• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Tenth Safety-critical Systems Symposium, Feb, 2002, Southampton, UK >Communicating Risk: Reconfiguring Expert-Lay Relations
【24h】

Communicating Risk: Reconfiguring Expert-Lay Relations

机译：沟通风险：重新配置专家与客户的关系

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In contemporary culture, risk has become a ubiquitous issue, casting its spectre over a wide range of practices and experiences. Despite such omnipresence, the meaning of risk is inherently uncertain and contestable. Since the Enlightenment period, prevalent social bodies have sought to accumulate information about the nature of risk. Without doubt, this process has facilitated heightened risk awareness within institutions and improved risk consciousness amongst individuals. In contemporary society, risk issues such as food safety, biotechnology and international terrorism are currently being debated by politicians, scientists, academics and the general public. Nonetheless, the growing public debate about risk and the advancement of scientific knowledge have not led to public perceptions of a safe and secure environment [Pidgeon 2000]. Somewhat paradoxically, as the 'answers' to risk dilemmas are uncovered, more complex questions are generated. Thus, it would appear that the Faustian bargain for knowledge about risk is an increase in uncertainty within everyday life. In this climate of widespread indeterminacy, the issue of how risks are communicated has become a focal concern. In Britain, academic, media and public interest in risk has been accentuated by a series of high-profile governmental communication failures. At a structural level, acute deficiencies in information presentation and a lack of attention to the hermeneutic process have highlighted the absence of coherent communications strategies within several risk regulating institutions. In this paper, Ⅰ wish to construct a critique of dominant institutional methods of risk communication and to explore the potentialities of a more holistic approach to risk communications. Rather than being perceived as an end in itself, Ⅰ contend that risk communications should be viewed as an articulation point through which the definition, assessment and regulation of risk flows. In the first half of the paper, Ⅰ trace the traditional divide between the public and experts, unpacking the evolution of two competing languages of risk. In fleshing out the hiatus between expert systems and lay individuals, Ⅰ employ the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis as heuristic. Subsequently, Ⅰ go on to assess the general social learning which can be drawn from this particular case. Finally, Ⅰ revisit the expert-lay divide, arguing in favour of a reconfiguration of the risk communications process from one of risk education to one of risk negotiation. Here, Ⅰ seek to illuminate the fluidity of expert-lay relations and to offer some tentative suggestions for a remodelling of risk communications to promote dialogic debate between stakeholders.
机译：在当代文化中，风险已成为一个普遍存在的问题，使人们对各种各样的实践和经验产生了担忧。尽管存在这种无所不在的风险，但风险的含义还是固有的不确定性和可争议性。自启蒙运动以来，流行的社会团体一直在寻求积累有关风险性质的信息。毫无疑问，这一过程促进了机构内部更高的风险意识，并提高了个人之间的风险意识。在当代社会中，政治家，科学家，学者和公众目前正在讨论诸如食品安全，生物技术和国际恐怖主义等风险问题。但是，关于风险和科学知识发展的公众辩论日渐增多，并没有导致公众对安全环境的认识[Pidgeon 2000]。有点自相矛盾的是，随着发现风险困境的“答案”，产生了更复杂的问题。因此，浮士德式的关于风险知识的讨价还价似乎是日常生活中不确定性的增加。在不确定性普遍存在的情况下，如何传达风险的问题已成为人们关注的焦点。在英国，一系列高调的政府沟通失误突显了学术界，媒体和公众对风险的关注。从结构上讲，信息表达的严重缺陷和对解释过程的缺乏关注，突出表明在几个风险调节机构中缺乏协调一致的交流策略。在本文中，我希望对风险交流的主要制度方法进行批判，并探索一种更全面的风险交流方法的潜力。 Ⅰ并没有被看作是目的，而是认为风险沟通应被视为定义，评估和调节风险流向的明确点。在本文的上半部分，我追溯了公众与专家之间的传统鸿沟，剖析了两种相互竞争的风险语言的演变。为了充实专家系统和非专业人士之间的隔,，我采用牛海绵状脑病（BSE）危机作为启发式方法。随后，我继续评估可以从这种特殊情况中汲取的一般社会学习。最后，Ⅰ重新审视了专家与专家之间的鸿沟，主张将风险交流过程从一种风险教育转变为一种风险谈判。在这里，我试图阐明专家与专家之间关系的流动性，并为重塑风险沟通提供一些初步建议，以促进利益相关者之间的对话辩论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号