Factsheet: Actor analysis
Definition
Actor analysis is an analysis of all relevant actors. Relevant actors are:
- Actors that have an interest in the decision making;
- Actors that can hinder the decision making;
- Actors that can enrich the decision making;
- Actors that has to be involved on moral arguments.
(De Bruijn, et al., 2002)
Various methods for actor analysis exist. In general there are two types: institutions approaches (focus on the identification of actors and characterize these on some institutional features) and cognitive approaches (aim to understand and disclose the deeper perceptions and argumentations of the various actors). (Enserink and Mayer, 2002).
Application objectives
To identify all relevant actors, so that you know whom to involve in your process. Learn about different problem perceptions of actors/stakeholders. Learn more about different content aspects of the problem situation.
Estimate how the network of actors will participate. Who the 'enemies' are and who are your 'friends'. Whom do you need or don't need, etc.
A more legitimate problem formulation.A problem formulation in which different actors recognize themselves.
Pertinent participation process phase(s)
1- Starting organization
2- Actors analysis, context
3- Diagnostic of the current situation
4- Search of solutions
5- Implementation, evaluation
Application method
Actor analysis is based on information from literature study and interviews. It's a static representation of a very dynamic reality. So the analysis has to be updated often.
It helps to identify relevant stakeholders and learn about them. Different stakeholders can learn about each other if the analysis is public. The analysis can be made participative within a group of stakeholders. It then can facilitate the discussion (Social Learning).
There are different formats, some examples are:
1: Matrix with all relevant actors and their interests, goals, instruments and problem perspective:
Dedicated actors |
Non-dedicated actors |
|||
Critical actors |
Non-critical actors |
Critical actors |
Non-critical actors |
|
Joint perceptions and objectives |
Probable participant, potential allies (powerful friends) |
Possible participants and potential allies (friends) |
Indispensable allies, but hard to engage |
Actors that need not be involved (in first instance) |
Opposed perceptions and objectives |
Probable participant, potential opponents (biting dogs) |
Possible criticist (of certain changes) (barking dogs) |
Potential enemy, but not active (sleeping dogs) |
Actors that need no attention (in first instance) |
Table: Example of Actor Matrix after Enserink et al 2001, Matrix can be filled after inventory of goals, objectives, perceptions, means, influence and replaceability.
2. Inferred mapping: “An iterative approach in which interactive group support sessions, e.g. using group systems, are used for stakeholder identification and characterization, followed by the construction of a map or system schematic of the policy network(s) by the analyst. This map is then validated, detailed and elaborated upon, in one more group support sessions with other participants. The map is a communicative device for strategic decision making.” (Enserink and Mayer, 2002).
Figure: Simplified version of the GDSS stakeholder analysis output. Note: Each number represents stakeholder positioned by degree of influence and estimated (non) co-operative behaviour (Alternative analysis, Enserink and Mayer, 2002)
DANA: DANA (Dynamic Actor Network Analysis) is a conceptual modelling approach which intends to portray the perceptions of actors and their relationship to one to another in a form which is amenable to study, analysis and (re)-design. The DANA workbench is based on the assumption that the situations by which actors are influenced and to which they adapt themselves do not stem from the ‘objective’ world of the policy analyst, but from their own subjectively perceived world. Working from DANA the perceptions of the actors, in terms of relevant factors and actor-specific instruments and goals, are made explicit in a qualitative, conceptual language. The analyst can sharpen her insight by performing different types of comparative analysis. In DANA, every actor perception is modelled in terms of factual, causal and teleological assumptions. Teleological assumptions represent an actor’s true (or stated) objectives.
Factual assumptions make a statement about the state of a particular factor, e.g., "water quality is adequate" or "sediment pollution < 50 mg Cd / kg".
Causal assumptions represent the logic that an actor (says he) attributes to chains of events, e.g., "if strictness of water policies increases then freedom of navigation on the Scheldt will decrease", "if freedom of navigation decreases then economic position of Antwerp will probably decline", and so on. Formally, a link has a cause part and an effect part, where cause and effect are two different changes. Links may be uncertain, which is expressed by a hedge like ‘possibly’, ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’, typically associated with some value between 0 and 1. A link should be read as "if cause then certainty effect".
Teleological assumptions represent an actor’s true (or stated) objectives. The actor’s insistence on a goal expresses how strongly he desires a factor to change, typically on some ordinal scale, e.g., from ‘preferably’ to ‘definitely’.
Figure: example of DANA specification of causal Relations (Bots et al., 2000).
Application example(s)
See for more information on application of DANA: http://www.dana.tudelft.nl/publications/Scheldt/Scheldt.html
Example tools
Dynamic Actor Network Analysis (DANA) http://www.dana.tudelft.nl Free to download and use.
AquaStress contact(s)
Contact: None specified.
Reference
Quoted references:
- Bruijn, Hans de, Ernst ten Heuvelhof, Roel in’t Veld, 2002, Process management: why project management fails in complex decision making processes, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN: 1402073313, 180 pages.
- Enserink, Bert and Igor Mayer, 2002, Improving the strategic impact of policy making for diffuse water pollution through interactive inferred mapping of complex actor networks, International Water Association, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference Diffuse Pollution, 30 sept - 4 oct. 2002 Amsterdam, pp.420-427.
Non quoted but interesting articles:
- Bots, P.W.G., Mark J.W. van Twist, Ron van Duin, 1999. Designing a Power Tool for Policy Analysts: Dynamic Actor Network Analysis. Proceedings Thirty–second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Volume 6. www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0001/00016/00016029abs.htm
- Bots, P.W.G., van Twist M.J.W., van Duin J.H.R., 2000, Dynamic Actor Network Analysis for the Scheldt estuary, In: Decision Support for the Western Scheldt, Proceedings of the LWI Workshop University Projects, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.dana.tudelft.nl/publications/Scheldt/Scheldt.html
- Bruijn, H. de, E.F. ten Heuvelhof, 2000, Networks and Decision Making, Lemma, Utrecht, The Netherlands, English version: ISBN: 90 5189 834 7, 134 pages, Dutch version ISBN: 90 5189 795 2, 294 pages.
- Hermans, Leon., Nader El-Masry, M., Tarek M. Sadek, 2002, Linking Actors and Models for Water Policy Development in Egypt: Analyzing Actors and their Options Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, Winter 2002, Vol.14, No.4, p.57-74.
