Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

151786-Thumbnail Image.png
Descriptionnone
ContributorsZamil, Ruaa (Author) / Parmentier, Mary J (Thesis advisor) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Grossman, Gary (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
153406-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on

Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.
ContributorsMcClintock, Scott (Author) / Van Der Leeuw, Sander (Thesis advisor) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Hannah, Mark (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
168824-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Widespread human rights abuses have been documented in global fisheries, prompting governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and businesses to reconsider human rights as a key tenet of seafood sustainability. New and existing approaches are aiming to integrate human and labor rights into sustainability initiatives. These efforts encompass the development of

Widespread human rights abuses have been documented in global fisheries, prompting governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and businesses to reconsider human rights as a key tenet of seafood sustainability. New and existing approaches are aiming to integrate human and labor rights into sustainability initiatives. These efforts encompass the development of new tools for conducting human rights due diligence and the modification of market-based approaches like third-party certifications, fishery improvement projects, and buyer sourcing commitments to include criteria for social responsibility. It is critical to evaluate these approaches to better understand their efficacy and areas in need of improvement. This dissertation explores how approaches for seafood sustainability are being adapted to protect and respect human rights of fishers and fishworkers. First, I examine the efficacy of a recognized human rights risk assessment tool: the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector (SRA). Through a preliminary assessment of human rights risk in Guyana’s artisanal fishery, I determined that the SRA is an effective approach to identify visible and potential risk, though it must be supplemented with engagement with fishers and fishworkers through interviews. Next, I evaluated labor conditions in the shrimp and groundfish fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf using a novel evaluative framework for decent work. I uncovered cross-jurisdictional challenges including trafficking and limited worker representation. My evaluative framework enabled a holistic analysis of decent work, identifying linked concerns such as widespread illegal fishing and threats to food security. Finally, I conducted an analysis of market-based approaches that include criteria for social responsibility. Interviews with experts highlight that market-based approaches, particularly fishery improvement projects, hold great potential as strategies to improve human rights in fisheries. However, concerns around market-based approaches include a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms, limited worker representation, and the voluntary nature of initiatives hinder effective change on the ground. Overall, my research suggests that efforts to improve human rights in fisheries are nascent and need further development. By encouraging mandatory due diligence, improved worker representation, and stricter accountability, interventions can more effectively address risks and ensure rights of fishers and fishworkers are protected and respected.
ContributorsLout, Gabrielle E (Author) / Vogel, Kathleen (Thesis advisor) / Finkbeiner, Elena (Committee member) / Chhetri, Nalini (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022