these institutional environments to the dynamics that will emerge from the communicative constitution of differentiated sets of expectations.
Fig. 1: General Pattern of Data Collection
start end licensing procedure
time axis:
mode of participation: with/without, oral/written ...
phases of
data 1 2 3 collection:
type of interviews oral, written or electronic data interviews data: public debate from the permitting procedure public debate
media media
local meetings local meetings
(synchronic) (diachronic, process data) (synchronic) research - images of - images of self and others - images of self focus: self and others - dynamics of social positioning and others
- expected - observed
resonance to resonance to
the permitting the permitting
procedure procedure
- difference to data from
phase 1?
Furthermore, there are materials documenting communications in the environment of a concrete permitting procedure and/or a GMO planting. That means communications that emerge due to a concrete permitting procedure and/or a GMO planting:
local public meetings;
locally distributed materials such as leaflets, invitations to and announcements of a local meeting, petitions, official documents;
local mass media reports including articles, comments, letters to the editor in regional newspapers;
local interviews with participating actors; and
materials from Court hearings.36
36 The court hearing is a special type of material: on the one hand, as a judicial review of a foregoing permitting procedure it arises from a concrete procedure, on the other hand it is obviously not part of it, but is implicit
Finally, there are materials documenting communications more or less independent from a concrete permitting procedure but also concerned with the (general) issue of GMO planting:
the National law including legislation and regulatory directions for the procedure and for citizen participation;
national public policy accounts;
the national public debate;
public meetings, discussions and events concerned with the general issue;
interviews with concerned actors without case-specific focus; and
the national mass media.
The lines then give specifications according to different descriptive features. Firstly, there are some general data characteristics:
as to the kind of relation to a concrete permitting procedure and/or to a local planting of GMOs: being part of the procedure (direct relation), depending upon a concrete procedure or a local planting (close relation), and being independent from both a concrete permitting procedure and a local planting (indirect relation),
as to the status of collected data: taking place without the research team’s initiative (so-called “natural”), taking place due to the research team’s initiative (elicited), and taking place due to the research team’s initiative, which was then taken up by other parties (animated),
as to the kind of discourse manifestation: spoken, hand-written, typed, printed, electronic.
Secondly, specifications were made as to the allocation of the materials among the PARADYS teams:
collection of data in which teams?
focus of analysis and exploitation in which teams?
within any procedure. Therefore, we tend to locate the court hearing in the “environment of the case”, closely coupled with the procedure.
Table 1.1 to 1.3.: Types of materials around GMO plantings dealt with in PARADYS
1.1. Direct relation
Types of materials
Descriptive Features
Public announcement of intended
GMO field trial Files Written Objections (and
Replies)
Data characteristics
Relation to procedure direct direct direct
Status of collected data natural natural natural
Discourse manifestation printed;
I: electronic, signs on the field
typed; hand-written, partly electronic hand-written; typed37 Allocation among PARADYS
teams
Collected data in: I, D, NL,
UK (information on GM trial sites on DEFRA web sites)
I (Casalino case), D, S (all documents concerning two cases), NL (starch potato case)
D, NL (9 parties (=types), 74 tokens)
37 Type of discourse manifestation is formally prescribed in this type of materials: “können … schriftlich oder zur Niederschrift vorgebracht werden“ (D: 44).
1.2. Close relation Types of materials
Descriptive Features
Local public meeting Locally
distributed materials
Local mass media Local interviews with participants
Court hearing
Data characteristics
Relation to procedure close close close close close
Status of collected data natural; animated (I: 299) natural natural elicited natural
Discourse manifestation spoken printed printed spoken spoken
Allocation among PARADYS teams
Collected data in: D: “inhabitant meeting”, shortly before decision, invited by the mayor, about 70 persons (10)
I: Casalino public meeting (“public debate”) with scientists, local politicians, representatives, journalists, local people;
invited by the mayor, co-organised by PARADYS team;
second public encounter in Casalino to be expected in 12/2003;
S: Local public meeting in Southern Sweden arranged by Greenpeace (with P.
Smeiser as main speaker, 04/2002) UK: 3 local meetings formally called for by the parish council (with government representative, local people), part of the so-called FSE/FST-programme (499-501)
D: leaflets, petitions;
I: inviting leaflet to local public meeting S: leaflets, announce-ment during the
Greenpeace campaign (including the local public meeting) UK: inviting leaflets
D: 12 articles, one letter to the editor (7)
I: some articles with accounts on a meeting in “major Italian newspapers” (297), 8 articles Casalino case, one letter to the editor, 7 articles Viterbo case;
NL: reports by national newspapers on the Starch case (410-411) S: local TV news, various newspaper articles (relation to case not clear), two letters to the editor
UK: media reports about the meetings
all teams, limitations concerning:
H: partly, related to a former case;
IRL: partly, related to the case
‘behind’ the High Court case (see next column) some 5 years ago S: relation to case is not clear?
(additional data base: phone replies and email replies by
representatives)
IRL: High court case of Watson vs. the EPA and Monsanto (1998)
NL (appeal to permission, 357-359)
1.3. Indirect relation Types of materials
Descriptive Features
National law
National public policy accounts
National public debate
Public meetings, discussions and events concerned with the general issue of GMO planting
Interviews with concerned actors
National mass media
Data characteristics
Relation to procedure indirect indirect indirect indirect indirect indirect
Status of collected data natural natural natural; elicited natural elicited natural Discourse manifestation printed;
electronic
printed; electronic printed; spoken;
electronic
spoken spoken printed
Allocation among PARADYS teams
Collected data in: all teams UK: DEFRA websites and leaflets, booklet on GM crops (“Take a closer look”);
I: Health Ministry website (“Questions and answers”) NL: white paper, parliamentary debate S: web presentation of SBA
UK: websites from NGOs and protest groups, leaflets form GM crop industry;
NL: Government sponsored public debate (s. next column); critical letters by NGOs H: National poll on public attitudes I: leaflets and web materials from NGOs S: web presentations from NGOs and activist groups
UK: public letters to the government and standard responses
H: Lectures and Discussions I: FAO meeting in Rome (291)
NL: public expert hearing;
public hearing on biotechnology and food (guided and organised by Committee Terlouw);
NGO conference: “The other side …”
S: public meeting arranged by Environment Department in 2000
H, S (relation to case not clear), IRL (partly), I (partly)
I, H: Articles I: Public statements;
274 articles NL: various articles along the public debate S: TV
programme on GMOs
The data synopsis shows that the PARADYS materials differ as to their
relation to a concrete permitting procedure (direct, close and indirect relation);
kind of discourse manifestation (spoken, hand-written, typed, printed, electronic data);
and as to the
status of data collection (natural, animated and elicited data).
Furthermore, the allocation of these materials among the PARADYS teams is different.
Together, different data characteristics and different allocation among the research teams bear some implications for the comparability of empirical analyses:
There are materials available in all teams: the local interviews with participants and the national law including the regulatory conditions. Both types of material are central for our interest in social positions and their dynamics in discourse, and both types of material therefore have to make a focus of analysis and exploitation in each team.
There are materials which could be collected in some teams opening the floor for comparisons between country-specific dimensions of social positioning: public announcement of intended GMO field trial, files, local public meetings (including the locally distributed materials), local mass media, national public policy accounts, national public debate, national public meetings and national mass media. Among these types of materials, the so-called local public meetings are of special interest, since these events represent the only materials which are orally produced and natural and in close relation to a concrete GMO field trial.
Finally, there are materials more or less exclusive for some teams: the written objections and replies (D, NL) and the court hearings (IRE).