Hello and Back to the Basics

[Ellen Omohundro <elomo@mail.wsu.edu>]

Hello. I am currently working on my dissertation at Washington
State University, where I am investigating how communities
managing mixed hazardous wastes (i.e., radionuclides, heavy
metals and solvents) define and organize themselves, and how
environmental threats, as well as related mitigation decisions,
impact community cohesion.  This work draws upon my prior 10
years of work experience as an epidemiologist in public and
environmental health settings, and my more recent training in
sociology.

I have found all of your comments quite interesting and look
forward to how this dialogue progresses but I do think there are
some fundamentals worth revisiting at this juncture.

WHO. As Bill Schumacher and Hamilton Brown elude, before we jump
into involving a community in something, perhaps it is wise to
spend a little time making sure we have properly identified the
said community.  This requires us to break from the traditional
"inside the box" approach (i.e., draw a box around the area of
greatest concern on an map and call the target community those
persons living inside the box at that moment in time).  Community
has both geographical and social characteristics.  If we don't
identify the community properly at the get go, how will we ever
successfully involve them?  Once we understand who the community
is, we can also avoid doing things like scheduling public
hearings at the same time an important local cultural event is
taking place, or during spring break in a college town (and we
all can come up with an example like that).

HOW. I agree with Nancy Howard that citizens need training in how
to effectively participate as long as we agree we are all
citizens.  That includes the doctors, lawyers, scientists and
other experts among us.  Let's also remember that participation
includes listening, not just telling others what we think is best
for them, or what we think they are capable of understanding.
When we put on the hat of an expert, we need to take the time to
listen to the questions asked, should we want to come up with a
meaningful answers.

WHAT to communicate is always challenging (especially if we skip
that listening step).  Those of us on the science side of the
house know that we tend to study the adverse health effects
associated with one substance at a time.  The problem is we
rarely use or encounter one substance at a time as we go about
our daily lives, and our understanding of many interactions is
quite elementary.  I am very empathic to the frustration of being
told "to the best of my/our knowledge....." or "based on my/our
most accurate computer model...."  However, sometimes that the
best us scientists can do and maybe that is worth explaining.

I am not by any means suggesting I know the answers; I'm just
suggesting this dialogue may be a place to start asking the right
questions.  On that note, to all a good night.

Ellen Omohundro