1. STEPS Pathways Methods
PART 3
Issues of methods and power
around uncertainty and plurality
Professor Andy Stirling
Co-director, STEPS Centre
www.steps-centre.org
www.sussex.ac.uk/spru
www.multicriteria-mapping.org

2. INPUTS
(aspects taken into
account within
practice of research
or appraisal)
problems,
options,
pros / cons,
issues,
uncertainties,
perspectives
INPUTS
(things that are
taken into account)
Pro
blems, options, pros
/ cons, issues,
uncertainties,
perspectives
narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
Challenges for Research and Appraisal
How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?
OUTPUTS
(aspects that are conveyed
outwards into wider discourse)
’Plural conditional’ conclusions…
… if X then A … if Y then B …

3. narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
decision
analysis
Challenges for Research and Appraisal
How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?

4. narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
citizen’s juries
Challenges for Research and Appraisal
How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?

5. narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
citizen’s juries
participatory
rural appraisal
q-method
deliberative
mapping
scientometric
mapping
open
space
multi-criteria
mapping
extended
foresight
citizen’s juries
decision
analysis
stakeholder
negotiation
sensitivity
analysis
cost-benefit
analysis
risk
assessment
interactive
modelling
structured
interviews
narrative-based
participant
observation
multi-site
ethnographic-
methods
citizen’s juries
consensus
conference
open
hearings
dissenting
opinions
Challenges for Research and Appraisal
How more reflexively to inform policy and wider innovation governance?
spot-the-
narrative

6. spot-the-
narrative
narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
citizen’s juries
decision
analysis
participatory
rural appraisal
stakeholder
negotiation
q-method
sensitivity
analysis
deliberative
mapping
scientometric
mapping
open
space
cost-benefit
analysis
risk
assessmen
t
interactive
modelling
structured
interviews
narrative-based
participant
observation
multi-site
ethnographic-
methods
citizen’s juries
consensus
conference
open
hearings
dissenting
opinions
multi-criteria
mapping
extended
foresight
Power Closes Down Research and Appraisal
Institutions privilege blinkered scope, marginal analysis, incumbent interests
… evidence-basing, liability, insurance, agency remits, fiduciary responsibility
stakeholder
negotiation
cost-benefit
analysis
risk
assessment

7. narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
citizen’s juries
decision
analysis
participatory
rural appraisal
stakeholder
negotiation
q-method
sensitivity
analysis
deliberative
mapping
scientometric
mapping
open
space
cost-benefit
analysis
risk
assessmen
t
interactive
modelling
structured
interviews
narrative-based
participant
observation
multi-site
ethnographic-
methods
citizen’s juries
consensus
conference
open
hearings
dissenting
opinions
multi-criteria
mapping
extended
foresight
Power Closes Down Research and Appraisal
A responsibility for neutrality means independent innovation research and
policy appraisal should deliberately counter pressures for closure
spot-the-
narrative

8. narrow
broad
closing down opening up
expert /
analytic
participatory /
deliberative
Building Methods Repertoires
Basis both for practical project methods – and systematic STEPS methodology
‘visions
workshops’
‘dynamic
MCM’
‘particip.
epidem.’
‘top-bottom
comparison’
‘network
analysis’
‘insider
ontologies’

9. appreciative process: A: ENGAGE ACTORS
help appreciate alternative pathways
BASIC STEPS
B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
C: CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS
D: REVEAL STRATEGIES

10. A: ENGAGE ACTORS - together:
1: review relevant histories
2: analyse associated networks
3: snowball salient interests
4: prioritise most marginal
5: examine power relations
6: identify basic pathway visions
7: be alert for hidden plurality
8: seek critical feedback
STEPS METHODOLOGY
appreciative process:
help appreciate alternative pathways
‘Stages’ are distinct but
mutually co-constituting.
Sequence is heuristic, iterative
and recursive.
Tasks always relevant but not
always equally crucial.
Tasks can be addressed in
different ways.
‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’
must in some way consider – if
not address - all stages & tasks.

11. STEPS METHODOLOGY
appreciative process:
APPRECIATE
PATHWAYS
B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
1: review relevant histories
2: elicit notions of systems
3: explore related narratives
4: address Sustainability values
5: scope possible pathways
6: review aspects of incertitude
7: differentiate perspectives
8: seek critical feedback
B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
1: review relevant histories
2: elicit notions of systems
3: explore related narratives
4: address Sustainability values
5: scope possible pathways
6: review aspects of incertitude
7: differentiate perspectives
8: seek critical feedback
A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together:
1: review relevant histories
2: analyse associated networks
3: snowball salient interests
4: prioritise most marginal
5: examine power relations
6: identify basic pathway visions
7: be alert for hidden plurality
8: seek critical feedback
help appreciate alternative pathways
‘Stages’ are distinct but
mutually co-constituting.
Sequence is heuristic, iterative
and recursive.
Tasks always relevant but not
always equally crucial.
Tasks can be addressed in
different ways.
‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’
must in some way consider – if
not address - all stages & tasks.

