Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative modeling offers a novel methodology that integrates core ideals in the policy sciences. The principles behind collaborative modeling enable policy researchers and decision makers to address interdisciplinarity, complex systems, and public input in the policy process. This approach ideally utilizes system dynamics to enable a multidisciplinary group to explore the relationships in a complex system. We propose that there is a spectrum of possibilities for applying collaborative modeling in the policy arena, ranging from the purely academic through full collaboration among subject matter experts, the general public, and decision makers. Likewise, there is a spectrum of options for invoking collaboration within the policy process. Results from our experiences suggest that participants in a collaborative modeling project develop a deeper level of understanding about the complexity in the policy issue being addressed; increase their agreement about root problems; and gain an appreciation for the uncertainty inherent in data and methods in studying complex systems. We conclude that these attributes of collaborative modeling make it an attractive option for improving the decision-making process as well as on-the-ground decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A. M., Richards, G. P., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2007). Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation, and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 691–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Averch, H., & Levine, R. (1971). Two models of the urban crisis: An analytical essay on Banfield and Forrester. Policy Sciences, 2, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience (p. 459). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, C. (1979). Beyond muddling: Creativity. Public Administration Review, 39, 527–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetkovich, C., & Kirp, D. L. (2001). Cases and controversies: How novitiates are trained to be masters of the public policy universe. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 283–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockerill, K., Passell, H., & Tidwell, V. (2006). Cooperative modeling: Building bridges between science and the public. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockerill, K., Tidwell, V., & Passell, H. (2004). Assessing public perceptions of computer-based models. Environmental Management, 34, 609–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockerill, K., Tidwell, V., Passell, H., & Malczynski, L. (2007). Cooperative modeling lessons for environmental management. Environmental Practice, 9, 28–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C., & Allen, L. K., 2003, Building sector-based consensus: A review of the EPA’s common sense initiative (p. 23). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Regulatory Policy Program.

  • Coglianese, C., & Allen, L. K. (2004). Does consensus make common sense? Environment, 46, 10–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connick, S., & Innes, J. E. (2003). Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: Applying complexity thinking to evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., & Ruth, M. (1998). Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems and build consensus. Environmental Management, 22, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy Sciences, 27, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P., & Steelman, T. A. (2001). Making public policy programs effective and relevant: The role of the policy sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making (p. 360). Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, R. S., Fryxell, G. E., & Judge, W. Q. (2000). Belaboring the not-so-obvious: Consensus, commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success. Journal of Management, 26, 1237–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H., & Kraemer, K. L. (1985). Modeling as negotiating: The political dynamics of computer models in the policy process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeten, M. J. G. v., Loucks, D. P., & Roe, E. (2002). Bringing actors together around large-scale water systems: Participatory modeling and other innovations. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 14, 94–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D., & Rushing, R. (2007). The promise of data-driven policymaking. Issues in Science and Technology, 23, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1992). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In K. B. De Greene (Ed.), A systems-based approach to policymaking (pp. 199–240). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (2007). System dynamics—the next fifty years. System Dynamics Review, 23, 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W., Low, G. W., & Mass, N. J. (1974). The debate on world dynamics: A response to Nordhaus. Policy Sciences, 5, 169–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillette, R. (1972). The limits to growth: Hard sell of a computer view of doomsday. Science, 175, 1088–1092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions (p. 593). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19, 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrick, R. M., & Nachmias, D. (1992). The policy sciences: The challenge of complexity. Policy Studies Review, 11, 310–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J., & House, J. (2001). The source of poor policy: Controlling learning drift and premature consensus in human organizations. System Dynamics Review, 17, 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, B. P., & Lant, C. (2007). Integrated, adaptive watershed management. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science and politics: From “Speaking truth to power” to “Making sense together”. Science and Public Policy, 26, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1972). Forecasting and the systems approach: A critical survey. Policy Sciences, 3, 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., Walter, J., Lechner, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2005). The lack of consensus about strategic consensus: Advancing theory and research. Journal of Management, 31, 719–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, D. S. (2000). Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Boulder, USA: Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerkhof, M. v. d. (2006). Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39, 279–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1992). Models, facts, and the policy process: The political ecology of estimated truth. Irvine: Center for Research on Information Systems and Organizations (CRITO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (1990–1991). Applying interdisciplinary models to design, planning and policy-making. Knowledge in Society, 3(4), 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. E. (1973). The limits to growth (book review). The Journal of Politics, 35, 513–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langton, S. (1978). Citizen participation in America: Essays on the state of the art. Lexington: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method (pp. 3–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwen, P. E. R. M.v., & Breur, K. J. (2001). The modeling policy maker: On decision support systems in water management. Integrated Assessment, 2, 89–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, K. M., McComas, K. A., & Decker, D. J. (2007). Matching the forum to the fuss: Using coorientation contexts to address the paradox of public participation in natural resource management. Environmental Practice, 9, 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “Muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2004a). Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2004b). Collaborative watershed management: A view from the grassroots. The Policy Studies Journal, 32, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczynski, L., Cockerill, K., Forster, C., & Passell, H., 2005, Borders as membranes: Metaphors and models for improved policy in border regions. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 2005-6246.

