iteration between science and practice, as well as for access to regional stakeholders
for interviews to ensure an even representation of relevant stakeholders. In order to
enable a complete coverage of the perspectives and opinions of different stakeholders, the governance team visited each region twice and prepared a draft
assessment report for each region, which was finalised after the second round of
visits. The practice partners and other stakeholders interviewed were encouraged to
‘feedback’ into the draft reports to ensure that the governance assessment reflected
the reality of water management in that specific regional context. Having exchanges
with practice partners on the governance assessment can also contribute substantially to the development of recommendations. It is relatively easy to propose that
some action should be undertaken to improve or circumvent weaknesses in the
governance context. But the development of advices about how to implement such
actions needs inputs from the practice partners.
Diversity in backgrounds of the analysts diagnosing the governance context
played a positive role. It helps avoiding scientific disciplinary terminology. Simple
and clear messages are easier to translate into concrete and feasible actions. In an
interdisciplinary project team, there is a constant need for mutual adjustment and
searching for a common language. Equally, that the governance team was composed of ‘outsiders’ to the region meant that there was objective reflection on what
were sometimes very local issues and to the institutional rules and habits involved.
Questioning what would otherwise be taken for granted by observers from the own
country or region, can provide important eye-opening reflections.
Visit several regions—In DROP we found it quite useful to have the team
members visit several regions. This observation of several governance settings
allows for comparative analysis already during the data gathering phase, and as a
result that creates the possibility to sharpen questions along the way. Most members
of the governance team visited two or three regions twice, one team member even
visited all regions.
Awareness raising ‘intervention’—Doing such research in the region also forms
a type of awareness raising ‘intervention’. A number of the stakeholders interviewed had a fairly low awareness of the relevance of drought for their cases and
the role of climate change therein. Nevertheless, the fact that an international
governance team was visiting their region, asking many questions on the subject
and returning with feedback and further questions half a year later contributed to
pushing drought and water scarcity onto regional agendas. The modification
side-effect of such ‘action research’ can also inhibit local actors in participating
fully in the assessment. The fact that the GAT is not meant to evaluate the work of
the practice partners, but the context under which they have to do their work should
be made clear and might help in this respect.
Pre-collect existing documentation—Given the diversity of nationalities and
diversity of professional backgrounds of the governance assessment team, it was
found to be useful to collect some existing documentation or prepare a short
document to provide prior information on the context of climate change, water
management, and other relevant policies of each region. This levelled up the
governance team members’ understanding of the main features of each site before
60
H. Bressers et al.
for interviews to ensure an even representation of relevant stakeholders. In order to
enable a complete coverage of the perspectives and opinions of different stakeholders, the governance team visited each region twice and prepared a draft
assessment report for each region, which was finalised after the second round of
visits. The practice partners and other stakeholders interviewed were encouraged to
‘feedback’ into the draft reports to ensure that the governance assessment reflected
the reality of water management in that specific regional context. Having exchanges
with practice partners on the governance assessment can also contribute substantially to the development of recommendations. It is relatively easy to propose that
some action should be undertaken to improve or circumvent weaknesses in the
governance context. But the development of advices about how to implement such
actions needs inputs from the practice partners.
Diversity in backgrounds of the analysts diagnosing the governance context
played a positive role. It helps avoiding scientific disciplinary terminology. Simple
and clear messages are easier to translate into concrete and feasible actions. In an
interdisciplinary project team, there is a constant need for mutual adjustment and
searching for a common language. Equally, that the governance team was composed of ‘outsiders’ to the region meant that there was objective reflection on what
were sometimes very local issues and to the institutional rules and habits involved.
Questioning what would otherwise be taken for granted by observers from the own
country or region, can provide important eye-opening reflections.
Visit several regions—In DROP we found it quite useful to have the team
members visit several regions. This observation of several governance settings
allows for comparative analysis already during the data gathering phase, and as a
result that creates the possibility to sharpen questions along the way. Most members
of the governance team visited two or three regions twice, one team member even
visited all regions.
Awareness raising ‘intervention’—Doing such research in the region also forms
a type of awareness raising ‘intervention’. A number of the stakeholders interviewed had a fairly low awareness of the relevance of drought for their cases and
the role of climate change therein. Nevertheless, the fact that an international
governance team was visiting their region, asking many questions on the subject
and returning with feedback and further questions half a year later contributed to
pushing drought and water scarcity onto regional agendas. The modification
side-effect of such ‘action research’ can also inhibit local actors in participating
fully in the assessment. The fact that the GAT is not meant to evaluate the work of
the practice partners, but the context under which they have to do their work should
be made clear and might help in this respect.
Pre-collect existing documentation—Given the diversity of nationalities and
diversity of professional backgrounds of the governance assessment team, it was
found to be useful to collect some existing documentation or prepare a short
document to provide prior information on the context of climate change, water
management, and other relevant policies of each region. This levelled up the
governance team members’ understanding of the main features of each site before
60
H. Bressers et al.