Advertisement

Lessons Learned: Acquiring Insights from Non-Operational Research Perspectives

  • Hubert KorziliusEmail author
  • Pleun van Arensbergen
Chapter

Abstract

In Behavioral Operational Research (OR) non-expert use of methods is high on the agenda, yet this is underdeveloped so far. Other fields of research, such as anthropology and rural development, intensively use methods geared toward incorporating values, knowledge, and experiences of laymen and local communities, in particular Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). In this chapter we aim to highlight how OR might benefit from such non-expert method usage. In order to do this, we employ a content analysis in the Web of Science data base on empirical community-based PRA research papers using modeling and mapping. We focus on methodological issues dealing with participation, data collection methods, modeling and mapping tools and reported strengths and weaknesses. The analysis of PRA papers shows, among others, that problem ownership and engagement of local people are essential for empowerment, support for change and implementation of solutions. Translated to OR this would mean that less emphasis should be put on stakeholders’ commitment to contribute, rather their abilities to implement changes seem vital. PRA learns that accommodating interventions in familiar ways of working and communicating optimizes stakeholders’ ability to analyze and solve their own problems.

References

  1. Bar-On, A., & Prinsen, G. (1999). Planning, communities, and empowerment: An introduction to participatory rural appraisal. International Social Work, 42(3), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bleijenbergh, I. Korzilius, H., Van der Wal, M., & Rouwette, E. (2018). Quality criteria for action research: The importance of usefulness and relevance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference. Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Chambers, R. (1994a). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franco, L., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hämäläinen, R., Luoma, J., & Saarinen, E. (2013). On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(3), 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.Google Scholar
  11. Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Community Based System Dynamics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hovmand, P. S., Yadama, G., Chalise, N., Calhoun, A., & Conner, D. (2010). Combining group model building and participatory rural appraisal in southeast rural India. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  13. Mingers, J. (2011). Soft OR comes of age—But not everywhere! Omega, 39(6), 729–741.Google Scholar
  14. Rouwette, E., Vennix, J., & Van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schein, E. H. (1999). Process Consultation Revisited: Building the Helping Relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. White, L., & Taket, A. (1997). Beyond appraisal: Participatory appraisal of needs and the development of action (PANDA). Omega, 25(5), 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yadama, G., Hovmand, P., & Chalise, N. (2010). Community driven modeling of social-ecological systems: Lessons from Andhra Pradesh, India. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the System Dynamic Society. Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Van Hall LarensteinUniversity of Applied SciencesVelpThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations