Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThere 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.

How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants

“…Pellizzoni, 2001;Borch and Rasmussen, 2005;Vergragt and Brown, 2008;Cronin et al, 2014). However, scholars (ibid) still emphasise that stakeholders', especially citizens', concerns, interests, and values are not fully integrated in the assessment and policy making of GM plants.…”

“…Overall, the authors found that the iterative questionnaires and workshops facilitated open dialogue amongst stakeholders supporting them in addressing and sharing different interests and perceptions. Cronin et al (2014) take a step further to include lay citizens in the GMO assessment and report how they carried out a participatory and iterative approach supported by models, engaging researchers and members of community interest groups (e.g. dealing with environmental, health, and sustainable agriculture issues).…”

“…Stakeholders speak different languages and draw on different bodies of expertise to assess technologies, thus experience difficulties in communicating with each other. Moreover, stakeholders', especially citizens', interests, concerns, and values are often not fully integrated in PTA, causing citizens' mistrust in institutions, authorities, and policy makers (Pellizzoni, 2001;Cook et al, 2004;Borch and Rasmussen, 2005;Vergragt and Brown, 2008;Cronin et al, 2014). Researchers have therefore questioned the effectiveness of PTA in generating inclusive and democratic participation by different stakeholders (Rowe and Frewer, 2000;Abelson et al, 2003;Burgess and Chilvers, 2006;Hagendijk and Irwin, 2006).…”

Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL

“…The evolution of these methods has typically led to a well-defined set of principles and process steps. What has not changed, however, is the set of available methods (for some efforts see Gregory et al 2012;Cronin et al 2014). Although methods have been combined in a multimethodology fashion, such combinations have not led to a new method that integrates hard and soft aspects of modelling (Mingers 2000;Westcombe et al 2006).…”

Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study

“…Therefore, we will draw on the knowledge-perspective of communication (Mengis & Eppler, 2008), and mainly concentrate on the work by Tsoukas (2009). His conceptualisation of knowledge creation is grounded in the notion of dialogue-type interactions, which are arguably a key characteristic of the facilitated modelling approach to group decision support (Cronin, Midgley, & Jackson, 2014;Franco, 2006).…”