IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i11p2415-2423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Terje Aven

Abstract

A risk analysis science is developing, characterized by knowledge generation on concepts, principles, theories, frameworks, methods, and models, for understanding, assessing, characterizing, communicating, and managing risk (for short referred to as conceptual knowledge generation in risk analysis), as well as supporting risk knowledge generation of specific activities based on these concepts, principles, theories, frameworks, methods, and models. The scientific knowledge generation is based on different types of research methods. This article provides a discussion of some of these, the main purpose being to demonstrate the central role of conceptual knowledge generation and research in risk analysis. The importance of this type of knowledge generation and research is considered undervalued in risk analysis. Several examples are used to illustrate the discussion, including a risk governance framework and the anti‐fragility concept.

Suggested Citation

  • Terje Aven, 2018. "Reflections on the Use of Conceptual Research in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2415-2423, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:11:p:2415-2423
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13139
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13139?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James K. Hammitt & Jonathan B. Wiener & Brendon Swedlow & Denise Kall & Zheng Zhou, 2005. "Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1215-1228, October.
    2. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & David Vogel, 2001. "The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 399-416, June.
    3. Aven, Terje & Heide, Bjørnar, 2009. "Reliability and validity of risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1862-1868.
    4. Jonathan B. Wiener & Michael D. Rogers, 2002. "Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 317-349, October.
    5. Terje Aven, 2015. "The Concept of Antifragility and its Implications for the Practice of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 476-483, March.
    6. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1561-1575, September.
    7. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    8. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, March.
    9. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    10. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    11. Terje Aven, 2017. "What Defines Us as Professionals in the Field of Risk Analysis?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 854-860, May.
    12. D. Warner North, 2011. "Uncertainties, Precaution, and Science: Focus on the State of Knowledge and How It May Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1526-1529, October.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    2. Flage, Roger & Askeland, Tore, 2020. "Assumptions in quantitative risk assessments: When explicit and when tacit?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    3. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Terje Aven & Azadeh Seif, 2022. "On the foundation and use of the de minimis principle in a risk analysis context," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 236(1), pages 90-97, February.
    5. Gilberto Montibeller & L. Alberto Franco & Ashley Carreras, 2020. "A Risk Analysis Framework for Prioritizing and Managing Biosecurity Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2462-2477, November.
    6. Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2020. "Foundational Challenges for Advancing the Field and Discipline of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2128-2136, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Terje Aven, 2020. "Risk Science Contributions: Three Illustrating Examples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1889-1899, October.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    5. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    6. Yanwei Li & Araz Taeihagh & Martin de Jong & Andreas Klinke, 2021. "Toward a Commonly Shared Public Policy Perspective for Analyzing Risk Coping Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 519-532, March.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    8. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    9. Hamed Taherdoost, 2021. "A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection," Post-Print hal-03741848, HAL.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    11. Kjell Hausken, 2019. "Principal–Agent Theory, Game Theory, and the Precautionary Principle," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 105-127, June.
    12. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    13. Aven, Terje & Kristensen, Vidar, 2019. "How the distinction between general knowledge and specific knowledge can improve the foundation and practice of risk assessment and risk-informed decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Young Jun Choi & Mi Sun Jeon, 2020. "How Business Interests and Government Inaction Led to the Humidifier Disinfectant Disaster in South Korea: Implications for Better Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 240-253, February.
    15. McDermott, T.K.J. & Surminski, S., 2018. "Normative interpretations of climate risk assessment and how it affects local decision making – a study at the city scale in Cork, Ireland," Working Papers 309607, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    16. Terje Aven, 2019. "The Call for a Shift from Risk to Resilience: What Does it Mean?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1196-1203, June.
    17. Terje Aven, 2013. "On How to Deal with Deep Uncertainties in a Risk Assessment and Management Context," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2082-2091, December.
    18. Leif Inge K. Sørskår & Eirik B. Abrahamsen, 2017. "On how to manage uncertainty when considering regulatory HSE interventions," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 5(1), pages 97-116, November.
    19. Steve Jacob & Nathalie Schiffino, 2015. "Risk Policies in the United States: Definition and Characteristics Based on a Scoping Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 849-858, May.
    20. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:11:p:2415-2423. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.