• No results found

Does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition?

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition?"

Copied!
78
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy

process in the context of the Dutch energy transition?

A thesis written for a Masters of Public Administration at Leiden University

by

Joe Hardwell

Student number: s2278944

Thesis supervisor: Dr. S.N Giest

(2)

Abstract

This thesis seeks to answer the question of, does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition? Active participation of society in our policymaking processes are crucial in tackling societal issues we face today, ranging from climate change, economic recessions, and health pandemics. The use of policy labs could enable this effective inclusion of many segments of our society, ranging from citizens and policymakers, to expert researchers. Academic literature argues through concepts that citizen involvement in policy processes is adequate, but to what extent is this true? How are

municipalities handling the increasing use of data and research methods to create a successful energy transition? To answer the research question, expert interviews and case study analysis were carried out. The results demonstrates how municipalities are gaining knowledge and experience in using data and the policy method through assistance from TNO. Citizen involvement is currently restricted to the implementation phase of the policy lab cycle.

Overall, this thesis argues that the use of policy labs currently does, and will lead to a stronger participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition.

(3)

Contents

1 – Introduction……….5

1.1a – Research Question………...….7

1.1b – Expanding upon the research question……….7

1.1c – Academic relevance………... ..9

1.1d – How the thesis progresses………...10

1.1e – Overview of the upcoming chapters………...…11

2 – Literature Review……….13

2.1 – Big data with evidence-based policymaking………...14

2.1a – Big data for policymaking………...14

2.1b – Evidence-based policymaking………...…16 2.2 – Participation Literature………....25 2.2a – Co-creation/Co-production………...…..25 2.2b – Policy Labs……….27 2.2c – Stakeholders.………...32 2.3 – Hypotheses……….….34

3 – Research Design and Data Collection………....35

3.1 – Operationalization of concepts………...35

(4)

3.2a – Expert Interviews………..38

3.2b – Case Studies………..…41

3.3 – Justification in the choice of methods of analysis……….…….41

3.3a – The triangulation of evidence in the form of expert interviews, case studies, and literature/policy reports………...42

3.4 – Theory testing or theory generating?...43

3.5 – Reflection on validity or reliability………43

3.5a – Reliability……….…45

3.5b – Validity………..…...46

4 - Case Description………..47

4.1 – Zoetermeer……….47

5 – Analysis………51

5.1 – Validation or rejection of the hypotheses………..63

6 – Conclusion………...66

6.1 - Restating main elements of the thesis………66

6.2 - Answering the research question………67

6.3 – Reflection………...68

6.4 – Acknowledgements………70

(5)

1 – Introduction

Decisions are made every day that greatly impact both our daily lives as well as the choices and decisions we are able to make in the future. Laws and policies are theorized, designed, developed and made official by government bodies through the help of experts and lobbyists. Recently, a shift had occurred within the realm of policymaking whereby the inclusion of a larger range of stakeholders became more popular, whether this be from new methods of participation, or a higher level of interest in issues. These stakeholders ranged significantly from all aspects of society, from entrepreneurs and private investors, to the citizens whose lives would be affected by these proposed policies. One of the tools used to promote and utilize this newer method of policymaking to be more inclusive of a larger variety of stakeholders was policy labs.

As citizens, one of our most popular and primary methods of influence within policymaking is through electoral voting, using our right to vote to choose who we wish to represent us on a national and global scale, and providing them with a mandate to achieve their political goals. However, aside from this initial voting of political candidates, the average citizen’s influence of policies is traditionally non-existent. Why is this? Factors such as levels of apathy towards politics, not understanding how to effectively influence policies, or even poor knowledge of how to become involved in the policymaking process. Living in a society where citizens are actively engaged within the policymaking process, or even having ability and knowledge to know how to participate if they wished, would only go on to strengthen their community due to the possibility for increased levels of transparency, and creating effective policies through understanding what citizens want and are comfortable with.

(6)

The question that naturally arises then is one of how to include a wider variety of stakeholders to a greater extent within this realm of policymaking? One of the methods being used to promote and drive this inclusion is using policy labs, which have slightly varied definitions from author to author. For example, Cavallini et al (2016) declare that these policy labs place the user at the center of the innovation process by coordinating with other

stakeholders, integrating varied interests, and integrating multiple skills and abilities in decision making. Additionally, Molinari (2011) succinctly summarizes the labs by declaring that, “we can define living labs as territorial policy instruments where all the key stakeholders of research and development and innovation governance – namely firms, public authorities, universities and citizens – collectively form a Public-Private-People-Partnership (PPPP) for the join support and management of systematics innovation according to an open, user-driven perspective” (p133). In theory, this use of policy labs as a tool to better include a variety of stakeholders, particularly citizens, during the policymaking process could provide a highly effective and inclusive method that could see policies become increasingly more effective due to including those stakeholders who are the ones most affected by the decisions taken, as it will directly impact their lives. Living in a society where this tool was used frequently and effectively would greatly benefit the effectiveness in dealing with societal issues, however, there are scores of literature and some case studies that tell a rather different story in the use and effectiveness of these policy and living labs. Academics have both greatly praised and also criticized the use of the labs from the perspective of including certain stakeholders, and how the citizen’s input can often be masqueraded and boiled down to merely be seen as achieving a quota.

Within the actual realm of policymaking, there are a select few topics in the world today that are at the forefront of discussions and debates, these being climate change, the pending economic recession, and the current COVID-19 pandemic. All three currently do and

(7)

will continue to greatly impact society as a whole, and the solutions to many of these

challenges, it can be argued, can have some of their roots emerge from the increased inclusion of citizens during the policymaking process. This is so that the solutions and policies designed and developed are appropriate for those who it will affect directly, the average citizen. This is because policies that aim to reduce say carbon emissions and greenhouse gases are in theory made redundant if they are designed in a way in which citizens cannot understand, or even have appropriate knowledge of. This possible failure in the appropriate inclusion of a variety of stakeholders, and specifically citizens, coupled with pressing societal issues leads to the research question underpinning this thesis, ‘does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition?’

1.1a – Research Question

Does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition? To work towards finding an answer to this research question, it is important to identify a selection of stakeholders as the mechanism relevant to policy labs being successful and having the desired impact for this energy transition. Therefore, the selection of stakeholders for this investigation will include citizens, the organizers of the policy labs within the energy transition context, as well as the municipalities affected.

1.1b – Expanding upon the research question

As will become clearer in the literature review, it is argued by some academics and authors that stakeholders were indeed included within some of the policy labs held, but only in the sense of generating views and expressions that agreed with the narrative of those organizing public participatory tools, such as policy labs. Therefore, this thesis finds that in

(8)

certain cases, stakeholders such as the citizens, who are the ones primarily affected by the legislative changes stemming from policies, are not included in the discussions tackling the societal challenge of achieving an energy transition within the Netherlands, to a legitimate level. As will become clearer during the literature review section, there are academics which both agree and disagree with this sentiment to varying levels.

