FASE 5: Fase de optimización
4. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES
Analysis of the interview data and documents in light of the boundary organisation criteria was undertaken using the evaluation research method. Evaluation research has been described by White (2006, p. 166) as “a means to investigate the scope, reach and interactions associated with an intervention” and “a means to gauge competency and performance”. The evaluation research method was used for this research due to its focus on the assessment of particular programmes. Therefore, it provides the evaluative means to undertake an assessment of the performance of the ICM programme.
Analysing qualitative data can be a difficult task as there is no one right way or process to follow in order to get the results as there is with the quantitative approach (Paulsen & Dailey, 2002). In order to get the best possible results from the interview data this study underwent the following process:
Firstly the study collected and organised data according to the three different interview groups (researchers, policy analysts and CRG members). Patterns within the data which related to the criteria of boundary organisations were then identified according to which interview groups that data came from. This process was then repeated as recommended by Paulsen and Dailey (2002) in order to pick up any issues which may have been missed during the first search. Once the patterns between the data and criteria were identified the next step involved bringing these patterns together in order to build a solid collection of evidence which corresponded with the different criteria. These bodies of evidence were then applied to the criteria in order to analyse the role of the ICM programme and how it compared to the theory of boundary organisations. In order to connect the data with boundary
organisation theory, quotations were used within the text to provide a personal insight and connection with the interviewee.
boundary organisation to foster positive relationships and collaboration it must be viewed by actors on both sides of the science-policy divide as being able to produce salient, credible and legitimate information (Cash et al., 2006). If a boundary organisation is unable to
produce these knowledge attributes it will likely not succeed in gaining trust and support from the different actors involved in the issue (Cash et al., 2006).
• Salience:
The salience of knowledge refers to the relevance of information for an actor’s decision choices that affect a given stakeholder (Cash et al., 2002). Salience can be seen through a programme’s/project’s ability to focus on issues relevant to a wide range of actors within a ‘real world’ context. These research issues are presented in a manner which highlights the benefits of the research to all those involved.
• Credibility:
Knowledge is produced via appropriate research methods which are seen as transparent and credible to both researchers and other actors. As well as being credible, research needs to be presented in laymen’s terms so as to be
understandable to all interested groups. • Legitimacy:
Actors both within and outside of the system view the processes as unbiased and meeting standards of political and procedural fairness (Cash et al., 2002). Legitimacy is achieved through providing a high level of accountability to all actors.
The production of knowledge attributes is complicated by the fact the three factors of salience, credibility and legitimacy are all interconnected and rely on an even balance
between each other. For example if a project is seen as having a high level of salience (lots of community buy-in) it may as a result suffer from a lower standard of legitimacy
(stakeholders view the project as being hijacked by the community). In order to manage this complicated relationship it is vital that all three attributes are produced and managed together rather than as individuals in isolation.
Salience
“You are focused on the wrong issue”
Legitimacy “The process has been
corrupted”
Credibility “We don't believe this
result”
Knowledge Attributes
Figure 4.6.1 Evaluative framework
Salience Credibility Legitimacy
Convene Different actors, groups and institutions meet regularly to discuss relevant issues
Convening processes are open, transparent and easy to understand
All actors, groups and institutions are involved. Convening process are seen as unbiased and fair
Translate Translating processes are built around issues within a timely real world context
High quality information is presented in layman’s terms via credible methods
Translating processes are seen as accountable to all actors involved.
Mediate Mediation focuses on a wide range of local catchment related issues
Mediators maintain
healthy relationships with a wide range of actors, groups and institutions
Mediation processes are seen as neutral and fair. They include all the actors, groups and institutions involved in the issue
Collaborate Collaborative projects are based around issues which interest researchers, policy makers, stakeholders, iwi and the public
Research involves inputs from the actors and groups involved (e.g. public). Processes and events are used to foster
collaboration and build relationships
Research outputs are seen as trustworthy and accurate by all those involved in its production