In the RIS630 course, students have to write a 4000-word research paper. Using prescribed and self-found literature. The assignment should be on one of the following three topics:
A) Evaluate a specific health or environmental risk policy;
B) Examine institutional risk communication responses linked to a specific risk event;
C) Analyse the media reporting associated with a specific risk event
The syllabus for the course is extensive. To provide an overview I have put the course literature in a table with a summary for each article.
| Class | Article | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | National Research Council 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Summary 1-8. Washington DC: National Academy Press. | This article discusses the process of risk assessment in the federal government, providing insights into managing risks. |
| 1 | Lofstedt, RE and A. Boholm. 2008. The study of risk in the 21st century. In Lofstedt and Boholm 2008. | Explores the study of risk in the contemporary era, likely discussing shifts and challenges in understanding and managing risks. |
| 1 | Balog-Way DHP, McComas K and Besley J, 2020. The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240–2262. | Provides insights into the changing landscape of risk communication, highlighting developments and challenges. |
| 2 | Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, Vol.165, p. 1232-1238. | Examines the balance between social benefits and technological risks, likely addressing the trade-offs involved. |
| 2 | Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science, Vol.236, p. 280-285. | Explores how people perceive risks, shedding light on the psychological aspects of risk perception. |
| 2 | Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, Vol. 185, p. 1124-1131. | Investigates human judgment under uncertainty, focusing on heuristics and biases that influence decision-making. |
| 2 | Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane. | A book by Daniel Kahneman that delves into the two systems of thinking, providing insights into decision-making and cognitive biases. |
| 3 | Fischhoff, B. 1995. Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis, Vol. 15,p. 137-145. | Reviews two decades of progress in risk perception and communication, likely discussing advancements and challenges. |
| 3 | Leiss, W. 1996. Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 545, p. 85-94. | Describes the evolution of risk communication over three phases, providing historical context and changes in practices. |
| 3 | Fischhoff, B. 2013. The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol.110, Supplement 3, p. 14033-14039. | Discusses the science behind effective science communication, likely exploring key principles and strategies. |
| 3 | Balog-Way, D, McComas, K and Besley, J. 2020. The Evolving Field of Risk Communication, Risk Analysis, 40(S1): 2240-2262. | Similar to Class 1, this article explores the evolving landscape of risk communication. |
| 4 | Kasperson, R., O.Renn and P.Slovic. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, p. 177-187. | Introduces the conceptual framework of the social amplification of risk, discussing how societal factors can magnify or diminish risk perceptions. |
| 4 | Pidgeon, N., R.Kasperson and P.Slovic eds. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | This article reviews the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) introduced in 1988. It explores refinements, critiques, and extensions of SARF, considering new issues and findings arising from fifteen years of empirical research. SARF aims to integrate risk perception and communication research, explaining dynamic social processes shaping risk perception and responses. It delves into how certain hazards, initially considered low-risk by experts, gain societal attention (risk amplification), while more serious hazards may receive less public focus (risk attenuation). |
| 4 | Breakwell, G. 2007. Psychology of risk. Look at chapter on social amplification. | Discusses the psychology of risk, specifically delving into the social amplification aspect. |
| 4 | Lofstedt, RE. 2008. Risk communication, media amplification and the aspartame scare. Risk Management: International Journal, Vol.10, p. 257-284. | Analyzes risk communication and media amplification in the context of the aspartame scare. |
| 5 | Rayner, S. and R. Cantor. 1987. How fair is safe enough? Risk Analysis, Vol.7, p. 3-9. | Explores the concept of what level of safety is deemed fair, likely addressing risk acceptability. |
| 5 | Wildavsky, A and K. Dake. 1990. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, Vol.119, p. 41-60. | Examines different theories of how people perceive and respond to risks, addressing the factors that influence individual fears. |
| 5 | Boholm, A. 1996. Risk perception and social anthropology: Critique of cultural theory. Ethnos, Vol. 61, p. 64-84. | Critically assesses the role of cultural theory in understanding risk perception and argues for a more nuanced approach in social anthropology. |
