mdh.sePublikasjoner
Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts
Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd..
Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering.
University of Victoria, Canada.
2014 (engelsk)Inngår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 233, nr 1, s. 145-158Artikkel i tidsskrift (Fagfellevurdert) Published
Abstract [en]

There are new opportunities for the application of problem structuring methods to address science and technology risk conflicts through stakeholder dialogue. Most previous approaches to addressing risk conflicts have been developed from a traditional risk communication perspective, which tends to construct engagement between stakeholders based on the assumption that scientists evaluate technologies using facts, and lay participants do so based on their values. 'Understanding the facts' is generally privileged, so the value framings of experts often remain unexposed, and the perspectives of lay participants are marginalized. When this happens, risk communication methodologies fail to achieve authentic dialogue and can exacerbate conflict. This paper introduces 'Issues Mapping', a problem structuring method that enables dialogue by using visual modelling techniques to clarify issues and develop mutual understanding between stakeholders. A case study of the first application of Issues Mapping is presented, which engaged science and community protagonists in the genetic engineering debate in New Zealand. Participant and researcher evaluations suggest that Issues Mapping helped to break down stereotypes of both scientists and environmental activists; increased mutual understanding; reduced conflict; identified common ground; started building trust; and supported the emergence of policy options that all stakeholders in the room could live with. The paper ends with some reflections and priorities for further research.

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
2014. Vol. 233, nr 1, s. 145-158
Emneord [en]
Dialogue, Genetic engineering, Issues mapping, Problem structuring methods, Risk communication, Science and technology conflicts
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-22329DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.08.012ISI: 000326359600014Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84885575317OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-22329DiVA, id: diva2:661252
Tilgjengelig fra: 2013-11-01 Laget: 2013-11-01 Sist oppdatert: 2017-12-06bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltekst mangler i DiVA

Andre lenker

Forlagets fulltekstScopus

Søk i DiVA

Av forfatter/redaktør
Midgley, Gerald
Av organisasjonen
I samme tidsskrift
European Journal of Operational Research

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 44 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf