Food safety governance and social learning: The Spanish experience

Todt, Oliver; Múñoz, Emilio; Plaza, Marta

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.04.007

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our paper will focus on the last issue. Even though the scope is quite broad, there are two questions of particular relevance: 1) the relationship between the perception of science in general and the perception of research in specific fields or related to specific technological applications (for instance, biotechnology or food safety : Bauer, 2002;Luján and Todt, 2000;Todt et al, 2007Todt et al, , 2009; 2) the usefulness of the general perception or appraisal of science as an indicator of the social support for public funding policies on scientific research. Both questions are related.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science

Muñoz¹,

Moreno²,

Luján³

2010

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the relationship between the general public’s understanding of science and the attitude towards public funding of scientific research. It applies a multivariate and discriminant analysis (Wilks’ Lambda), in addition to a more commonly used bivariate analysis (Cramer’s V), to data compiled from the Third National Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain (FECYT, 2006). The general conclusion is that the multivariate analysis produces information complementary to the bivariate analysis, and that the variables commonly applied in public perception studies have limited predictive value with respect to the attitude towards public funding of scientific research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science

Muñoz¹,

Moreno²,

Luján³

2010

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can lead to a reduction in the potential for 'bad' conflict (often based on misunderstandings) in both the present and the future. Both Habermas (1984; and Todt (2007) advocate the mutual exchange and challenge of ideas as important for members of all levels of expertise. In fact, Habermas (1994, 103) stated that "it would be utterly pointless to engage in a practical discourse without…real conflicts in a concrete situation."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drew et al (2003) found that participants felt most effectively engaged in decision-making when more technical information was accessible and there was an opportunity to interact with technical experts in small groups. In other words, active participation in decision-making including actors of all levels of knowledge can generate meaningful discussion and challenge of ideas (Cockerill et al 2009;Todt 2007). This is what Habermas (1984; refers to as the 'the ideal speech situation,' what Tew (2002) calls 'open dialogue without preconception, ' and Andersson (2001) refers to as 'stretching of arguments.'…”

Section: Stakeholder Participation and Transparencymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Despite the many aforementioned definitions, the management of conflict, operationalized in consultation processes, should ideally be 'fluid in any situation' (Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat 1981;Mather and Yngvesson 1981;Todt, Munoz, and Plaza 2007). As Tjosvold (2008) points out, while the definition of conflict is important, the manner in which conflict is managed is more critical for determining the outcome of social processes, and requires an integration of cognitive, emotional, and relationship dimensions in order to be successful.…”

Section: Risk Perception and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What's Your “Position” on Nuclear Power? An Exploration of Conflict in Stakeholder Participation for Decision‐making about Risky Technologies

Poetz

2011

Risk Hazard & Crisis Pub Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the exigent issues concerning stakeholder engagement in decision‐making for nuclear power generation facilities is the manner in which conflict is acknowledged and managed. In order to manage conflict effectively, one must understand the full variability of positions on certain issues, and from perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Research to‐date on risk perception and resultant conflict has been conducted almost exclusively from the perspective of the public. This paper utilizes grounded theory methodology combined with a case study approach to explore the decision‐making processes for the re‐licensing of two local nuclear power generation facilities; Pickering ‘A’ and Bruce ‘A’ from the perspective of the nuclear industry, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, government, Non‐Governmental Organizations, scientists, and public. Situational analysis is a tool utilized to generate 7 positional maps which display the diversity of viewpoints on major contested issues such as environmental, technical, and financial risk, availability of information, and satisfaction with the process for stakeholder engagement. The paper concludes that conflict can be both negative and positive, and recommends the best way to reduce the potential for conflict is by actively engaging stakeholders in facilitated discussions with ground rules for conduct of all participants, and conducting discussions over the long‐term and well before (and after) legislated public consultations take place. The results of this study provide a useful framework for future quantitative exploration of the issues illustrated in each of the 7 positional maps.

show abstract

“…Social learning is particularly visible in several European Commission (EC) initiatives that have emerged over the last ten years, and which explicitly aim at making the analysis of uncertainties an integral part of decision making while widening the range of social actors involved in the regulatory process (European Commission 2000c, 2001b, 2001c; see also Todt, Muñ oz, and Plaza 2007).…”

Section: Policy Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new social contract for technology? – On the policy dynamics of uncertainty

Todt

Luján

2008

Journal of Risk Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a typology of two fundamentally opposing conceptualizations of managing technology under uncertainty: 'technology governability' and 'technology selection'. A wide variety of different versions of these idealized conceptualizations can be shown to underlie the controversies about scientifictechnological development. The example of genetic engineering indicates that such points of view are reconstructed over time in different forms and diverse settings, not only by the scientific community or during regulatory decision making, but by a rather wide-reaching spectrum of social actors. Thus, the current efforts to open up science and technology decision making to a wider range of participants is interpreted here as an effort of generating a new social contract for technology management, by way of bridging the differences between the two opposing conceptualizations.

show abstract

Food safety governance and social learning: The Spanish experience

Cited by 10 publications

References 23 publications

Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science

Who is willing to pay for science? On the relationship between public perception of science and the attitude to public funding of science

What's Your “Position” on Nuclear Power? An Exploration of Conflict in Stakeholder Participation for Decision‐making about Risky Technologies

A new social contract for technology? – On the policy dynamics of uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About