16
155.09
9.69
42

Publication History View all

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its inception, psychology has struggled with issues of conceptualization and operationalization of social-psychological phenomena. The study of social values and points of view has been prone to such difficulties, despite a predominant concern of qualitative distinctions in the variability of both of these phenomena across different individuals and social groups. And while interest in both traces a common origin in Rokeach's studies of narrow mindedness, the study of both phenomena has since proceeded apace. In this study, we posit a renewed reconciliation between the two that is best served through a social-psychological model of points of view in terms of the values that inspire them. We draw on critical linguistics to propose a theoretical and methodological framework that can aid a systematic study of value structures as they take different forms and meanings through particular types of points of view. In five stages of qualitative analysis, the model deconstructs utterances into distinct terms that reveal a predominant perspective-taking style that can be utilized towards the categorization of different points of view, in terms of values that imbue them and that serve to provide them with a coherent angle of constructing a particular narrative.
    British Journal of Social Psychology 08/2013;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The empowerment of marginalised communities to lead local responses to HIV/AIDS is a key strategy of funding agencies' globalised HIV/AIDS policies, given evidence that disempowerment is a root source of vulnerability to HIV. We report on two multi-level ethnographies at the interface between HIV prevention projects for sex workers in India and their funding environment, examining the extent to which the funding environment itself promotes or undermines sex worker empowerment. We show how the 'new managerialism' characteristic of the funding system undermines sex worker leadership of HIV interventions. By requiring local projects to conform to global management standards, funding agencies risk undermining the very localism and empowerment that their intervention policies espouse.
    Health & Place 05/2012; 18(3):468-74.
  • Nature Biotechnology 01/2012; 30(5):392-4.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Public confidence in policing is receiving increasing attention from UK social scientists and policy-makers. The criminal justice system relies on legitimacy and consent to an extent unlike other public services: public support is vital if the police and other criminal justice agencies are to function both effectively and in accordance with democratic norms. Yet we know little about the forms of social perception that stand prior to public confidence and police legitimacy. Drawing on data from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey and the 2006/2007 London Metropolitan Police Safer Neighbourhoods Survey, this paper suggests that people think about their local police in ways less to do with the risk of victimization (instrumental concerns about personal safety) and more to do with judgments of social cohesion and moral consensus (expressive concerns about neighbourhood stability, cohesion and loss of collective authority). Across England and Wales the police may not primarily be seen as providers of a narrow sense of personal security, held responsible for crime and safety. Instead the police may stand as symbolic 'moral guardians' of social stability and order, held responsible for community values and informal social controls. We also present evidence that public confidence in the London Metropolitan Police Service expresses broader social anxieties about long-term social change. We finish our paper with some thoughts on a sociological analysis of the cultural place of policing: confidence (and perhaps ultimately the legitimacy of the police) might just be wrapped up in broader public concerns about social order and moral consensus.
    British Journal of Sociology 10/2009; 60(3):493-521.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study “Psychoanalysis—its image and its public” intimates that common sense is increasingly informed by science. But common sense asserts its autonomy and, in turn, may affect the trajectory of science. This is a process that leads to many differentiations—in common sense, in scientific innovation and in political and regulatory structures. Bauer and Gaskell's toblerone model of triangles of mediation provided a distillation of their reading of “La Psychanalyse.” Here it was argued that representations are multi-modal phenomena necessitating the use of multiple methodologies (comparative and longitudinal; qualitative and quantitative).In this paper we briefly summarise these arguments and elaborate ways in which social representation theory can be considered a progressive research programme. “Progressive” because as the theory has developed it has extended the range and depth of its conceptual basis; it provides a new synthesis for the social scientific understanding of the phenomena of common sense and of representation; it acts as an antidote to the reductionism of public opinion and, finally, it is a stimulus to depart from disciplinary silos. However, there remain unresolved issues: how to segment the relevant social milieus and how to close the feedback loop from common sense to science?
    Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 12/2008; 38(4):335 - 353.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article presents a comparative study of public perceptions of food risk across 25 European member states. A secondary data analysis is conducted on a Eurobarometer survey fielded to nationally representative samples in 2005. The survey included closed questions as well as free associations to map risk perceptions. Taking a quantitative approach, we find that people in a majority of European countries express similar levels of concern about food risks. However, outside this majority a North-South divide is evident, with the Northern countries worrying less than the Southern countries. Multilevel modeling shows that cross-national differences in individual respondents' level of worry are in part attributable to shared country effects and to generalized risk sensitivity about a range of personal risks. On the underlying structure of food risk concerns, factor analysis points to three dimensions described by groupings of risks related to adulteration and contamination, health effects, and production and hygiene. A qualitative analysis of respondents' free associations about problems and risks with food identifies three major themes that are consistent with the quantitative results. However, the free associations also point toward greater cross-national diversity and to striking variations in the range and importance of food risks. Overall, the picture is of a public that frames food risks in a wider context of beliefs about the links between diet and health. We conclude with some implications for research on food risk perceptions in particular and risk perception studies in general.
    Risk Analysis 05/2008; 28(2):311-24.
  • Source
    British Journal of Sociology 07/2007; 58(2):329 - 331.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article introduces the fear of crime to risk research, noting a number of areas for future interdisciplinary study. First, the article analyzes both the career of the concept of fear of crime and the politics of fear. Second, it considers research and theory on the psychology of risk, particularly the interplay between emotion and cognition, and what might be called the risk as image perspective. Third, the article speculates how people learn about risk and suggests how to customize a social amplification of risk framework to fear of crime. Finally, the article advances the argument that fear of crime may be an individual response to community social order and a generalized attitude toward the moral trajectory of society. Each of these areas of discussion has implications for future theoretical developments within risk research; each highlights how risk research can contribute to the social scientific understanding of an important issue of the day.
    Risk Analysis 03/2006; 26(1):253-64.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Representative sample surveys in the United States, Canada, and Europe showed that although a majority of the public wanted science policy to be made by expert assessment of scientific evidence, others wanted a stronger public voice and more weight given to moral and ethical issues. The authors of this Policy Forum found that people's preferences, about who should govern science and on what basis, were found to be related to their opinions about the utility of science and the regulation of genetically modified food and stem cell research. Although sound science receives a vote of confidence, minority views should not be ignored.
    Science 01/2006; 310(5756):1908-9.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The outcome of 'GM Nation?'--a public debate on genetic modification and the commercial growing of GM crops in Britain--was published in 2003. The objective of this public consultation was 'to promote an innovative, effective and deliberative programme of debate, against the background of the possible commercial production of GM crops in the UK...[and] provide meaningful information to Government about the nature and spectrum of the public's views, particularly at the grass roots level, to inform decision making'. Complementing an independent evaluation of GM Nation?, this article puts the debate into context, comments on the legitimacy of this, and similar exercises in public consultation, and develops some ideas on the future of public consultation on technological innovation.
    Current Opinion in Biotechnology 07/2004; 15(3):241-5.
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.