DSpace JSPUI

1. By-Covid
2. All content
3. Cessda

Title:	Doing TB Differently (Part 3): Q Methods data
Keywords:	BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS BADGER CULLING Q METHODOLOGY ONLINE METHODS 2016
Description:	Q Methods data consists ranked sets of statements on a given topic. These data were collected directly before and after the respondents took part in a five-day online discussion forum about bovine TB and the culling of badgers. At Time 1 there were 144 respondents and 86 at Time 2. The respondents also responded to a limited set of survey questions. Note that there are three other collections associated with this research(please see Related Resources for links): 852112: Doing TB Differently: Online forum scripts 852115: Doing TB Differently: Stakeholder dialogue workshop 852116: Doing TB Differently: Interview transcripts <p>Our research will be guided by three research questions: How does the character of the acute conflict (characterised, in this case, by controversial field culls of badgers combined with the deliberately narrow remit of an Independent Expert Panel) reveal key fracture points in the debate? (1) What is the scope for reducing conflicts and overcoming fracture points through social science led forms of interventions? (2) Can a social science-led intervention translate into broader policy change? (3) These questions will be addressed from several angles. We will collect field observations and develop and analyse an archive of film evidence recording interactions between and among pro-and anti- culling groups, cull contractors, companies, farmers and police officers as culling is being undertaken. A sample of people from each of these groups will be approached for in-depth interviews. Data will also be generated from social- and mass-media. An online deliberative forum will be used to understand the types of argumentation deployed on all sides of the debate. This will inform a Q-set (a set of key arguments used in the debate) that will be used to test the views of participants in deliberative forums before and after they participate in two deliberative events. These professionally facilitated deliberative forums will seek to negotiate a workable compromise for future TB policy. Q-methodology will allow us to assess the extent to which social science-led deliberative forums have been able to reduce key fracture points in the conflict. Finally, we will run focus groups with key policy makers assessing the utility of our approach for informing policy and the possibility of our findings shaping TB policy. </p>
URI:	https://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/60830
Other Identifiers:	10.5255/UKDA-SN-852114 852114 https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-852114
Appears in Collections:	Cessda

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.