https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Schenk_et_al_2016a 2026-05-11T04:13:51Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.27.0-wmf.10 https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Schenk_et_al_2016a&diff=215671&oldid=prev 2021-02-16T09:48:07Z

<p>Scipediacontent moved page <a href="/public/Draft_Content_553585248" class="mw-redirect" title="Draft Content 553585248">Draft Content 553585248</a> to <a href="/public/Schenk_et_al_2016a" title="Schenk et al 2016a">Schenk et al 2016a</a></p> <table class="diff diff-contentalign-left" data-mw="interface"> <tr style='vertical-align: top;' lang='en'> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td> <td colspan='1' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 09:48, 16 February 2021</td> </tr><tr><td colspan='2' style='text-align: center;' lang='en'><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div> </td></tr></table>

Scipediacontent https://www.scipedia.com/wd/index.php?title=Schenk_et_al_2016a&diff=215670&oldid=prev 2021-02-16T09:48:04Z

<p>Created page with &quot; == Abstract == Joint fact-finding has been advanced as a method for helping stakeholders grappling with technically intensive policy and planning challenges to collaborative...&quot;</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div><br /> == Abstract ==<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Original document ==<br /> <br /> The different versions of the original document can be found in:<br /> <br /> * [http://dx.doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2016.16.1.3132 http://dx.doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2016.16.1.3132]<br /> <br /> * [http://hdl.handle.net/10919/80379 http://hdl.handle.net/10919/80379]<br /> <br /> * [http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:b7c7568b-c828-4f3c-955d-56a81c9a2077 http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:b7c7568b-c828-4f3c-955d-56a81c9a2077]<br /> <br /> * [http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c4d154c0-2fda-4594-ab19-d7edc726387d http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c4d154c0-2fda-4594-ab19-d7edc726387d]<br /> <br /> * [https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/index.php/ejtir/article/view/3132 https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/index.php/ejtir/article/view/3132],<br /> : [https://doaj.org/toc/1567-7141 https://doaj.org/toc/1567-7141]</div>

Scipediacontent