Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the many interleaving issues that emerge when engaging multiple stakeholders in decision-making. Whilst recognising the intrinsic value of group work and keeping in mind the numerous issues that obstruct group work (including multiple roles for participants, bias due to domination and distortion emerging from uneven group inputs), we applied the Imagine method to propose a new framework—the ‘Multiple Formation Consultation Framework’ (MFCF)—for organising effective multi-stakeholder consultations along the Policy Sciences Framework. Our proposed framework was applied in the context of education policy in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, where 24 small group formations were tasked and assessed in a systemic manner. Evidence from the exercise suggests that: (1) when moving participants from heterogeneous to homogenous groups, the working of the groups became more focused and the outcomes gained greater clarity in terms of the thinking of group members. (2) Yet, when groups moved from homogenous formations to heterogeneous, they became more inquisitive and explored broader aspects of the tasks at hand. (3) A repeat of the process over 2-day period where different members of the groups experience both homogenous and heterogeneous formations back and forth (in order to capture the unique value emerging from each composition) have led to more efficient and effective working and outcomes of the groups.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Needless to say, however, there have been some exceptions to such a growing trend even in some of the world’s most democratic constitutions. For example, consider the Education Act 2002—an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—which has transformed state-funded schools into independent institutions. Such independence was secured by removing the powers of local governments to intervene in policy and practice of local education. Whist this Act works in favour for schools that have innovative ideas to improve education, it imposes minimum standards in areas related to health, safety and space requirements (HM Government 2002).

  2. A case in point is growing public participation in scientific research, sometimes referred to as ‘crowd-source science’, where amateur scientists collaborate with professional scientists in research that has been facilitated by advances in technology and has seen non-scientists become more involved in decision-making and policy formulation, including contributing to decisions concerning the development and application of science and technology in society (McCallie et al. 2009).

  3. Deliberative approaches to public participation require participants to be provided with information about the issues being considered. They are encouraged to discuss and challenge this information, exchange opinions and viewpoints and weigh and balance arguments before making a final decision regarding specific or alternative policy options.

  4. ‘Group norms’ can be defined as a standard or rule that is accepted by members of the group as applying to themselves and other group members, prescribing appropriate thought and behaviour within the group (Postmes et al. 2001: 919).

References

  • Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 57(2):239–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ADEC (2014) Education in Abu Dhabi. ADEC Website. Retrieved from: http://www.adec.ac.ae/en/Education/OurEducationSystem/Pages/default.aspx

  • Adler PA, Adler P (1994) Observation techniques. In: Denzin Norman K, Lincoln Yvonna S (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 377–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts DJ (2007) Stakeholders or subject matter experts, who should be consulted? Energy Policy 33(4):2336–2346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman JA, Petkus E (1994) Toward a stakeholder-based policy process: an application of the social marketing perspective to environmental policy development. Policy Sci 27(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theor 18(4):543–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC (2000) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions: Lessons from the case study record. Resources for the Future, Washington. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10686/1/dp000056.pdf

  • Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S (2011) From sustainable community to big society: ten years learning with the imagine approach. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 20(3):247–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S (2008) Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S (2011) An analysis of the factors influencing the use of indicators in the european union. Local Environ 16(3):281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S (2012) Resilient participation: saving the human project?. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Morse S (2013) Towards an understanding of how policy making groups use indicators. Ecol Econ 35:13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Eason K, Frederiksen P, Bauler T, Conrad E, Gudmundsson H, Rinne J et al (2011) POINT (Policy Influence of Indicators): a synthesis of findings. In: Bell S, Eason K, Frederiksen P (eds) Statistics for Policy Making. Eurostat, Charlemagne Building, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell S, Correa Pena A, Prem M (2013) Imagine coastal sustainability. Ocean Coast Manag 83:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridger H (2007) The consultant and the consulting process. In: Handout at the Midhurst Working Conference, The Bayswater Institute, London

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Coudert E, Larid M (2011) IMAGINE: a set of tools and methods to assist integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean. Blue Plan UNEP/MAP Regional Activity Centre, Sophia Antipolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstedt M, Fejes A, Schonning E (2011) The will to (de)liberate: shaping governable citzens through cognitive behavioural programmes in school. J Educ Policy 26(3):399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey NC, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeWalt KM, DeWalt BR (1998) Participant observation. In: Russell Bernard H (ed) Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, pp 259–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theor 22(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon JD (1998) Deliberation as discussion. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 44–68

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth DR (2010) Group dynamics. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold RL (1958) Roles in sociological field observations. Soc Forces 36:217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman CM (1987) The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 12(6):729–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM Government (2002) Explanatory notes to the Education Act 2002. The National Archives Website. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/notes/contents

  • Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison R (2010) Systems practice: how to act in a climate—change world. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1972) Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawulich BB (2005) Participant observation as a data collection method. Qual Soc Res 6(2):43

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein L (2001) On the use of psychoanalytic concepts in organizational social science. Concepts Transform 6(1):59–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz TM, Thomas CW (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Adm Rev 66(1):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1970) The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sci 1(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski ML (1994) Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Hum Relat 47(5):531–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallie E, Bell L, Lohwater T, Falk JH, Lehr JL, Lewenstein BV, Needham C, Wiehe B (2009) Many Experts, Many Audiences: Public Engagement with Science and Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf

  • Merriam SB (1988) Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001) Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004) Review of higher education in Ireland. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010) Review of higher education in the State of Victoria, Australia. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(6):918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Ecol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Webler T, Rakel H, Dienel P, Johnson B (1993) Public participation in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sci 26(3):189–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip A (1985) Experts in Public Arenas. In: Otway HJ, Peltu M (eds) Regulating industrial risks: science, hazards, and public protection. Butterworths, London, pp 94–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values 25(1):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (2005) Swimming upstream. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson D (1985) Contextual orientation in policy analysis: the contribution of Harold D Lasswell. Policy Sci 18(3):241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Kerkhof M (2006) Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sci 39(3):279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ginkel WP, van Knippenberg D (2008) Group information elaboration and group decision making: the role of shared task representations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 105(1):82–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vroom VH (2003) Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Manag Decis 41(10):968–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallner J (2008) Legitimacy and public policy: seeing beyond effectiveness, efficiency and performance. Policy Stud J 36(3):421–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson WE, Michaelsen LK, Sharp W (1991) Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: a longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol 76(6):803–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitty G (2006) Education(al) research and education policy making: is conflict inevitable? Br Educ Res J 32(2):159–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe RA, Putler DS (2002) How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organ Sci 13(1):64–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ (1994) Business and society. HarperCollins College Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ, Gray B (1991) Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. J Appl Behav Sci 27(2):139–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer B (2001) Practicing what we preach in teaching systems practice: the action learning cycle. Syst Pract Action Res 14(6):697–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasser Yassin.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 Data for task 1
Table 2 Data for task 2
Table 3 Data for task 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahroum, S., Bell, S., Al-Saleh, Y. et al. Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy. Syst Pract Action Res 29, 335–353 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9367-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9367-6

Keywords

Navigation