Workshop – psychologically resilient communication between actors based on the example of a transdisciplinary approach
Authors: Straeter Oliver , Krütli Pius 
Published: November 2021

Abstract. Background. The Site Selection Act stipulates scrutiny, learning, and extensive public involvement. During the site-selection process, psychological aspects play a decisive role in the communication between the various actors as well as in the approach to public involvement regarding how the process is perceived and how a site with the best-possible safety characteristics can be found. In this context, psychological aspects include appreciation and acknowledgement, respect, and openness. Important elements of the approach are transparency, flexibility, clear objectives, and alternatives. Furthermore, the Final Report of the Commission on the Storage of
High-Level Radioactive Waste suggests inter- and transdisciplinary
approaches to research. Such approaches, with involvement of actors
from outside universities, are not only necessitated by the complexity
and sociotechnical character of the disposal problem, but also have
the potential to establish understanding and trust between science and
society and thus support site-selection process. The “Ten Reflective
Steps for Rendering Research Societally Relevant” constitute a systematic and reflective framework for structuring and performance of transparent research and may thus mirror the political process of site selection. Objective and target group.
Adhering to selected steps of the “Ten Steps”, this workshop aims to present a psychologically resilient approach to transdisciplinary communication by highlighting different aspects based on current examples from the site-selection process. An overview of how this approach can support the site-selection process is provided. The workshop is aimed equally at scientists and actors from the realm of practice, with a target group size of about 15 participants. Course contents. The workshop takes the form of a sequence of group work, plenary discussion, and short presentations. It comprises three parts of about 40 min each, and is estimated to last 2 h. Part 1 (40 min): The first step is to identify topics from the site-selection process to work with by forming small groups of 3–5 participants. These groups identify technical and non-technical topics related to disposal, i.e., also including topics related to the actual procedure. In a plenary discussion, 2–5 topics are selected for further consideration (one topic per group). The next step is to specify these topics, i.e., to formulate them as a question. These questions should be reflected upon from a scientific perspective as well as from the point of view of society. It must be asked: Which knowledge do we need to address the questions? This is followed by theoretical input on the four steps of the “Ten Steps,” and evaluation of the topic selection from a communication psychology perspective. This is followed by a break. Part 2 (40 min): Now it is investigated which disciplines and further actors can make a contribution to the questions identified in Part 1. Central questions are: Who, why, how, and when? The potential expectations and interests of the involved persons (groups) are examined. Working in the same groups, the participants address these issues on the basis of the questions specified in Part 1. This part is again concluded with theoretical input on transdisciplinarity and the psychology of communication. This is followed by a break. Part 3 (40 min): The final part is about transferring the understanding gained in the first two parts of the workshop to the site-selection process. Less importance is placed on the content, with the primary focus laid on procedural and communication aspects. Relevant communication aspects for the conflict situations inherent to repository research are elaborated: How can appreciation, acknowledgement, and respect be established despite conflicting approaches to solutions? How can openness and a positive error culture be created despite possible criticism, which may be directed personally? This is followed by a conclusory discussion.