Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/10920
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-02T07:25:06Zen
dc.date.available2018-03-02T07:25:06Zen
dc.date.issued2016en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/10920en
dc.description.abstractThis work is intended as a short introduction to social science literature, with the aim of critically analyzing some of the main theoretical paradigms, the most important concepts and research themes and their relevance in the context of policy making processes. The consolidation of the risk studies paradigm as well as the emergence of risk governance as an autonomous and multidisciplinary field of research owes much to the fundamental contribution of social sciences, which is the subject of this paper. The international scientific community has recognized the role of social sciences for some time, stressing that the connection and comparison between different knowledge is essential to achieve a single objective, namely the protection of human health, the environment and the communities and social groups exposed to risks. The strong overlap between the physical and material dimensions of risk and social, psychological and political dimensions inevitably entailed the need to overcome the impasse of reductionist explanations and the idea of self-sufficiency in the individual disciplines [Horlick Jones & Sime, 2004], which has also been the subject of epistemological reflection for some time in other fields [Morin, 2000]. However, one should point out that this extension of the field of risk analysis, today including social science and humanities [SSH] has not always been easy, nor bloodless. The full acceptance of social sciences in risk assessment, management and communication issues has required a laborious recognition of the limitations of rationalist paradigm in resolving or mediating social conflicts - sometimes dramatic - linked to the emergence of "new" risks, especially those related to nuclear energy, pollution and health. Numerous major catastrophic events, such as the fire at the Sellafield nuclear power plant in 1957, the foetal malformations caused by Talidomide in the early 1960s, the terrible consequences of methylmercury pollution in Minamata Bay in Japan at the end of the same decade, the evacuation of Love Canal from toxic waste, but above all, the nuclear accidents on Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 have created a climate of widespread and justified public concern, which has often been accompanied by growing hostility towards science and technology, as these are increasingly seen as a source of incalculable, irreversible and catastrophic risks. In addition, disasters such as Vajont disaster in 1964, the Tangshan earthquake in 1976, the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Japan earthquake in 2011 showed that the extent of the damage was in many cases linked to wrong human decisions, making the distinction between anthropogenic and natural risks much more fades and conventional. In such a context, the need to provide organic and consistent responses to risks has made it necessary to integrate several disciplines, both in terms of multidisciplinarity (in which each discipline deals with a particular aspect of the problem in cooperation with the others) and transdisciplinarity (which integrates in a single approach theoretical and methodological elements of the different disciplinary knowledge) [Horlick Jones & Sime, 2004]. This dialogue, which presupposes a reflection on the epistemological foundations of the different disciplines, and the attempt to integrate concepts and definitions, is fundamental for assessing and informing political decisions on risks [Althaus, 2005], as well as the need to reconcile the scientific cultures of the so-called hard science (engineering, physics, epidemiology) with those of soft scienze as SSH + (anthropology, sociology, psychology) [Jasanoff, 1993]. In this context it emerged the new concept of risk studies: this term, which began to appear in the early 1980s, associated with research into the location of nuclear sites, was used in the early 1990s to identify a specific theoretical - disciplinary field aimed at analysing the social, political, economic and legal problems associated with risks [Krimsky, 1992]. Risk studies, which are nowaday characterized as a multidisciplinary and autonomous field that integrates different knowledge, are born precisely as a response to the emergence of risk perception as a social problem [Burgess, 2016], taking concrete form in the United States in the birth of different research groups with a strong multidisciplinary vocation.en
dc.language.isoItalianen
dc.publisher.nameIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologiaen
dc.relation.ispartofMiscellanea INGVen
dc.relation.ispartofseries32 / (2016)en
dc.subjectrisk theoriesen
dc.subjectrisk perceptionen
dc.subjectsocial scienceen
dc.subjectrisk studiesen
dc.subjectepistemologies of risken
dc.titleLe scienze sociali e i risk studies : Temi, Problemi, Metodien
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.type.QualityControlPeer-revieweden
dc.description.pagenumber7-26en
dc.identifier.URLhttp://www.ingv.it/editoria/miscellanea/2016/miscellanea32/en
dc.subject.INGV05.08. Risken
dc.subject.INGV05.03. Educational, History of Science, Public Issuesen
dc.relation.referencesAdam B., Beck U. & Van Loon J. (Eds.), (2000). The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. Sage, London, 47–62. Althaus C.E., (2005). A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Analysis, 25(3), 567-588. Aven T., Renn O. & Rosa E.A., (2011). On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Safety Science, 49(8), 1074-1079. Aven T., Renn O., (2010). Risk Management and Governance: Concepts, Guidelines and Applications. Springer, New York. Beck U., (2000). La società del rischio. Verso una seconda modernità. Carocci, Roma. Bernstein P.L., (1996). Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Boholm A., (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1:2, 135-163. Bradbury J.A., (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(4), 380-399. Burgess A., (2016). Introduction. In: Burgess A., Alemanno A., Zinn J. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Risk Studies. Routledge, Abingdon New York. Dake K., (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social issues, 48(4), 21-37. Douglas M., (1985). Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Douglas M., (1992). Risk and blame. Routledge, London, (trad. italiana Rischio e colpa. Il Mulino, Bologna) Douglas M., (2003). Being fair to hierarchists. University of Pennsylvania law review, 1349-1370. Douglas M., (2007). A history of grid and group cultural theory. University of Toronto, Canada, http://projects. chass. utoronto. ca/semiotics/cyber/douglas1.pdf. Douglas M., Wildavsky A., (1982). Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental danger. