IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v37y2021i4p310-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary objects in translation: the role of language in participatory system dynamics modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Ellis Ballard
  • Kelsey Werner
  • Pratiti Priyadarshini

Abstract

Participatory system dynamics modeling provides tools to represent and improve mental models through stakeholder participation. A hallmark of this approach is the creation and management models as boundary objects. With a proliferation of participatory modeling in diverse contexts, new methodological challenges have emerged around the role of language and translation. This article identifies a gap in the literature around the challenge of language, literacy, and linguistic translation in participatory modeling practice and examines examples from an emerging body of international practice. The authors present a case study that uses visuals to bridge multiple linguistic and literacy divides in workshops in rural India. The authors delineate a preliminary set of language configurations for boundary‐object engagement to clarify design choices of modelers and facilitators. They close with a discussion of the need to assess and document facilitation and language choices and propose opportunities to strengthen practical guidance for the field. © 2021 System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellis Ballard & Kelsey Werner & Pratiti Priyadarshini, 2021. "Boundary objects in translation: the role of language in participatory system dynamics modeling," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 310-332, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:310-332
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1694
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1694?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kopainsky, Birgit & Hager, Gerid & Herrera, Hugo & Nyanga, Progress H., 2017. "Transforming food systems at local levels: Using participatory system dynamics in an interactive manner to refine small-scale farmers’ mental models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 101-110.
    2. Sarah Giest & Annemarie Samuels, 2020. "‘For good measure’: data gaps in a big data world," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 559-569, September.
    3. Martin F. G. Schaffernicht & Stefan N. Groesser, 2016. "A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 52-81, January.
    4. Nicholas Valcourt & Jeffrey Walters & Amy Javernick‐Will & Karl Linden, 2020. "Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 135-157, April.
    5. Bradley Morrison, 2019. "Opportunities and risks on the path forward for system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 35(1), pages 25-34, January.
    6. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Mechanisms for Understanding Mental Model Change in Group Model Building," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 100-118, January.
    7. Allyson Beall & Fritz Fiedler & Jan Boll & Barbara Cosens, 2011. "Sustainable Water Resource Management and Participatory System Dynamics. Case Study : Developing the Palouse Basin Participatory Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-23, April.
    8. Krystyna Stave, 2010. "Participatory System Dynamics Modeling for Sustainable Environmental Management: Observations from Four Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Laura J. Black & David F. Andersen, 2012. "Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model‐Building Approaches," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 194-208, March.
    10. Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette, 2012. "Does Group Model Building Work? Evidence from and Comments on the Paper by Videira et al," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 620-623, November.
    11. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    12. Gábor Király & Péter Miskolczi, 2019. "Dynamics of participation: System dynamics and participation—An empirical review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 199-210, March.
    13. Michael Shayne Gary & Robert E. Wood, 2016. "Unpacking mental models through laboratory experiments," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 99-127, April.
    14. Forrester, Jay W., 1992. "Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 42-63, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodrigo Valencia Cotera & Sabine Egerer & María Máñez Costa, 2022. "Identifying Strengths and Obstacles to Climate Change Adaptation in the German Agricultural Sector: A Group Model Building Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Laura Schmitt Olabisi & Amadou Sidibé, 2023. "Observations from a system dynamics modeling field school in Mali," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(1), pages 80-94, January.
    3. Liang Liu & Cong Feng & Hongwei Zhang & Xuehua Zhang, 2015. "Game Analysis and Simulation of the River Basin Sustainable Development Strategy Integrating Water Emission Trading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Jia Shi & Xuesong Guo & Xiangnan Hu, 2019. "Engaging Stakeholders in Urban Traffic Restriction Policy Assessment Using System Dynamics: The Case Study of Xi’an City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Negar Darabi & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, 2020. "System dynamics modeling in health and medicine: a systematic literature review," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 29-73, January.
    6. Gábor Király & Alexandra Köves & György Pataki & Gabriella Kiss, 2016. "Assessing the Participatory Potential of Systems Mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 496-514, July.
    7. Datola, Giulia & Bottero, Marta & De Angelis, Elena & Romagnoli, Francesco, 2022. "Operationalising resilience: A methodological framework for assessing urban resilience through System Dynamics Model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 465(C).
    8. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    9. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    10. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    11. Vincenzo Vignieri, 2021. "Crowdsourcing as a mode of open innovation: Exploring drivers of success of a multisided platform through system dynamics modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 108-124, January.
    12. James D. A. Millington & Hang Xiong & Steve Peterson & Jeremy Woods, 2017. "Integrating Modelling Approaches for Understanding Telecoupling: Global Food Trade and Local Land Use," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Michele Preziosi & Roberto Merli & Mara D’Amico, 2016. "Why Companies Do Not Renew Their EMAS Registration? An Exploratory Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, February.
    14. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.
    15. H A Akkermans & K E van Oorschot, 2005. "Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 931-941, August.
    16. Jiangbo Yu, 2022. "An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 215-245, July.
    17. Florian Kapmeier, 2020. "Reflections on developing a simulation model on sustainable and healthy diets for decision makers: Comment on the paper by Kopainsky," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 928-935, November.
    18. Martin Unger & Tobia Lakes, 2023. "Land Use Conflicts and Synergies on Agricultural Land in Brandenburg, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    20. Salim, H.K. & Stewart, R.A. & Sahin, O. & Dudley, M., 2020. "Systems approach to end-of-life management of residential photovoltaic panels and battery energy storage system in Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:37:y:2021:i:4:p:310-332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.