely: Atlas.ti, Condor 3, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and WORDij.
Atlas.ti 7 http://www.atlasti.com
Atlas.ti is a qualitative data analysis (QDA) software program with over 20 years + in the making. It handles text, pdfs, multi-media data and quantitative surveys. Coded data can be exported to SPSS for quantitative analysis. A primary strength of the software is the theoretical model building capability. ATLAS.ti is the only QDA software that offers universal data export and supports open data formats. Project data remain “free,” permanently accessible, and reusable in a myriad of other applications, including long-term archives.
Condor 3
Condor 3 is a social network program, which enables a single user, a team, or a company to visualize and measure the structure, content, sentiment and influence of social communication networks over time. It has the ability to generate interactive movies of communication flows for in-depth analysis. Users can analyze different social media channels including: The Web, Email, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and more, all in a single visualization. It runs on a Mac, a Windows PC, Linux, and in the Cloud. Condor 3 is menu driven and requires no programming expertise and exports data easily to other software packages for additional analysis, graphing or mapping. Condor is free for academic use.
For a quick overview of Condor watch the Welcome to Condor 3 by Peter Gloor (13:51) http://youtu.be/vfWfeywCskQ
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) http://www.liwc.net
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) reads a text file, one word at a time. As each word is processed, the selected dictionary file is searched, looking for a dictionary match for that word. If a match is found, the appropriate word category scale(s) for that word is/are incremented. As the target text file is being processed, counts for various structural composition elements (e.g., word count and sentence punctuation) are also incremented. The software runs on a Mac and PC. There are 64 standard linguistic categories and dictionaires are available in Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, and Turkish.
NetDraw http://www.analytictech.com
NetDraw is a free program written by Steve Borgatti for visualizing both 1-mode and 2-mode social network data. It can handle multiple relations at the same time, and can use node attributes to set colors, shapes, and sizes of nodes.
Pictures can be saved in metafile, jpg, gif and bitmap formats. The program reads UCINET system files, UCINET DL files, Pajek files, and its own VNA format (which allows saving network and attribute data together, along with layout information like spatial coordinates, colors, etc.).
IMPORTANT: If you format data as a VNA file, NETDRAW can handle *very* large files. For example, sparse networks of 3500 nodes are very practical on a machine with 1GB of RAM (more is better). 10,000 nodes works fine with 2GB of RAM (assuming it is very sparse, of course).
UCINET http://www.analytictech.com
UCINET was created by Steve Bogatti, M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. It is a comprehensive package for the analysis of social network data as well as other 1-mode and 2-mode data. Can read and write a multitude of differently formatted text files, as well as Excel files. Can handle a maximum of 32,767 nodes (with some exceptions) although practically speaking many procedures get too slow around 5000–10,000 nodes.
Social network analysis methods include centrality measures, subgroup identification, role analysis, elementary graph theory, and permutation-based statistical analysis. In addition, the package has strong matrix analysis routines, such as matrix algebra and multivariate statistics.
Integrated with UCINET is the NetDraw program for drawing diagrams of social networks. In addition, the program can export data to Mage and Pajek.
UCINET is one of the most popular Social Network Software Programs.
WORDij http://wordij.net
WORDij is a text analysis program that treats words as nodes and word pairs as links for network analysis and other statistical analysis. The software runs on a PC, Mac and Linux system and is free for academic use.
WORDij has seven modules:
-
1.
Wordlink: this is the base module which counts words and word pairs and the results are used by other modules.
-
2.
QAPNet: calculates an overall measure of the similarity of two whole networks using a correlation coefficient from −1 to +1.
-
3.
Z-Utilities: compares two text files and determine what the significant differences there are for either the words or the word pairs.
-
4.
VISij: a graphic visualization of words (nodes) and links. If multiple files are included an animation will play a network sequence change from one file to another.
-
5.
OptiComm: produce messages that could be used to either promote change to move two words closer, move them further apart, or to reinforce aspects of the semantic networks.
-
6.
Utilities: A proper noun extraction and a TimeSegs program for over time analysis using input from Lexis/Nexis or NewsBank.
-
7.
Conversions: converts WORDij files for use with MultiNet/Negopy UCINET, NetDraw and Pajek.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gluesing, J., Riopelle, K., Wasson, C. (2017). Environmental Governance in Multi-stakeholder Contexts: An Integrated Methods Set for Examining Decision-Making. In: Hollstein, B., Matiaske, W., Schnapp, KU. (eds) Networked Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50386-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50386-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50384-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50386-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)