Though there are different interpretations in the scholarly literature of what a social learning is: whether it is an individual, organisational, or collective process. For example, Freeman (2007), in his study on policy change in the public health sector, conceptualised collective learning of public officials as a process of epistemological bricolage. In his interpretation, the new policy ideas are the result of this bricolage process, when the “acquired second-hand” ideas are transformed into “something new”. The literature on (democratic) governance points opens another perspective to the policy change, emphasising the importance of public engagement in the policy-making process. Following this school of thought the new policy is the result of a deliberative act that involves different participants. In other words, the ideas about policy are not borrowed, but are born in social deliberation. Combining the insights gained from both literatures – social learning and governance – the policy change is interpreted, as a result of a broad social interaction process, which is also the social learning for all participants.The paper will focus on further development of the conceptualisation of policy change through social deliberation and social learning and will attempt to define the involved micro mechanisms. The exploratory case study of policy change that was preceded by a broad public debate will help to describe and establish the mechanisms. Specifically, the paper will focus on the decision of the Dutch government to cease the exploration of natural gas from the Groningen gas field. The radical change in national policy regarding gas exploration is seen as a result of a broader public debate, which was an act of social deliberation and social learning at the same time.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: Collaborative deliberation comprises personal engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, preference elicitation, and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation may be improved by assisting preference elicitation during shared decision-making. This study proposes a framework for preference elicitation to facilitate collaborative deliberation in long-term care consultations. Methods: First, a literature overview was conducted comprising current models for the elicitation of preferences in health and social care settings. The models were reviewed and compared. Second, qualitative research was applied to explore those issues that matter most to clients in long-term care. Data were collected from clients in long-term care, comprising 16 interviews, 3 focus groups, 79 client records, and 200 online client reports. The qualitative analysis followed a deductive approach. The results of the literature overview and qualitative research were combined. Results: Based on the literature overview, five overarching domains of preferences were described: “Health”, “Daily life”, “Family and friends”, ”Living conditions”, and “Finances”. The credibility of these domains was confirmed by qualitative data analysis. During interviews, clients addressed issues that matter in their lives, including a “click” with their care professional, safety, contact with loved ones, and assistance with daily structure and activities. These data were used to determine the content of the domains. Conclusion: A framework for preference elicitation in long-term care is proposed. This framework could be useful for clients and professionals in preference elicitation during collaborative deliberation.
DOCUMENT
This open access book states that the endemic societal faultlines of our times are deeply intertwined and that they confront us with challenges affecting the security and sustainability of our societies. It states that new ways of inhabiting and cultivating our planet are needed to keep it healthy for future generations. This requires a fundamental shift from the current anthropocentric and economic growth-oriented social contract to a more ecocentric and regenerative natural social contract. The author posits that in a natural social contract, society cannot rely on the market or state alone for solutions to grand societal challenges, nor leave them to individual responsibility. Rather, these problems need to be solved through transformative social-ecological innovation (TSEI), which involves systemic changes that affect sustainability, health and justice. The TSEI framework presented in this book helps to diagnose and advance innovation and change across sectors and disciplines, and at different levels of governance. It identifies intervention points and helps formulate sustainable solutions for policymakers, administrators, concerned citizens and professionals in moving towards a more just and equitable society.
MULTIFILE
