Many Minds, Common Sense and Genetically Modified Food: A Role for Q Methodology

References

• Addams H. Proops J. (Eds.). (2000). Social discourse and environmental policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Baker R. (2006). Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes. Social Science & Medicine, 63(9), 2341–2353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown S. (1980). Political subjectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen D.-S. Deng C.-Y. (2007). Interaction between citizens and experts in public deliberation: A case study of consensus conferences in Taiwan. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 1(1), 77–97.
   Google Scholar
• Cook G. Pieri E. Robbins P. (2004). ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse and Society, 15(4), 433–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronin K. (2007). Risk communication and dialogue: A critical exploration of communication practices in the management of technological risk. PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin K. Jackson L. (2004). Hands across the water: Developing dialogue between stakeholders in the New Zealand biotechnology debate. Wellington: Report to the Ministry of Research Science and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley L. (2008a). BASF expands GM activities in competitive Asia-Pacific. Montpellier, France: Decision News Media. Available from: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/BASF-expands-GM-activities-in-competitive-Asia-Pacific [accessed 29 August 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Crowley L. (2008b). Korea looks to GM to answer price hikes. Montpelier, France: Decision News Media. Available from: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Korea-looks-to-GM-to-answer-price-hikes [accessed 29 August 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Cuppen E. Breukersb S. Hisschemöllera M. Bergsmaa E. (2010). Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 579–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek J. Niemeyer S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dryzek J. Goodin R. Tucker A. Reber B. (2006). Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Available from: http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/documents/Dryzeketal2006.pdf [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Dubock A. (2009). Crop conundrum. Nutrition Review, 67(1), 17–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden S. Bear C. Walker G. (2008). The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance. Food Policy, 33, 624–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis G. Barry J. Robinson C. (2007). Many ways to say ‘no’—different ways to say ‘yes’: Applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Planning and Environmental Management, 50(4), 517–551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (EC) . (2009). Coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic agriculture. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm#com153 [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Evenson R. Santaniello V. (Eds.). (2004). Consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Feffer J. (2004). Asia holds the key to the future of GM food. Global Policy Forum, available from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/220/47320.html [accessed 29 August 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Focht W. Lawler J. (2000). Using Q methodology to facilitate policy dialogue. In Addams H. Proops J. (Eds.), Social discourse and environmental policy (pp. 100–122). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Forguson L. (1989). Common sense. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gruère G. Bouët A. Mevel S. (2007). Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00740, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/ifpridp00740.asp [accessed 26 August 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Hackett E. J. Amsterdamska O. Lynch M. Wajcman J. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hagendijk R. Irwin A. (2006). Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva, 44(2), 167–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall C. (2008). Identifying farmer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) corps in Scotland: Are they pro- or anti-GM? Geoforum, 39, 204–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh R. Du Plessis R. (2008). GMO regulation and civic participation at the ‘edge of the world’: The case of Australia and New Zealand. New Genetics and Society, 27, 180–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Service of the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) . 2009. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2009. Brief 41-2009. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/41/executivesummary/default.asp [Accessed 1 June 2010].
   Google Scholar
• James W. (1892). Psychology. Cleveland & New York: World.
   Google Scholar
• Joerges B. Nowotny H. (Eds.). (2003). Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kim H. (2008). Q methodology: Philosophy, theories, analysis & practice. Seoul: Communications Books (in Korean).
   Google Scholar
• Kimbrell A. (Ed.). (2002). The fatal harvest reader. Sausalito CA: Foundation for Deep Ecology and Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinman D. L. (Ed.). (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence F. (2009). It is too late to shut the door on GM foods. The Guardian online. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/16/too-late-to-stop-gm [accessed 22 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Leib E. Baogang H. (Eds.). (2006). The search for deliberative democracy in China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Leitch S. (2008). Engaging across boundaries: Consultation, collaboration and resistance. In Davenport S. Motion J. Leitch S. , (Eds.), Working across boundaries: Science industry in society, pp. 13–19. Report of a Royal Society of NZ Symposium, Wellington: Sustainable Biotechnology Project.
   Google Scholar
• Levidow L. (2007). European public participation as risk governance: Enhancing democratic accountability for agribiotech policy? East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 1, 19–51.