12. B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
1: review relevant histories
2: elicit notions of systems
3: explore related narratives
4: address Sustainability values
5: scope possible pathways
6: review aspects of incertitude
7: differentiate perspectives
8: seek critical feedback
C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS:
1: review relevant histories
2: explore challenges/opportunities
3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses
4: look at actors’ strength/weakness
5: examine decision/branch points
6: identify winners/losers
7: attend to issues of power/politics
8: seek critical feedback
STEPS METHODOLOGY
APPRECIATE
PATHWAYS
A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together:
1: review relevant histories
2: analyse associated networks
3: snowball salient interests
4: prioritise most marginal
5: examine power relations
6: identify basic pathway visions
7: be alert for hidden plurality
8: seek critical feedback
help appreciate alternative pathways
appreciative process:
‘Stages’ are distinct but
mutually co-constituting.
Sequence is heuristic, iterative
and recursive.
Tasks always relevant but not
always equally crucial.
Tasks can be addressed in
different ways.
‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’
must in some way consider – if
not address - all stages & tasks.

13. A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together:
1: review relevant histories
2: analyse associated networks
3: snowball salient interests
4: prioritise most marginal
5: examine power relations
6: identify basic pathway visions
7: be alert for hidden plurality
8: seek critical feedback
B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
1: review relevant histories
2: elicit notions of systems
3: explore related narratives
4: address Sustainability values
5: scope key possible pathways
6: review aspects of incertitude
7: differentiate perspectives
8: seek critical feedback
D: REVEAL POLITICAL ACTIONS
1: review relevant histories
2: confirm key protagonists
3: explore forms of agency
4: define possible interventions
5: review winners/losers
6: examine possible responses
7: establish accountabilities
8: seek critical feedback
C CHARACTERISE DYNAMICS:
1: review relevant histories
2: explore challenges/opportunities
3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses
4: look at actors’ strength/weakness
5: examine decision/branch points
6: identify winners/losers
7: attend to issues of power/politics
8: seek critical feedback
STEPS METHODOLOGY
APPRECIATE
PATHWAYS
help appreciate alternative pathways
appreciative process:
‘Stages’ are distinct but
mutually co-constituting.
Sequence is heuristic, iterative
and recursive.
Tasks always relevant but not
always equally crucial.
Tasks can be addressed in
different ways.
‘Broadening out’ and ‘opening up’
must in some way consider – if
not address - all stages & tasks.

14. phenomena under scrutiny
(all key aspects of pathways)
• “systems” and “contexts”
• “scales” and “levels”
• “actors” and “networks”
• “values” and “interests”
• “frames” and “narratives”
• “causes” and “effects”
• “knowledges”,“incertitudes”
• “positives” and “negatives”
• “structures” and “agents”
• “actions” and “reactions”
• “imaginations” and “visions”
interpretive challenge
STEPS METHODOLOGY help appreciate alternative pathways

15. SCOPING
of breadth of contexts
FOCUSING
on depth of particularities
LINKING
relations and perspectives
aspects of methods
STEPS METHODOLOGY
Inductive appreciation of
contexts
Broad descriptive
accounts
Diverse evaluative views
Attend to key dimensions
of heterogeneity.
Envelope of different
understandings
Illustrative mottos :
“start with the big picture”;
“see wood for trees”
“better roughly accurate
than precisely wrong“
Tightening deductive kinds
of focus
Targetted, ordered, thick
accounts
Particular systematic
disciplinary rigour
Key parameters of
homogeneity.
Deeper, forensic attention
to detail
Conditionally more subtle
individual understandings.
Illustrative mottos
"the devil's in the detail“
“thick not thin accounts”
Informed both by scoping
and focusing
Exploring fruitful axes for
cross-interrogation
Mutual critical deconstruction
‘Plural and conditional’,
appreciation
Illustrative mottos
“beauty (truth) are in the
eyes of beholders“
"it takes all sorts to make a
world“
“agree on reasons for
disagreement”
phenomena under scrutiny
(all key aspects of pathways)
• “systems” and “contexts”
• “scales” and “levels”
• “actors” and “networks”
• “values” and “interests”
• “frames” and “narratives”
• “causes” and “effects”
• “knowledges”,“incertitudes”
• “positives” and “negatives”
• “structures” and “agents”
• “actions” and “reactions”
• “imaginations” and “visions”
help appreciate alternative pathways

