14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
94<br />
Although philosophers and social scientists have<br />
a long history of raising questions about the<br />
appropriate relationship between science and<br />
wider society, such questioning is more widespread today as<br />
policymakers and members of the public face controversies<br />
over potential <strong>risk</strong>s to the environment, to their health<br />
and financial futures, and from the introduction of new<br />
technologies. Disputes that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s<br />
over the <strong>risk</strong>s of chemicals and nuclear power have been<br />
followed by concerns in some countries over industrial and<br />
transport-related pollution, genetically modified (GM) crops<br />
and foods, and latterly so-called ‘upstream’ technologies<br />
such as nanotechnology and climate engineering. Although<br />
mathematical descriptions of <strong>risk</strong> focus upon establishing<br />
measures of ‘uncertainty’ and ‘outcome severity’, Kates and<br />
Kasperson 1 offer a very different conceptualization in terms<br />
of “threats to people and things that they value”. What<br />
people care about in relation to <strong>risk</strong>s consequently affects<br />
how they view them, and whether they are acceptable or<br />
not.<br />
If we take this broader concept of <strong>risk</strong> as our starting<br />
point then it inevitably sets an epistemological and<br />
ontological dilemma, being at once an expression of possible<br />
material damage such as deaths, injuries and losses, and<br />
at the same time a socially constructed concept in that<br />
our knowledge of <strong>risk</strong> — even that derived from expert<br />
assessments — is always mediated through social and<br />
psychological lenses and judgement processes 2 . A social<br />
sciences approach to <strong>risk</strong> and <strong>risk</strong> perceptions therefore<br />
aims to map out the social and contextual considerations<br />
through which people come to comprehend and respond to<br />
what they believe is hazardous or not, and helps us to begin<br />
to understand why some <strong>risk</strong>s deemed highly significant<br />
through expert analysis and <strong>risk</strong> assessment are seen as<br />
unimportant by ordinary people, or vice versa 3 .<br />
The Psychometric Paradigm<br />
Research on individual <strong>risk</strong> perceptions and <strong>risk</strong><br />
communication first developed during the 1970s and 1980s<br />
in response to rising environmental and safety concerns<br />
amongst Western populations in particular about industrial<br />
chemicals and nuclear technologies. Psychologists of the<br />
time aimed to gain an empirical understanding of some of<br />
the judgements and beliefs underlying a number of highly<br />
visible and complex social and public policy issues. Since<br />
What people care about<br />
in relation to <strong>risk</strong>s affects<br />
how they view them,<br />
and whether they are<br />
acceptable or not.<br />
then, <strong>risk</strong> perception and communication research has<br />
embraced a diverse set of both disciplines (anthropology,<br />
sociology, human geography) and hazards (electromagnetic<br />
fields, air pollution, food hazards, climate change, bio- and<br />
nanotechnologies, climate engineering). Although the<br />
objectives of the researchers are primarily theoretical and<br />
empirical, their work touches on significant public policy<br />
issues surrounding conflicts over particular environmental,<br />
health or technological developments 4 .<br />
During the decades spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-<br />
1990s, <strong>risk</strong> perception research was framed either within a<br />
cognitive science or a socio-cultural approach, with relatively<br />
little interaction between the two. More recent theorising<br />
has stressed an increased awareness of and interest in<br />
more interpretative approaches which are sensitive to<br />
the symbolic qualities of <strong>risk</strong> perceptions as grounded in<br />
context, and which seek to step beyond simple oppositions<br />
such as ‘cognition’ or ‘culture’.<br />
Early <strong>risk</strong> perception studies were dominated by the<br />
experimental psychology investigations of Kahneman and<br />
Tversky into the mental heuristics or short-cuts which<br />
people use in estimating probabilities and rapidly making<br />
decisions (see Chapter 7). Over time, some of that work<br />
migrated from the psychology laboratory into the field, to<br />
encompass study of a richer set of issues within the socalled<br />
‘psychometric paradigm’ 5 . This work, using primarily<br />
quantitative survey methodology, demonstrated that<br />
perceived <strong>risk</strong>s were sensitive to a range of qualitative<br />
factors, including the controllability of an activity, the fear it<br />
evoked, its catastrophic potential, voluntariness of exposure,<br />
BOX 1<br />
Qualitative Characteristics of Perceived<br />
Risk. Adapted from the Department of<br />
Health’s Communicating About Risks to<br />
Public Health: Pointers to Good Practice.<br />
Revised Edition. (London: The Stationery<br />
Office, 1998).<br />
All other things being equal, <strong>risk</strong>s are generally<br />
more worrying (and less acceptable) if<br />
perceived:<br />
• to be involuntary (e.g. exposure to pollution)<br />
rather than voluntary (e.g. dangerous sports or<br />
smoking)<br />
• as inequitably distributed (some benefit while<br />
others suffer the consequences)<br />
• as inescapable by taking precautions.<br />
• to arise from an unfamiliar or novel source<br />
• to result from man-made, rather than natural<br />
sources<br />
• to cause hidden and irreversible damage, e.g.<br />
through onset years after exposure