URGENT INVITE "Doing TB differently: Generating a workable TB policy during an acute episode within a chronic countryside conflict"

该项目旨在为我们理解审议论坛在解决棘手的环境政策问题方面可以发挥的作用做出重大贡献，当了解如何表达和实践热情的利益时。特别是，它探讨并开始努力补救围绕着旨在控制牛结核病的獾扑杀政策问题出现的社会政治冲突。英国政府已经发放了在西格洛斯特郡和西萨默塞特试点扑杀獾的许可证，即将开始--在2013年夏末或初秋。许可证允许这些地区高达70%的獾种群在四年内每年在每个地点的六周内被扑杀。虽然这项试验计划只会在安全、人道和控制射击作为一种扑杀方法的有效性方面进行正式评估，但更广泛地推行扑杀政策的可行性显然取决于社会和政治冲突的性质，以及这些冲突是否可以得到补救。尽管扑杀行动尚未开始，但公众舆论已经高度分裂，辩论主要是在獾和农民之间做出选择。鉴于近26.1万名公众签署了有史以来最大的反对捕杀獾的电子请愿书，预计抗议者、捕杀承包商、农民和警察之间的冲突将变得激烈。direct.gov我们的研究计划探索的性质之间的冲突与利益的淘汰政策的一系列行动者。我们还寻求评估这些参与者之间达成共识的潜力，或者至少帮助找到一个可行的妥协方案，以帮助为未来的牛结核病管理政策提供信息。我们的研究将以三个研究问题为指导：1）激烈冲突的性质（在这种情况下，其特点是有争议的实地扑杀加上独立专家小组故意缩小的职权范围）如何揭示辩论中的关键断裂点？2)通过以社会科学为主导的干预形式减少冲突和克服裂痕的范围有多大？3)社会科学主导的干预能否转化为更广泛的政策变革？这些问题将从几个角度加以讨论。我们将收集实地观察，并建立和分析一个电影证据档案，记录在进行扑杀时支持和反对扑杀团体、扑杀承包商、公司、农民和警察之间的互动。将从这些群体中抽取一批人进行深入访谈。数据也将来自社交媒体和大众媒体。将使用一个在线审议论坛来了解辩论各方所采用的论证类型。这将为一个Q集（辩论中使用的一组关键论点）提供信息，该Q集将用于在参加两次审议活动之前和之后测试审议论坛参与者的观点。这些由专业人士推动的审议论坛将寻求为未来的结核病政策谈判一个可行的妥协方案。Q方法将使我们能够评估社会科学主导的审议论坛能够在多大程度上减少冲突中的关键断裂点。最后，我们将与关键的决策者组成焦点小组，评估我们的方法在制定政策方面的效用，以及我们的研究结果对结核病政策形成影响的可能性。

This project aims to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the role that deliberative forums can play in solving intractable environmental policy problems, when informed by an understanding of how passionate interests are articulated and practiced. In particular, it explores and begins to work towards the remediation of the socio- political conflicts emerging around the issue of badger culling policy designed to control bovine tuberculosis in cattle. The government in England has already issued licenses for a pilot culling of badgers in West Gloucestershire and West Somerset, beginning imminently - in the late summer or early autumn of 2013. The licenses permit for up to 70% of the badger population in those regions to be culled in annual six-week periods in each location for a period of four years. Whilst this pilot scheme will be officially assessed only in terms of safety, humaneness and effectiveness of controlled shooting as a culling method, the feasibility of the broader roll out of culling policy clearly hinges upon the nature of social and political conflicts and whether they can be remediated. Even though the culls have yet to commence, public discourse is already highly divisive, with the debate being framed largely as a choice between badgers or farmers. Given that nearly 261,000 members of the public have signed the largest ever direct.gov e-petition against badger culling, it is anticipated that conflict between protesters, culling contractors, farmers and police will become acute. Our research plans to explore the nature of the conflict among a range of actors with an interest in the culling policy. We also seek to evaluate the potential for consensus among these actors, or, at the very least, to help find a workable compromise to help inform future policy on the management of bTB in cattle. The lessons learned from this case study will inform future environmental policy-making on countryside issues and beyond.Our research will be guided by three research questions:1) How does the character of the acute conflict (characterised, in this case, by controversial field culls combined with the deliberately narrow remit of an Independent Expert Panel) reveal key fracture points in the debate?2) What is the scope for reducing conflicts and overcoming fracture points through social science led forms of intervention?3) Can a social science-led intervention translate into broader policy change?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.