Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
T. Horlick‐Jones, J. Walls, J. Kitzinger (2007)
Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and foodHealth, Risk & Society, 9
J. Mio (1997)
Metaphor and PoliticsMetaphor and Symbol, 12
T. Horlick‐Jones, A. Prades (2015)
Translating between social worlds of policy and everyday life: The development of a group-based method to support policymaking by exploring behavioural aspects of sustainable consumptionPublic Understanding of Science, 24
T. Horlick‐Jones (2008)
Reasoning about safety management policy in everyday terms: a pilot study in citizen engagement for the UK railway industryJournal of Risk Research, 11
A. Musolff (2004)
Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe
M. Bloor, J. Frankland, Michelle Thomas, Kate Robson (2000)
Focus Groups in Social Research
T. Horlick‐Jones, A. Prades, Josep Espluga (2012)
Investigating the degree of “stigma” associated with nuclear energy technologies: A cross-cultural examination of the case of fusion powerPublic Understanding of Science, 21
R. Hughes (1998)
Considering the Vignette Technique and its Application to a Study of Drug Injecting and HIV Risk and Safer BehaviourSociology of Health and Illness, 20
A. Musolff (2004)
Metaphor and Political Discourse
G. Myers (2007)
Commonplaces in Risk Talk: Face Threats and Forms of InteractionJournal of Risk Research, 10
A. Kollmuss, J. Agyeman (2002)
Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8
T. Horlick‐Jones, A. Prades (2009)
On interpretative risk perception research: Some reflections on its origins; its nature; and its possible applications in risk communication practiceHealth, Risk & Society, 11
W. Konrad (2015)
Making sense of sustainability, energy policies and citizens' related domestic behaviour. A case study in Germany, 100
L. Timotijevic, J. Barnett (2006)
Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and adviceHealth, Risk & Society, 8
T. Horlick‐Jones, J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, Graham Murdock, T. O'Riordan (2007)
The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement
Wilfried Konrad (2015)
La percepció del sentit de la sostenibilitat, les polítiques energètiques i els hàbits dels ciutadans pel que fa al consum domèstic de l’energia. Un estudi de cas a Alemanya, 100
Norish Aminudin (2017)
Focus Groups: Strategic Articulations ofPedagogy, Politics, and Inquiry
A. Irwin, P. Simmons, G. Walker (1999)
Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial HazardsEnvironment and Planning A, 31
M. Nind, H. Vinha (2016)
Creative interactions with data: using visual and metaphorical devices in repeated focus groupsQualitative Research, 16
G. Rowe, T. Horlick‐Jones, J. Walls, N. Pidgeon (2005)
Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate about transgenic cropsPublic Understanding of Science, 14
G. Walker, P. Simmons, A. Irwin, B. Wynne (1998)
Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Accident Hazards
J. Conklin (2005)
Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems
C. Oltra, R. Solá (2008)
Lay perceptions of nuclear fusion: multiple modes of understandingScience and Public Policy, 35
C. Marris, B. Wynne, P. Simmons, S. Weldon (2001)
Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Report of the PABE project funded by the European Commission, DG Research (contract number: FAIR CT98-3844 (DG12 - SSMI)
F. Zonabend (1993)
The nuclear peninsula: The Nuclear Peninsula
E. Weber, A. Khademian (2008)
Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settingsIEEE Engineering Management Review, 38
R. Lazarus (2008)
Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the FutureCornell Law Review, 94
[In this chapter, we draw on almost two decades of collaborative work using focus groups. Focus groups have provided us with a powerful means to research on citizen reasoning about issues as diverse as railway safety and nuclear fusion power, as well as the ways in which that reasoning can change as people learn more about the technicalities and social context of such technologies. The methods have demonstrated their capacity to allow citizens to reason about technical and complex issues in familiar terms. It has also allowed us to investigate a range of domestic and everyday consumption practices, the nature of which has important implications for environmental sustainability. In so doing, it has enabled us to address the classical potential gap between ‘what they say’ and ‘what they do’—in other words, between practices and accounts of those practices. Our experiments with methodological hybridization seek to promote enhanced participant engagement, and accounts of the world that are grounded in indigenous practices to a greater degree than is sometimes possible with conventional focus groups. Our work strikes a balance between practical application and scholarly understanding. It is not theorized in any conventional disciplinary manner.]
Published: Jun 24, 2017
Keywords: Citizen reasoning; Environmental sustainability; Hybridization
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.