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

这个项目的目的是帮助我们理解讨论论坛在解决棘手的环境政策问题中可以发挥的作用，当我们了解到激情的利益是如何表达和实践的时候。特别是，它探索并开始努力补救围绕獾扑杀政策问题出现的社会政治冲突，该政策旨在控制牛的牛结核病。英格兰政府已经发放了在西格洛斯特郡和西萨默塞特郡试点扑杀獾的许可证，即将于2013年夏末或初秋开始。许可证允许这些地区高达70%的獾在每个地点每年六周的时间内被扑杀，为期四年。虽然这一试验计划将仅从受控射击作为一种扑杀方法的安全性、人性化和有效性方面进行正式评估，但更广泛地推出扑杀政策的可行性显然取决于社会和政治冲突的性质及其能否得到补救。尽管扑杀行动尚未开始，但公众讨论已经引起了高度分歧，辩论在很大程度上被框定为在獾和农民之间做出选择。鉴于近261,000名公众签署了有史以来最大规模的反对猎獾的电子请愿书，预计抗议者、捕杀承包商、农民和警察之间的冲突将变得尖锐。我们的研究计划探索与扑杀政策相关的一系列行为者之间冲突的性质。我们还寻求评估这些行为者之间达成共识的可能性，或者至少帮助找到一个可行的折衷办法，以帮助为未来关于牛群结核管理的政策提供信息。从这一案例研究中吸取的经验教训将为未来有关农村问题的环境政策制定提供指导。我们的研究将以三个研究问题为指导：1)尖锐冲突的特征(在这种情况下，以有争议的实地筛选为特征，加上一个独立专家小组故意缩小职权范围)如何揭示辩论中的关键裂点？2)通过社会科学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化？这些问题将从几个角度得到解决。我们将收集实地观察，并开发和分析胶片证据档案，记录支持和反对扑杀的团体、扑杀承办商、公司、农民和警察之间的互动。将从每一组人中抽样调查，进行深入访谈。数据也将从社交媒体和大众媒体中产生。将使用一个在线审议论坛来了解辩论各方部署的辩论类型。这将提供一个Q集(辩论中使用的一组关键论点)，用于测试与会者在参加两个审议活动之前和之后在审议论坛上的意见。这些由专业人士促成的审议论坛将寻求为未来的结核病政策谈判一项可行的折衷办法。Q方法将使我们能够评估社会科学领导的审议论坛在多大程度上能够减少冲突中的关键断裂点。最后，我们将与主要政策制定者一起组织焦点小组，评估我们为政策提供信息的方法的效用，以及我们的发现塑造结核病政策的可能性。

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.