This paper examines how Novak's concept (Novak, J. D. 1998. Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) of “meaningful learning” can help teachers using an “experiential” approach to teaching problem structuring methods (PSMs) help students acquire an understanding of how these methods might aid group decision making. Experiential learning is seen as a necessary foundation for the building of a student's understanding of PSMs if they are to fully appreciate the potential of the techniques. It is argued that if the affective mode of functioning (relating to moods, feelings, and attitudes) is triggered, the student is more likely to choose to engage in meaningful learning, and thereby gain an enhanced appreciation of how the methods work. An example of a causal mapping workshop is evaluated, with the findings, although limited in their validity for generalisation, pointing to a clear and direct positive link between meaningful learning and understanding by the learner.

No abstract

The increasing need to manage biosecurity threats, such as diseases, zoonoses, and biological weapons, poses serious challenges for risk analysts and policymakers. These threats are large in number, can occur concurrently, and may cause multiple tangible and intangible impacts. They often have an emerging nature, exacerbated by incomplete evidence about their probability of occurrence and potential impacts. There is also a limited amount of time and resources available to evaluate the risks posed by each threat, and it is difficult to learn from past projects. On the other hand, there is also a need to provide policymakers with transparent and consistent threat prioritizations, together with evidence-based recommendations. In response to these challenges, we propose a risk analysis framework for the prioritization and management of biosecurity threats. The framework encompasses key design choices that analysts may use in risk analysis projects along three dimensions: risk support, risk group, and risk organization. The framework has prescriptive value, as a design tool to inform risk analysis projects in this context, along with descriptive value, as a learning tool to understand past projects. We applied the framework prescriptively in two biosecurity threat prioritization projects for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and illustrate its descriptive value by reporting our experience of these projects as in-depth case studies. Overall, the proposed framework provides important insights into the impact of different design choices on the success of risk analysis projects for biosecurity threat prioritizations.

This paper examines how a deeper understanding of procedural justice and interactional justice can enhance the efectiveness of causal mapping workshops using Group Explorer® software combined with the Decision Explorer® tool. A dual facilitation model is outlined that explicitly links the determinates of procedural justice and the key elements of interactional justice to the stages of causal mapping workshops. This model serves to illustrate how the participants' voice in group workshops using causal mapping is strengthened, producing an authentic outcome that more accurately represents participants' thinking. Enabling the determinants in the model supports the dimensions of procedural and interactional justice, ensuring these more authentic outcomes. A link between these determinants, dimensions and the workshop process is conirmed through qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis draws on causal maps created with relevant concepts/ statements, highlighted to illustrate this more authentic voice. The quantitative work analyses responses to a post-workshop questionnaire using scale reduction techniques and looks for signiicant relationships between participants' voice and the determinants of procedural justice, interactional justice and the causal mapping approach adopted.

No abstract