Beyond risk theory: Experiential knowledge and ‘knowing otherwise’

Abstract

The central purpose of this article is to trace the conflicting co-existence of three narratives in relation to the 'risk society' and the practices that it engenders. The first of these narratives is theoretical: the problems and possibilities of the risk society thesis. The second is practical: how the concept of risk has been translated into policy and practice in the form of risk assessment tools for both 'at risk' offenders and 'at risk' victims. The focus in this narrative will be on criminal justice responses to violence in general with particular emphasis on responses to partner violence. The third narrative focuses on 'real lives': the experiential. Here attention will be paid to what is it that is, or is not, captured by the first two narratives. The concern will be to illustrate the extent to which the discordance that can be found between these three narratives reveals much about the risks of politics and the politics of risk. Keywords partner violence, real lives, risk, risk assessmentIn 2008/09, around three in four female victims (76%) knew the main or only suspect at the time of the offence, the same proportion as the previous year. However, a greater proportion of these female victims (69%) were killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover in 2008/09 compared with 2007/08 (50%). (Coleman and Osborne, 2010: 13) Risk is unequivocally used to mean danger from future damage, caused by the opponents. How much risk is a matter for the experts, but on both sides of the debate it has to be taken for granted that the matter is ascertainable. Anyone who insists that there is a high degree of uncertainty is taken to be opting out of accountability. (Douglas, 1990: 9) Criminology & Criminal Justice 11(2) 99-113

Exploration of the risk factors contained within the UK’s existing domestic abuse risk assessment tool (DASH): do these risk factors have individual predictive validity regarding recidivism?

“…There is one publication that refers to DASH, Walklate and Mythen (2011), which examined 13 domestic abuse deaths. They highlighted that just under 50% of DA incidents involving a death had not been previously identified as high risk, thus indicating potential validity problems within the tool, or with how the tool was being used.…”

Talking about risk-taking with potentially ‘problematic’ risk-takers: a study of preventive interactions under high uncertainty

“…However, behaviour prediction has not been the only rationality involved in the assessment of uncertainty in the preventative strategies considered in this article. Hence a broader analytical framework is necessary, as suggested by Walklate and Mythen (2011).…”

“…Various sources of knowledge involved in preventive interactions: probabilistic, clinical and experiential Walklate and Mythen (2011) explore the variety of 'narratives' involved in risk management strategies and practices in the UK in order to distinguish between actuarial risk assessment (stemming from probabilistic research related to a 'scientific narrative') and clinical risk assessment. In so doing, they show that in spite of the perceived differences, actuarial risk assessment and clinical risk assessment, regarded as expert narratives, are largely preferred in preventive strategies, side-lining an 'experiential narrative' on uncertainty.…”

“…In these risk domains, targeting is difficult, as risk is a multi-faceted concept that potentially relates to various frames of understanding. As a result, 'expert knowledge' of risk could be better perceived as a conflicted area/scene that draws upon various sources of knowledge, as is suggested by the model sketched by Walklate and Mythen (2011).…”

“…In section three of the article, the model proposed by Walklate and Mythen (2011) is discussed and adapted to capture the substance of preventive interactions that addresses 'problematic' risk-taking in crime prevention and public health, as sketched in section two. It is argued that whilst probabilistic knowledge is widely praised and extensively used, it does not cover the whole range of knowledge at stake in preventive interactions.…”