The extent to which nuclear energy technologies are, in some sense, “stigmatised” by historical environmental and military associations is of particular interest in contemporary debates about sustainable energy policy. Recent claims in the literature suggest that despite such stigmatisation, lay views on such technologies may be shifting towards a “reluctant acceptance,” in the light of concerns about issues like anthropogenic climate change. In this paper, we report on research into learning and reasoning processes concerned with a largely unknown nuclear energy technology; namely fusion power. We focus on the role of the nuclear label, or “brand,” in informing how lay citizens make sense of the nature of this technology. Our findings derive from a comparative analysis of data generated in Spain and Britain, using the same methodology.
BarbourR.KitzingerJ. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice. London: SAGE.
2.
BickerstaffK.LorenzoniI.PidgeonN.PoortingaW.SimmonsP. (2008) “Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and Radioactive Waste,” Public Understanding of Science17: 145–69.
3.
BloorM. (1978) “On the Analysis of Observational Data: A Discussion of the Worth and Uses of Inductive Techniques and Respondent Validation,” Sociology12(3): 545–57.
4.
BloorM.FranklandJ.ThomasM.RobsonK. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research. London: SAGE.
5.
BlumA.McHughP. (1971) “The Social Ascription of Motives,” American Sociological Review36(1): 98–109.
6.
BoholmA. (1998) “Visual Images and Risk Messages: Commemorating Chernobyl,” Risk, Decision and Policy3(2): 125–43.
7.
BrittenN.CampbellR.PopeC.DonovanJ.MorganM.PillR. (2002) “Using Meta Ethnography to Synthesize Qualitative Research: A Worked Example,” Journal of Health Services Research Policy7(4): 209–15.
8.
BushJ.MoffattS.DunnC. (2001) “‘Even the Birds Round Here Cough’: Stigma, Air Pollution and Health in Teesside,” Health & Place7: 47–56.
9.
ConverseP.E. (1964) “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in ApterD.E. (ed.) Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–61. New York: Free Press.
10.
DouglasM. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
Eurobarometer (2007) Energy Technologies: Knowledge, Perception, Measures. Special Eurobarometer 262. Brussels: European Commission.
12.
FieldingN.FieldingJ. (1986) Linking Data. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
13.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.KunreutherH. (eds) (2001) Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan.
14.
GamsonW.ModiglianiA. (1989) “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach,” American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
15.
GarfinkelH. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
GoffmanE. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HendryJ.LawsonJ.D. (1993) Fusion Research in the UK: 1945–1960. AEA Technology report. London: HMSO.
19.
Horlick-JonesT. (2005) “Informal Logics of Risk: Contingency and Modes of Practical Reasoning,” Journal of Risk Research8(3): 253–72.
20.
Horlick-JonesT. (2008) “Reasoning about Safety Management Policy in Everyday Terms: A Pilot Study in Citizen Engagement for the UK Railway Industry,” Journal of Risk Research11(6): 679–718.
21.
Horlick-JonesT.PradesA. (2009) “On Interpretative Risk Perception Research: Some Reflections on its Origins; its Nature; and its Possible Applications in Risk Communication Practice,” Health, Risk & Society11(5): 409–30.
22.
Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.KitzingerJ. (2007a) “Bricolage in Action: Learning about, Making Sense of, and Discussing Issues about Genetically Modified Crops and Food,” Health, Risk & Society9(1): 83–103.
23.
Horlick-JonesT.WallsJ.RoweG.PidgeonN.PoortingaW.MurdockG.O’RiordanT. (2007b) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. Abingdon: Routledge.
24.
HughesR. (1998) “Considering the Vignette Technique and its Application to a Study of Drug Injecting and HIV Risk and Safer Behaviour,” Sociology of Health & Illness20(3): 381–400.
25.
IrwinA.SimmonsP.WalkerG. (1999) “Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards,” Environment and Planning A31: 1311–26.
26.
JukesJ. (1959) Man-Made Sun: The Story of ZETA. London: Abelard-Schuman.
KinsellaW. (2008) “Rhetorics of Risk and a Proposed Nuclear Renaissance,” paper delivered to a symposium on “Making Sense of Sustainable Energy Sources” forming part of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, Boston, December.
29.
KleinM. (1986) The Selected Melanie Klein, ed. MitchellJ.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
30.
Llewellyn SmithC.WardD. (2008) “Fusion,” Energy Policy36(12): 4331–4.
31.
LynchM. (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MarrisC.WynneB.SimmonsP.WeldonS. (2001) Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project, funded by the Commission of the European Communities, Contract number FAIR CF98–3844 (DB12-SSMI).
33.
MillerW. (1997) The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
MulkayM. (1988) On Humour: Its Nature and its Place in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
35.
MyersG. (1999) Ad Worlds: Brands, Media, Audiences. London: Arnold.
36.
MyersG. (2004) Matters of Opinion: Talking about Public Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MyersG. (2007) “Commonplaces in Risk Talk: Face Threats and Forms of Interaction,” Journal of Risk Research10(3): 285–305.
38.
NoblitG.HareR. (1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
39.
PopkinS. (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd edn.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Prades LópezA.Horlick-JonesT.OltraC.SoláR. (2007) Social Perception of Large R&D Programmes. Report to European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA). Barcelona: CIEMAT.
41.
Prades LópezA.Horlick-JonesT.OltraC.SoláR. (2008) “Lay Perceptions of Nuclear Fusion: Multiple Modes of Understanding,” Science and Public Policy35(2): 95–105.
42.
Prades LópezA.Horlick-JonesT.OltraC.NavajasJ. (2009) Lay Understanding and Reasoning about Fusion Energy: Results of an Empirical Study. Madrid: CIEMAT.
43.
RennO.WeblerT.WiedemannP. (eds) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizens’ Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
44.
RosenheadJ.MingersJ. (eds) (2001) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.
45.
SarangiS.RobertsC. (eds) (1999) Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
46.
SealeC. (1999) The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
47.
SilvermanD. (1994) “Describing Sexual Activities in HIV Counselling: The Cooperative Management of the Moral Order,” Text14(3): 427–53.
48.
SlovicP.LaymanM.FlynnJ. (1990) What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Words “Nuclear Waste Repository”? A Study of 10,000 Images. Oregon: Decision Research.
TettG. (2009) Fool’s Gold: How Unrestrained Greed Corrupted a Dream, Shattered Global Markets and Unleashed a Catastrophe. London: Little, Brown.
51.
TimotijevicL.BarnettJ. (2006) “Managing the Possible Health Risks of Mobile Telecommunications: Public Understandings of Precautionary Action and Advice,” Health, Risk & Society8(2): 143–64.
52.
WalkerG.SimmonsP.WynneB.IrwinA. (1998) Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Accident Hazards. Sudbury: HSE Books.
53.
WeartS. (1988) Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
WhitfieldS.RosaE.DanA.DietzT. (2009) “The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis29(3): 425–37.
55.
ZonabendF. (1993) The Nuclear Peninsula. Cambridge and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison de l’Homme.
