Strong climate legislation and public behaviour change – the role of communication

No description supplie

‘Talk amongst yourselves’:designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk

The use of a moderator has become ubiquitous when using focus groups for social science research. While a skilled moderator can facilitate discussion, we argue that, in some instances, moderators can potentially hinder the generation of the types of group discussions that academic researchers may seek to access. In this paper we outline some of the challenges associated with moderated focus groups and propose a complimentary methodology: a remotely-moderated focus group that can help overcome some of the problems a physically present moderator might create, while still incorporating many of the benefits of moderation. Using two remotely-moderated focus group designs–one exploring dietary identity and the other exploring gendered experiences of sexual harassment–we provide evidence for the efficacy of this design in multiple contexts. We evaluate its ability to produce high quality conversational data and suggest directions for future research exploring the utility of this methodology.</p

‘Talk amongst yourselves’:designing and evaluating a novel remotely-moderated focus group methodology for exploring group talk

The use of a moderator has become ubiquitous when using focus groups for social science research. While a skilled moderator can facilitate discussion, we argue that, in some instances, moderators can potentially hinder the generation of the types of group discussions that academic researchers may seek to access. In this paper we outline some of the challenges associated with moderated focus groups and propose a complimentary methodology: a remotely-moderated focus group that can help overcome some of the problems a physically present moderator might create, while still incorporating many of the benefits of moderation. Using two remotely-moderated focus group designs–one exploring dietary identity and the other exploring gendered experiences of sexual harassment–we provide evidence for the efficacy of this design in multiple contexts. We evaluate its ability to produce high quality conversational data and suggest directions for future research exploring the utility of this methodology.</p

Public engagement with carbon and climate change: To what extent is the public 'carbon capable'?

The relevance of climate change for society seems indisputable: scientific evidence points to a significant human contribution in causing climate change, and impacts which will increasingly affect human welfare. In order to meet national and international greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets, there is an urgent need to understand and enable societal engagement inmitigation. Yet recent research indicates that this involvement is currently limited: although awareness of climate change is widespread, understanding and behavioral engagement are far lower. Proposals for mitigative ‘personal carbon budgets’ imply a need for public understanding of the causes and consequences of carbon emissions, as well as the ability to reduce emissions. However, little has been done to consider the situated meanings of carbon and energy in everyday life and decisions. This paper builds on the concept of ‘carbon capability’, a term which captures the contextual meanings associated with carbon and individuals’ abilities and motivations to reduce emissions. We present empirical findings from a UK survey of public engagement with climate change and carbon capability, focusing on both individual and institutional dimensions. These findings highlight the diverse public understandings about ‘carbon’, encompassing technical, social, and moral discourses; and provide further evidence for the environmental value-action gap in relation to adoption of low-carbon lifestyles. Implications of these findings for promoting public engagement with climate change and carbon capability are discussed

No father required? The welfare assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Of all the changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 that were introduced in 2008 by legislation of the same name, foremost to excite media attention and popular controversy was the amendment of the so-called welfare clause. This clause forms part of the licensing conditions which must be met by any clinic before offering those treatment services covered by the legislation. The 2008 Act deleted the statutory requirement that clinicians consider the need for a father of any potential child before offering a woman treatment, substituting for it a requirement that clinicians must henceforth consider the child’s need for “supportive parenting”. In this paper, we first briefly recall the history of the introduction of s 13(5) in the 1990 Act, before going on to track discussion of its amendment through the lengthy reform process that preceded the introduction of the 2008 Act. We then discuss the meaning of the phrase “supportive parenting” with reference to guidance regarding its interpretation offered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. While the changes to s 13(5) have been represented as suggesting a major change in the law, we suggest that the reworded section does not represent a significant break from the previous law as it had been interpreted in practice. This raises the question of why it was that an amendment that is likely to make very little difference to clinical practice tended to excite such attention (and with such polarising force). To this end, we locate debates regarding s 13(5) within a broader context of popular anxieties regarding the use of reproductive technologies and, specifically, what they mean for the position of men within the family

Between adaptive capacity and action: new insights into climate change adaptation at the household scale

Research on social vulnerability and adaptation to climate change assumes that increasing amounts of adaptive capacity increase the likelihood of actions to adapt to climate change. We test this assumption as it applies at the scale of households, through a study of the relationship between adaptive capacity and household actions to adapt to wildfire risk in Mount Dandenong, Australia. Here we show a weak relationship exists between adaptive capacity and adaptation, such that high adaptive capacity does not clearly result in a correspondingly high level of adaptation. Three factors appear to mediate the relationship between household adaptive capacity and adaptation: their attitude to risk, their experience of risk, and their expectations of authorities. The findings suggest that to understand the adaptation practices of households, greater attention needs to be paid to socio-psychological factors that trigger people to apply their available capacities

Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond disciplines

There is no abstract for this paper.