- This is a new course and will eventually be
a numbered grad. course (9300 is the "advanced topics" umbrella course for the Environment Development and Health group).
This seminar course examines some of the key theories to explain why
some people are concerned about particular hazards while others are
not. The strengths and limitations of each theory and its
associated empirical support will be discussed. Though this
course concerns the issue of hazard risk perception, the theories we
cover should link with major theoretical currents in other areas of
geography (e.g., environmental perception and behaviour, critical
theory, cultural theory).
Each week students will be provided a list of readings. All
are responsible for the assigned readings and should be prepared with a
list of discussion points for the group. These points can be
everything from asking for clarification, pointing out limitations, or
suggesting linkages with other readings in the
course. Ideally my role will be a participant in
the discussions so that you can direct issues we discuss - but failing
that I will resort to my usual Socratic style.
Throughout the course, students will be ask to identify
readings we can all read together. For example, such readings
could be a complete collection of papers on a
single topic, or a single paper to round out a partial list of readings
for a topic.
|
Weight |
Assigned |
Due |
Paper 1: TBA |
40% |
Oct /04 |
Nov /04 |
Paper 2: TBA |
40% |
Dec /04 |
March /04 |
Participation |
20% |
|
|
Day
|
Duration
|
Start Time
|
End Time
|
Room
|
alternate Fridays
|
2 hours
|
10:00pm
|
12:00pm
|
SSC 2435
|
Historical roots
of hazard risk research
Krimsky, S. (1992) The role of theory in risk studies, in Krimsky, S.
and Golding, D. (Eds.)
Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger,
Ch 1. (pp. 3-22).
Golding, D. (1992) A social and programmatic history of
risk research, in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.)
Social Theories of Risk Westport,
CT: Praeger, Ch 1. (pp. 23-52).
- Outline Krimsky's different forms of theoretical
explanation.
- To what extent are these forms of theoretical
explanation overstated?
- What is the difference between "individualism" and
"contextualism"?
Risk
concepts and psychometric risk as foundation
Renn, O. (1992) Concepts of risk: A clarification, in
Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.)
Social Theories of Risk Westport, CT: Praeger,
Ch 3. (pp. 53-79).
Slovic, P. (1992) The role of theory in risk studies, in
Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of
Risk Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 1. (pp. 3-22).
Starr, C. Social benefit versus technological risk, Science,
165(Sept.), 1232-1238.
- According to Renn, why are the positivistic view of
risk and the social constructionist view poor descriptions of social
reality?
- Comment on the statement, "If we could simply get
people to understand the true risks of various substances/activities,
we would have a far easier time helping people focus their
risk-related actions appropriately".
- Compare the revealed preference approach to studying
risk with the expressed preference approach.
- Outline the key limitations of both the expressed
preference approach and the revealed preference approach.
- Why does Renn claim there is no approach that can
integrate all of the approaches in his sevenfold classification of
"risk perspectives". Do you agree (good essay
topic)? Explain.
- What role does stigma play in risk perception?
- What is intuitive toxicology and how does it move
risk perception research forward?
- What methods might be used to explain the many
patters Slovic and his colleagues have observed?
Evidence
in Risk Research and the Social Amplification and Attenuation Framework
Burger, J. (2000) Consumption advisories and compliance:
The fishing public and the deamplification of risk, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(4): 471-488
Kasperson, R. E. (1992) The social amplification of
risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework , in Krimsky, S.
and Golding, D. (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk
Westport, CT: Praeger, Ch 6. (pp. 153-178).
Leschine, T. (2002) Oil spills and the social
amplification and attenuation of risk, Spills Science and
Technology Bulletin, 7(1-2): 63-73.
Taubes, G. (1995) Epidemiology faces its limits, Science,
269(5221): 164-169.
- What are the key "disjunctures" that motivated
Kasperson to develop and integrated framework?
- What are the most serious criticisms of the social
amplification and attenuation of risk framework?
- To what extent do Burger and Leschine add to
the social amplification/attenuation of risk framework or do these
empirical examples simply take the framework as given?
- How does Taubes' discussion of the limits of
epidemiology relate to the assumption(s) which form the basis of the
social amplification and attenuation of risk framework (or is it unrelated)?
- What are some implications of Taubes' paper for the
practice of "risk research" (broadly defined).
Cultural
Theory of Risk
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky A. (1982) Risk and
Culture, Berkeley CA: University of California Press. (pp.
1-15; 174-198).
Tansey, J. (2004) Risk as politics, culture as power, Journal
of Risk Research, 7(1), 17-32.
Poortinga, W., Steg, L. and Vlek, C. (2002)
Environmental risk concern and preferences for energy-saving measures, Environment
and Behavior, 34(4), 455-78.
Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S. and Marris, C. 1998 Testing cultural theory
of risk in France, Risk Analysis 18(6), 729–739.
Marris, C., Langford, I. and
O’Riordan, T. 1998 A quantitative test of cultural theory of risk
perception, Risk Analysis 18(5), 635–647
- How are the key conclusions from Douglas and
Wildavsky different from the "social construction" of risk?
- What are Tansey's key objections to the way cultural
theory has been used in risk research?
- How much variation in risk perception does cultural
theory "explain"?
- Describe the mythological strengths and limitations
to the three empirical papers.
Due: Dec 17/04
Worth: 40%
Compare, and critically assess any two of the following
perspectives on risk in a formal essay - 5000
word max. (12 double-spaced pages). Be sure to cite the
strengths and limitations of each in relation to the other.
Cite current empirical research to support your
arguments.
- technical
- economic
- psychological
- sociological
- cultural
- geographical
|