Exploring risk perceptions: a new perspective on analysis

IF 1.3 4区 教育学 Q2 CULTURAL STUDIES
Kathryn Garthwaite, Sally Birdsall, Bev France
{"title":"Exploring risk perceptions: a new perspective on analysis","authors":"Kathryn Garthwaite, Sally Birdsall, Bev France","doi":"10.1007/s11422-023-10199-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When secondary school students were asked about the socioscientific issue of using sodium fluoroacetate (1080) poison to control New Zealand’s possum pests, they provided a wide range of responses. Their responses showed that they considered this method of control to be risky and contentious. Such contentious issues are an example of the complexity involved in using a socioscientific approach to investigate an aspect of post-normal science. This paper provides the background to and development of a new risk perceptions analysis framework that was employed to qualitatively interpret these diverse viewpoints. Four Cultural Types (<i>Nature Benign, Nature Tolerant, Nature Ephemeral</i> and <i>Nature Capricious)</i> are accommodated within this framework. Each Cultural Type has a particular view of risk that is defined using common characteristics and is differentiated by unique individual attributes. It is proposed that this framework has the potential to analyse students’ responses to this contentious issue of 1080 use. The framework could be used as an educative tool in classrooms to investigate the range of views within society about issues that involve risk. Additionally, it could be used to assist students to gain awareness of their own view as well as develop an appreciation about the differing views of risk held by other people when discussing contentious issues.</p>","PeriodicalId":47132,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Studies of Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural Studies of Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-023-10199-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When secondary school students were asked about the socioscientific issue of using sodium fluoroacetate (1080) poison to control New Zealand’s possum pests, they provided a wide range of responses. Their responses showed that they considered this method of control to be risky and contentious. Such contentious issues are an example of the complexity involved in using a socioscientific approach to investigate an aspect of post-normal science. This paper provides the background to and development of a new risk perceptions analysis framework that was employed to qualitatively interpret these diverse viewpoints. Four Cultural Types (Nature Benign, Nature Tolerant, Nature Ephemeral and Nature Capricious) are accommodated within this framework. Each Cultural Type has a particular view of risk that is defined using common characteristics and is differentiated by unique individual attributes. It is proposed that this framework has the potential to analyse students’ responses to this contentious issue of 1080 use. The framework could be used as an educative tool in classrooms to investigate the range of views within society about issues that involve risk. Additionally, it could be used to assist students to gain awareness of their own view as well as develop an appreciation about the differing views of risk held by other people when discussing contentious issues.

Abstract Image

探索风险感知:分析的新视角
当中学生被问及使用氟乙酸钠(1080)毒药控制新西兰负鼠害虫的社会科学问题时,他们提供了各种各样的回答。他们的回答表明,他们认为这种控制方法是有风险和有争议的。这些有争议的问题是使用社会科学方法调查后常态科学的一个方面所涉及的复杂性的一个例子。本文提供了一个新的风险感知分析框架的背景和发展,该框架被用来定性地解释这些不同的观点。四种文化类型(自然良性、自然宽容、自然短暂和自然反复无常)被容纳在这个框架内。每种文化类型都有一种特定的风险观,这种风险观是用共同的特征来定义的,并通过独特的个体属性来区分。有人建议,这个框架有潜力分析学生对1080使用这个有争议的问题的反应。该框架可作为课堂上的教育工具,用于调查社会上对涉及风险的问题的各种看法。此外,它可以用来帮助学生了解自己的观点,并在讨论有争议的问题时培养对其他人对风险的不同看法的欣赏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Cultural Studies of Science Education is a peer reviewed journal that provides an interactive platform for researchers working in the multidisciplinary fields of cultural studies and science education. By taking a cultural approach and paying attention to theories from cultural studies, this new journal reflects the current diversity in the study of science education in a variety of contexts, including schools, museums, zoos, laboratories, parks and gardens, aquariums and community development, maintenance and restoration. This journal focuses on science education as a cultural, cross-age, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary phenomenon; publishes articles that have an explicit and appropriate connection with and immersion in cultural studies; seeks articles that have theory development as an integral aspect of the data presentation; establishes bridges between science education and social studies of science, public understanding of science, science/technology and human values, and science and literacy; builds new communities at the interface of currently distinct discourses; aims to be a catalyst that forges new genres of and for scholarly dissemination; provides an interactive dialogue that includes the editors, members of the review board, and selected international scholars; publishes manuscripts that encompass all forms of scholarly activity; includes research articles, essays, OP-ED, critical, comments, criticisms and letters on emerging issues of significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信