Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research pp 573–584Cite as

Cultural Worldviews on an Aerospace Standards Committee: A Preliminary Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Abstract

Technical committees for industry consensus standards involve multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders are experts who assess and perceive benefits and risks differently due to differences in their experiences, training, and cultural worldviews. Decision-making on technical committees is premised on information sharing and communications between these experts. We seek to understand how these worldviews drive decision-making criteria. Specifically, we aim to test the hypothesis that technical experts’ worldviews are diagnostic of their technical preferences. In this paper, we surveyed members of the National Aerospace Standards Committee (NASC). We report preliminary results in our efforts to develop a survey that can reliably measure their cultural worldviews. Our approach was inspired by measures used by Kahan’s cultural cognition paradigm, a method of categorizing individuals’ worldviews and associated risk perceptions on a combination of Douglas’s cultural theory of risk, and Slovic’s Psychometric Paradigm. Preliminary results indicate support for the existence of different worldviews on the NASC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  2. Douglas M (1986) How institutions think. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse

    Google Scholar 

  3. Broniatowski DA (2015) Does systems architecture drive risk perception?” In: Cetinkaya S, Ryan JK (eds) Proceedings of the 2015 industrial and systems engineering research conference, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Nashville.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moses J (2002) The anatomy of large scale systems. March 25, In: Proceedings of the MIT ESD Symposium, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Broniatowski DA, Moses J (2014) Flexibility, complexity, and controllability in large scale systems. In: CESUN 4th International Engineering Systems Symposium, Hoboken, June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 725–759

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Douglas M (1970) Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff, Cresset Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Douglas M (1994) Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rayner S (1992) Cultural theory and risk analysis. In: Krimsky S, Golding Eds D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, New York, pp 83–115

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith HC, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Ris Res 14:147–174. On-line publication http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross Cult Psychol 22:61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26(16):1427–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London/Sterling

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van der Linden S (2016) A conceptual critique of the cultural cognition thesis. Sci Commun 38(1):128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19(2):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    J. John Park & David A. Broniatowski

Authors
  1. J. John Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David A. Broniatowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. John Park .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Architecting and Engineering Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Azad M. Madni

  2. Center for Systems and Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Barry Boehm

  3. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Roger G. Ghanem

  4. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Daniel Erwin

  5. Systems Engineering Fellow, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California, USA

    Marilee J. Wheaton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Park, J.J., Broniatowski, D.A. (2018). Cultural Worldviews on an Aerospace Standards Committee: A Preliminary Analysis. In: Madni, A., Boehm, B., Ghanem, R., Erwin, D., Wheaton, M. (eds) Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62217-0_40

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62217-0_40

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62216-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62217-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation