IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v41y2021i3p414-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Rob Goble

Abstract

This article is one piece in a series of articles that reflect on advances in ideas about risk made by social science over the past 40 years and more. It differs from the other articles: its focus is not on specific advances themselves, but rather on how those advances were received and were encouraged or discouraged by the natural science and technical members of the risk community. Thus, the principal goal of this article is to provide some context for the other articlers in this series. Those articles describe work and intellectual developments that consider human responses to particular sorts of issues, concerns, and needs that relate to risk. The framing of this work was partly driven and shaped by natural science and engineering communities. It is illuminating to reflect on how these technical communities viewed the social science developments and on the perspectives they brought to the framing of issues and concerns. Their views are described in three minihistories of risk developments pertaining to nuclear accidents, high level radioactive waste disposal, and toxic chemicals. After considering common themes among the stories, the article considers characteristics of expert communities and their implications. It then concludes with discussions of its secondary goals, (i) a look at some opportunities for future social science studies relating to risk, (ii) a consideration of the extent to which risk analysis and broader considerations of risk can be considered a truly interdisciplinary field rather than a loose assemblage of perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:414-428
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13627
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13627?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. Vicki M. Bier, 1999. "Challenges to the Acceptance of Probabilistic Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 703-710, August.
    4. Catherine Mei Ling Wong & Stewart Lockie, 2018. "Sociology, risk and the environment: a material-semiotic approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(9), pages 1077-1092, September.
    5. Trudy Ann Cameron, 2010. "Euthanizing the Value of a Statistical Life," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 161-178, Summer.
    6. Chauncey Starr, 1981. "Risk Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants: A Pragmatic Proposal," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 113-120, June.
    7. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    8. Kimberly M. Thompson & Paul F. Deisler & Richard C. Schwing, 2005. "Interdisciplinary Vision: The First 25 Years of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), 1980–2005," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1333-1386, December.
    9. Robert Goble & Vicki M. Bier, 2013. "Risk Assessment Can Be a Game‐Changing Information Technology—But Too Often It Isn't," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1942-1951, November.
    10. Lonergan, Stephen C. & Goble, Robert L. & Cororaton, Caesar, 1990. "Estimating the financial consequences of a severe nuclear accident in Canada," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 507-522.
    11. Robert Goble & Vicki Bier & Ortwin Renn, 2018. "Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1795-1801, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    2. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    3. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    5. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    6. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    7. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    8. Kenneth Pettersen Gould, 2021. "Organizational Risk: “Muddling Through” 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 456-465, March.
    9. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    10. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    11. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    12. Joanna Burger & Jessica Sanchez & J. Whitfield Gibbons & Michael Gochfeld, 1997. "Risk Perception, Federal Spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 313-320, June.
    13. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    14. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 2009. "Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder‐Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1156-1169, August.
    15. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    16. Deepa Anagondahalli & Monique Mitchell Turner, 2012. "Predicting Psychological Ripple Effects: The Role of Cultural Identity, In‐Group/Out‐Group Identification, and Attributions of Blame in Crisis Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 695-712, April.
    17. Kuhika Gupta & Joseph T. Ripberger & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva, 2020. "Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 491-510, July.
    18. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    19. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    20. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.

    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:41:y:2021:i:3:p:414-428. 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.