  • McNamara, L., Chermak, J., Cockerill, K., Jarratt, J., Kelly, S., Kobos, P., Malczynski, L., Newman, G., Pallachula, K., Passell, H., Tidwell, V., Glicken Turnley, J., & van Blowman Waanders, P., 2004, Modeling the transfer of land and water from agricultural to urban uses in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico. Sandia National Laboratories, SAND 2004-5218.

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. I. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxey, A., & White, B. (1998). NELUP: Some reflections on undertaking and reporting interdisciplinary river catchment modelling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41, 397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B., Crumley, C. L., Hassan, N., Lambin, E. F., Pahl-Wostl, C., Underdal, A., et al. (2005). A conceptual template for integrative human-environment research. Global Environmental Change, 15, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolson, C. R., Starfield, A. M., Kofinas, G. P., & Kruse, J. A. (2002). Ten heuristics for interdisciplinary modeling projects. Ecosystems, 5, 376–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Policy Sciences, 36, 307–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, R. N., Keyes, A. M., & Fisher, S. (1993). Empowering stakeholders through simulation in water resources planning. In K. Hon (Ed.), Water Management in the’90s—20th anniversary conference (pp. 451–454). New York, NY: ASCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R. J. (2004). What future for the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 37, 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poncelet, E. C. (2001). Personal transformation in multistakeholder environmental partnerships. Policy Sciences, 34, 273–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (1986). Conflict in group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 175–196). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randolph, J., & Bauer, M. (1999). Improving environmental decision-making through collaborative methods. Policy Studies Review, 16, 168–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G. L., & de Vreede, G.-J. (2008). Challenges in collaborative modeling: A literature review. In Advances in enterprise engineering I: 4th international workshop CIAO! and 4th international workshop EOMAS, Montpellier, France.

  • Riley, S. J., Siemer, W. F., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., & Berchielli, L. T. (2003). Adaptive impact management: An integrative approach to wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. (2006). Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 759–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, C. E. (1951). Foreword. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18, 5–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders-Newton, D., & Scott, H. (2001). “But the computer said!” Credible uses of computational modeling in public sector decision making. Social Science Computer Review, 19(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, S. W., Schuett, M. A., & Carr, D. (2000). Modeling stakeholder perceptions of collaborative initiative effectiveness. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 735–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stave, K. (2003). A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water management options in Las Vegas, Nevada. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics, systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., & Ayres, R. (2001). Systems theory and policy practice: An exploration. Policy Sciences, 34, 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., Field, P., Wansem, M. v. d., & Peyser, J. (2007). Integrating scientific information, stakeholder interests, and political concerns. In K. S. Hanna & D. S. Slocombe (Eds.), Integrated resource and environmental management: Concepts and practice (pp. 181–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. B. (2006). Ascher, William, and Barbara Hirschfelder-Ascher, revitalizing political psychology: The legacy of Harold D Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 39, 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidwell, V. C., Passell, H. D., Conrad, S. H., & Thomas, R. P. (2004). System dynamics modeling for community-based water planning: Application to the Middle Rio Grande. Aquatic Sciences, 66, 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, D. (1985). Contextual orientation in policy analysis: The contribution of Harold D. Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 18, 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umpleby, S. (1970). Citizen sampling simulations: A method for involving the public in social planning. Policy Sciences, 1, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated modeling: A system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review, 15, 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C., Sabatier, P. A., & Lubell, M. (2004). A comparison of a collaborative and top-down approach to the use of science in policy: Establishing marine protected areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal, 32, 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In P. Wagner, C. H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wollmann (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, S. (1999). Computer models and the public’s understanding of science: A case-study analysis. Social Studies of Science, 29, 845–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yenson, E. (1973). Computerized jeremiahs (book review). Ecology, 54, 463–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainable Development Program, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 28607, USA

    Kristan Cockerill

  2. Daniel Consulting, P.O. Box 1094, Estancia, NM, 87016, USA

    Lacy Daniel

  3. Geohydrology Department, Sandia National Laboratories, MS 1350, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM, 787185, USA

    Leonard Malczynski & Vincent Tidwell

Authors
  1. Kristan Cockerill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lacy Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonard Malczynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincent Tidwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristan Cockerill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cockerill, K., Daniel, L., Malczynski, L. et al. A fresh look at a policy sciences methodology: collaborative modeling for more effective policy. Policy Sci 42, 211–225 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9080-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9080-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation