Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands

Cuppen, Eefje; Breukers, Sylvia; Hisschemöller, M.; Bergsma, Emmy

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.09.005

Cited by 212 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Byrch et al (2015) observe that Mouffe does not offer detailed ways to foster agonistic debate but others do. For example, Q methodology can underpin participatory dialogue and political demands for discursive representation (Cuppen, 2012;Cuppen et al, 2010;Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2008), especially when divergent positions overlap (Hisschemöller and Bode, 2011 on confrontation workshops); urban planning and science and technology studies offer options Dillard, 2013b, 2014) as do decentred conceptions of governance in policy analysis (Griggs et al,20 14 ). Gallhofer et al's (2015) post-structural, new pragmatist perspective on accounting as a differentiated universal can also help agonistic pluralism materialize.…”

Section: Taking Multiple Perspectives Seriously Through Decentred Undmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies

Brown

Dillard

Hopper

2015

Acc Auditing Accountability J

127

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to synthesize work in the emerging field of how accounting and accountability can be reoriented to better promote pluralistic democracy which recognizes and addresses differentials in power, beliefs and desires of constituencies. An agenda for future research and engagement is outlined, drawing on this and insights from other papers in this special issue of the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ) aimed at taking multiple perspectives seriously. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews and synthesizes the central themes associated with accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies, especially with respect to the research studies in this AAAJ special issue, and it identifies possibilities for future research and engagement. Findings – Three central themes are identified: the challenges of achieving critical, pluralistic engagement in and through mainstream institutions; the possibilities of taking multiple perspectives seriously through decentred understandings of governance and democracy; and the value of an agonistic ethos of engagement in accounting. The articles in this issue contribute to these themes, albeit differently, and in combination with the extant social science literature reviewed here, open up pathways for future research and engagement. Practical implications – This work seeks to encourage the development of pluralistic accounting and accountability systems drawing on conceptual and practice-based resources across disciplines and by considering the standpoints of diverse interested constituencies, including academics, policymakers, business leaders and social movements. Originality/value – How accounting can reflect and enact pluralistic democracy, not least to involve civil society, and how problems related to power differentials and seemingly incompatible aims can be addressed has been largely neglected. This issue provides empirical, practical and theoretical material to advance further work in the area.

show abstract

Section: Taking Multiple Perspectives Seriously Through Decentred Undmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies

Brown

Dillard

Hopper

2015

Acc Auditing Accountability J

127

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…from biomass in the Netherlands (Cuppen et al 2010), and to community perceptions of plantation forestry in Australia (Anderson et al 2013). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of industrial timber plantations in Indonesia: An analysis of rural populations' perceptions in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Java

Pirard¹,

Petit²,

Baral³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Dutch government was critical about mitigation research in 2000-2004 because in face of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol (2004) mitigation policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use were in their final stage of development. As a result, it was decided to narrow down research into mitigation to quantify greenhouse gas emissions related to land-use (Lauvaux et al 2009;Hutjes et al 2010), full carbon accounting (Hutjes et al 2009;Nabuurs et al 2008) and bio-energy chains (Cuppen et al 2010;Elbersen et al 2014). IPCC working group III (mitigation) has a much broader scope.…”

Section: The Ccsp and Kfc Research Programmesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From climate research to climate compatible development: experiences and progress in the Netherlands

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, significant experience has been gained in demand-driven research on climate change in many countries. In the Netherlands, a competitive call for proposals for large research programmes at the interface between policy, science and private sector was issued in 2001. Members of the Dutch climate research community proved they were able to develop two large research programme proposals which were funded: 'Climate changes Spatial Planning' and its successor 'Knowledge for Climate'. The programmes ran from 2004 to 2012 and from 2008 to 2014, respectively. Both programmes can be considered as a 10-year research programme experiment to develop knowledge about both the climate system and climate compatible development by crossing disciplines, institutions and national research funding strategies. Within this 10-year period, a trend can be observed in which a 'top-down' climate impact assessment approach is increasingly combined with a 'bottom-up' approach. Based on the 15 articles presented in this special issue (and others), we argue that this development has enriched both fundamental and applied research on climate adaptation. Despite the predominantly Dutch-oriented scope of the presented research, we believe that such experiences can be of international interest. Climate adaptation research finds itself in between global systems knowledge on the one hand and practical needs and experiences at the local, regional and national level on the other. This demands the utmost from all actors involved to enable an efficient and constructive flow and use of knowledge and expertise.

show abstract

Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands

Cited by 212 publications

References 35 publications

Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies

Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies

Impacts of industrial timber plantations in Indonesia: An analysis of rural populations' perceptions in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Java

From climate research to climate compatible development: experiences and progress in the Netherlands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About