Fatal Accidents in Outdoor Recreation and Nature-Based Tourism in Norway: A Discourse Analysis

The purpose of this research is to investigate how the Norwegian outdoor-safety discourse develop between 2005 – 2015. Second, I examine the creation of meaning and understanding about risk and safety in the outdoors. The research affirms that important elements of opinion formation are discursively negotiated. The main line in the negotiations revolves around how to relate to ‘the mountain common sense line’, based on the code of conduct of ‘touring at your own risk’. The legal discourse, the energy industry safety discourse and the professional struggle draw towards less individual responsibility for own safety, and more towards institutional responsibility for people’s safety, more public regulation and more physical facilitations to reduce risk. On the other hand, lax regulatory legislation, the administrative apparatus, ‘the layman tradition’ and the friluftsliv discourse draws on individual responsibility for one’s own safety, limited institutional responsibility and public regulation, and moderate physical facilitations aimed at keeping people safe.

Constitutional functions and institutional responsibility: a functional analysis of the UK constitution

This paper advances a functional analysis of the UK constitution. It explores how the UK constitution discharges three minimum ‘constituting’, ‘legitimating’ and ‘limiting’ functions that citizens living in modern liberal democracies may legitimately expect all constitutions – irrespective of form – to perform. This functional enquiry breaks with dominant trends in the legal scholarship that remain focused on theorising the constitution's underlying political or legal nature or, likewise, identifying its ultimate source of authority. In addition to offering a richer descriptive account of constitutional practice, this paper identifies, normatively, an institutional responsibility for Parliament to discharge the UK constitution's three minimum functions. Recognising that institutional responsibility unlocks fresh insights into two constitutional conundrums: the legitimacy of judicial review and the status of ‘constitutional statutes’. At the same time, it also exposes deficiencies and tensions in relation to the quality of Parliament's institutional performance on matters of minimum constitutional functioning.

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Background: Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question how the division between individual and institutional responsibilities is to be made, has hitherto received little attention. Therefore, we conduct an analysis of research codes of conduct, and investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional ones and how the boundary between those two is shaped. Method: We selected 12 institutional, national and international codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands, and performed a close-reading content analysis of these codes of conduct. We first identify dominant themes, and then investigate how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions. Results: We observe that in many cases, the attribution of the responsibility to either the individual or the institution is not entirely clear and that the notion of culture appears as a residual category for such attributions. This notion of responsible research cultures is deemed important as something that mediates between the individual and institutional level, but at the same time largely lacks substantiation. Conclusions: While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between individual and institutional responsibility is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improvement in codes of conduct: either clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less less on the notion of culture, or make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how it could be fostered.