Dunja Dreesens

70 Table 1: Step-by-step process during two-day consensus meeting STEP WHAT WHO 1 Discussed and agreed on the scope. Participants in face-to-face meeting 2 Discussed the list with tool types to familiarize with the tools and their definitions, and if the list was complete. Participants in face-to-face meeting 3 Including and excluding tools for the framework in subgroups; outcomes presented and discussed with whole group. Participants in face-to-face meeting 4 Identified purposes of the tools in subgroups; discussed outcomes presented and discussed with whole group. Participants in face-to-face meeting 5 Identified core elements of the included tools. Participants in face-to-face meeting - FIRST DRAFT OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK READY 6 Presented and discussed draft framework; additional tools, purposes, and core elements suggested. Teleconference participants - SECOND DRAFT OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK READY 7 Received input on draft framework via email. Australian participants 8 Fine-tuning: reviewed & confirmed the possible tool types and purposes to ensure that these were correct and complete. Participants in face-to-face meeting 9 Fine-tuning: reviewed & confirmed the core elements to ensure that these were correct and complete. Participants in face-to-face meeting - FINAL DRAFT OF THE FRAMEWORK AS DEVELOPED DURING THE MEETING TVDW and DD finalized the draft framework based on the minutes, field notes and recorded data. This also entailed comparing the draft framework with existing frameworks and taxonomies. The comparison was done for two reasons: first, to compare language and terminology used, and second, to establish where the frameworks differed or were alike. The draft framework was distributed in the form of a scientific manuscript to the participants for final feedback. It took one face-to-face session between DD and JG and two rounds by email with all co-authors before consensus was reached on the draft framework. All participants completed a declaration of interests. The initiators and chair proposed how to deal with the declared interests. This was discussed and decided upon at the start of the meeting. The plenary parts of the meeting were audio-recorded and DD took minutes during both days. Furthermore, DD and TVDW compared the minutes and field notes, and adjusted the former if needed. The adjusted minutes – checked against the recorded data – were shared afterwards with the participants for comments. Results The actual meeting was not as linear as described in the meeting protocol and methods section. It turned out to be an iterative process where discussions on tools and purposes lead to core elements and vice versa, but also prompting new or dismissed tool types to be (re-) included. Meeting participants included the moderator (TVDW), secretary (DD), and 15 experts; nine participants attended in person (JG (chair), TA, GE, SF, LK, NS, DS, AS, ST), and four (MA, AG, FL, PV) additionally took part in the teleconference. Two participants (SH, RR) took part via Chapter 4