Regarding which groups are included in the word stakeholders and which groups will be specifically focused upon during this thesis, the term stakeholders within the context of a policy/living lab varies depending on how the organizer(s) of the lab sees fit. As will be discussed in greater depth during the literature review, a typical list of stakeholders present in these labs involves citizens, policymakers, entrepreneurs, private company representatives, investors, politicians, and local authorities. In terms of a specific focus to answer the research question, the stakeholders deemed as the mechanism relevant to policy labs being impactful and successful for this transition include the citizens, organizers of the policy labs, and the municipalities where the labs are taking place. The reason behind investigating the citizens’ involvement and contributions as a stakeholder stem from various literature detailing how citizens’ involvement can be perceived as artificial. By this, it is meant that their inclusion can been viewed as merely ceremonial, without any legitimate impact or weight backing up their opinions.

The decision was taken to investigate the role of the citizens, the organizers of policy labs, and the municipalities involved essentially revolves around the following points. The aspects of feasibility and measurability are of vital importance to any research project, which is why the decision was taken to investigate solely those three stakeholders, instead of the political aspect for example. It is argued that from a data collection standpoint, it is more likely to be able to obtain richer amounts of data from the policy labs organizers about their experiences in working with citizens and the municipalities, as opposed to politicians in a

(9)

policy implementation role due to possible red tape. Additionally, the three aforementioned stakeholders are likely to have a much higher level of vested interest within these energy transition policy labs due to the repercussions the results of the labs may have on their lives. Furthermore, as has been previously stated, the role of the citizen is a relatively

undocumented stakeholder, meaning that there is a legitimate gap within the literature surrounding policy labs, stakeholder involvement, and participation literature in general.

1.1c – Academic relevance

In determining the academic relevance of the research undertaken, it can be broken down into various avenues based on the main theoretical concepts investigated. Firstly, Head’s (2008) three challenges in achieving rational evidence-based policymaking, which encompasses the political narrative, different interpretations of information, and the complex modern arrangements of networks and collaborative governance, has not been distinctly analyzed within the context of a policy lab.

Secondly, regarding the data aspect, the research undertaken during this thesis seeks to understand how the use and collection of data is utilized in a policy lab, which has a wide variety of stakeholders, who all of which have differing levels of interest, insight and

knowledge. This is important for public administration as a whole due to the need of wanting to involve the public in both policy formulation and implementation.

Thirdly, the supposed shift to the quadruple helix, advocated by Cavallini et al (2016), which proclaims that civil society has become “an active part of the innovation system” (p7) through the utilization of policy labs. Being able to measure and evaluate whether this shift has occurred within the context of the Zoetermeer policy lab will be valuable.

(10)

1.1d – How the thesis progresses

Due to the research question underpinning this thesis being that of an explanatory nature, ‘does the use of policy labs lead to a participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition?’, it is naturally investigating the relationship between two variables, the independent and the dependent variables.

The independent variable, which is stated to be the cause of the relationship, will be the use of policy labs, whereas the dependent variable, known as the effect, will be a

participatory policy process in the context of the Dutch energy transition. Overall, this thesis is investigating whether this use of policy labs will include various stakeholders who will be affected by this energy transition, such as the citizens and the municipalities where these projects are taking place. By interviewing organizers of these policy labs from past and current projects, this thesis hopes to understand whether there has been a marked

improvement of participation and involvement from these aforementioned stakeholders, and what possible issues or obstacles these organizers experience during these policy labs that might be affecting the Dutch energy transition in being more inclusive.

To understand what barriers and obstacles hinder this relationship, which in turn will ultimately answer the research question, this thesis will utilize various research methods to collect the data needed. The methods of data collection that will be used are expert interviews coupled with case study analysis based on the interviewee’s experiences. The reason for conducting expert interviews is to understand the thoughts and opinions of researchers who have conducted their own policy labs around the energy transition domain within the Netherlands. It is theorized that by interviewing experts who have worked in the field for numerous years and across a variety of projects, it might be the case that some aspects of the literature surrounding the inclusion of various stakeholders in policy labs can be criticized or agreed with. To complement the expert interviews, case study analysis will be conducted on

(11)

the case study of Zoetermeer, which will be expanded upon in greater detail during chapter 4.1, as well as a marked reference to other policy labs that the interviewees have been involved, notably Rotterdam and G4. The justification behind this decision is to analyze whether case studies over time have demonstrated signs of altered stakeholder involvement in these policy labs. It is theorized that as time progresses during the analysis, the involvement and inclusion of these stakeholders, such as citizens and the municipalities, increases. The method of analysis that will be used to involve comparing opinions and thoughts discovered from the expert interviews to that of case studies will be reviewed, as well as the contrasting knowledge obtained from the interviews to the main findings from the literature highlighted during the literature review chapter. It is hoped that the concepts expressed within the

literature contrast with the expert interviewee’s opinions in order to agree or disagree with the proposed hypotheses, which are outlined at the conclusion of the literature review chapter.

1.1e – Overview of the upcoming chapters

Looking forward as to how this thesis progresses, the immediate chapter that follows is that of the literature review. This section is designed to inform the reader of the main theories and concepts advocated by scholars and academics. Through highlighting these concepts and theories, it should become apparent to the reader as to how these have developed over time, as well as where any potential gaps are within the vast of amount of literature. By conveying these theories and gaps, it is hoped that the reader understands why this research question that this thesis seeks to answer was chosen. The third chapter, research design and data collection, will demonstrate to the reader how the concepts discussed during the literature will be operationalized so that they can be discussed during the analysis section. Additionally, the choices in the methods of data collection will be justified. The case description chapter will provide important contextual information on the Zoetermeer policy lab project which is

(12)

the center of the investigation. The next section is that of the analysis chapter, this is where the arguments will be built that align with the hypotheses. The evidence for these arguments will come in the form of using quotes from the interviews conducted, which will be intricately linked to the theoretical framework. The last chapter will entail the concluding remarks, which will include providing an overall summary of the thesis, as well as highlighting the key arguments, theories and findings that were discussed in the previous chapters.

