Ambiguity and therapy in risk management

Ambiguity, the existence of multiple plausible (though possibly contested) ways of making sense of the characteristics of decision situations, can present significant difficulties for a wide range of risk management tasks. We will argue that ambiguity is present in risk management situations to a far greater extent that is commonly appreciated. The concept of ambiguity has arisen in different forms across disciplinary literatures and domains of practice. In this paper, we situate our experience of finding ways of supporting planning and decision-making processes concerned with ambiguous risks in the context of those wider perspectives. Our own efforts have employed a hybrid form of problem structuring methods (drawn from operational research and management science) and ethnography (drawn from sociology and anthropology). These engagements with organisational and inter-organisational risk management issues have led us to recognise that ‘untangling’ otherwise intractable risk management problems may be regarded, in some sense, as a therapeutic process. In this paper, we develop this therapeutic interpretation of the untangling of collective ambiguities using illustrations from a concrete problem situation. We set this therapeutic reading of decision processes in the context of wider perspectives, including those drawn from Habermas’ theorisation of communication, the sociology of science and the literature on citizen engagement and deliberation processes

Riesgos tecnológicos, conflictos sociales y políticas ambientales. Del estudio de las percepciones a la implicación pública

La gestió dels riscos tecnològics i ambientals, juntament amb la promoció del desenvolupament sostenible, ha constituït un pilar essencial de les polítiques públiques de les últimes dècades. Una bona part d’aquestes polítiques ha pretès influir en l’opinió pública fomentant comportaments preventius o evitant aquells que no resulten sostenibles. No obstant això, la ciutadania no sol seguir aquestes recomanacions sense més ni més, sinó que desplega un ampli rang d’accions que van des de la mera indiferència fins al rebuig o la protesta, la qual cosa, al seu torn, pot traduir-se en una major degradació ambiental o en una excessiva exposició al risc per part de la població. Aquest desajustament entre els objectius de les polítiques ambientals i els comportaments de la ciutadania constitueix un aspecte crític, tant per a la governança del risc com per a la legitimitat democràtica. Aquest article mostra com la recerca social ha intentat comprendre i resoldre aquests reptes. Mitjançant una revisió bibliogràfica, s’analitza l’origen i l’evolució dels estudis sobre percepció i comunicació social del risc, des de les aproximacions més tecnocràtiques dels inicis fins a les més participatives dels últims temps, i es destaquen les seves fortaleses i febleses respectives. Finalment, en un intent d’il·lustrar els enfocaments actuals més innovadors, s’introdueix el mètode STAVE com un exemple d’interconnexió (mitjançant procediments de corretatge) de l’esfera de l’elaboració de polítiques ambientals amb l’esfera de la vida quotidiana de la ciutadania.The governance of environmental and technological risks, together with the promotion of sustainable development, has been a key pillar for public policy in recent decades. Such policies usually aim to influence public attitudes and citizen’s behaviour in order to promote risk-preventive behaviours, and to prevent non-sustainable ones. Lay citizens, however, do not always simply follow such policy measures, but instead display a variety of actions, ranging from apathy or indifference to public opposition and rejection, further contributing to environmental degradation or to excessive risk exposure. Thus, there seems to be a clear mismatch between sustainable policy goals and the related daily behaviours of citizens, which is, indeed, a fundamental and critical issue for both risk governance and democratic legitimacy. This paper presents an overview of the social research on risk and its efforts for understanding, and contributing to solve, such challenges. Through a revision of the literature, the origins and evolution of risk perception and risk communication research, from the more technocratic approaches of the 70s up to more participative and recent approaches, highlighting strengths and weakness, are introduced and analysed. Finally, in order to illustrate the more recent and innovative approaches, we introduce the STAVE method as an example of interconnection (through brokerage proceedings) between the environmental policy-making sphere and the everyday sphere of citizens, combining elements of research and engagement to uncover daily experiences related to sustainable practices.La gestión de los riesgos tecnológicos y ambientales, junto con la promoción del desarrollo sostenible, ha constituido un pilar esencial de las políticas públicas de las últimas décadas. Una buena parte de estas políticas ha pretendido influir en la opinión pública fomentando comportamientos preventivos o evitando aquellos que no resultan sostenibles. Sin embargo, la ciudadanía no suele seguir estas recomendaciones sin más, sino que despliega un amplio rango de acciones que van desde la mera indiferencia hasta el rechazo o la protesta, lo que, a su vez, puede traducirse en una mayor degradación ambiental o en una excesiva exposición al riesgo por parte de la población. Este desajuste entre los objetivos de las políticas ambientales y los comportamientos de la ciudadanía constituye un aspecto crítico, tanto para la gobernanza del riesgo como para la legitimidad democrática. El presente artículo muestra cómo la investigación social ha intentado comprender y resolver estos retos. Mediante una revisión bibliográfica, se analiza el origen y la evolución de los estudios sobre percepción y comunicación social del riesgo, desde las aproximaciones más tecnocráticas de los inicios hasta las más participativas de los últimos tiempos, y se destacan sus fortalezas y debilidades respectivas. Finalmente, en un intento de ilustrar los enfoques actuales más innovadores, se introduce el método STAVE como un ejemplo de interconexión (mediante procedimientos de corretaje) de la esfera de la elaboración de políticas ambientales con la esfera de la vida cotidiana de la ciudadanía.

Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic crops

In the realm of risk management, and policy-making more generally, “public engagement” is often advocated as an antidote to pathologies associated with traditional methods of policy-making, and associated deficit-model-driven communication strategies. The actual benefits of public engagement are, however, difficult to establish without thorough evaluation of specific engagement processes. Unfortunately, rigorous evaluation is difficult, and, perhaps for this reason, it has rarely been undertaken. In this paper we highlight a number of these difficulties in the light of our experiences in evaluating a major engagement initiative, namely the GM Nation? publice debate on the possible commercialization of transgenic crops, which took place in Britain in 2003. The difficulties we identify seem likely to be relevant to many, if not most, engagement evaluations. They are concerned with both theoretical/normative (how one should evaluate) and practical (how one does evaluate) issues. We suggest a number of possible solutions to these evaluation difficulties

Strategic policy advice: group-based processes as a tool to support policymaking

This deliverable is about the group discussions (STAVE trials) that have been carried out in the partner countries of project PACHELBEL on various substantive policy issues in the field of sustainability. It focuses on the methods that have been used to interact with lay citizens in the STAVE groups, and on the feedback that has been provided to policy makers on findings from the groups. Building upon these elaborations, conclusions will be drawn as to STAVE as a policy tool. Furthermore, this deliverable provides key features of STAVE groups on a country-by-country basis

Evidences of lay people’s reasoning related to climate change: per country and cross country results

This deliverable is about lay citizens’ reasoning about sustainability, in particular environmental protection and climate change, in various consumption domains, and the relation of this reasoning to the day-to-day lives of the participants. It presents country and cross-country findings from all 18 STAVE trials conducted between May 2011 and February 2012 in all six PACHELBEL partner countries. Analyses demonstrate that participants in the STAVE trials predominantly display a clear awareness that citizen consumption as demonstrated in their everyday practices of energy use, mobility, waste etc. are strongly connected with issues of environmental sustainablility. The STAVE trials also demonstrated that to live sustainably is a daily challenge, and people are often not able to organize their everyday routines in an environmental-friendly manner. Frequently there is a gap between participants’ aspirations and their practical behaviours. Significantly, the group conversations enabled participants to become aware that the self-assessed soundness of their everyday lives in terms of sustainability was at variance from the actual impact of e.g. their energy use or or mobility practices

Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: reliability, validity and limitations

Over recent years, many policy-makers and academics have come to the view that involving the public in policy setting and decision-making (or “public engagement”) is desirable. The theorized benefits of engagement (over traditional approaches) include the attainment of more satisfactory and easier decisions, greater trust in decision-makers, and the enhancement of public and organizational knowledge. Empirical support for these advantages is, however, scant. Engagement processes are rarely evaluated, and when they are, the quality of evidence is generally poor. The absence of standard effectiveness criteria, and instruments to measure performance against these, hinders evaluation, comparison, generalization and the accumulation of knowledge. In this paper one normative framework for evaluating engagement processes is considered. This framework was operationalized and used as part of the evaluation of a recent major UK public engagement initiative: the 2003 GM Nation? debate. The evaluation criteria and processes are described, and their validity and limitations are analyzed. Results suggest the chosen evaluation criteria have some validity, though they do not exhaustively cover all appropriate criteria by which engagement exercises ought to be evaluated. The paper concludes with suggestions on how to improve the framework

Guidance on Stimulus Materials

PACHELBEL WP4 “Stimulus Materials” uses findings from WP3 (Policy Assumptions) and from additional sources to prepare stimulus materials for the group-based process “STAVE” implemented in WP5. The output was material to inform and stimulate the group-based process. The material was of two types: a set of questionnaires common to all partners (EVOC/CAPA/SIMI questionnaires), and material that is issue-specific and individually produced for each country. EVOC/CAPA/SIMI short questionnaires serve as a comparative tool between countries, giving insight on the social construction of “sustainable consumption” across the PACHELBEL population. Partners asked participants to fill out the set individually at the first meeting of the STAVE group, results were then analyzed and data were fed back for discussion by group participants at their second meeting. A “re-test” was then conducted at the third of three group meetings. The present report details the representations revealed through this methodology – but moreover the impact of applying such a technique in STAVE groups in France, Germany, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK (where the methodology was slightly altered). The issue-and-country-specific material consists of an informative simulated newspaper article on the particular issue addressed in a given STAVE process, and/or other materials (for example, humorous drawings). The report details how this material was developed, and the experience of applying these stimulus materials in each country. On this basis, guidance for future STAVE processes is offered. Foremost among observations is that PACHELBEL stimulus materials serve a purpose that is distinct from that of “group exercises” as developed in WP5. The materials contributing to the formation of a group identity, a reflexive group norm, and a shared information basis. As such, stimulus materials prepare the group for a cooperative investigative process

Evidence about the policy assumptions about lay behaviour

This deliverable provides an analysis of the early fieldwork reports that have been produced as part of WP3. Its focus is on identifying the assumptions that are evident in the approaches of the policy partners to human behaviour around sustainability. The themes of this early work will form one focus of subsequent interactions with the policy partners and will be used as the basis for developing a schedule for further investigations to be deployed with policy makers in each countr

Policy addressing climate change & learning about consumer behaviour and everyday life : PACHELBEL

The main objective of PACHELBEL is the development, trialling and operationalisation of a tool called STAVE, which will be designed to support the work of policy-making for sustainability in real-world settings. The tool will support processes of knowledge brokerage, promoting the appropriate application of existing research findings, and the generation of new knowledge which is focused on specific policy objectives.L'objectiu principal del projecte PACHELBEL és desenvolupar, provar i operacionalitzar un instrument anomenat STAVE (Systematic Tool for Behavioural Assumption Validation and Exploration), que haurà de servir per a donar suport als dissenyadors de polítiques públiques ambientals i per la sostenibilitat. Aquesta eina servirà per gestionar millor els processos de transmissió de coneixement entre el públic i les institucions polítiques, així com per a integrar millor els resultats de les recerques socials en l'elaboració de polítiques públiques i per a generar nou coneixement al respecte