 Tämä on todella hyvää olla täällä. Kiitos, että näin tämän oppimusten. Tarkoitan, että minä olen lopunut Estonia- ja Universitio-lipuolta. Minä olen lopunut ja olen posdoktor- ja researcher. Ja ehkä myös, että minä olen saanut muutamaa kysymyksiä, The choices I have made and the example I will be showing you. So my background is basically connected to different kinds of concepts that include stakeholder engagement, stakeholder participation. And the application fields are then connected to nature conservation, ecological networks and spatial planning. So this is basically my, basically my, basically my, basically my, my current, my background. And I should also say that I'm not a systematic reviewer. I have mostly experience in qualitative primary research, so doing interviews and textual analysis. But why I am here is that Biljana asked me to briefly introduce what is framework synthesis and to give a brief example of that. So I'll try to give that example and in the bearing in mind that to highlight some of the questions that Novi's researcher might encounter when he or she is doing such a work. So maybe briefly about if we depict synthesis different kinds of methods on epistemological continuum, then we can see that the framework synthesis lies in the more realist type of methods. And it means that you are less interpretive, but you more summarize or aggregate the results. So what it is, it's practically comes from, the term comes from primary research, it comes from framework analysis. And it's practically a way or technique to criticize or to rebuild an existing framework. Or you can also choose a new one or build a new one if you don't find an appropriate one. And because it's quite structured and it's also said that it's quite less time consuming compared to the other qualitative synthesis methods, then it's also quite popular for policy advice. Because it's supposed to provide you quite precise answers to the questions. And what are then the basic steps or phases in the synthesis. So everything starts from a question. So where do you get this question? It's usually the background literature that you consult. But also you can consult stakeholders, policymakers. And then in parallel you can build your framework or select an existing one. And then you search for the literature, you include the studies and then data extraction. And once you reach to the results, then you will hopefully get like a new frame or refined frame. Which you can then use to criticize the existing framework and also the broader background literature. And also provide if your question is like more precise, then you can also provide some policy advice or some practical advice. So maybe now about the example. It's about the recent preview that I have been coordinating and doing as part of my postdoctoral studies here in Stockholm Resilience Center a couple of years ago. But this was quite recently published and so I will talk about this. I should also mention that it's not like a broad, how to say, project. So it's basically my postdoctoral project and I had good co-authors, but it's not like a big research project in this sense. So about the topic, it focuses on learning in natural research management. And why did we chose such a topic? It's basically the reason that in natural research management the learning concept has been taken up quite popularity. And it's said that you can have a lot of positive outcomes from this concept into the practice. So you can have practical management, better decisions. You can have changes in the institutions. You can have like ultimate better environmental effects and so on. So we were interested in what does the literature say about it. What is there? And then maybe about the challenges or questions I encountered. So this was an interesting journey actually for me because it was the first time I was doing this. I mean in the synthesis level, not working with primary quality data. And I had a lot of questions in my head when I started this work. And the first set of challenges was then how to build or select the framework. So in the literature, in the methodological literature, it's usually said that you should select an existing framework. But what if you don't find like a suitable one that would suit for your research question and for your data. So and which disciplines you include because learning is like a very broad concept that you can find from the learning, from the educational literature to the organizational studies to the natural resource management where it has been traveled. So and which concept to use to use like learning based concept of course and also which kind of natural resource related concepts to use. Then so we choose to build a new framework. It's not totally new of course, but it's like suited for our purpose. So what you can see here is the first upper corner on the left hand side is the more like which has been more elaborated in the literature. So learning outcomes from the perspective of cognitive change, relational change skills. So to speak new ones is you can see in the right hand side are the ones that how these outcomes translate to the actual practice of natural research or environmental management. So this is our preconceived set of topics or frame. Then what about if you have the framework more or less and then you start searching the literature and including studies. It's not a linear process by no means. So you can have a lot of confusion in your head, but for example, what is the appropriate search strategy as an overall strategy. So and also what are the keywords or suitable search strings. And what if you if you have a search for the literature and if you have the pile of the studies, then what how to include or exclude them, what are the suitable criteria for that. And here actually I think here it was the phase where I struggled or we struggled the most because there are very few like really detailed examples from the natural research management literature. There are examples of course from the other domains from health domain from other domains so but not so specific from the environmental domain. And even when there are like examples from keywords that have been used, there are not so many examples that detail out the exact approach for example like search string level. What are the exact search strings that have been used. So it's very difficult to comprehend and to invent like a good strategy for a beginner. And so we ended up with this kind of search model or search depiction. And we went from like over 1000 records to 50 about 50 papers, final papers included in the analysis. So we call this like a systematic literature search, but like the analysis is more qualitative than. And what about the final phase, data analysis, what should one do with the literature. So what was our, what were our questions and challenges in this sense. So maybe one of the most important ones was that we needed to revise the categories in the initial framework quite a lot. So when doing the analysis you find new topics and as Neil also introduced in the beginning about the thematic synthesis that actually the framework synthesis goes hand in hand often with the framework synthesis. So you find new themes and you find new relevant aspects that you need to include so you need to revise your framework. But not too much also because it's like a preconceived set still so you need to find the balance. And it's maybe in some it's like a continuous balancing act between. Generising your findings and also to how to take into account for the context that is in the individual studies. So it's not a quantitative counting of numbers, of course. And also at the practical level it was the language use that was very different in different studies. So they all came from the natural resource management, but which is very broad. So for example even the learning term itself it's conceptualized or dealt with very differently in the literature. So for example it's in one set of literature it can be a process and in another set of literature it can be an outcome. So and also the outcomes that we identified it's sometimes considered as process and sometimes in outcome as an outcome. So what was our approach there was that we tried to be as close as possible to the meaning what the original article said. So that was the strategy that we took. So here you can see the revised framework or the framework that we built in with the topics. And this is like to sum up it's kind of way to build like a conceptually and empirically grounded framework. That you can use then for like criticizing an existing framework or model or like building more like practically related topics in this field. So but of course as I mentioned also for me it was a challenge in this sense that it was like not a big research project but like postdoctoral more or less not individual study but still it was I think that in the future the team would be really important in this sense and also the time because yeah I think it takes time and good results don't come just like that so. But many thanks and I hope that maybe it was something for Fuse.