(13)

2 – Literature Review

Regarding the specifics of the literature review chapter, it is broken down into two main halves, the first being big data with evidence-based policymaking, and the second half revolving around participation literature. In order to effectively demonstrate the differences within the category of big data with evidence-based policymaking, this half has been split further into the two sections of evidence-based policymaking and big data for policymaking. The primary justification for this split is due to the differing stages within the policy cycle in which these two categories appear at. For example, the use of big data for policymaking is argued to be used at a much earlier stage within the policy cycle in comparison to evidence-based policymaking, which is said to be used at the implementation stage (Poel, Meyer and Schroeder, 2018). Ultimately, within the evidence-based policymaking camp, two opposing sides emerge. One tends to look for simple technical solutions, whereas others seek to focus on identifying the underlying value conflicts of a basis for dialogue, mediation and conflict reduction prior to discussion of next step towards solutions (Lewicki et al, 2003).

The second section of the literature review focusses on participation literature, and branches off into the three sub-sections of policy labs, co-creation/co-production and stakeholders. The purpose behind dedicating a section towards participation literature is to understand how public participation within policymaking has developed over time, and to discover what factors continue to hinder its development so that it can adequately encompass more citizens to participate in policymaking effectively. This chapter concludes by presenting the proposed hypotheses in which the thesis will either prove or disprove based off the

analysis and results sections.

The aim of this section is that through discussing and dissecting previous research efforts and literature within the two respective fields, this literature review “should reach a conclusion about how accurate and complete that knowledge is” (Knopf, 2006, p127), as well

(14)

as enabling the reader to understand, according to my judgement, “what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s inconclusive, and what’s missing in the existing literature” (Knopf, 2006, p127). Whereas this thesis is specifically investigating the use of policy labs in relation to the societal challenge of energy, the main discussions surrounding big data with evidence-based policymaking and participation literature will take a more generalized approach. The logic behind this stems from the reasoning that a timeline portrayal of these categories will allow the reader to understand how the author’s logic and concepts have altered over time, and what past logic can explain the underlying issues surrounding stakeholder involvement present today.

2.1 – Big data with evidence-based policymaking

This section of the literature will begin with discussing two separate forms of policymaking, evidence-based policymaking, and big data for policymaking. Although initially these two concepts will be analyzed through two separate lenses, as the subsection progresses, the two will converge due to their similarities in combating societal challenges through policymaking, to transform into big data with evidence-based policymaking.

2.1a – Big data for policymaking

Whereas the section below regarding evidence-based policymaking will refer to the use of evidence at the implementation section of the policy cycle, the use of big data for policymaking is argued to be at a much earlier stage (Poel, Meyer and Schroeder, 2018). Their reasoning stems from research suggesting that big data is used more often in the policy cycle for foresight and agenda setting, rather than for policy implementation and

(15)

initiatives, and to elaborate on a number of challenges discussed in the literature. Their concluding remarks were that whilst data-driven approaches can increase the transparency of the policy process, there is a possibility of reducing transparency if the sources and analysis of the data requires expertise. Therefore, big data for policymaking requires data literacy on the side of the citizens as stakeholders. In terms of creating policy labs, how can citizens be expected to be fully included in discussions and analysis if they cannot completely understand the data samples, results and techniques? This can potentially justify why it is important to question the legitimacy of stakeholder input.

Jansse, van der Voor and Wahyudi (2016) continue with the theme displayed from Poel, Meyer and Schroeder (2018), in that the veracity, variety and velocity amplified by the size of big data calls for relational and contractual governance mechanisms to ensure big data quality. Their case study revealed that taking advantage of big data is an evolutionary process. Van der Voort, Klievink, Arnaboldi and Meijer (2019), focus on how big data must inevitably encounter existing political and managerial institutions. They look at the interaction between data analysts and decision makers, and distinguish between a rational view and a political view, as well as between an informational logic and a decision logic.

When comparing evidence-based policymaking to that of big data for policymaking, Van Veenstra and Kotterink (2017) state that since it is mainly concerned with the inclusion of big and open data sources into policymaking, as well as with the co-creation of policy by involving citizens. This data-driven policymaking approach utilizes real time data and new techniques, however, realizing data-driven policymaking is complex. They point towards the challenges of capturing, integrating and re-using data, as well as the involvement of citizens and stakeholders in policymaking. However, these challenges are not solely affecting data-driven policymaking techniques, for example, “factors like lack of organizational capacity, less of human resource expertise, views that are taken on the data, and the weak commitments

(16)

from decision-makers are some challenges to prevent the use of evidence-based

policymaking” (Luthfi and Janssen, 2019, p1077). As will become evident during later chapters, the factors mentioned above such as organizational capacity and expertise will be touched upon in relation to comments made during interviews, which will be shown in the analysis chapter.

2.1b – Evidence-based policymaking

This emergence of evidence-based policymaking in social science has its foundations set from evidence-based medicine in the 1970s and 1980s and became extremely prominent during Tony Blair’s reign as Prime Minister (Newman, 2017). Within this domain, evidence was seen as an instrument to develop policies considered neutral, apolitical and rationalist. Additionally, it represented a sort of rupture with the way previous governments operated. Davies (2004) noted how, through the Modernizing Government White Paper of 1999, policy must be based on substantial evidence, then evaluated and based on best practices. This evidence-based policy movement “urges policymakers to select policies on the basis of the best available evidence that they work” (Marchionni and Reijula, 2019, p54) and that

evidence-based policy “utilizes evidence-ranking schemes to evaluate the quality of evidence to support a given policy, which typically prioritize meta-analyses and randomized control trials” (p54). Newman (2017) declares that scholars have drawn similarities between this approach of evidence-based policy to New Public Management reforms, which attempted to apply and transfer private-sector management techniques to the public sector. In this scenario, it would be the evidence that would help improve the efficiency of decision making (Davies, 1999; Newman, 2017). Head (2008) conveys how this approach is consistent with the interest of the public sector of efficiency and effectiveness. Luthfi and Janssen (2019) highlight this use of evidence-based policymaking in the context of governmental use by proclaiming, “the

(17)

common expectation is that releasing data will result in evidence-based policymaking and more trust in government decisions” (p1071). However, when analysing this, a question could be asked as to who exactly are the targets of these increased levels of trust? Would it be the citizens, voters, or even donors to the political parties?

The actual role of the government has evolved slightly within the field of policy and evidence-based to one that is seen to invest in research facilities to investigate certain issues and/or challenges, as well as managing policy-research functions inside agencies and commissioning research to external consultants. However, Head (2008) notes how the

government was still influential in the outsourced research process by determining the priority areas for research through allocating specific funding. In some instances, the government in question encouraged contestability in some fields by commissioning research to different agencies and consultancy companies (Head, 2008). Newman’s (2017) overarching opinion on the influence of governments in these practices is that the government would essentially decide the direction of the research undertaken by the outside contractors. This therefore questions the actual autonomy or even legitimacy of the research agencies and consultancy firms to conduct their research in an unbiased manner. To link this point directly to the research question, one could even consider whether this structure and governmental influence creates an environment whereby outside influence, such as the role of the citizen as an

apparent stakeholder, is simply ceremonial in that their opinions or concerns are rarely considered heavily.

