|
|
|
Vol. 03 Issue 2, Spring 1998
Our preoccupation with chance extends through history and the modern conceptualization of risk (as control) originated in the Renaissance (see Bernstein). Yet the notion of risk communication has only appeared within the last 20 years. During that short period of time membership in risk-related societies, the number of research articles on risk communication, and the amount of federal research dollars awarded to the study of risk communication has mushroomed (see Krimsky and Golding).
Risk communication means two things, depending on your perspective. On one hand, risk communication is a subject of study in which researchers strive to understand social, psychological and cultural aspects of risk as they apply to the creation, transmission, and effect of risk information (typically in context of health, environment, or technology). On the other hand, risk communication is also an instrument to control information used by parties with vested interests. Within the latter domain, "control of information" runs the gamut from health-outreach organizations like BCERF that strive to serve a public need to industries intent on minimizing government regulation of-and public resistance to-their activities.
The critical aspect of the current state of affairs in risk communication is that the foundation of reliable knowledge is still very thin. Psychologists have provided some insight into how individuals process risk information and form attitudes. Sociologists have more recently been describing institutional relationships that give meaning to risk and direct its burden to segments of society. Cultural theorists have told us that the existence or nonexistence of risk is dependent on shared systems of values and constructed social realities. Because this kind of cumulative knowledge grows slowly, it accounts for only a fraction of what we think we know about risk communication. The rest has come from practitioners in government and industry.
In terms of volume, the current body of knowledge on risk communication (what it is, how it should best be done, what its effects are) has come largely from the successes and failures of its instrumental application. This is the source of notions such as the "7 Golden Rules" of risk communication and other similar "how to" lists. However, the proliferation of recipes for "quick and effective results" has effectively retarded the evolution of risk communication. Risk communication needs to transition from a "black box" model in which messages are manipulated until they produce the desired outcome to a transactional or dialectical model in which egalitarian participation drives the definition and resolution of a given risk concern. The latter approach surrenders attempts to control the audience and abandons the misplaced ambition of converting everyone to theoretically-perfect rationalists.
Efforts such as those undertaken by BCERF can be seen as a model for redefining risk communication and moving it down this path. It is in the environment of extension and outreach that practice and research share motivations shaped by desire to serve rather than to profit.
Bernstein, P. L. (1996). Against the Gods. New York: John Wiley.
Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. (1992). Social Theories of Risk. Westport CT: Praeger.
Craig W. Trumbo, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Cornell. His research focuses on: the social effects of the mass media; the effective communication of information involving science, health, risk, and the environment; and the social-psychology of environmental conservation. One of his present research areas involves a series of case studies examining community concerns about cancer rates.
Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors
Cornell University, College of Veterinary Medicine
Vet Box 31, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401
Phone: 607.254.2893; Fax: 607.254.4730
Email: breastcancer@cornell.edu
We comply with the HONcode standard for
trustworthy health information: Verify here.