Deliberating Our Frames : How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have been praised as vehicles for tackling complex sustainability issues, but their success relies on the reconciliation of stakeholders’ divergent perspectives. We yet lack a thorough understanding of the micro-level mechanisms by which stakeholders can deal with these differences. To develop such understanding, we examine what frames—i.e., mental schemata for making sense of the world—members of MSIs use during their discussions on sustainability questions and how these frames are deliberated through social interactions. Whilst prior framing research has focussed on between-frame conflicts, we offer a different perspective by examining how and under what conditions actors use shared frames to tackle ‘within-frame conflicts’ on views that stand in the way of joint decisions. Observations of a deliberative environmental valuation workshop and interviews in an MSI on the protection of peatlands—ecosystems that contribute to carbon retention on a global scale—demonstrated how the application and deliberation of shared frames during micro-level interactions resulted in increased salience, elaboration, and adjustment of shared frames. We interpret our findings to identify characteristics of deliberation mechanisms in the case of within-frame conflicts where shared frames dominate the discussions, and to delineate conditions for such dominance. Our findings contribute to an understanding of collaborations in MSIs and other organisational settings by demonstrating the utility of shared frames for dealing with conflicting views and suggesting how shared frames can be activated, fostered and strengthened

Trade-offs between the natural environment and recreational infrastructure:A case study about peatlands under different management scenarios

The importance of peatlands for conservation and provision of public services has been well evidenced in the last years, especially in relation to their contribution to the net zero carbon emission agenda. However, little is known about the importance of recreation relative to conservation and their trade-offs. In this paper we address this knowledge gap by exploring the trade-offs between natural properties of peatlands and recreational infrastructures for different categories of recreationists (walkers, cyclists, anglers, and birdwatchers) of an open heather moors and peatlands landscape. We do so building on a series of management scenarios formulated through participatory methods and applying choice experiment related to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and UNESCO Global Geopark in the UK. Results show a high degree of heterogeneity in landscape preferences across different user groups. Recreationists had a higher appreciation for semi-natural habitats compared to pristine or restored peatland (e.g., land rewetting). Walkers and cyclists were more sensitive to changes in the availability of recreational facilities than to environmental quality, while anglers’ and birdwatchers’ preferences were more aligned with values promoted by restoration policies. Overall, our results point to a potential value conflict between benefits generated by conservation and the benefits valued most by some groups of recreationists. To maximise success conflicts like the one revealed here need to be considered in strategies that provide a central role for peatlands in net zero climate mitigation strategies

Effects of varying case definition on carpal tunnel syndrome prevalence estimates in a pooled cohort

OBJECTIVE: To analyze differences in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) prevalence using a combination of electrodiagnostic studies (EDSs) and symptoms using EDS criteria varied across a range of cutpoints and compared with symptoms in both ≥1 and ≥2 median nerve–served digits. DESIGN: Pooled data from 5 prospective cohorts. SETTING: Hand-intensive industrial settings, including manufacturing, assembly, production, service, construction, and health care. PARTICIPANTS: Employed, working-age participants who are able to provide consent and undergo EDS testing (N=3130). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CTS prevalence was estimated while varying the thresholds for median sensory latency, median motor latency, and transcarpal delta latency difference. EDS criteria examined included the following: median sensory latency of 3.3 to 4.1 milliseconds, median motor latency of 4.1 to 4.9 milliseconds, and median-ulnar sensory difference of 0.4 to 1.2 milliseconds. EDS criteria were combined with symptoms in ≥1 or ≥2 median nerve–served digits. EDS criteria from other published studies were applied to allow for comparison. RESULTS: CTS prevalence ranged from 6.3% to 11.7%. CTS prevalence estimates changed most per millisecond of sensory latency compared with motor latency or transcarpal delta. CTS prevalence decreased by 0.9% to 2.0% if the criteria required symptoms in 2 digits instead of 1. CONCLUSIONS: There are meaningful differences in CTS prevalence when different EDS criteria are applied. The digital sensory latency criteria result in the largest variance in prevalence

Supplementary Information files for Deliberating our frames: How members of multi-stakeholder initiatives use shared frames to tackle within-frame conflicts over sustainability issues

Supplementary Information files for Deliberating our frames: How members of multi-stakeholder initiatives use shared frames to tackle within-frame conflicts over sustainability issuesMulti-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have been praised as vehicles for tackling complex sustainability issues, but their success relies on the reconciliation of stakeholders’ divergent perspectives. We yet lack a thorough understanding of the micro-level mechanisms by which stakeholders can deal with these differences. To develop such understanding, we examine what frames - i.e., mental schemata for making sense of the world - members of MSIs use during their discussions on sustainability questions and how these frames are deliberated through social interactions. Whilst prior framing research has focussed on between-frame conflicts, we offer a different perspective by examining how and under what conditions actors use shared frames to tackle ‘within-frame conflicts’ on views that stand in the way of joint decisions. Observations of a deliberative environmental valuation workshop and interviews in an MSI on the protection of peatlands - ecosystems that contribute to carbon retention on a global scale – demonstrated how the application and deliberation of shared frames during micro-level interactions resulted in increased salience, elaboration, and adjustment of shared frames. We interpret our findings to identify characteristics of deliberation mechanisms in the case of within-frame conflicts where shared frames dominate the discussions, and to delineate conditions for such dominance. Our findings contribute to an understanding of collaborations in MSIs and other organisational settings by demonstrating the utility of shared frames for dealing with conflicting views and suggesting how shared frames can be activated, fostered and strengthened.<br

Deliberating our frames: How members of multi-stakeholder initiatives use shared frames to tackle within-frame conflicts over sustainability issues

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have been praised as vehicles for tackling complex sustainability issues, but their success relies on the reconciliation of stakeholders’ divergent perspectives. We yet lack a thorough understanding of the micro-level mechanisms by which stakeholders can deal with these differences. To develop such understanding, we examine what frames - i.e., mental schemata for making sense of the world - members of MSIs use during their discussions on sustainability questions and how these frames are deliberated through social interactions. Whilst prior framing research has focussed on between-frame conflicts, we offer a different perspective by examining how and under what conditions actors use shared frames to tackle ‘within-frame conflicts’ on views that stand in the way of joint decisions. Observations of a deliberative environmental valuation workshop and interviews in an MSI on the protection of peatlands - ecosystems that contribute to carbon retention on a global scale – demonstrated how the application and deliberation of shared frames during micro-level interactions resulted in increased salience, elaboration, and adjustment of shared frames. We interpret our findings to identify characteristics of deliberation mechanisms in the case of within-frame conflicts where shared frames dominate the discussions, and to delineate conditions for such dominance. Our findings contribute to an understanding of collaborations in MSIs and other organisational settings by demonstrating the utility of shared frames for dealing with conflicting views and suggesting how shared frames can be activated, fostered and strengthened