To delve deeper into the realm of evidence-based policymaking, attention turns to Head (2008), who postulates three different challenges standing in the way of achieving rational evidence-based policy. The three challenges, which will be explored individually, are that of a political narrative, different interpretations of information, and the complex modern arrangements of networks and collaborative governance. At the foundations of

(18)

evidence-based policy, social science and public decision-makers had not always had cordial relations. In fact, there was a history of mutual distrust between these sectors during the last two centuries. However, “scientific and technical knowledge has been greatly prized in the evolution of the modern state, initially because of its links to economic growth and national defense, and later to address the aspirations for social improvement by citizens” (Head, 2008, p1). When analysing the public policy domain, governments continue to lead the role as major users of applied social sciences, in other words, “they do not simply receive, scan and utilize research; they engage on many levels to influence the processes and products” (Head, 2008, p2). However, how do these different levels of government influence interfere with public participation tools such as policy las in tackling societal issues?

Head (2008) claims that governments can exercise influence through two main avenues. Firstly, that of determining national priority areas, and secondly, encouraging contestability in some policy arenas by diversifying their sources of advice. However, in tackling societal issues, it is often the case that the problems are complex and cross-cutting. Therefore, within these areas, “a negotiated and relational approach to problem-solving may emerge. These approaches are common in the policy domain that are rich in ‘network’ approaches, partnering and community engagement” (Head, 2008, p4). In relation to this thesis, attempts can be made to uncover whether there is a rich network available to the organizers of these living/policy labs tackling the energy transition, and what the effects of these possible networks are. Although Head (2008) advocates for the inclusion of multiple forms of policy-relevant knowledge in achieving high-quality evidence-based policies, there is a degree of acknowledgement that there is not one evidence-based, but several ones; which is a testament echoed by Pawson et al (2003), Davies (2004), and Schorr (2003), and that “these disparate bodies of knowledge become multiple sets of evidence that inform and influence policy rather than determine it” (Head, 2008, p4). These three forms of

(19)

policy-relevant knowledge are political, scientific, and practical implication knowledge. This political form of knowledge adheres primarily in politicians, parties, organized groups, and the public affairs media. With the knowledge being contested owing to its partisan and adversarial context (Head, 2008). However, Head (2008) refers to the possible deceptive and convenient nature regarding the political know-how in choosing certain ‘evidence’. This can lead to legitimate and valid information being overlooked and dismissed. As Head (2008) highlights, “this partisan use of evidence is often regarded as ‘typical’ political behavior and part of the ‘game’ of political argument” (p5). This is further exacerbated by Head’s (2008) belief that certain policy subjects for a government “are no longer open to further debates about the nature of the problem, the best policy solution, and the range of evidence relevant to assessing policy effectiveness” (p5). This essentially equates to the scenario whereby certain policy positions are immune, or rather, ‘data-proof’ and ‘evidence-proof’ due to political ideologies.

Head’s (2008) overarching argument appears to be that there is not one evidence-base, but rather several bases, and that these separate bodies of knowledge converge into multiple sets of evidence that are then used to inform and influence policy, rather than determine it. The most significant drawback within this method appears to be the political context, for example, “the political executives of government are not especially adept at hearing and seeking out the voices of implementers, especially those who suggest that the program goals cannot be delivered because their framework is flawed or resources are clearly inadequate” (p8). Added into this concoction are the plethora of networks, partnerships and collaborative governance that can be challenging to harness to the traditional forms of knowledge

management.

Aside from the potential political deceptiveness argued for by Head (2008), Newman et al (2017) appears to write from a less abrasive angle in stating that naivety is a possible

(20)

reason for the difficulties experienced with evidence-based policymaking. For example, the deficiencies within the public service, with the argument being that “inadequate

organizational processes to support research use, in conjuncture with poor education, training and leadership among staff, have hindered evidence-based policymaking within the public sector” (p159). This inability to effectively work within this domain of policymaking is said to arise from a low ‘policy capacity’. Newman et al (2017) writes of two definitions of policy capacity that are rampant within the literature today. The first is that “there are those who use the term to refer to a government’s autonomy and capability to create its own desired policy objectives and then to generate some course of action to address those objectives” (p160). This essentially boils down to whether a certain government has the desired freedom to generate and then implement public policy. The second definition revolves around those “who see policy capacity as relating to technical capacities, mainly within the formulation stages of the policy cycles” (p160). The policy capacity within this definition “represents the level of expertise of the employees of the state, in the form of the training, skill sets and overall experience of the policy workforce in government agencies” (Voyer, 2007, p222). Aside from the skillsets, the quality in the level of infrastructure to transmit the data between bureaucratic departments, agencies and units is also marked. In their paper, Newman et al (2017)

conducted a case study of the Australian public servants to explore the value of academic research among policy makers. They conducted the cases amongst the three largest Australian states and sent questionnaires. In their results, it suggests that “although Australian public servants seem to have good access to academic research, they are not using it systematically in crafting policy analysis and advice” (p165). One of the major contributing factors to this, it is argued, is due to many of the civil servants not having postgraduate education, and have extremely limited experience in training with academia. This appears to stoke to flames in acknowledging that levels of policymaking success are affected by capacity.

(21)

Adding an additional voice criticizing aspects of evidence-based policymaking, Marchionni and Reijula (2019) state that scholars have been openly critical towards some of the central tenants of evidence-based policymaking. For example, questioning the use of randomized control trials as being the ‘gold standard’, as well as Sampson, Winship and Knight, (2013, in Marchionni and Reijula, 2019) stating that “attempting to establish internal validity by means of randomized control trials is only the first step in designing effective policy” (p54).

Within the realm of evidence-based policymaking, it was traditional to put meta-analyses and randomized controls tests at the peak of the list, with basic sciences, such as case studies and laboratory experiments placed at the bottom (Marchionni and Reijula, 2019). Due to this ranking system, critical voices have raised concerns, and think it is unfair to dismiss this mechanistic evidence within evidence-based policymaking. “A recent influential line of critique is that the hierarchies unduly regard evidence from laboratory experiments and case studies as inferior to that obtained from statistical studies, for example, referring to the health sciences, claims that evidence hierarchies fail to take into account the fact that many statistical studies provide only evidence of probabilities” (Marchionni and Reijula, 2019, p55). Thus, meaning that mechanistic evidence, which is usually gathered from case studies, is also needed.

