Foxes caught in the same snare: a methodological review of social radon studies

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Melisa Muric, P. Thijssen, C. Turcanu, T. Perko, Y. Tomkiv
{"title":"Foxes caught in the same snare: a methodological review of social radon studies","authors":"Melisa Muric, P. Thijssen, C. Turcanu, T. Perko, Y. Tomkiv","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2127850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mitigating risk from exposures to indoor radon is a critical public health problem confronting many countries worldwide. In order to ensure effective radon risk management based on social scientific evidence, it is essential to reduce scientific uncertainty about the state of social methodology. This paper presents a review of methodological (best) practices, and sensitivity to bias, in research on public attitudes and behaviours with regards to radon risks. Using content analysis, we examined characteristics of research design, construct measurement, and data analysis. Having identified certain challenges based on established and new typologies used to assess methodological quality, our research suggests that there is a need for attention to (limitations of) cross-sectional design, representative and appropriate sampling, and a pluralist approach to methods and analysis. Furthermore, we advocate for more comparative research, rigorous measurement and construct validation. Lastly, we argue that research should focus on behavioural outcomes to ensure effective radon risk management. We conclude that for any field to thrive it is crucial that there is methodological reflexivity among researchers. Our recommendations serve as a useful guide for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and enhance the rigor of social methodology in their field.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"273 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2127850","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Mitigating risk from exposures to indoor radon is a critical public health problem confronting many countries worldwide. In order to ensure effective radon risk management based on social scientific evidence, it is essential to reduce scientific uncertainty about the state of social methodology. This paper presents a review of methodological (best) practices, and sensitivity to bias, in research on public attitudes and behaviours with regards to radon risks. Using content analysis, we examined characteristics of research design, construct measurement, and data analysis. Having identified certain challenges based on established and new typologies used to assess methodological quality, our research suggests that there is a need for attention to (limitations of) cross-sectional design, representative and appropriate sampling, and a pluralist approach to methods and analysis. Furthermore, we advocate for more comparative research, rigorous measurement and construct validation. Lastly, we argue that research should focus on behavioural outcomes to ensure effective radon risk management. We conclude that for any field to thrive it is crucial that there is methodological reflexivity among researchers. Our recommendations serve as a useful guide for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and enhance the rigor of social methodology in their field.
狐狸陷入同样的陷阱:社会氡研究的方法论回顾
减轻室内氡暴露风险是世界上许多国家面临的一个重大公共卫生问题。为了确保基于社会科学证据的有效氡风险管理,必须减少关于社会方法论状况的科学不确定性。本文介绍了关于氡风险的公众态度和行为研究的方法学(最佳)实践和对偏见的敏感性。使用内容分析,我们检查了研究设计、结构测量和数据分析的特征。在确定了用于评估方法学质量的既有类型学和新类型学的某些挑战之后,我们的研究表明,需要注意横断面设计(局限性)、代表性和适当的抽样,以及方法和分析的多元化方法。此外,我们提倡更多的比较研究,严格的测量和结构验证。最后,我们认为研究应侧重于行为结果,以确保有效的氡风险管理。我们的结论是,对于任何领域的繁荣,研究人员之间的方法论反思是至关重要的。我们的建议为研究人员和实践者提供了有用的指南,帮助他们了解和提高社会方法论在各自领域的严谨性。
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
Journal of Risk Research
Journal of Risk Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk Research is an international journal that publishes peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical research articles within the risk field from the areas of social, physical and health sciences and engineering, as well as articles related to decision making, regulation and policy issues in all disciplines. Articles will be published in English. The main aims of the Journal of Risk Research are to stimulate intellectual debate, to promote better risk management practices and to contribute to the development of risk management methodologies. Journal of Risk Research is the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan.
×
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