| 5 | Sjoberg, L. 1997. Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk, Decision and Policy. Vol.2, p. 113-130. | Empirically evaluates cultural theory’s explanatory power in understanding risk perception, providing insights into its limitations. |
| 6 | Guest lecture: | Lit. to be circulated |
| 7 | Atman, CJ et al. 1994. Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes. Part 1. Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, p. 779-788. | Focuses on the design of risk communication by addressing and correcting mental models related to hazardous processes. |
| 7 | Bostrom, A et al. 1992. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes. Journal of Social Risk assessment vs hazard classifications. What should we use as the basis for regulation? | Examines the characterization of mental models associated with hazardous processes, discussing the basis for regulation from a social risk assessment perspective. |
| 7 | Golding, D et al. 1992. Evaluating risk communication. Narrative vs technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Anlaysis, Vol.12, p.27-35. | Explores the effectiveness of risk communication by comparing narrative and technical presentations of information, particularly related to radon. |
| 8 | Slovic, P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, Vol.13, p. 675-682. | Investigates the interplay between perceived risk, trust, and democracy, shedding light on how trust influences risk perception in democratic societies. |
| 8 | Porrtinga, W. and N.Pidgeon. 2003. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, Vol.23, p. 961-972. | Explores the dimensions of trust in the context of risk regulation, contributing to the understanding of the complex relationship between trust and regulatory decisions. |
| 8 | Lofstedt, R.E. 2008. Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. London: Earthscan. | Examines the challenges and strategies for risk management in societies where trust is diminished, providing insights into post-trust risk governance. |
| 8 | Van der Linden, S. (2022). Misinformation: Susceptibility, Spread, and Interventions to Immunize the Public. Nature Medicine 28, 460-467. | Explores the susceptibility and spread of misinformation and suggests interventions to immunize the public against misinformation. |
| 9 | Bouder, F. and Löfstedt, R.E. 2014. The role of Transparency: Risk Communication’s doom? In Arvai, J. and Rivers, L. Risk Communication. New York: Taylor and Francis Earthscan series. | Examines the role of transparency in risk communication and discusses whether it can lead to the success or failure of risk communication efforts. |
| 9 | Bouder, F., Löfstedt, R.E., Way, D., Evensen, D. 2015. Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study, Risk Analysis, 35(7), 1210–1229 | Presents a quantitative study on transparency in Europe, exploring its impact on risk communication and management. |
| 9 | Evensen, Darrick; Warren, George; Bouder, Frederic Emmanuel (2023) Satisfaction With Governmental Risk Communication Both Increases and Decreases COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviours. International Journal of Public Health. ISSN 1661-8556. Volum 68. DOI: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1604966. | Investigates satisfaction with governmental risk communication during the COVID-19 pandemic and its influence on behaviors related to mitigation. |
| 10 | Research progress seminar. No lit – information to be circulated in class | |
| 11 | Paustenbach, D.J. 1989. Health Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14, 379-410. | Explores opportunities and pitfalls in health risk assessments, offering insights into the challenges and considerations in this field. |
| 11 | Klinke, A. & Renn, O. 2002. “A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based and Discourse-Based Strategies”. Risk Analysis, 22, 1071-1994. | Proposes a new approach to risk evaluation and management, emphasizing risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. |
| 11 | Van Eeten, M and Bouder, F. 2012. The diva and destiny: Can the voter be appeased with fatalism? European Journal of Risk Regulation, Special issue on Dutch initiative on Risk and Responsibility . 3rd issue. | Examines the role of fatalism in risk regulation, particularly exploring whether voters can be appeased with fatalistic attitudes. |
| 12 | Löfstedt, R. E. & Vogel, D. 2001. The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States. Risk Analysis, 21, 399–410. | Compares the changing nature of regulation in Europe and the United States, shedding light on the differences in regulatory approaches. |
| 12 | Wiener, J. B. & Rogers, M.D. 2002. Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 317-349. | Compares precautionary approaches in the United States and Europe, providing insights into how precaution is applied in different regulatory contexts. |
| 12 | Graham, J.D & Wiener J.D. 1995. Confronting Risk Tradeoffs. In Graham, J.D & Wiener J.D.(Eds). Chapter 1, 1-41. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. | Explores risk tradeoffs and challenges in confronting them, offering perspectives on decision-making in the face of competing risks. |
