Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- research design (2) (remove)
Institute
Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher–stakeholder relationships.
In intervention research, single-case experimental designs are an important way to gain insights into the causes of individual changes that yield high internal validity. They are commonly applied to examine the effectiveness of classroom-based interventions to reduce problem behavior in schools. At the same time, there is no consensus on good design characteristics of single-case experimental designs when dealing with behavioral problems in schools. Moreover, specific challenges arise concerning appropriate approaches to analyzing behavioral data. Our study addresses the interplay between the test power of piecewise regression analysis and important design specifications of single-case research designs. Here, we focus on the influence of the following specifications of single-case research designs: number of measurement times, the initial frequency of the behavior, intervention effect, and data trend. We conducted a Monte-Carlo study. First, simulated datasets were created with specific design conditions based on reviews of published single-case intervention studies. Following, data were analyzed using piecewise Poisson-regression models, and the influence of specific design specifications on the test power was investigated. Our results indicate that piecewise regressions have a high potential of adequately identifying the effects of interventions for single-case studies. At the same time, test power is strongly related to the specific design specifications of the single-case study: Few measurement times, especially in phase A, and low initial frequencies of the behavior make it impossible to detect even large intervention effects. Research designs with a high number of measurement times show robust power. The insights gained are highly relevant for researchers in the field, as decisions during the early stage of conceptualizing and planning single-case experimental design studies may impact the chance to identify an existing intervention effect during the research process correctly.