IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v26y2023i8p866-882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory versus analytic approaches for understanding risk perceptions: a comparison of three case studies from the field of biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Leonie Dendler
  • Mariana Morais
  • Jan Nikolas Hargart
  • Joana S. Lourenço
  • Domagoj Vrbos
  • Paul Ortega
  • Kamila Sfugier Tollik
  • Georgios Alaveras
  • Barbara Gallani
  • Michelle Patel
  • Laura Broomfield
  • Ortwin Renn

Abstract

Considering growing participatory turns in regulatory scientific risk analysis, this paper compares how social scientists use participatory and analytical methods to understand risk perceptions and meet competing demands for representativeness and inclusiveness. Drawing on case studies of how three European risk agencies use participatory and analytic methods in the context of biotechnology, it confirms difficulties of analytic methods to shed light on perceptions when applied to unfamiliar topics. It also shows the potential of participatory in particular deliberative formats to engage affected populations in the risk analysis process, despite challenges in promoting inclusiveness. The cases call for the integration of methods, while remaining aware of the need to understand the mutual interplay in the constructions of risks and structural inequalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonie Dendler & Mariana Morais & Jan Nikolas Hargart & Joana S. Lourenço & Domagoj Vrbos & Paul Ortega & Kamila Sfugier Tollik & Georgios Alaveras & Barbara Gallani & Michelle Patel & Laura Broomfiel, 2023. "Participatory versus analytic approaches for understanding risk perceptions: a comparison of three case studies from the field of biotechnology," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 866-882, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:26:y:2023:i:8:p:866-882
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2197615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197615
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2023.2197615?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:26:y:2023:i:8:p:866-882. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.