Symposium editors' introduction
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity, Band 21, Heft 2-3, S. 123-127
ISSN: 1573-0891
89 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity, Band 21, Heft 2-3, S. 123-127
ISSN: 1573-0891
Objectives, concepts, and theories -- Trends in nuclear security assessments -- Trends in policy and spending preferences -- Terrorism -- Opinion stability at the individual level -- Mass belief structures -- Making sense of public beliefs and preferences about security policy -- Appendix 1: Research methodology -- Appendix 2: Questions, distributions, and means.
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 5, Heft 2, S. 109-133
ISSN: 1944-4079
Employing data from two dozen national surveys of the American people conducted between 1993 and 2011, we analyze trends in mass views on key dimensions of nuclear security. We specifically address four questions. (a) How are the risks of nuclear conflict and further nuclear proliferation assessed? (b) How does the public view the relevance and value of US nuclear weapons? (c) What future directions are preferred for the US nuclear weapons stockpile? (d) How are public views about retaining US nuclear weapons structured? Our data show that nuclear conflict with Iran and North Korea and the risks of nuclear weapons or materials being acquired by transnational terrorist groups are seen as the greatest nuclear threats. Most Americans continue to value the efficacy of nuclear deterrence, consider nuclear abolition to be desirable but not yet feasible, and support modest mutual reductions in nuclear weapons. Employing causal modeling, we find that mass beliefs about the importance of retaining US nuclear weapons are hierarchically structured in coherent ways, and therefore are likely to be both resilient and relevant to policy debates on nuclear security.
In: Policy studies journal: the journal of the Policy Studies Organization, Band 37, Heft 1, S. 37-58
ISSN: 1541-0072
We argue that the treatment of trans‐subsystem change, and particularly the role of public opinion in fostering such change, within the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has been underspecified. We propose a model of "policy topography" that combines the concepts of public opinion, clusters of linked subsystems, and policy issue venues. While the ACF has characterized subsystems as relatively self‐contained, we argue that they are more usefully understood as operating in a relatively permeable fashion among evolving clusters of subsystems linked together by networked relations, strategically overlapping policy considerations, and public opinion disruptions. The "policy topography" model offers opportunities to assess the relationships across policy subsystems, and to better specify the critical relationship between public policy and mass opinions. We offer examples, and suggest hypotheses along with avenues for appropriate empirical analysis.
In: Politics & policy, Band 37, Heft 5, S. 1095-1129
ISSN: 1747-1346
Our research examines the implications of political beliefs for the relationship between preferences for freedom and security. We briefly situate the relationship in historical context and relate it to today's struggle with terrorism. Then we examine the influence of political beliefs on normative preferences for how liberty and security should be related and for perceptions of how they currently are being balanced. Using original data from a national Internet survey of more than 3,000 respondents, we examine causal relationships among core, domain, and policy context beliefs for preferences about balancing freedom and security.
In: Social science quarterly, Band 88, Heft 3, S. 640-664
ISSN: 1540-6237
Objective. Our objective is to explain how scientists interpret less‐than‐certain scientific findings to inform policymakers' choices on controversial science policy issues. We focus on two particularly difficult policy cases concerning global climate change and low‐dose radiation protection.Methods. Our method is to analyze data from a unique multination survey of scientists to analyze the ways their views about what is scientifically correct are translated into judgments about appropriate policy. The surveys asked scientists, randomly drawn from U.S. and E.U. subscribers to the journal Science, to indicate the "most likely" relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and average global temperatures and between radiation dose and incidence of cancer in humans. Follow‐up questions asked for their judgments about appropriate policy targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission and safety standards for radiation exposure. The data permit analysis of the relationships between scientific certainty and policy judgments in these two cases.Results. Our results shed light on when and how scientists reach precautionary policy conclusions, demonstrating that scientists' application of precaution is dependent on context. In the case of radiation protection, greater certainty is associated with less precaution. But with respect climate change, we found the opposite relationship.Conclusions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for the role of scientists, and scientific advice, in the policy process.
In: Social science quarterly, Band 88, Heft 3
ISSN: 0038-4941
ObjectiveOur objective is to explain how scientists interpret less-than-certain scientific findings to inform policymakers' choices on controversial science policy issues. We focus on two particularly difficult policy cases concerning global climate change and low-dose radiation protection. MethodsOur method is to analyze data from a unique multination survey of scientists to analyze the ways their views about what is scientifically correct are translated into judgments about appropriate policy. The surveys asked scientists, randomly drawn from U.S. and E.U. subscribers to the journal Science , to indicate the "most likely" relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and average global temperatures and between radiation dose and incidence of cancer in humans. Follow-up questions asked for their judgments about appropriate policy targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission and safety standards for radiation exposure. The data permit analysis of the relationships between scientific certainty and policy judgments in these two cases. ResultsOur results shed light on when and how scientists reach precautionary policy conclusions, demonstrating that scientists' application of precaution is dependent on context. In the case of radiation protection, greater certainty is associated with less precaution. But with respect climate change, we found the opposite relationship. ConclusionsWe conclude with a discussion of the implications for the role of scientists, and scientific advice, in the policy process. Adapted from the source document.
In: Review of policy research, Band 22, Heft 5, S. 599-623
ISSN: 1541-1338
AbstractWe test traditional assumptions about the volatility of mass opinion in times of national crises using data about views of terrorism from national surveys of the United States general public in 1995 and 1997, findings from a national survey immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), and panel data from a follow‐up survey in 2002. We compare public assessments of the threat of terrorism, willingness to restrict speech to prevent terrorism, support for employing conventional military force against countries that support terrorism, and levels of certainty about culpability required prior to using military force. Results show stable and measured public views prior to 9/11, immediately following the events of that date, and in the subsequent year. Our findings support democratic and modernist theories of public capacities while challenging long‐standing traditional precepts about widespread volatility of mass public opinion.
In: The review of policy research: RPR ; the politics and policy of science and technology ; journal of the Science, Technology, and Environmental Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, Band 22, Heft 5, S. 599-623
ISSN: 1541-132X
We test traditional assumptions about the volatility of mass opinion in times of national crises using data about views of terrorism from national surveys of the United States general public in 1995 & 1997, findings from a national survey immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), & panel data from a follow-up survey in 2002. We compare public assessments of the threat of terrorism, willingness to restrict speech to prevent terrorism, support for employing conventional military force against countries that support terrorism, & levels of certainty about culpability required prior to using military force. Results show stable & measured public views prior to 9/11, immediately following the events of that date, & in the subsequent year. Our findings support democratic & modernist theories of public capacities while challenging long-standing traditional precepts about widespread volatility of mass public opinion. Tables, Figures, Appendixes, References. Adapted from the source document.
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 451-479
ISSN: 1468-2478
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 46, Heft 4, S. 451-479
ISSN: 0020-8833, 1079-1760
World Affairs Online
In: Perspectives on political science, Band 24, Heft 2, S. 126
ISSN: 1045-7097
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Band 13, Heft 4, S. 425-439
ISSN: 1539-6924
To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists'perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences (p0.05)in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a)perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b)perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d)prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that–independently of field of research–perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.
In: Risk analysis, Band 13, Heft 4, S. 425-439
ISSN: 0272-4332
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Band 10, Heft 1, S. 119
ISSN: 1520-6688