The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk

Judith A. Bradbury
Science, Technology, and Human Values 14: 380-389 (1989).

The Technical Approach

Brief Description

Technical approaches define risk as the product of the probability and consequences of an adverse event. Assessments of probability and consequences are made by technical experts as part of quantitative risk assessments. From the perspective of the technical approach, risk can be evaluated independently of political, economic, or social conditions. Thus, risk resides primarily in the technology and its relationship to foreseeable consequences.

Risk Communication Strategy

The technical approach implies communication strategies that educate the public about technical risk assessments. Technical assessments are considered to represent actual risks. When these risks are deemed by regulatory agencies to be minimal, then, if possible, they are not conveyed to the public to avoid unnecessary concern. When risk assessments become public and consumer perceptions do not coincide with actual risk, then, from the technical perspective, acceptance of a new technology can be unnecessarily delayed or implementation can become more expensive than necessary. Thus, public rejection of the logic of technical risk assessments is considered to be irrational. Risk communication strategies thereby focuses upon educating an ignorant and sometimes irrational public about actual risk. Strategies seek to reduce outrage based upon inaccurate perceptions so as to retain a focus on actual risk.

Critique

Bradbury asserts that this approach ignores the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of risk assessment and management. The public is not necessarily ignorant of technical risk assessments nor are they being irrational in expressing skepticism about a technology when technical assessments show it to be a minimal risk. Rather, the public evaluates technology on a broader set of criteria than is considered in technical risk assessments. Bradbury asks, for example, "Who bears the burden of responsibility for defined risk?" and " Who decides how risk will be evaluated?" She argues that because technical assessments ignore economic, political, and cultural issues, risk communication strategies that focus upon education about technical facts are necessary but insufficient to sway public opinion.

The Psychometric Approach

Brief Description

The psychometric approach seeks to identify the cognitive, emotional, and social-demographic determinants of public perceptions of risk. Why do we respond to risks in the way we do? Why do public perceptions of risk differ so greatly from those of technical experts? The psychometric approach has discovered how outrage factors affect public responses to risk and developed strategies for overcoming public resistance to new technologies.

Risk Communication Strategy

The psychometric approach recognizes that emotions are an integral part of the public's risk assessments. Economic, political, and cultural factors, including the perceived ethics associated with new technology adoption, are equally legitimate criteria in assessing risks as are technical assessments of the probabilities and consequences of technology failure. Risk communication strategy, therefore, seeks to reduce outrage by appealing to the public's sense of voluntariness, control, fairness, and moral responsibility in technology development and dissemination. Because emotions are as real as technical assessments risk communication must address public concerns in a legitimate and respectful manner.

Critique:

Bradbury states that because this risk communication strategy begins with the technical definition of risk and examines individual's responses to it, there is too strong a focus on citizen education. The fundamental problem of the strategy is that technical risk assessments are considered to be value-free and objective. Thus, the psychometric approach to risk communication runs the risk of becoming a public relations campaign to sell the public on the technical assessment by appealing to emotions.

The Social Process Approach

Brief Description

The social process approach begins with the premise that risk and technology are social processes rather than physical entities that exist independently of the humans who assess and experience them. This approach addresses the value embeddedness of risk assessments. It notes that cultural frameworks held by the public influences their willingness to take or avoid certain types of risks.

The social process approach recognizes that the public needs to learn about technical risk assessments and public perceptions are influenced by emotional reactions to sense of voluntariness, control, and so forth. It does not, however, accept technical risk assessments at face value, but asserts that, intentionally or unintentionally, technical assessments reflect political, economic, and cultural agendas of the risk assessors. It notes as well that public perceptions are influenced by organizations that have more complex agendas than interpretations of technical assessments for the public.

Risk Communication Strategy

Risk communication is viewed as interactive among technicians, the public, and organizations that have a vested interest in gaining either adoption or rejection of the technology. This approach thereby emphasizes the free exchange of ideas and mediation of sometimes competing agendas regarding risk assessment and management. The focus is more upon the quality of discourse rather than the substance of the arguments themselves.

Critique:

This approach runs the risk of becoming solipsist, that is, ignoring the reality of actual risks or lack thereof related to new technologies. Apart from the political, economic, and cultural agendas of technicians, the public, and advocacy organizations, quantitative risk assessments, albeit flawed and biased, point out real risks that should not be ignored and demonstrate with reasonable success that other risks have a low probability of occurrence. Thus, although quantitative risk analysis has failed before in not adequately predicting technology failure, it does in many cases accurately depict failure probabilities and therefore should not be dismissed out of hand.

The social process approach, in its efforts at facilitating exchange of ideas, runs the risk also of falling prey to the paradox of democracy, wherein the public becomes overly involved in hearing out all possible opinions and unnecessarily delaying or adding unneeded expense to the implementation of new technologies. Sometimes, we can listen too much. And sometimes those wishing to voice their opinions are not well informed about the technology or want nothing more than to cause disharmony and rejection of the technology out of hand.

A more in-depth treatment of this topic can be found in Risk, written by Deborah Lupton, NY: Routledge, 1999.