To add further clarity to this notion of mechanistic evidence within evidence-based policymaking, Clarke et al 2014 (in Marchionni and Reijula (2019), deploy the argument that “statistical studies provide evidence that the policy variable, X, makes a difference to the policy outcome, Y, mechanistic evidence gives information about either the existence or the nature of a causal mechanism connecting the two; in other words, about the entities and activities meditating the X-Y relationship” (p55). In summary, they state that both types of

(22)

evidence are needed to establish causal claims, to design and interpret trials, and to discover findings.

Continuing with the theme of challenges within the realm of evidence-based policymaking, a multitude of authors declare that the two main challenges are that of

operational and political challenges. Davies (2004); Newman et al (2017) and Stoker & Evans (2016) describe how evidence-based policy ascribes most pitfalls of this approach to political manipulation of evidence. An instance of this would be the tendency to use selected prices of research in a strategic manner to support previously chosen goals and objectives. Scholars tend to agree that the political use of evidence is legitimate and inevitable in a democratic system, as dealing with entirely objective evidence would not be possible since the evidence is organized, researched and formulated by human beings, who would all have their own predetermined opinions, values and political ideologies. Therefore, dealing with evidence always leaves the door open to subjective interpretation (Newman et al, 2017). The

operational challenges related to evidence-based policymaking can be summarized succinctly by Newman et al (2017) who highlight how despite a favored belief that policymakers should create policies to achieve concrete social objectives, the use of different types of evidence in policymaking seems to remain deceptive. Head (2008) notes how the difficulties in adopting research evidence coming from multiple sources, and consolidating apposing interpretation while bridging the gap between research producers and consumers appears to be difficult.

Head (2010) refers to the concept of evidence-based policymaking as an entity that is by no means a finished article. Whereas the primary goal would be to “improve the reliability of advice concerning the efficiency and effectiveness of policy settings and possible

alternatives” (p13), concerns arise due to the potential of important qualitative evidence being overlooked. Fundamentally, key requirements to evidence-based policymaking are good data, analytical skills and political support (Head, 2010), therefore, even when members of

(23)

government are reaching conclusions, their own values and political preferences are still big determining factors in regards to their decision-making capabilities.

(Figure 2.1 Cited in Head (2010) via the Scottish Executive 2006)

The above model referenced in Head’s (2010) article from the Scottish Executive (2006), attempts to create a visual aid to demonstrate how stakeholder engagement could occur in a system that “allows for reiteration of process steps and continual processes of further consultation and gathering of evidence” (p20). However, as with all models, their action in practice is often not textbook. The center sphere of engaging customers and stakeholders leaves a significant amount of interpretation. For example, what exactly

classifies as appropriate engagement? Is engagement simply making stakeholders aware of a policy being implemented, or allowing them to declare their concerns, or add valuable insight? This matter of effectiveness within this model, and evidence-based policymaking in general is critiqued by Head (2010) in that “evidence-based arguments about ‘fine-tuning’, based on careful research about effectiveness, might be more likely to gain traction in those areas if they are away from the political heat” (p21).

(24)

Newman et al (2017) summarizes their argument in declaring that “evidence-based policy cannot be achieved – or even approached – by a public sector that does not have the capacity to engage effectively with all the forms of evidence available to it” (p167). Newman et al (2017), due to findings from their Australian case study, writes of how due to some shortfalls within individuals regarding levels of education and professional experience, the inability of the policy workforce to make the most of the research evidence will continue. As a result, higher levels of attention to recruitment and postgraduate training for analyzing research would be greatly beneficial.

Overall, the problems associated with evidence-based policymaking can be succinctly summarized through understanding that “one of the features for complex social problems is that there are underlying clashes of values, which are sometimes not adequately recognized and addressed” (Schon and Rein, 1994, p28). Therefore, policy analysts have tended to drift into two camps – one tends to look for simple technical solutions, whereas others seek to focus on identifying the underlying value conflicts of a basis for dialogue, mediation and conflict reduction prior to discussion of next steps towards solutions (Lewicki et al, 2003, in Head, 2010). These technical solutions, which can be based on incentive theory, is known to be achieved through “nudging of citizens through incentives and penalties can potentially produce positive outcomes, with less need for intensive long-term case management” (p22). However, the more popular approach, which seeks to understand these values between parties, is participatory collaboration, partnering and devolution. These terms link strongly with the method of choice for this thesis, policy labs, in that they gather multiple stakeholders. It is acknowledged that “multiple stakeholders certainly complicate the challenges both of designing clear programs with defined roles and responsibilities, and of assessing the

effectiveness of outcomes to be achieved through collaboration” (Lewicki et al, 2003, p200). However, reaching clarity of values and beliefs of all affected parties is needed, as the

(25)

problems debated over are usually of great importance for governments and citizens alike (Head, 2008).

2.2 – Participation Literature

The literature surrounding policy labs, co-creation/co-production and stakeholders have been placed in unison under the umbrella term of participation literature to allow the reader to understand what factors influence participation within the realm of policymaking. These three categories were chosen specifically because they all intertwine with policymaking in the context of a policy lab, which is the focus of this thesis. As will become clearer from progressing in this sub-chapter, all three avenues travel down different paths towards participation whilst highlighting different obstacles and barriers encountered towards achieving a stronger sense of public participation.

2.2a – Co-creation/Co-production

This section of the literature focuses upon the aspects of co-creation and co-production to gain a deeper insight into how stakeholder involvement has evolved. A crucial goal here is to understand what drives citizen participation and involvement.

Voorberg et al (2015) differentiates between the public and private sectors in their understanding of co-creation. When discussing the private sector, co-creation is based on two trends. First, corporations are challenged to produce their goods efficiently. Secondly, end-users may become co-creators whose experiences with products or services can be added value for a company. However, in the public sector, these end-users are citizens. Voorberg’s et al (2015, p1348) references the European Commission in that, “social innovations mobilize

(26)

each citizen to become an active part of the innovation process”. Therefore, Voorberg’s et al (2015) stance is that if citizen participation is considered as a necessary condition for social innovation in the public sector, it is important that we have systematic knowledge regarding the conditions under which citizens are prepared to embark on the social innovation journey. Overall, it appears that the main difference in definitions between creation and

co-production is that, in line with the work of Vargo & Lusch (2004), the co-creation literature places more emphasis on co-creation as value.

