The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies

Abstract

This article aims to bring to the fore some of the underlying rationales that inform common conceptions of the constitution of risk communication in academic and policy communities. 'Normative', 'instrumental' and 'substantive' imperatives typically employed in the utilisation of risk communication are first outlined. In light of these considerations a theoretical scheme is subsequently devised leading to the articulation of four fundamental 'idealised' models of risk communication termed the 'risk message' model, the 'risk dialogue' model, the 'risk field' model and the 'risk government' model respectively. It is contended that the diverse conceptual foundations underlying the orientation of each model suggest a further need for a more contextualised view of risk communication that takes account not only of the strengths and limitations of different formulations and functions of risk communication, but also the underlying knowledge/power dynamics that underlie its constitution. In particular it is hoped that the reflexive theoretical understanding presented here will help to bring some much needed conceptual clarity to academic and policy discourses about the use and utility of risk communication in advanced liberal societies.

The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe

“…This problem is not helped by an over reliance on public relations consultants who tend to have only a surface understanding of the nuanced workings of risk-communication processes in advanced liberal democracies. This can hinder the ability of officials to appropriately match communication strategies to the context of communication problems, which can vary according to both the characteristics of the risk and the social dynamics of the situation at hand (Klinke and Renn 2004;Lofstedt 2005;Wardman 2008). To address this problem, regulators and policy makers could be encouraged to attend risk communication courses for continuing professionals such as the one that is given every summer at Harvard University.…”

Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management

“…As Wardman cautions risk communicators "draw from a wide body of techniques without necessarily being aware that the techniques they adopt bear the imprints of broader scientific, political, economic, or social theory [and]... are permeated by power/knowledge relations" (Wardman, 2008(Wardman, , p. 1621). Failure to acknowledge these different ways of defining the basic meaning and practice of risk communication can lead to inconsistent or contradictory recommendations about what it should involve.…”

“…Moreover, the goals of risk communication do not necessarily dictate the means or provide much guidance about how best to achieve them. Wardman (2008) has tried to provide greater conceptual clarity by framing risk communication along two orthogonal dimensions (Figure 1). His vertical axis distinguishes risk communication by its underlying rationale, whereas his horizontal axis distinguishes between engaged and interactive, often two-way, forms of communication at one extreme and less engaged, one-way styles at the other.…”

Riesgos tecnológicos, conflictos sociales y políticas ambientales. Del estudio de las percepciones a la implicación pública

“…En este mismo sentido, Wardman (2008), después de analizar la copiosa bibliografía sobre comunicación del riesgo, identifica aproximaciones más normativas o más instrumentales, más participativas o menos, y concluye que es necesaria una visión de la comunicación del riesgo más contextualizada, que tenga en cuenta las dinámicas de poder subyacentes a su propia constitución.…”