The use and value of hierarchical governance and modeling in infrastructure network planning

This paper discusses the seemingly inespacable tension between two dominant approaches to governance that are implemented with regard to the planning, design and development of infrastructure networks, such as roads and railways. Roughly, these approaches can be framed in two styles of governance, the hierarchical and the consensual style (Smits, 1995). In today’s (western) societies, hierarchical approaches to governance seem to become more and more obsolete. This is especially the case with regard to ´problematic situations´ that have a large spatial and environmental impact. For example, the planning, design and development of infrastructure networks have such a widespread, trans-sectoral impact, that a top down approach is considered to be no longer viable. The impact of large scale projects (such as the Betuwelijn, the development of the Tweede Maasvlakte or the High Speed Train Network) spreads into spatial, environmental, financial, legal, economic (with regard to exploitation and maintenance) and social aspects of everyday life. As a consequence, it is more and more to be considered as ´a normal procedure´ to at least consult the stakeholders concerned. The almost inevitable involvement of large groups of stakeholders with different characteristics cannot be achieved with hierarchical approaches to governance. Top down is assumed to be inappropriate and thus, un-called for in these types of policy processes. Following this widely accepted assumption, consensual approaches are designed and implemented, under various appealing banners, such as co-production, open planning processes and participatory policy making. These appealing names lead to innovative forms of interaction and participation of stakeholders. Stakeholders are enticed to participate in design workshops, brainstorms, coffee table talks, internet based discussions and surveys and market consultations. Stakeholders are invited to information centres and travelling exhibitions. All these efforts are undertaken based on the assumption that (this time) ´government will really listen and make effective use of all ideas, concerns and energy´. The question arises how effective and efficient these participatory efforts have been thus far. Is a consensual style of governance a solution for the ever increasing complexity of the impact of large scale infrastructural projects? Or has the hierarchical style still have some value for this type of policy processes? And if so, what kind value is this? And in addition, can hierarchical and consensual styles of governance simultaneously be helpful in planning, design and development of infrastructural networks, and if so, how and to what extend? Or must they be considered to be ´natural enemies´ with regard to designing and implementing policy processes? In this paper these questions will be addressed by assessing a (virtual) case study, the further advancement of the road infrastructure network around the city of Rotterdam (also known as the Rotterdamse Ruit). Subsequently we will discuss the two dominant styles of governance, the hierarchical and consensual style. Second, we will describe the role and value of hierarchical (top down) and consensual (bottom up) approaches in planning, designing and development of (road) infrastructural networks and projects. Third, we will make an attempt to combine both approaches, into a hybrid, cross over like, approach that incorporates both hierarchical and consensual approaches in governance. And fourth, we will apply (test) our hybrid, cross over approach to our (virtual) case study, thus proposing an approach for future governance to support the further advancement of the (road) infrastructure network in and around Rotterdam.

Disputants\u27 Decision Control in Court-Connected Mediation: A Hollow Promise Without Procedural Justice

Professor Deborah Hensler suggests in the lead article of this Symposium issue that the courts\u27 embrace of facilitative, interest-based mediation may have been ill-conceived. She argues that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that litigants are more satisfied with mediation than with adjudicative alternatives such as arbitration and trial. She also urges that there is sufficient evidence to show that litigants prefer processes that vest decision control in third parties. Both of these assertions are subject to challenge,\u27 but this Comment will focus upon the significance of giving decision control to the disputants in consensual processes. Using available research, this Comment will argue, perhaps surprisingly, that the salience of the disputants\u27 decision control is much more apparent to mediation advocates and to courts than it is to disputants. Disputants involved in consensual processes often do not perceive themselves as wielding real control over the outcomes achieved in those processes. Thus, the current practice of distinguishing and prioritizing among dispute resolution processes based primarily upon the locus of decision control may be misguided. Further, vesting decision control in the disputants does not guarantee that the disputants will perceive the dispute resolution process or its outcome as fair. To the contrary, the procedural justice literature demonstrates that, regardless of their decision control, disputants consistently value processes that feel fair because they offer a meaningful opportunity for voice and consideration and assure even-handed, dignified treatment. The literature makes it clear that disputants\u27 perceptions of procedural fairness influence their perceptions of outcome fairness. Indeed, disputants\u27 perceptions of procedural fairness may even influence their evaluation of their own control over outcomes. This suggests that courts need to focus quite intently upon the institutionalization of third party processes that are procedurally just, regardless of whether those processes are classified as consensual or non-consensual. Such a uniform commitment to procedural justice might seem natural for the courts. However, the procedural due process jurisprudence indicates that the courts\u27 appreciation of procedural justice is unlikely to translate easily to processes in which the disputants, not the courts, are deemed to exercise control over outcomes. Given the current state of procedural due process jurisprudence, courts may lack both the desire and the ability to demand procedural justice in third party processes that are classified as consensual. Ironically then, disputants\u27 decision control, which is meaningful to mediation advocates and the courts but a rather hollow promise for disputants, may have the unfortunate effect of hindering the institutionalization of procedural justice in consensual, court-connected processes

The co-optation of the techniques and languages of alternative dispute resolution : a critical assessment of developments in the UK

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a consensual process where the parties agree to come to a solution, which means that autonomy is a central characteristic of this category of dispute resolution processes. Tidwell identifies that “mediation is predicated upon mediation’s flexibility informality and consensuality opening up the full dimension of the problem facing the parties. Parties come to mediation because it is flexible and thus convenient. Mediation is used because it is not adversarial, but rather seeks to satisfy the needs of the presenting parties”. The very nature of mediation and other ADR processes is that it is based upon a consensual process, which is outside of the judicial system. The problem with co-optation is that it is judicialising ADR processes through avenues such as mandatory mediation or adjunctive adjudication processes .The implication of this is that there is a framework in place that is no longer consensual in nature; rather, it is merely an extension of the coercive power of the judicial system. In the UK, there is arguably a system of co-optation through Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Family Procedure Rules (FPR), because instead of promoting consensual mediation and ADR processes they are coercing individuals to comply with an obligation to engage in ADR prior to entering the courts. Thus, this paper is going to examine the content of the CPR and FPR to determine whether there is a process of cooptation is occurring within English law

Design activities: how to analyze cognitive effort associated to cognitive treatments?

