mdh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts
Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd..
Mälardalen University, School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Innovation and Product Realisation.
University of Victoria, Canada.
2014 (English)In: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, Vol. 233, no 1, 145-158 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 233, no 1, 145-158 p.
Keyword [en]
Dialogue, Genetic engineering, Issues mapping, Problem structuring methods, Risk communication, Science and technology conflicts
National Category
Engineering and Technology Social Sciences
Identifiers
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: diva2:661252
Available from: 2013-11-01 Created: 2013-11-01 Last updated: 2015-02-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Midgley, Gerald
By organisation
Innovation and Product Realisation
In the same journal
European Journal of Operational Research
Engineering and TechnologySocial Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 29 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf