Questioning calls to consensus in conservation: a Q study of conservation discourses on Galápagos

Efforts to frame conservation interventions in terms of idealized outcomes that benefit both human well-being and biodiversity, and the rhetoric of consensus that often accompanies these, have been criticized. Acknowledgement of trade–offs between often incommensurable interests and perspectives, has been argued to be more democratic and transparent. This paper critically examines calls to consensus in conservation on the Galápagos Islands, where the population has been urged to unite around a shared vision of conservation in order to secure a sustainable future. Q methodology was used to examine the discourses of conservation on the islands, and to assess whether a shared vision of Galápagos is either achievable or desirable. Thirty-three participants carried out Q sorts about Galápagos conservation. Three discourses emerged from the analysis: conservation of Galápagos as an international/global concern; conservation linked with sustainable development; and social welfare and equitable development. The results highlight the subjective and political nature of the different discourses, and the paper concludes that calls to consensus or shared visions, while seductive in their promise of harmonious cooperation for conservation, can be read as attempts to depoliticize debates around conservation, and as such should be treated with caution

Developing an understanding of race talk

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The aim of this paper is to give an outline of the discursive psychological literature focussing on prejudice and race talk and to show how recent findings suggest a development in this understanding. The paper begins with an outline of the discursive approach and the way in which it conceptualises race talk. Next, an overview of the ways in which people attempt to make prejudicial arguments so as to prevent them from appearing to be prejudiced, because of a norm against prejudice, is presented. It is then shown how challenges are being made to this norm against prejudice so that in some cases, prejudice can be viewed as acceptable, and in others, the taboo against prejudice is presented as being discriminatory on the grounds of preventing freedom of speech and proper debate

No borders on a fragile planet: Introducing four lay models of social psychological precarity to support global human identification and citizenship (GHIC).

open access articleMeasures such as Identification with all humanity (IWAH) and global identification and citizenship (GHIC) are positivity correlated with measures of humanitarianism, cosmopolitanism and environmental concern. Research using these measures suggests that most citizens have low-global identification scores. This article sheds light on this finding by investigating how global identification relates to precarity and migration (neither of which are measured in the IWAH/GHIC). The study conducted in England, Scotland and Sweden introduces a qualitative dialogical approach to GHIC. This involves measuring migration-mobility in dialogical interviews and controlling and removing borders on world maps—using an interactive world mapping task (N = 23). Participants articulate four social representations relating to a fragile earth, enduring colonial settler/native conflict, ingroup/outgroup conflict or, in contrast, a cooperative plentiful planet where borders are unnecessary. Such social representations demonstrate the importance of planetary consciousness and relate to four lay models of social psychological precarity related to intergroup competition, global conflict, economic rationality and human-made borders. In conclusion, all participants employ lay models of social psychological precarity when discussing sovereignty, migration and belonging. We recommend psychologists investigating GHIC include measures of social psychological precarity and migration-mobility

“Some I don’t remember and some I do”: Memory talk in accounts of intimate partner violence.

This study is the first to address the ways in which male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) talk about memory in their reports of their IPV and how these are used to manage their accountability for the violence. Drawing on and developing the discursive psychological literature on talk about memory, which highlights how such talk is used to perform practical actions within interactions, a discourse analysis is conducted on interviews with six male perpetrators of recent, multiple incidents of IPV who were undergoing treatment. The analysis identified the varying ways in which memory was used: first, claims of forgetting were used to avoid answering difficult and potentially incriminating questions; second, claims of clear memories were used to position partners as problematic and responsible for violence; and third, claims about simultaneously remembering and forgetting were found. The implications of these strategies for managing identity and accountability are discussed. </jats:p

Weighting NTBEA for Game AI Optimisation

The N-Tuple Bandit Evolutionary Algorithm (NTBEA) has proven very effective in optimising algorithm parameters in Game AI. A potential weakness is the use of a simple average of all component Tuples in the model. This study investigates a refinement to the N-Tuple model used in NTBEA by weighting these component Tuples by their level of information and specificity of match. We introduce weighting functions to the model to obtain Weighted- NTBEA and test this on four benchmark functions and two game environments. These tests show that vanilla NTBEA is the most reliable and performant of the algorithms tested. Furthermore we show that given an iteration budget it is better to execute several independent NTBEA runs, and use part of the budget to find the best recommendation from these runs