Working memory issues are important in many real activities. Thus, measuring cognitive effort (or mental load) has been a main research topic for years in cognitive ergonomics, though no consensual method to study such aspect has been proposed. In addition, we argue that cognitive effort has to be related to an analysis of the evolution of cognitive processes, which has been called "time processing". Towards this end, we present and discuss paradigms that have been used for years to study writing activities and, in experiments reported in this paper, for studying design activities, such as computer-graphic tasks or web site desig

Does ADR’s “Access to Justice” Come at the Expense of Meaningful Consent?

Over the last forty years, ADR processes, in particular mediation and arbitration, have been advanced as vehicles to secure access to justice for individual litigants and to improve efficiency in overburdened court systems. These processes have functioned as alternatives to the court adjudication of disputes, complementing the judicial system, and operating in what has been famously described as “the shadow of the law. The primary benefits promised by ADR were party autonomy and empowerment. ADR processes would allow parties to “fit the forum to the fuss.” These processes would give parties the opportunity to create their own mosaic of justice, personalized and individualized justice, not unlike the fairness remedies that equity courts had historically provided I argue that claims about ADR’s ability to provide access to justice should be more modest. As it turns out, ADR falls short on its original promises, giving short shrift to the value of consent. Over the last few decades, party autonomy has diminished in both mediation and arbitration, and it is not clear that ADR has resulted in greater efficiencies for the courts. In this Article, I question whether ADR processes have provided the kind of access to justice envisioned by proponents, or whether they have been stumbling blocks to achieving that goal. My skepticism is prompted by the withering away of consent in arbitration and mediation, two of the most commonly used ADR processes

Class dealignment and the neighbourhood effect: Miller revisited

The concept of a neighbourhood effect within British voting patterns has largely been discarded, because no data have been available for testing it at the appropriate spatial scales. To undertake such tests, bespoke neighbourhoods have been created around the home of each respondent to the 1997 British Election Study survey in England and Wales, and small-area census data have been assembled for these to depict the socio-economic characteristics of voters' local contexts. Analyses of voting in these small areas, divided into five equal-sized status areas, provides very strong evidence that members of each social class were much more likely to vote Labour than Conservative in the low-status than in the high-status areas. This is entirely consistent with the concept of the neighbourhood effect, but alternative explanations are feasible. The data provide very strong evidence of micro-geographical variations in voting patterns, for which further research is necessary to identify the processes involved

Experts' Judgments of Management Journal Quality:An Identity Concerns Model

Many lists that purport to gauge the quality of journals in management and organization studies (MOS) are based on the judgments of experts in the field. This article develops an identity concerns model (ICM) that suggests that such judgments are likely to be shaped by the personal and social identities of evaluators. The model was tested in a study in which 168 editorial board members rated 44 MOS journals. In line with the ICM, respondents rated journal quality more highly to the extent that a given journal reflected their personal concerns (associated with having published more articles in that journal) and the concerns of a relevant ingroup (associated with membership of the journal’s editorial board or a particular disciplinary or geographical background). However, judges’ ratings of journals in which they had published were more favorable when those journals had a low-quality reputation, and their ratings of journals that reflected their geographical and disciplinary affiliations were more favorable when those journals had a high-quality reputation. The findings are thus consistent with the view that identity concerns come to the fore in journal ratings when there is either a need to protect against personal identity threat or a meaningful opportunity to promote social identity

What is Autonomy?

A system is autonomous if it uses its own information to modify itself and its environment to enhance its survival, responding to both environmental and internal stimuli to modify its basic functions to increase its viability. Autonomy is the foundation of functionality, intentionality and meaning. Autonomous systems accommodate the unexpected through self-organizing processes, together with some constraints that maintain autonomy. Early versions of autonomy, such as autopoiesis and closure to efficient cause, made autonomous systems dynamically closed to information. This contrasts with recent work on open systems and information dynamics. On our account, autonomy is a matter of degree depending on the relative organization of the system and system environment interactions. A choice between third person openness and first person closure is not required

'It’s hard to define good writing, but i recognise it when i see it’: can consensus-based assessment evaluate the teaching of writing?

In a Higher Education environment where evidence-based practice and accountability are highly valued, most writing practitioners will be familiar with direct requests or less tangible pressures to demonstrate that their teaching has a positive impact on students’ writing skills. Although such evaluations are not devoid of risk and the need for them is contested, it can be argued that it is better to engage with them, as this can avoid the danger of overly simplistic forms of measurements being imposed. The current paper engages with this question by proposing the conceptual basis for a new measurement tool. Based on Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), developed to assess creativity, the tool develops the idea of consensual assessment of writing as a methodology that can provide robust data through systematic measurement. At the same time, I argue consensual assessment reflects the evaluation of writing in real life situations more closely than many of the methodologies for writing assessment used in other contexts, primarily large scale tests. As such, it would allow writing practitioners to go beyond ethnographic methods, or self- reporting, in order to obtain greater insight into the ways in which their teaching helps change students’ actual writing, without sacrificing the complexity of writing as social interaction, which is fundamental to an academic literacies approach