Introduction to Risk Theory

Roeser, Sabine; Hillerbrand, Rafaela; Sandin, Per; Peterson, Martin

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_1

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation is aligned with discussions of the lay-expert divide, a well-researched topic in the sociology of risk literature (e.g. Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982;Plough and Krimsky, 1987;Zinn and Taylor-Gooby, 2006;Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2012;Lupton, 2013).…”

Section: Analysis Of Social Impacts In the Context Of Australian Miningsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…'Techno-scientific' is a term used by social scientists to describe engineers, scientists and other technically-trained professionals, and the approaches they use to assess risk. Other adjectives used by social scientists include technicoscientific (Lupton, 2013), technical (Renn, 1998;Taylor-Gooby and Zinn, 2006b;Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2012), technologic (Wynne, 1992;Renn and Walker, 2008) and technocratic (Lockie, 2001; Dusek, 2012). Traditionally in the mining industry, the social sciences are not considered to be technical or scientific in nature by the engineering and scientific disciplines.…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Techno-scientific approaches to risk are expressed through the mathematical functions of probability and harm, where harm is associated with human health, the environment and physical assets (Renn et al, 2011). Techno-scientific experts prefer using quantitative risk data -the "most valid" type of data -such as that generated from empirical surveys, scientific measurements and statistical calculations (Short, 1984;Dusek, 2012;Sundqvisit, 2012, p. 1006). "Most valid" implies that other data generation methods and knowledge are less valid or not valid at all.…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, social scientific approaches to risk focus on understanding the broader "risk phenomenon", including types of harm and the ambiguities associated with different interpretations of risk (Renn et al, 2011, p. 5). Risk assessors using a social science perspective consider important sociocultural factors, such as the way different individuals and groups value certainty and different types of "social reality" (Tulloch and Lupton, 2003;Zinn, 2009, p. 510), and the influence of subjective judgements, such as heuristics and cognitive biases (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974;Kahneman et al, 1982;Slovic et al, 1982;Simon, 1982); acknowledge the complexity of risk and the trade-offs required in risk decision-making Domínguez-Gómez, 2016); see risk in relative rather than absolute terms (Bradbury, 1989); consider lay people's knowledge and perspectives (Wynne, 1992(Wynne, , 1998van Voorst, 2014); and address the concerns actors may have about the risks facing them (Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2012). There is, however, some commonality between disciplines more broadly in the way they systematically investigate a specific subject area to generate new knowledge (Jetzkowitz et al, 2018).…”

Section: The Risk Governance Principle Of Multidisciplinaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This, Wynne (1992, p. 276) asserts, creates an "ideological smokescreen that avoids the underlying issue, namely, the social relations of technology". Lidskog and Sundqvist (2012) are reduced to a dualistic role in which they trust or distrust experts; they are called to say "yes or no to already decided proposals" and are restricted to "only discussing the local and concrete aspects of a project" Sundqvist, 2012, p. 1020). Freudenburg and Gramling (1994, (Wynne, 1992).…”

Section: The Risk Governance Principle Of Inclusivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The construction and assessment of social risk: perspectives from Australian coal mining project teams

Worden¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term 'social risk' is gaining traction in coal industry discourse. It is used in policy documents and standards, and is incorporated into project risk assessment workshops. Coal mining can dramatically change the environmental and social landscape. There is a substantial literature about the adverse social risks and impacts of large-scale mining projects, with some scholars describing the activity as one of the most socially disruptive interventions possible. In Australia, there is a growing body of work on the social impacts of coal mining; however, little research has examined how mining proponents make risk decisions when evaluating the potential impacts of these projects. This thesis examines how social risk is constructed and assessed by team members of Australian coal mining projects. A risk governance framework, based on the principles of multidisciplinarity, inclusiveness and multidimensionality, provides the basis of analysis. Two data generation methods are employed: an exploratory review and case research. The exploratory review provides a broad overview of the construction and assessment of social risk across the Australian coal industry, while the case research enables a deeper evaluation of a specific project and for research participants' experiences of the same project to be compared. The research finds that there is no consensus on the meaning of social risk among research participants; however, constructions of social risk can be categorised according to who or what is at risk; that is, risk to people, risk to project, or risk to both people and project. 'Dual orientation of social risk' is coined to describe risk to people and project. When the priority social risks of external actors conflict with the proponent's business imperatives, risk to project prevails. The research also finds that professional background is not a reliable indicator of how project team members orient their constructions of social risk; conceptualisations of social risk tend to be place-based rather than distributed; and that discussions of social risk focus on physical rather than non-physical risks. The way team members of Australian coal mining projects assess social risk can be mapped against two models-the mechanistic and integrated models. In the mechanistic model, social risk and social impact assessments are undertaken independently of each other by different groups of assessors. Because the data are not integrated, it is difficult for team members to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the social risks generated by the project and to make risk decisions. This lack of integration can affect the accuracy of the project's risk profile. An example of integrated social risk assessment practice is evaluated in the case research. The case illustrates that coal mining proponents in Australia can deliver projects that a give a high priority to avoiding or mitigating risks to potentially affected people. The ability of proponents to do so, however, Sandy Worden Chapter 1 ii | P a g e requires a shift in thinking f...

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Social Impacts In the Context Of Australian Miningsupporting

confidence: 79%