Suchergebnisse

AbstractCommunity stakeholder participation can be incredibly valuable for the qualitative model development process. However, modelers often encounter challenges for participatory modeling projects focusing on high‐complexity, synergistic interactions between multiple issues, systems, and granularity. The diverse stakeholder perspectives and volumes of information necessary for developing such models can yield qualitative models that are difficult to translate into quantitative simulation or clear insight for informed decision‐making. There are few recommended best practices for developing high‐complexity, participatory models. We use an ongoing project as a case study to highlight three practical challenges for tackling high‐complexity, multi‐system issues with system dynamics tools. These challenges include balanced and respectful stakeholder engagement, defining boundaries and levels of variable aggregation, and timing and processes for qualitative/quantitative model integration. Our five recommendations to address these challenges serve as a foundation for further research on methods for developing translatable qualitative multi‐system models for informing actions for systemic change. © 2024 System Dynamics Society.

BACKGROUND: Communicating research to policymakers is a complex and difficult process. Ensuring that communication materials have information or design aspects that appeal to groups of policymakers with different priorities could be a substantive improvement over current dissemination approaches. To facilitate a more nuanced design of policy communication materials and message framing, we identified and characterized groups of state legislators based on how they prioritize different characteristics of research. METHODS: We used deidentified data collected in 2012 on 862 state legislators belonging to the US liberal-moderate-conservative ideological spectrum and from all 50 US states. Legislators were grouped using latent class analysis based on how they prioritized 12 different characteristics of research (e.g., research is unbiased, presents data on cost-effectiveness, policy options are feasible). We fit initial models using 1–6 group solutions and chose the final model based on identification, information criteria, and substantive interpretation. RESULTS: Most legislators placed a high priority on research that was understandable (61%), unbiased (61%), available at the time that decisions are made (58%), and brief and concise (55%). The best model identified four groups of state legislators. Pragmatic consumers (36%) prioritized research that was brief and concise, provided cost-effectiveness analyses, and was understandably written. Uninterested skeptics (30%) generally did not place a high priority on any of the research characteristics. Conversely, one-quarter of legislators (25%) belonged to the Highly Informed Supporters group that placed a high priority on most characteristics of research. Finally, Constituent-Oriented Decision Makers (9%) prioritized research that was relevant to their constituents, delivered by someone they knew or trusted, available at the time decisions were made, and dealt with an issue that they felt was a priority for state legislative action. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the impact ...