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P. & Johnson S.M., (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of behavioral decision making, 13(1), 1-17. Fischhoff B. & Kadvany J., (2011). Risk: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S. & Combs B., (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy sciences, 9(2), 127-152. Flynn J., Slovic P. & Kunreuther H., (2001). Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Earthscan, London. Funtowicz S., Ravetz J.R., (1985). Three types of risk assessment; A methodological analysis. In: V.T. Covello, J.L. Mumpower, P.J.M. Stallen & V.R.R. Uppuluri (Eds.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis. Springer, Berlin – Heidelberg, 831-848. Giddens A., (1991). Modernity and self identity: self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press, Cambridge. Giddens A., (1999). Risk and responsibility. Modern Law review, 62(1): 1-10. Gigerenzer G., (2015). Imparare a rischiare. Come prendere decisioni giuste. Raffaello Cortina, Milano. Horlick-Jones T. & Sime J., (2004). Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 441-456. Jaeger C.C., Webler T., Rosa E.A. & Renn O., (2013). Risk, uncertainty and rational action. Routledge, London. Jasanoff S., (1993). Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis 1, 2. Risk Analysis, 13(2), 123-129. Jasanoff S., (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order. Routledge, London, New York. Kahneman D., Tversky A., (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 97: 263-291. Kasperson J.X. & Kasperson R.E., (2005). The social contours of risk: publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk (Vol. 1). Earthscan, London. Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Pidgeon N. & Slovic, P., (2003). The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In: Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E. & Slovic P. (Eds.), The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 13-46. LE SCIENZE SOCIALI E I RISK STUDIES: temi, problemi, metodi 25 Kasperson R.E. & Kasperson J.X., (1996). The social amplification and attenuation of risk. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 95-105. Kasperson R.E., Jhaveri N. & Kasperson J.X., (2001). Stigma and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. In: Slovic P., Flynn J. & Kunreuther H. (Eds.), Risk, media and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. Earthscan, London, 9-27. Kasperson R.E., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H.S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S., (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis, 8(2), 177-187. Kaspersons R.E., Stallen P.J. (Eds.), (1991). Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Kluwer, Dordrecht NL. Krimsky S., (1992). The role of theory in risk studies. In: Krimsky S., Golding D. (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport, 23-53. Krimsky S., Golding D. (Eds.), (1992). Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport. Luhmann N., (1993). Risk: A Sociological Theory. Aldine de Gruyter, Berlin. Lupton D., (1999). Risk and Sociocultural Theory. New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge University, Cambridge. Lupton D., (2003). Il rischio: percezione, simboli, culture. Il Mulino, Bologna. Lupton D., (2006). Sociology and risk. In: Mythen G. & Walklate S. (Eds.), Beyond the risk society: Critical reflections on risk and human security. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Marinelli A., (1993). La costruzione del rischio. Modelli e paradigmi interpretativi nelle scienze sociali. Franco Angeli, Milano. Morin E., (2000). La testa ben fatta. Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano. Mythen G., (2004). Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. Pluto Press, London. Mythen G. & Walklate S., (2006). Beyond the risk society: Critical reflections on risk and human security. Open University Press, Maidenhead. Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E. & Slovic P., (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pidgeon N., Simmons P. & Henwood K., (2006). Risk, environment, and technology. In: Taylor-Gooby P. & Zinn J.O. (Eds.), Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 94-116. Rayner S. & Cantor R., (1987). How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice. Risk analysis, 7(1), 3-9. Renn O., (1990). Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In: R.E Kasperson, P.J. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Kluwer, Dordrecht NL, 287-324. Renn, O., (1992). Concepts of risk: a classification. In: S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Westport, CT. Renn O., (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of risk research, 1(1), 49-71. Renn O., Burns W.J., Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E. & Slovic P., (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of social issues, 48(4), 137-160. Rohrmann B., Renn O, (2000). Risk perception research – an introduction. In: Renn O., Rohrmann B. (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Springer US, 11-54. Rosa E.A., (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of risk research, 1(1), 15-44. Sjoberg L., (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20: 1–11. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S., (1982). Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2(2): 83–93. Slovic P., (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, New Series, Vol. 236, No. 4799, (Apr. 17), 280-285. Slovic P., (2001). The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London. Sørensen M.P. & Christiansen A., (2014). Ulrich Beck: an introduction to the theory of second modernity and the risk society. Springer International Publishing, Oxon UK, 7-13. Tansey J., O’Riordan T., (1999). Cultural theory and risk: a review. Health, risk society, 1(1), 71-90. Taylor-Gooby P. & Zinn J.O., (2006). Current directions in risk research: new developments in psychology and sociology. Risk analysis, 26(2), 397-411. Taylor-Gooby P. & Zinn J.O. (Eds.), (2006). Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Tulloch J. & Lupton D., (2003). Risk and everyday life. Sage, London. Veland H. & Aven T., (2013). Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 110, 34-40. Zinn J.O, Burgess A. & Alemanno A. (Eds.), (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Risk Studies. Routledge, Abingdon New York. Zinn J.O. & Taylor-Gooby P., (2006). Risk as an interdisciplinary research area. In: Taylor-Gooby P. & Zinn, J.O. (Eds.), Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 20-53.en
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico3TM. Comunicazioneen
dc.description.journalTypeN/A or not JCRen
dc.relation.issnISSN 2039-6651en
dc.contributor.authorCerase, Andreaen
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1it-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione ONT, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.classification.parent05. General-
crisitem.classification.parent05. General-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

182
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Download(s)

1,274
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check