Sub Groups

Seminar on 'Public values and GM crops & foods' January 2001

Notes: George Gaskell, LSE.

1. Scope and character

For a number of years I have been working with John Durant, and particularly with a fellow social psychologist Martin Bauer, on the representation of biotechnology in the public sphere. Our interest stem from social representations theory, a critique of traditional attitudinal and public opinion research, and social systems theory. Within different arenas of the public sphere biotechnology presents different challenges and is represented in different ways. Our research focuses on three arenas of the public sphere, policy making, media coverage and public perceptions. Our objective is to understand from the discourses in these three arenas the structure and functions of representations, the interrelations between the three arenas and the ways in which the public sphere responds to, and in turn, shapes the development of the technology. Recently we have outlined the idea of a 'biotechnology movement', adding a social dynamic to actor network theory.

This research is a component in an international and comparative project with researchers in Europe, the United States and Canada. Others in the project have brought particular theoretical interests from mass communications, risk amplification and policy analysis. Our collective aspiration is to synthesise aspects of these perspectives on social change, but time will tell.

Broadly the research is characterised by interests in theoretical, empirical and methodological concerns, with a focus on the analysis of process and change which necessitates longitudinal inquiry.

2. Preferred methods and forms of validation

Research methods, like medicines, are well indicated for some problems and not for others. Equally, like medicines, methods carry contra-indications. To change the metaphor, while a hammer and a nail are fine for hanging pictures only the naïve would approach all household maintenance problems with such limited range of tools. Our research is explicitly multi-method, and indeed one of our interests is to explore the indication of different methods. We often employ designs that involve the triangulation of methods, a technique that forces one to be reflexive. We have variously used national sample survey research (the Eurobarometer), individual and group interviewing, free association, classical and other forms of content analysis of texts and images. In terms of public perceptions we view quantitative methods (surveys) and qualitative methods (interviews of various kinds) as complementary. Surveys access the broader contours, while interviews contribute to the designs of surveys and separately to the more detailed and exhaustive mapping of the terrain.

Validation is a broad and under specified concept. In the first place one needs to decide valid for what purpose(s)? If a survey attempts to map public opinion then validity is a function of sampling and non-sampling errors, who you talk to and what they are asked. With the analysis of the media and other unspecified samples the method of corpus construction, the design of coding frames and procedures for analysis are crucial.

All research, whether quantitative or qualitative, involves making claims, the substance of which should be open to public account (accountable in the sense of public knowledge, open to scrutiny). For qualitative research, interviews and discourse analysis for example, the issue of validity is the subject of heated debate. We propose that the qualitative tradition needs to develop indicators of confidence and relevance (functionally equivalent to validity and reliability) and offer the following candidate criteria: transparency and procedural clarity, corpus construction, thick description, triangulation and reflexivity and surprise.

That said in all social research that goes beyond 'news' the link between theory and empirical findings is one of the key elements of validity. As Lewin opined 'there is nothing as practical as good theory'.

3. Relations with other research in the field

The phenomenon of biotechnology is complex and dynamic and lends itself to many different social and political scientific perspectives. It seems to me that many UK researchers work in different networks that for a variety of reasons, including time constraints, seldom talk to one another. To this extent potential synergies etc are not well explored. Is there a case for researchers in the field coming together for an annual meeting?

4. Relevant insights

In terms of GM foods and other applications of biotechnology, research of a qualitative and quantitative nature offers a number of insights on for example:

• public opinion as the second hurdle to innovation management
  
  
• the state of public perception in Britain, Europe and North America 1999
  
  
• how public perception has changed since 1996
  
  
• On the longer term trends in media coverage of biotechnology
  
  
• on the media reportage during the GM food debate of February 1999
  
  
• The impact of the BSE issue on GM foods
  
  
• on the nature of other public concerns about the development of GM technologies and the commonalities across Europe
  
  
• the representation of GM foods as physical and moral dangers
  
  
• on the disjunction between official and lay discourse on GM technologies.
  
  
• The establishment of a bifurcation between 'green' and 'red' biotechnologies and its synchronisation across the three arenas.
  
  
• The representational complex of 'red'=good and 'green'=bad.