In terms of what factors actually influence citizens concerning their participation in the co-creation and co-production processes, Wise et al (2012) conducted research that

demonstrated how intrinsic values, such as loyalty, civic duty, and the wish to improve the government positively, are all factors which influence the willingness and desire of citizens to participate. In terms of how to overcome any potential barriers to enable this behavior, actions on the organizational side refer to a top-down policy that supports co-creation/co-production (Pestoff, 2009). Furthermore, a policy entrepreneur can be appointed in order to promote the co-creation/co-production initiative (Fugslang, 2008). This importance of enabling and promoting citizen participation is highlighted by a paper from Voorberg et al (2015, p1346) who state that, “policy makers and politicians consider co-creation/co-production with citizens as a necessary condition to create innovative public services that actually meet the needs of the citizens, given a number of societal challenges, like ageing and urban

regeneration. Hence, co-creation/co-production seems to be considered as a cornerstone for social innovation in the public sector”. This acknowledgement that the inclusion of citizens in a meaningful and impactful way is one that seeks to explored within this thesis. Additionally, “we would like to emphasize that future studies should explicitly address the role of the citizen. As indicated, most studies are focused on citizens as a co-implementer, while only a few looked at the role of citizens as a co-designer or co-initiator”.

(27)

Marijn and Verhulst (2017) analyze the aspects of co-creation/co-production from a different point of view. They use the term data collaborative, as it emphasizes the process of collaboration between parties. They acknowledge this process is important in addressing societal challenges, but that organizations need to coordinate their efforts to create value from data. The key issue being that of coordination, as vast amount of data are out there in the private sector, and obtaining this information can prove to be troublesome. Additionally, the complexity of the said challenges and the diversity of the stakeholders needed to address them can create problems. These challenges continue with Head (2010), acknowledging that these approaches are at the mercy of time, energy and ambiguity. Their work demonstrates how, “including multiple stakeholders complicates the associated challenges of both designing clear programs with defined roles and responsibilities, as well as assessing the effectiveness of outcomes to be achieved through collaboration” (p22).

2.2b – Policy Labs

This section of the literature review will focus on the use of policy labs as a tool of public participation in addressing societal challenges. The term policy lab is used in various ways by different authors, meaning that some literature refers to them as living labs, however, both are similar in their intended use and application.

Initially, the policy/living lab concept was developed by William J Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex Pentland at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which understood its great methodological value to try to validate, refine and implement prototypes and complex solutions in a real life context (Dvarioniene et al, 2015). To provide a definition, Paskaleva et al (2015) declares that, “living labs can act as open functional platforms where all

(28)

stakeholders, including end users, can interact and new ideas can be captured in a less costly and more effective way” (p121).

When analysing the practicality of policy and living labs, Romero-Frias and Arroyo-Machado (2018), state that they “place citizens at the center of their innovation processes, promoting more proactive institutions that seek to recover the political initiative and increase people’s confidence in them” (p2). To go further, Cavallini et al (2016) declare that these living labs place the user at the center of the innovation process by coordinating with other stakeholders, integrating varied interests, and integrating multiple skills and abilities in decision making. In fact, Cavallini et al (2016) refer to the Triple Helix (TH) and Quadruple Helix (QH)

approaches as “grounded on the idea that innovation is the outcome of an interactive process involving different spheres of actors, each contributing according to its ‘institutional’ function in society” (p5). This TH model, introduced by Etzkowitwz and Leyesdorff (2005) was a top-down approach, whose main contributions were that of university, industry and government. It was not until the fourth sphere (QH) where civil society was included. To provide a clear illustration of this change from TH to QH, Cavallini et al (2016) proclaim that the shift to QH was due to formalizing the role of civil society. An environment was created whereby,

“academia and firms provide the necessary conditions for an integrated innovation ecosystem. Governments provide the regulatory framework and the financial support for the definition and implementation of innovation strategies and policies. Civil society not only uses and applies knowledge, and demands for innovation in the forms of goods and services, but also becomes an active part of the innovation system” (p7). This explanation of the QH clearly demonstrates that shift from a top-down approach to a more inclusive, and almost bottom-up approach as civil society was able to raise issues and queries about policies, which had the greater potential to create a more effective and efficient service for citizens.

(29)

McCombs (1996) writes from a political perspective in the use of policy labs, in that they can play an important role in promoting public agendas by both identifying issues that are important to citizens, and by placing issues at the center of social debate. Important questions to ask from this, however, is what exactly determines which issues are first placed on the agenda for the citizens to discuss? McGann, Blomkamp and Lewis (2018) detail why governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs, in order to take new approaches to policy and service design. They state that the growing interest in evidence-based policymaking is the primary reason for this change. Yu and Robinson (2012) declare that the pursuit of open government agendas to foster trust and transparency through making publicly held data more accessible beyond organizations explains this move.

Regarding the origins of the concept of living labs, Molinari (2011) declares that the Finnish EU Presidency first launched the idea of a European Network of living labs in 2006, for the co-creation of innovation in public, private and civic partnerships. It was hailed as the first step towards a new European research and design innovation system, which led to many European regions acknowledging the importance of involving citizens in these processes.

(30)

(Molinari, 2011, p134, A Living Lab PPPP’s conceptual architecture)

There are many nuanced definitions of what exactly defines a living lab, with Molinari (2011) providing more than one. For example, the “living lab concept refers to a set of

methodologies and tools for the co-creation and validation of innovating together with end users in real-world environments” (p131), which place humans at the epicenter of the innovation process. Additionally, they declare that, “we can define living labs as territorial policy instruments where all the key stakeholders of research and development and innovation governance – namely firms, public authorities, universities and citizens – collectively form a Public-Private-People-Partnership (PPPP) for the join support and management of systematics innovation according to an open, user-driven perspective” (p133). This clear importance of including the citizens within the living lab process is demonstrated through the positive impacts that can be witnessed through the strengthening in a culture of innovation (Molinari, 2011). As the figure above demonstrates, the living labs PPPPs architecture is split into a three-layered multi-stakeholder platform.

(31)

The strategic layer in the figure above acknowledges the first and second waves of the members of the European network of living labs. The second layer, (tactical) implementation of the trials. Lastly, the third layer, “deals with the actual generation of results from the trials, going to the benefit of the living labs service ‘customers’”. Overall, Molinari (2011) states that the following features of living labs are what make this a new usable instrument; ICT-based collaboration, open innovation, people integration in design, and public-private partnership.

To determine how to ensure that the use of living/policy labs are indeed successful, Paskaleva et al (2015) seek to “first define what constitutes stakeholder engagement in the living lab, as well as the conditions and the factors that lead to it operating effectively”

(p116). The authors collectively acknowledge that there are essentially two important issues at the center of this practice domain concerning living/policy labs. Firstly, how can citizens be effectively and efficiently involved in the co-production of innovative smart cities? And secondly, how to engage with the urban stakeholders in ways that provide for not just better access and inclusion for citizens, but also that empower them to act as a catalyst in

transforming the dynamics of smart city services? This second point demonstrates their desire to legitimize the citizen’s involvement through allowing them to take a much larger role than one of simply being told what is happening with their cities. This desire, however, was not always at the forefront. For example, Kujala (2003) details how stakeholder engagement is discussed frequently within the smart city discourse, but that discussions surrounding how to achieve this remains vague. Understanding how this shift may have emerged into the

mainstream, Deakin and Allwinkle (2007) declare that a rise in levels of democracy and governance account for the transition to where stakeholders and citizens actually expect to increase their involvement in decision making.