16. environment
plural frames
Knowledges and Pathways
‘system’
under-determined realities
local people
time
‘effect’
‘cause’
diverse pictures
‘scope’
‘linking’
‘pathway’
‘focus’

17. SCOPING
breadth of contexts
FOCUSING
depth of particularities
LINKING
relations and perspectives
STEPS METHODOLOGY
Interpretive style
Interactive style
Group Deliberative style
Temporal dimensions
Reflexive dimensions
‘Positive’ style
Quantitative style
Monitoring / surveillance
Uncertain hazard analysis
Natural experiment
Interdisciplinary challenge
Transdisciplinary oversight
Plural conditional advice
Precautionary appraisal
Complex resilience analysis
Post-normal science
Critical literature review
Influence mapping
Alternatives assessment
Millstone critical realism
Social network analysis
In-depth case study
Discourse analysis
Semantic structures
Top-bottom comparison
Semi-structured IVs
Empathetic role play
In-depth, open IVs
participant observation
MCM interviews
Iterative Q method
Cross-frame interrogation
Open space approaches
Participatory soft systems
Participatory appraisal
Ethnographic immersion
Targeted focus groups
Iterative questionnaire
Iterative group MCM
Deliberative dissensus
Bring power to powerless
Open network analysis
Critical systematic review
Agent-based modelling
Repertory grids
Interactive models / GIS
Deliberative polling
Sensitivity analysis
Interval analysis
Diversity mapping
Historiographic research
Futures literatures
Extended foresight
Imaginaries analysis
Visioning / backcasting
Cross-scenario exploring
Do-it-yourself panels
Power tools
Co-operative research
Accountability process
Critical web access
Participatory design
Dissonance exploration
towards a
methods repertoire
help appreciate alternative pathways

18. SCOPING
breadth of contexts
GROUNDING
depth of particularities
TRIANGULATING
relations and perspectives
STEPS METHODOLOGY
Do-it-yourself panels
Power tools
Co-operative research
Accountability process
Critical web access
Participatory design
Dissonance exploration
Historiographic research
Futures literatures
Extended foresight
Imaginaries analysis
Visioning / backcasting
Cross-scenario exploring
Open space approaches
Participatory soft systems
Participatory appraisal
Ethnographic immersion
Targeted focus groups
Iterative questionnaire
Iterative group MCM
Deliberative dissensus
Bring power to powerless
Critical literature review
Influence mapping
Alternatives assessment
Millstone critical realism
Social network analysis
In-depth case study
Discourse analysis
Semantic structures
Top-bottom comparison
Semi-structured IVs
Empathetic role play
In-depth, open IVs
participant observation
MCM interviews
Iterative Q method
Cross-frame interrogation
Monitoring / surveillance
Uncertain hazard analysis
Natural experiment
Interdisciplinary challenge
Transdisciplinary oversight
Plural conditional advice
Open network analysis
Critical systematic review
Agent-based modelling
Repertory grids
Interactive models / GIS
Deliberative polling
Precautionary appraisal
Complex resilience analysis
Post-normal science
Sensitivity analysis
Interval analysis
Diversity mapping
... back to process:
Contrasting configurations of
methods are used in different
contexts to meet specific
methodological tasks at various
stages in the social appreciation of
alternative social, ecological and
technological pathways.
Each stage and task is thus
situated in a space defined by
different aspects of appraisal
(scoping, focusing and linking)
and by contrasting styles and
dimensions of particular methods
(outlined in the underlying grid).
In this way, the overarching STEPS
methodological framework helps
inform both the selection and
ordering of a diversity of methods
suitable for addressing different
aspects and dimensions in the
‘broadening out’ and ‘opening up’
of alternative pathways.
help appreciate alternative pathways
A: ENGAGE ACTORS – together:
1: review relevant histories
2: analyse associated networks
3: snowball salient interests
4: prioritise most marginal
5: examine power relations
6: identify basic pathway visions
7: be alert for hidden plurality
8: seek critical feedback
B: EXPLORE FRAMINGS
1: review relevant histories
2: elicit notions of systems
3: explore related narratives
4: address Sustainability values
5: scope key possible pathways
6: review aspects of incertitude
7: differentiate perspectives
8: seek critical feedback
D: REVEAL STRATEGIES
1: review relevant histories
2: confirm key protagonists
3: explore forms of agency
4: define possible interventions
5: review winners/losers
6: examine possible responses
7: establish accountabilities
8: seek critical feedback
C: MAP DYNAMICS for each pathway:
1: review relevant histories
2: explore challenges/opportunities
3: scrutinise likely shocks/stresses
4: look at actors’ strength/weakness
5: examine decision/branch points
6: identify winners/losers
7: attend to issues of power/politics
8: seek critical feedback
APPRECIATE
PATHWAYS