This study was compiled as part of the project “Accompanying research in the dialogue of sustainable mobile communication”, processed by the Stiftung Risiko-Dialog foundation. Its aim was to deepen the understanding of the controversially-lead mobile communication debate in Switzerland and to develop starting points for a solution-oriented discussion.

The study can be viewed online at http://www.risiko-dialog.ch/Publikationen/Riskdok/riskDok_2004.pdf or ordered as hardcopy free of charge.

Methods

The authors base their investigation on Niklas Luhmann’s theory of functional differentiation of society. According to this theory, society has differentiated throughout modernization into a variety of functional systems. These individual systems each have their own logic according to their respective different social functions which results in varying perception of problems, risk evaluation and dealing with conflicts in the differentiated systems.

Against this background, the various kinds of logic of the central interest groups within the Swiss mobile communication debate were investigated using focus groups with a total of 40 participants from the following areas: business/ industry, politics/ government agencies, science/ research, health/ doctors, technology and NGOs/ concerned organisations (established consumer and environmental organisations and local concerned organisations), the project captured perception, ways of thinking, argument and communication patterns in order to analyse consent and dissent between the groups.

Findings

The authors found that the misunderstandings and blockades within the Swiss mobile communication dialogue as well as a variety of group constellations could be explained with system-specific ways of perception and argumentation of the different participants. The most important drivers of the mobile communications conflict are participants of the business/ industry sector, NGOs/ concerned organisations as well as politics/ governmental agencies. The groups consisting of doctors/ health, science/ research and technology do not actively participate in the dispute. Due to their role as experts, they are rather confined to the outer edge of the dispute and are regularly used by the main participants of the inner circle in order to strengthen their own position.

The analysis shows that discussions about mobile communication move between the contradictory contexts of supply and precaution. The group politics / government agency is at the centre of the precaution-supply dilemma. Business/ industry present the position of supply. NGOs/ concerned organisations take the position of precaution.

Issues which are more in the background of the conflict and are rarely discussed directly, shape the special dispute situation within mobile communication. Different definitions of health, for example, are a fundamental part of the conflict. Business/ industry, politics/ government agencies, science and technology rather refer to majorities, masses and standards on the subject of health. On the other hand, doctors, NGOs and concerned organisations argue with individual cases or minorities. A further important background issue concerns dealing with insecurity and uncertainty. For science/ research, health/ doctors and technology, the acceptance of and dealing with uncertainties is part of everyday life. For the participants of business/ industry, politics/ government agencies and NGOs/ concerned organisations, a clear positioning is of importance. Uncertainties are weakened depending on the individual argumentation strategy.

Conclusions of the authors

The authors conclude that an agreement on the question of ”whether or not there is a risk“ will not be reached because of the variety of logic that can be so different at times. They find that within the current dialogue, arguments are not held over the actual issue, but as a conflict with the other participants.

For the creation of a mobile communication dialogue in the future, it is recommended to develop rules at the interpersonal level in order to enable constructive communication and to bring factual issues back into the foreground. In particular, participants at the dispute centre should interact with each other more intensely. Not only should issues in the foreground of the conflict be discussed, but rather those taking place in the background.

Assessment of the BfS

The study on hand is a practice-oriented analysis, which offers a well-founded and structured insight into the ways of arguments and kinds of logic of the central participants within the mobile communication debate based on N. Luhmann’s system theory.

This presentation allows the interested participant a specific implementation of findings and recommendations depending on requirements and possibilities.

The report is easy to understand for readers with no background in sociology or conflict theory.

Despite the certainly country-specific features of the Swiss mobile communication debate, the results provide interesting aspects for the dialogue in Germany, e.g. the conflict relevance of “background issues” or the necessity to increasingly shift the dialogue from the relational to the factual level. Only by accepting the existence of hardly bridgeable differences can the focus of the dialogue be channelled on the formulation of commonly accepted procedures of dealing with the conflict of mobile communication.