(32)

Analyzing much earlier published scholars regarding stakeholders, Frooman (1999) underlined the importance of evaluating the relationships between multiple actors. Rowley (1997) discussed stakeholder theory in relation to social network theory, and distinguished between various network configurations. Additionally, Zietsma and Winn (2008) as well as Lewric et al (2007), went further, and argued that networks of stakeholder relationships are complex and nuanced. For example, “participants in a stakeholder network may have significant interaction with other participants outside the control of the focal network, implying that these relations should also be studied as part of the process” (p122).

2.2c – Stakeholders

Giving appropriate attention to stakeholders is of critical importance because success for public organizations depends on satisfying key stakeholders according to their definition of what is valuable (Bryson, 2007). A key message from Bryson (2007) is that, “note what is being said here does not mean that all possible stakeholders should be satisfied, or involved, or otherwise wholly taken into account, only that the key stakeholders must be” (p25). This recognition that only certain stakeholder’s opinion and input matters, or has even legitimate weight, brings into question the legitimacy in the use of such a variety of stakeholders, especially in the context of a policy lab.

To potentially combat the work of Bryson (2007), Fung (2015) deployed an article that analyses the potential of citizen participation to advance three values of democratic

governance; effectiveness, legitimacy and social justice. The concluding remarks detail three challenges to creating successful participatory governance: the absence of systematic

leadership, the lack of popular or elite consensus on the place of direct censorship, and the limited scope and power of participatory innovations. This third challenge is one that could be

(33)

further investigated, this feeling of power or influence in these participatory innovations, such as the policy lab approach.

To provide a understanding in the use of stakeholders within the context of an energy transition narrative, Dvarioniene et al (2015) writes from an experience in utilizing

stakeholder involvement on energy and environmental decisions at a community level to increase community acceptance. The main justification in Dvarioniene et al (2015) seeking to utilize stakeholder engagement is through the belief that, “social awareness is fundamental to foster significant initiatives launched by the European Commission to support the

implementation of the 20-20-20 targets at a local scale, in which local and regional authorities have voluntarily committed themselves to in increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy on their territories” (p513). This energy labs concept, which was developed in the Regional Strategies for Energy Conscious Communities – RENERGY, represents a unique approach to the commitment in including stakeholders which, “aims at informing and involving the communities actively on the ongoing initiatives as well as highlighting and discussing the needs and opportunities” (p513). In brief, RENERGY Energy Labs focused on the following main points in determining how to carry out appropriate engagement and research within a stakeholder environment. Firstly, inform and mobilize the community on possible solutions to maximize renewable energy sources. Second, to encourage local businesses to promote and develop products, and thirdly, to identify local/regional best practices and to discuss the transferability of them.

The rise in the use and popularity of policy/living labs, owes a large gratitude of thanks towards the concept of stakeholders. This is due to its use of methodologies, with its open innovation, innovative approach to involve the community, and the transfer and results from the research and scenarios with the stakeholders that have legitimate experiences and interests about the issues at hand. Therefore, Dvarioniene et al (2015) argues that, “the

(34)

outcomes of living labs are expected to be representative and have a good potential for

transferability” (p513). However, attention needs to be paid to various other authors who have somewhat written against this statement when analyzing the impact of stakeholders who are involving in living and policy labs. Dvarioniene et al (2015) summarizes by advocating that “the overall objective of the living lab concept in the integration of the community as an active plater into policy design and the problem solving process, thus establishing a positive and long-lasting cooperation” (p516). A key point of consideration here is what is exactly defined as an ‘active player’? For example, as Bryson (2007) stated at the beginning of this subsection, it “does not mean that all possible stakeholders should be satisfied, or involved, or otherwise wholly taken into account, only that the key stakeholders must be” (p25). It appears that a key point within the literature surrounding stakeholders and their involvement, is that some levels of participation are merely seen as to fill a quota, or to appease some forms of democracy without legitimately considering their thoughts and opinions.

2.3 – Hypotheses

This section will layout the proposed hypotheses which aim to be proven or disproven as a result of the data collection and analysis in the later sections. These hypotheses stem from the literature review and declare what I expect to find come the conclusion of this thesis.

Hypothesis 1: More involvement of citizens as stakeholders in policy labs leads to a greater success level of the energy transition.

Hypothesis 2: The increased use of policy labs as a method of data collection and analysis will lead to a greater success level of the energy transition.

(35)

3 – Research Design and Data Collection

The goal of this research design chapter is multifaceted. Firstly, the core concepts from the theoretical framework will be operationalized. Secondly, justification will be provided as to why certain research methods were chosen over other viable options. These research methods include the method of data collection and a method of analysis. The methods of data collection are divided into two, the first being expert interviews, with the second entailing case study collection. The methods of analysis consist of comparing the interview findings with that of the current literature through the experiences of past case studies within the field of energy labs and the energy transition in the context of the Netherlands.

3.1 – Operationalization of concepts

It is important to explain what is meant by the term operationalization to allow the reader to understand its purpose. De Carlo (2018) declares that operationalization is the “process by which researchers conducting quantitative research spell out precisely how a concept will be measured. It involves identifying the specific research procedures we will use to gather data about our concepts” (p250). De Carlo (2018) succinctly lays out three steps in which to reach this goal; “an operational definition consists of the following components: (1) the variable being measured, (2) the measure you will use, (3) how you plan to interpret the results of that measure” (p252). Additionally, through identifying specific indicators, this chapter will outline ways to represent the ideas this thesis is keen to analyze.

The concepts that will be operationalized are as follows:

Complex modern arrangements of networks being a barrier towards achieving rational evidence-based policy, from Head (2008).

(36)

To measure this concept, the use of semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of energy labs and stakeholder engagement will be carried out. It is hoped that these

interviews allow the experts to talk about their experiences in working with these complex arrangements of networks, whether they existed during their projects, and ultimately, whether their opinions correlate of not with the concept put forward by Head (2008).

The shift to the Quadruple Helix (QH) concept

Scholars, as evidence in the previous chapter, argued that this shift was marked by formalizing the role of civil society. “Civil society not only uses and applies knowledge, and demands for innovation in the form of goods and services, but also becomes an active part of the innovation system” (Etzkowitwz and Leyesdorff, 2005, p7).

