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.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
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
Douglas M (1986) How institutions think. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse
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.
Moses J (2002) The anatomy of large scale systems. March 25, In: Proceedings of the MIT ESD Symposium, Cambridge, MA
Broniatowski DA, Moses J (2014) Flexibility, complexity, and controllability in large scale systems. In: CESUN 4th International Engineering Systems Symposium, Hoboken, June 2014
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
Douglas M (1970) Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. Barrie & Rockliff, Cresset Press, London
Douglas M (1994) Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. Routledge, New York
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
Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder
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
Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross Cult Psychol 22:61
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
Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London/Sterling
Van der Linden S (2016) A conceptual critique of the cultural cognition thesis. Sci Commun 38(1):128–138
Lindblom CE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Adm Rev 19(2):79–88
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
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)