Abstract

This report examines the current approaches in policies with respect to diversity for the city of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. As a background, we first provide an overview of the national political system and the governance structure for diversity in Rotterdam. We examine which actors - both governmental and non-governmental and at multiple levels of scale - are involved in the governance of diversity in Rotterdam. In addition, we give a short outline of key shifts in national policy discourses on diversity, citizenship and in-migration since the 1980s. Second, we analyse dominant governmental discourses on urban policy and diversity. Therefore, we examine how diversity is addressed in the most significant documents that deal with diversity in Rotterdam. On the basis of qualitative interviews, we also examine how governmental policy actors in the city understand the policies. Third, we also examine non-governmental views on diversity policy. Amongst others, we identify the importance of diversity as a policy issue, and the meaning, objectives and targets of the relevant policies, in different important fields, such as integration, housing, education, and work.

Abstract

Joint fact-finding has been advanced as a method for helping stakeholders grappling with technically intensive policy and planning challenges to collaboratively engage in research and arrive at shared sets of facts to inform their decision-making. This paper introduces joint fact-finding and considers its application in the context of infrastructure stakeholders aiming to assess and increase the resilience of their infrastructure systems to climate change. A set of evaluative criteria is introduced, which are proposed for assessing joint fact finding processes both procedurally and substantively in terms of the outcomes, considering them to be both arenas for collaborative governance and joint knowledge production efforts. These criteria are applied to a case in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. This case suggests that joint fact-finding can provide value, but also reveals some lessons. For the efforts themselves, these lessons relate to: The practical applicability of the outcomes; the inherently contingent nature of the outcomes when addressing wicked problems; questions of representation from stakeholder groups; and the importance of leadership and good process design. The following observations are made regarding the criteria: While they are typically interdependent, both process and outcomes should be evaluated; and more attention should be paid to the method and metrics of evaluation, while recognizing that there is no single formula or approach that can be applied, given the heterogeneity of the criteria. © 2016, Editorial Board EJTIR. All rights reserved.