This table below shows the two independent variables, the involvement of citizens and stakeholders, and the increased use of policy labs, and the dependent variable, the successful energy transition. As well as how the three variables will be operationalized and their data sources.

Definition (taken from the

literature)

Operationalization

(how is this measured?)

Data Source (where

does the data for measurement from?) Independent Variables IV1: Involvement of citizens as stakeholders

“aims at informing and involving the communities actively on the ongoing activities”(Dvarioniene et al, 2015, p513) Whether citizens are included in energy transition policy labs

Interviews and case study analysis

(37)

IV2: The increased use of policy labs

“act as open functional platforms where all

stakeholders, including end users, can interact and new ideas can be captured” (Paskaleva et al, 2015, p121) Whether this method is being used by researchers involved in energy transition projects

Interviews and case study analysis Dependent Variable DV: A successful energy transition

“Transitions have been described as social

transformation processes in which such systems change structurally over an extended period of time” (Rotmans et al, 2001, in Kern and Smith, 2008, p4092) Are energy transition projects reaching promising conclusions? Eg, effective policies for all? Interviews

3.2 – Justification in choice of methods for data collection

This section will provide the reasoning as to why the methods of expert interviews and case studies were chosen.

(38)

The first method of data collection that will be utilized is that of semi-structured interviews with experts. The justifications in choosing which experts to interview to collect data from were based upon previous knowledge that they were researchers who had utilized policy labs in their past projects. Additionally, as individuals who had actually created and led policy labs from start to finish, their knowledge about the difficulties associated with this method of data collection will be much richer than stakeholders who had experienced being involved with a policy lab at only one particular stage. Furthermore, there were experts who had been involved within the energy transition domain for over 20 years, meaning their experiences and knowledge over that time would serve extremely well in evaluating if this inclusion of policy labs to involve a greater variety of stakeholders towards achieving this energy transition. This would serve the thesis well in directly answering the proposed

hypotheses. Interviewing citizens who had been involved within policy labs could have been extremely fruitful to understand their experiences and possible issues they had whilst being a participant. However, it was not possible to track down these citizens given the time

restraints. Furthermore, it was more likely that experts who had lead these policy labs were more than willing to talk about their experiences as it is something they care about within their line of work, thus meaning they would be more open to discuss their thoughts.

The primary justification in choosing semi-structured over structured interviews relates to how semi-structured interviews generally allow for more flexibility due to having a set of guiding questions that will hopefully keep the interview on track (Virginia, 2016). In contrast, the basis for structured interviews is reliant upon the interviewer asking the same set of questions to each participant, leaving very little room for interpretation. Regarding how the semi-structured interviews are to be carried out, it was initially hoped and planned to conduct them face-to-face, as “being able to see facial expressions and body language can further enrich a response given by the interviewee” (Virginia, 2016, p48). However, due to the

(39)

COVID-19 pandemic, telephone/Skype interviews will be pursed as an alternative. Virginia (2016) argues however, that telephone interviews can create comfort for the interviewee. It is argued that because the interviewees are experts in their scientific field, it is important to not pigeonhole them with a structured list of questions that leave little room for interpretation. There is a high chance that asking follow-up questions will be common during the interviews as the experts could discuss a concept of topic that was not covered during the initial literature review.

Additionally, after explaining the reasoning of the interview to the subject, as well as providing them with the background information, I will state that the interview is going to be recorded for transcribing purposes, and whether the interviewee is comfortable with this. This is a polite action to take as it makes the interviewee aware, as well as giving them a chance to decline. The logic underpinning this reasoning can be explained through academic work such as, “interviewers need to gain the trust of their respondents in order to collect high quality data” (Harvey, 2011, p433), as well as, “before an interview, I try to be as transparent as possible and provide respondents with the following information: who I am, where I am working, what the nature of my research is, how long the interview will take, how the data will be used” (p433). To provide further reasoning, Ostrander (1993) states that, “in regard to getting in and developing ongoing trust and respect, taking advantage of chance meetings or of one’s own social contacts may be as important as careful planning” (p25).

Furthermore, before the actual interviews occurred, an email was sent beforehand with additional background information including broad areas I was interested in discussing, as well as some of the key concepts, such as stakeholders, policy labs and the energy transition, and potential questions. There is the potential fear that in emailing my questions to the participant in advance, it may allow for them to generate answers that are preferable to their employers, however, a key part of the interview process is to ask follow-up questions, which

(40)

the interviewee may not have fully prepared for, meaning their answers cannot be all pre-determined.

Due to conducting semi-structured interviews, it was difficult to create a list of all the pre-determined questions that would be asked for each interview. However, an effort was made to have a small number of standard questions that would be asked to all interviewees. The list of these questions is as follows.

What are your experiences within the research domain?

How long have you been working within this area?

Have you ever been part of a study that investigates any aspect of an energy transition within the Netherlands? If so, how would you describe these experiences?

Have you used or been a part of a policy lab during these studies?

How would you summarize the involvement of citizens as stakeholders within energy labs?

What would be the steps to integrate these citizens into being stakeholders who have a vested interest in this transition? As there seems to be no concrete path as to how to achieve this.

Not all of these questions were asked to all four interviewees, as in some instances they already branched off to cover those topics. Aside from these standard set of questions, a lot of the knowledge looking to be obtained will originate from follow-up questions. This is

because, generally, an interviewee requires encouragement to delve deeper into an issue or topic that is of interest to the researcher. For example, asking questions about a specific project they were involved with. A full transcript of all four interviews will be included in the annex.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

We state some basic results which follow immediately from our axioms (see e.g. Two distinct lines with the same base point have no other point in cornmon.

To obtain time-resolved force measurements, the flight chamber and support structure must have natural frequencies that are much higher than the frequency content of the

In de voorliggende studie zijn op basis van beschikbare informatie relaties tussen blootstelling en schade bij gewassen vastgesteld en is het directe effect van luchtverontreiniging

1) Het participatieproces moet zijn afgerond en het ontwerp zijn gerealiseerd. Hiervoor is de aanname gemaakt dat de meningen van de participanten kunnen veranderen, nadat het

Wel kan er op basis van eigen ervaring en waarnemingen gesteld worden dat de gemiddelde time-on-task hoger lag dan bij andere lessen over hetzelfde onderwerp en dat leerlingen door

However, considering that the Netherlands is suitable for the production of vertical geothermal energy, implementing heat pumps to housing units seems to be a

With a help of a value map, which makes explicit how products and services with new capabilities offered by IoT, relieve pains and create gains, it would be possible

Examples of strategic airline alliance fiascos due to misfit include the KLM/Alitalia collapse, the dissolution of Swissair from Delta and the split up between Austrian Airlines and