Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Developing effective risk communication strategies, plans, and messages on complex, scientific, and technical topics requires an in-depth understanding of stakeholders’ values, interests, priorities, and information needs. It is only through such insight, based on empirical research, that agencies and organizations can understand the complex environmental and individual factors that affect stakeholders’ decision making about these topics that shape their judgment and behavior.
The following discussion provides an overview of the social science methodology behind Mental Modeling, the key benefits, and the key steps in the process. The original process was developed to identify in detail the specific risk communications steps in an integrated risk management process, the Canadian Standard Association’s Q850-97 Risk Management: Guideline for Decision-Makers (1997). Over the years, we have refined and customized the process to suit the topic and application at hand. Many subsequent applications have expanded and broadened the use of Mental Modeling to a range of topics and challenges related to risk and decision making. To demonstrate the broad range of topics and applications that have been addressed with Mental Modeling and to illustrate the steps in the approach, we present several example case studies in subsequent chapters. In this chapter, we describe the key steps using the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Mental Modeling case study that goes from research design to strategy and communications execution and measurement.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part I. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 779–788. CrossRef
Beddow, V. (2011). Conducting effective community outreach and dialogue on biosolids land application: Primer for biosolids professionals. Alexandria, VA: IWA Publishing.
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 85–100. CrossRef
Cognitive Science Systems, LP. (2012). ECASS: Expert modeling module of the cognitive analysis software suite (computer software). Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.decisionpartners.com.
Eggers, S., Thorne, S., Butte, G., & Sousa, K. (2011). A strategic risk communications process for outreach and dialogue on biosolids land application. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation.
Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N. T., & Downs, J. S. (2011). Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user’s guide. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration.
Health Canada, Canadian Standards Organization. (2006). A framework for strategic risk communications within the context of health Canada and the PHAC’s integrated risk management, 0-662-44597-X. Retrieved January 28, 2016 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_ris-comm/framework-cadre/index-eng.php.
ISO. (2009). 31000: 2009 Risk management–principles and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Standards Council of Canada. (1997). Risk management: Guideline for decision-makers. Etobicoke, ON, Canada: The Canadian Standards Association.
- Mental Modeling Research Technical Approach
M.A. Sarah Thorne
Ph.D. Daniel Kovacs
Ph.D. Matthew D. Wood
- Springer New York
- Chapter 2
Systemische Notwendigkeit zur Weiterentwicklung von Hybridnetzen