Premium
Evidence Maps: Communicating Risk Assessments in Societal Controversies: The Case of Engineered Nanoparticles
Author(s) -
Wiedemann Peter,
Schütz Holger,
Spangenberg Albena,
Krug Harald F.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01725.x
Subject(s) - argumentation theory , scientific evidence , empirical evidence , hazard , evidence based medicine , evidence based practice , risk analysis (engineering) , data science , task (project management) , computer science , quality (philosophy) , psychology , medline , engineering , medicine , epistemology , political science , systems engineering , alternative medicine , law , philosophy , chemistry , organic chemistry , pathology
The transparent and fair characterization of scientific evidence for reporting the results of a hazard assessment is a demanding task. In this article, we present an approach for characterizing evidence—the evidence map approach. The theoretical starting point is to view evidence characterization as a form of argumentation. Thus, evidence maps are designed to depict the evidence base, the pro and con arguments, and the remaining uncertainties, which together lead experts to their conclusions when summarizing and evaluating the scientific evidence about a potential hazard. To illustrate its use, the evidence maps approach is applied to characterizing the health‐relevant effects of engineered nanoparticles. Empirical data from an online survey suggests that the use of evidence maps improves the reporting of hazard assessments. Nonexperts prefer to receive the information included in an evidence map in order to come to an informed judgment. Furthermore, the benefits and limitations of evidence maps are discussed in the light of recent literature on risk communication. Finally, the article underlines the need for further research in order to increase quality of evidence reporting.