   Google Scholar
• Levin C. Long J. Simler K. Johnson-Welch C. (2003). Cultivating nutrition: A survey of viewpoints on integrating agriculture and nutrition. Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper No 154. Washington, DC: International Good Policy Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Lonergan B. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Martineau B. (2001). First fruit: The creation of the Flavr Savr tomato and the birth of biotech foods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Mattson D. Byrd K. Rutherford M. Brown S. Clark T. (2006). Finding common ground in large carnivore conservation: Mapping contending perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy, 9, 392–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCluskey J. Grimsrud K. Wahl T. (2006). Comparison of consumer responses to genetically modified foods in Asia, North America, and Europe. In Just R. Alston J. Zilberman D. (Eds.), Regulating agricultural biotechnology: Economics and policy (pp. 227–240). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McHughen A. (2000). Pandora's picnic basket: The potential and hazards of genetically modified foods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKeown B. Thomas D. (1988). Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Min S. J. (2009). Deliberation, East meets West: Exploring the cultural dimensions of citizen deliberation. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Montserrat Costa-Font M. Gil J. Traill W. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes toward genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33(2), 99–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motion J. (2008). Communicating across science/society boundaries: Ideas, values and bodies of knowledge. In Davenport S. Motion J. Leitch S. , (Eds.), Working across boundaries: Science industry in society, pp. 8–12. Report of a Royal Society of NZ Symposium. Wellington: Sustainable Biotechnology Project.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson G. (2001). Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: Economics and politics. New York: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Ockwell D. (2008). ‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: A role for Q methodology?: A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia. Policy Sciences, 41, 263–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Neill J. Carter C. Ekeli K. Kenyon W. (2008). Representing diversity in participatory approaches. PATH Policy Brief 1. Aberdeen, UK: Macaulay Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Pope N. Voges K. Brown M. Forrest E. (2004) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods: Development of a multidimensional scale. Wellington, New Zealand: Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Available from: http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2004/CDsite/papers/Pope1.PDF [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Reber B. (2010). La démocratie génétiquement modifiée. Sociologies éthiques de l'évaluation des technologies controversies. Quebec: Presses Universitaires de Laval.
   Google Scholar
• Rescher N. (2005). Common-sense: A new look at an old philosophical tradition. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe G. Frewer L. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25, 3–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutherford M. B. Gibeau M. L. Clark S. G. Chamberlain E. C. (2009). Interdisciplinary problem solving workshops for grizzly bear conservation in Banff National Park, Canada. Policy Sciences, 42, 163–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmolck P. (2002). PQMethod 2.11. Available from: http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Steelman T. Maguire L. (2000). Understanding participant perspectives: Q methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 361–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson W. (1978a). Concourse theory of communication. Communication, 3, 21–40.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson W. (1978b). The shame of science. Ethics in Science & Medicine, 5, 25–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stephenson W. (1980). Consciring: A general theory for subjective communicability. In Nimmo D. (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 4/7–36. New Brunswick: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson W. (1986). Protoconcursus: The concourse theory of communication, parts 1 and 2. Operant Subjectivity, 9, 37–58 –73–96.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33, 262–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA/ERS) . (2009). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the US. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/biotechcrops [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• van Eeten M. (2001). Recasting intractable policy issues: The wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 391–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venables D. Pidgeon N. Simmons P. Henwood K. Parkhill K. (2009). Living with nuclear risk: A Q-method study. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1089–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webler T. Danielson S. Tuler S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. Available from: http://www.serius.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf [accessed 18 September 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Weirich P. (Ed.). (2007). Labeling genetically modified food: The philosophical and legal debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf A. (2006). Operant subjectivity and persuasion in public policies. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity. Norway: Tronheim.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf A. (2009). Subjectivity, the researcher and the researched. Operant Subjectivity: The International Journal of Q Methodology, 32, 6–28.
   Google Scholar
• Wolsink M. (2004). Policy beliefs in spatial decisions: contrasting core beliefs concerning space-making for waste infrastructure. Urban Studies, 41, 2669–2690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong W. Eiser A. Mrtek R. Heckerling P. (2004). By-person factor analysis in clinical ethical decision making: Q methodology in end-of-life care decisions. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4, W8–W22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO) . (2009). 20 questions on genetically modified (GM) foods. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/index.html [accessed 20 October 2009].
   Google Scholar
• Zartman I. (2008). Negotiation and conflict management: Essays on theory and practice. Oxon, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar