108 Chapter 4 to changes to the framework, since none were seen as needed by participants. Then, for each session, participants filled in responses per question on the blank Data Generation Tool. Participants worked in pairs to stimulate exchange and debate while examining the other’s perspective. 4.3.2.3. Interviews and online communication As a third data collection method, seven interviews were held during the second workshop day to discuss responses inmore detail. The rest were contacted post-workshop. In the following three months, five additional interviews were held, communication with the other 10 participants happened via email. All survey and interview responses were typed into a digital version of the data generation tool (appendix 4.1) and shared with the participants for their verification and adjustment of responses, and also to encourage them to add new insights that may have emerged after the workshop. These interviews and online communications provided more richness on viewpoints regarding the component elements, and on the relationships between elements. 4.3.3. Approach to the data analysis We analyzed the perspectives within Foresight4Food initiative using a qualitative case study method. This is a well-established method for looking at complex phenomena in their context (Baxter and Jack, 2008) with sensitivity to the empirical complexity (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Hopkin, 2010) and the diversity of viewpoints (Yin, 2003; Baxter and Jack, 2008). As such, it most suited to analyze diverse perspectives on how explicit and implicit assumptions steer decision making and actions in the present. We proceeded as follows. As earlier stated, the analytical framework by Muiderman et al. (2020) served as the template for the deductive enquiry (Yin, 2003). During the workshop, we presented the four approaches to anticipatory governance as laid out in the analytical framework after which participants self-identified their position within the diversity of perspectives using the Data Generation Tool, and added new viewpoints. Their spoken accounts were then typed into a digital version of the tool, one tool filled in for each participant, and complemented with responses from the other methods (survey, interviews and online communication). The final tool was shared with participants for verification and adjustment. We analyzed and compared responses to the analytical framework on anticipatory governance, using its four ideal-type approaches as heuristic tools for identifying diverse approaches to anticipatory governance within the community. We finally analyzed how these approaches to anticipatory governance relate to different conceptions of transformations by combining the analytical framework on anticipatory governance with the analytical framework on transformations.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw