Week 3

Attitude formation – the “Innovation diffusion model” and networks

This project was lead by Professor Daniela Stehlik, on behalf of the National Academies Forum (Stehlik 2010). Professor Stehlik was at Curtin University of Technology at the time, and now leads the Northern Institute at Charles Darwin University, and has held a number of public appointments. Her background is in social science and sustainability studies.

You are of course welcome to read as much of the report as you like! However Appendix A pp41-56 is especially relevant to our investigations.

1. How does the concept of diffusion help you think about community structure, information provision and community engagement? How might this concept be useful, or limiting?

The report also addresses the issue of information provision, and its impact on attitudes. Both the report itself and the appended summary report by CSIRO, found that information provision alone, in the absence of other factors, may not influence attitudes.

1. Can you see this happening in the context of biosecurity management?
2. Might “salience” have a role to play?
3. Does the discussion of “deliberative democratic processes” have any relevance to plant biosecurity management?
   

• Stehlik D. (2010). Appendix A: Conceptual framework and literature
  review. In Understanding the formation of attitudes to nuclear
  power in Australia, pp41-56. National Academies Forum, Melbourne.
  Accessed July 2010 at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Understanding+the+formation+of+attitudes+to+nuclear+power+in+Australia&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Bjsessionid%3D21D44164A1D4DB274A058C1C0F60ADDB%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.177.2239%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=I_S6UbT0CYb8iAffpICwCg&usg=AFQjCNFlUJ6Y0SdQF-zH9H31Eq75vLyWAg
  
• See also the summary appended at the very end of the report, prepared
  by Peta Ashworth (2009) Summary of community attitudes toward nuclear and other low emission energy technologies. CSIRO P2009/2108, Compiled for the
  National Academies Forum.

Returning to Kununurra

Royce (in press) expands on his study in Kununurra, and will continue to help nuance your understanding of “community”.

As you read note the processes that help constitute a society, as well as the potential internal structures that may make up a community.

1. Further, note references to Hashagen’s work (Hashagen 2002; cited in Royce in press), in which two systems in society are acknowledged - a governance system and a community system.
   
   Royce states that “Hashagen (2002) recognises that if complex activities, such as the community management of biosecurity, are to cross social borders and meet the needs of all community members, relationships have to be formed whereby governance systems fully understand the dynamics of the community they intend to work in”.
   
   
2. What do you think he means?
   

• Royce P (in press) Using a community approach to foster effective
  biosecurity practices across social borders In: Falk I, Ndoen ML and
  Wallace R (eds) Managing biosecurity across borders, pp 103-120, Springer.

 

Revisiting the "real World" – case studies again

After reading these theoretical works, it might now be both useful and refreshing to revisit the case studies provided in the website materials.

For each case study, look at the communities involved, and their engagement in the management of the case study pests. Specifically make links between the case studies and your readings.

1. Are there issues or elements that you notice now that you did not notice when you read them in week 1? If so, what were they?
2. Post your observations to the Learnline discussion board.
   
   

• ENV401 Learnline materials
• ENV401 website materials