| 12 | Lofstedt, R. 2011. Risk versus hazard: How to regulate in the 21st century. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2, 149-168. | Examines the distinction between risk and hazard in regulation, addressing considerations for effective regulation in the 21st century. |
| 13 | Löfstedt, R.E 1996. ‘Risk communication: The Barsebäck nuclear plant case’, Energy Policy 24(8): 689-696 | Analyzes the case of risk communication related to the Barsebäck nuclear plant, providing insights into the challenges and strategies employed in this specific context. |
| 13 | Bijker, W. E. 2007. American and Dutch Coastal Engineering: Differences in Risk Conception and Differences in Technological Culture. Social Studies of Science, 37(1), 143-152. | Explores differences in risk conception and technological culture in American and Dutch coastal engineering, highlighting cultural influences on risk perspectives. |
| 13 | Paul, R., Bouder, F, Wesseling, M. 2016. Risk-based governance against national obstacles? Comparative dynamics of Europeanization in Dutch, French, and German flooding policies, Journal of Risk Research, 19:8, 1043-1062, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1074936 | Investigates risk-based governance in Dutch, French, and German flooding policies, exploring the dynamics of Europeanization and responses to national obstacles. |
| 13 | Bruine de Bruin, W and Bennett, D. 2020. Relationships Between Initial COVID-19 Risk Perceptions and Protective Health Behaviors: A National Survey, American Journal of Preventine Medicine 59 (2) 157-167 | Examines the relationship between initial COVID-19 risk perceptions and protective health behaviors, providing insights into public responses to pandemic risks. |
| 13 | Aven, T. and Bouder, F. 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic: how can risk science help?, Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1756383 | Explores the role of risk science in addressing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, offering perspectives on leveraging risk science for effective responses. |
| 13 | Balog-Way, D. and McComas, K. 2020. COVID-19: Reflections on trust, tradeoffs, and preparedness, Journal of Risk Research | Reflects on trust, tradeoffs, and preparedness in the context of COVID-19, providing insights into the challenges and strategies for managing pandemic risks. |
| 13 | Warren, GW, and Lofstedt, RE. 2021. COVID-19 vaccine rollout risk communication strategies in Europe: a rapid response, Journal of Risk Research, 24:3-4, 369-379, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1870533 | Analyzes risk communication strategies during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Europe, offering insights into the rapid response and challenges faced. |
| 13 | Wardman, J.K. 2020. Recalibrating pandemic risk leadership: Thirteen crisis ready strategies for COVID-19, Journal of Risk Research, 23:7-8, 1092-1120, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1842989 | Proposes crisis-ready strategies for pandemic risk leadership during COVID-19, providing practical recommendations for effective risk management. |
| 13 | Mahdavian F, Warren GW, Evensen D, Bouder FE. 2022. The Relationship Between Barriers and Drivers of COVID-19 Protective Behaviors in Germany and the UK. Int J Public Health. 2022 Sep 8;67:1604970. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604970. PMID: 36158783; PMCID: PMC9492856. | Investigates the relationship between barriers and drivers of COVID-19 protective behaviors in Germany and the UK, providing insights into factors influencing public behaviors. |
| 14 | Lofstedt, RE, Bouder, F, Wardman, JK & Chakraborty, 2010. The changing nature of communication and regulation of risk in Europe, Journal of Risk Research, 14 (4), 409–429 | Examines the evolving nature of risk communication and regulation in Europe, highlighting changes and trends in the field. |
| 14 | Kasperson, R., 2014. Four questions for risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 17(10): 1233–1239. Proposes four essential questions for effective risk communication, contributing to the understanding of key considerations in risk communication practices. | Proposes four essential questions for effective risk communication, contributing to the understanding of key considerations in risk communication practices. |
| 14 | Lofstedt, RE., & Bouder, F. 2017 (2020). Evidence-based uncertainty analysis: What should we now do in Europe? A viewpoint. Journal of Risk Research, 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2017.1316763 | Discusses evidence-based uncertainty analysis and provides a viewpoint on the actions needed in Europe based on uncertainties in risk research. |
| 14 | Wardman, Jamie K.; Bouder, Frederic Emmanuel (2022) ’All we have to do is be uncertain’: assessing the ‘amplification of institutional incertitude’ in European food safety and risk governance. Journal of Risk Research. ISSN 1366-9877. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2053391. | Assesses the ‘amplification of institutional incertitude’ in European food safety and risk governance, exploring the impacts of uncertainty in institutional decision-making. |
Leave a Reply