Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system

Abstract

Mental modelling analysis can be a valuable tool in understanding and bridging cognitive values in multi-stakeholders’ communities. It is especially true in situation of emerging risks where significant uncertainty and competing objectives could result in significant difference in stakeholder perspective on the use of new materials and technologies. This paper presents a mental modelling study performed among prospective users of an innovative decision support system for safe and sustainable development of nano-enabled products. These users included representatives of industry and regulators, as well as several insurance specialists and researchers. We present methodology and tools for comparing stakeholder views and objectives in the context of developing a decision support system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    The third prescribed metric, specificity cannot be assessed, as we only asked respondents to rank the different modules, and did not ask them more in depth questions about their understanding of each criterion.

References

  1. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(2):174–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hutchins E (1995) How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cogn Sci 19:265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Mullins M, Hester K, McAlea E, Murphy F, Tofail SAM (2015a) Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17:215. doi:10.1007/s11051-015-3019-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015b) Supporting decision making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35(1):54–75. doi:10.1007/s10669-015-9539-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015c) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In: Proceedings of the 5th STS Italia conference: a matter of design: making society through science and technology, pp 1115–1130

  6. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nersessian NJ, Newstetter WC, Kurz-Milcke E, Davies JA (2003) Mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the international conference on learning sciences, pp 307–314

  8. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Zabeo A, Malsch I, McAlea E, Murphy F, Mullins M, van Harmelen T, Ligthart T, Linkov I, Marcomini A (2016) Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. J Nanopart Res 18:89. doi:10.1007/s11051-016-3375-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van Harmelen T, Zondervan-van den Beuken EK, Brouwer DH, Kuijpers E, Fransman W, Buist HB, Ligthart TN, Hincapié I, Hischier R, Linkov I, Nowack B, Studer J, Hilty L, Som C (2016) LICARA nanoSCAN—a tool for the self-assessment of benefits and risks of nanoproducts. Environ Int 91:150–160. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.021 (Epub 2016 Mar 5)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wood MD, Bostrom A, Bridges T, Linkov I (2012) Cognitive mapping tools: review and risk management needs. Risk Anal 32(8):1333–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wood MD, Thorne S, Kovacs D, Butte G, Linkov I (2017) Mental modelling approach risk management application case studies. Risk systems and decisions. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the participants during the stakeholder engagement activities reported here, and the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007–2013] under EC-GA No. 604305 ‘SUN’. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ineke Malsch.

Ethics declarations

Human and animals rights

We have not performed any experiments on humans and/or animals for which prior approval of an ethics board or similar body is required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. All respondents have been offered the option to respond anonymously. All published results are presented in anonymised form.

Annex 1: The questionnaire

Annex 1: The questionnaire

figurea
figureb
figurec
figured
figuree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malsch, I., Subramanian, V., Semenzin, E. et al. Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system. Environ Syst Decis 37, 465–483 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-017-9648-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nanomaterials
  • Decision support
  • Mental model
  • Industry
  • Regulators