Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Identification, Diagnosis, Prospective, and Action (IDPA) Method for Facilitating Dialogue between Stakeholders: Application to the Radiological Protection Domain

  • Jacques Lochard (Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University) ;
  • Win Thu Zar (Department of Global Health, Medicine, and Welfare, Atomic Bomb Disease Institute, Nagasaki University) ;
  • Michiaki Kai (Department of Health Sciences, Nippon Bunri University) ;
  • Ryoko Ando (NPO Fukushima Dialogue)
  • Received : 2023.04.11
  • Accepted : 2023.08.16
  • Published : 2023.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article reviews the experience of applying the Identification, Diagnosis, Prospective, and Action (IDPA) facilitating method as a means of promoting practices of dialogue between stakeholders in the radiological protection field. After presenting the characteristics of the IDPA method and its ability to promote active listening, participation, and dialogue among stakeholders facing complex situations, as well as the procedural aspects associated with its practical implementation, the article describes three examples of the application of the method in the field of radiological protection. The first one presents how the IDPA method supported a debate among decision-makers, authorities, experts, professionals, and representatives of non-governmental organizations about how to engage stakeholders in radiological protection. The second example presents how the IDPA method was used in a series of dialogue meetings to explore the challenges of the post-nuclear accident situation resulting from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. The third one presents the application of the method in the context of a training course organized by Nagasaki University in the affected area close to the damaged plant. Experience has shown that the IDPA method makes it possible to develop responses to problems posed in very different contexts and, in many cases, to find compromises regarding their solutions. The IDPA method has the merit of allowing each of the participants to better understand the situation they are faced with, even if such a positive result is not always achieved.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank all the radiological protection colleagues who acted as rapporteurs in the various IDPA exercises mentioned in the article, particularly Thierry Schneider, Jean-Francois Lecomte, Ted Lazo and Palina Kot as well as all the participants to the Fukushima Dialogue and the Nagasaki Training Courses.

References

  1. Renn O. Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan; 2008.
  2. Lochard J. Stakeholder engagement in regaining decent living conditions after Chernobyl. Radioact Environ. 2013;19:311-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045015-5.00017-4
  3. Ando R. Trust-what connects science to daily life. Health Phys. 2018;115(5):581-589. https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000945
  4. Kai M. ICRP recommendations for recovery. Ann ICRP. 2021;50(1 Suppl):8-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466453211006809
  5. Thu Zar W, Lochard J, Taira Y, Takamura N, Orita M, Matsunaga H. Risk communication in the recovery phase after a nuclear accident: the contribution of the "co-expertise process". Radioprotection. 2022;57(4):281-288. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2022031
  6. Ollagnon H. Une nécessaire rencontre des approches théoriques et pragmatiques de la gestion de la nature: l'audit patrimonial de type "système-acteurs" [A necessary meeting of theoretical and pragmatic approaches to nature management: the "system-actor" type patrimonial audit]. Cahiers du GERMES. 1987;12:91-106 (French).
  7. Bredif H, de Montbel A. Facilitations strategiques: refonder l'action en commun dans les organisations et les territoires [Strategic facilitations: rebuilding joint action in organizations and territories]. Presses Universitaires du Septentrion; 2019 (French).
  8. Rogers CR, Farson RE. Active listening. Martino Fine Books; 2015.
  9. Liland A, Oughton D, Bay-Larsen I, Eikelmann IM, Hansen HS, Skuterud L. Norwegian testing of the EURANOS framework for post-accident rehabilitation preparedness. Radioprotection. 2010;45(5):S215-S224. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2010038
  10. Dubreuil GH, Baude S, Lochard J, Ollagnon H, Liland A. The EURANOS cooperative framework for preparedness and management strategies of the long-term consequences of a radiological event. Radioprotection. 2010;45(5):S199-S213. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2010026
  11. Beierle TC, Cayford J. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Routledge; 2002.
  12. International Radiation Protection Association. Guiding principles for radiation protection professionals on stakeholder engagement. IRPA; 2008.
  13. Lochard J. The genesis of the ICRP dialogue initiative. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(2 Suppl):7-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645317729633
  14. Lochard J, Schneider T, Ando R, Niwa O, Clement C, Lecomte JF, et al. An overview of the dialogue meetings initiated by ICRP in Japan after the Fukushima accident. Radioprotection. 2019;54(2):87-101. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019021
  15. NPO Fukushima Dialogue. The NPO Fukushima Dialogue [Internet]. NPO Fukushima Dialogue; 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 11]. Available from: https://fukushima-dialogue.jp/en
  16. Kai M, Homma T, Lochard J, Schneider T, Lecomte JF, Nisbet A, et al. Radiological protection of people and the environment in the event of a large nuclear accident: update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111. ICRP Publication 146. Ann ICRP. 2020;49(4):11-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146645320952659
  17. Nagasaki University and Fukushima Medical University Joint Graduate School. Division of Disaster and Radiation Medical Sciences [Internet]. Nagasaki University and Fukushima Medical University Joint Graduate School; 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 11]. Available from: http://www.fmu.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/en
  18. Schneider T, Maitre M, Lochard J, Charron S, Lecomte JF, Ando R, et al. The role of radiological protection experts in stakeholder involvement in the recovery phase of post-nuclear accident situations: some lessons from the Fukushima-Daichi NPP accident. Radioprotection. 2019;54(4):259-270. https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019038
  19. Nagasaki University. International advanced training course on stakeholder engagement for recovery after nuclear disaster [Internet]. Research and Support Center for the Future of Fukushima Nagasaki University; 2022 [cited 2023 Sep 11]. Available from: https://nagasaki-u-seminar.jp
  20. Takahashi M. Dialogue as therapy: the role of the expert in the ICRP dialogues. Ann ICRP. 2021;50(1 Suppl):153-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466453211033758
  21. Ando R. Musings on the dialogue [Internet]. NPO Fukushima Dialogue; 2021 [cited 2023 Sep 11]. Available from: https://fukushima-dialogue.jp/en/archives/kiroku/ryoko
  22. Ricoeur P. Oneself as another. University of Chicago Press; 1995.