Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretive Environmental Risk Research: Affect, Discourses and Change

  • Chapter
Communicating Risk

Part of the book series: Communicating in Professions and Organizations ((PSPOD))

Abstract

Environmental risk perception and communication research seeks to answer questions about the acceptability and governance of the social and material impacts of environmental changes within late-modernity, as well as the future sustainability of established and newly emerging global socio-technical risks and proposed solutions. It subscribes to the importance of understanding public risk perceptions, the dynamics of everyday experiences of risk including people’s psychological investments and meaning-making, communication and dialogue about risk issues and the questions of public value that participation and engagement highlights, and the diverse interpretations that people place on aspects of both risk and uncertainty. Research into these topics helps us to explain the implications of the pace of environmental, socio-technological, and socio-cultural change for people as they live out their lives. It is also a means of elucidating how intractable local environmental problems are often bound up with ambiguous global risk issues as manifest in topics such as chemical pollution, nuclear power, climate change, geoengineering, or low carbon/energy transitions, all topics with high contemporary relevance to science policy, society, and individuals. In this chapter we explain, and exemplify with case studies from our work, the rationale and purpose of interpretive risk research, which we present as part of developments within the socio-cultural and environmental risk field as it articulates with studies of science in society and global change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new Modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K. & Simmons, P. (2009). Absencing/presencing risk: Rethinking proximity and the experience of living with major technological hazards. Geoforum, 40(5), 864–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K., Simmons, P. & Pidgeon, N.F. (2008). Constructing responsibility for risk(s): Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1312–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowers, A. & Leroy, P. (1994). Power, politics and environmental inequality: A theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of peripheralisation. Environmental Politics, 3, 197–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, Å. & Corvellec, H. (2014). A relational theory of risk: Lessons for risk communication. In J. Arvai & L. Rivers III. Effective Risk Communication. (pp. 1–22) London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, H.J., Gammon, A. & Preston, C.J. (2014). Gender and geoengineering. Hypatia, DOI: 10.1111/hypa.1208

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. & Freudenberg, W.R. (1996). Gender and environmental concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behaviour, 28(3), 302–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (1997). Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the C21. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay in the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein, M.R. (1988). Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Waste Exposure. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. (2005). Using Narrative in Social research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRC (2009). Science and Gender, Ethnicity and Lifecycle: ESRC Science in Society Programme Report. www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/science_and_gender_tcm8-13538.pdf (Accessed 29/4/2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, W. (2000). Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science, 30, 759–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C.K. (1994). Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. (2009). Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy, 37, 3242–3249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, P.E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackmann, H. & St. Clair, A.L. (2012). Transformative Cornerstones of Social Sciences Research for Global Change. Paris: International Social Science Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L., Gill, R. & Mclean, C. (2002) The changing man. Psychologist, 15(4), 182–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L. (2008). Qualitative research, reflexivity and living with risk: Valuing and practicing epistemic reflexivity and centring marginality. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L., Griffin, C. & Phoenix, A. (eds) (1998). Standpoints and Differences: Essays in the Practice of Feminist Psychology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L., Parkhill, K.A. & Pidgeon, N.F. (2008). Science, technology and risk perception: From gender differences to the effects made by gender. Equal Opportunities International, 27(8), 662–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.A. & Pidgeon, N.F. (2015). Gender, ethical voices and UK nuclear energy policy in the post-Fukushima era. In: B. Taebi & S. Roeser (eds) The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L. & Pidgeon, N.F. (2013). Risk and Identity Futures. UK Foresight Future of Identities Project Report DR18, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/identity/13–519-identity-and-change-through-a%20risk-lens.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K., Pidgeon, N.F. and Parkhill, K. (2014) Explaining the ‘gender-risk effect’ in risk perception research: a qualitative secondary analysis study / Explicando el ‘efecto género-riesgo’ en la investigación de la percepción del riesgo: un estudio cualitativo deanálisis secundario, Psyecology: Revista Bilingüe de Psicología Ambiental / Bilingual Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5: 2–3, 167–213. DOI: 10.1080/21711976.2014.977532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L., Pidgeon, N.F., Parkhill, K.A. & Simmons, P. (2010). Researching risk: Narrative, biography, subjectivity [43 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), Art. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L. Gill, R., and Mclean, C. (2002) “The changing man”. Psychologist, 15 (4), 182–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henwood, K.L., Pidgeon, N.F., Sarre, S., Simmons, P. & Smith, N. (2008). Risk, framing and everyday life: Methodological and ethical reflections from three sociocultural projects. Health, Risk and Society, 10, 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. (1992). The social construction of risk objects’. In: J. Short & L. Clarke (eds) Organizations, Uncertainty and risk (pp. 39–53). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. (2001). Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Cambridge: The Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A., Simmons, P. & Walker, G. (1999). Faulty environments and risk reasoning: The local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning A, 31, 1311–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohan, M. (2000). Constructive tensions in feminist studies. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 895–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macgill, S. (1987). The Politics of Anxiety: Sellafield’s Cancer-link Controversy. London: Pion Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P. & Pohl, C. (2003). The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica, 46, 150–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masco, J. (2006). The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oels, A. (2005). Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? Journal of Environment, Policy and Planning, 7(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhill, K.A., Henwood, K.L., Pidgeon, N.F. & Simmons, P. (2011). Laughing it off: Humour, affect and emotion work in communities living with nuclear risk. British Journal of Sociology, 62(2), 324–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhill, K.A., Pidgeon, N.F., Henwood, K.L., Simmons, P. & Venables, D. (2010). From the familiar to the extraordinary: Local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N.F. & Butler, C. (2009). Risk analysis and climate change. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 670–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N.F., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. & Gibson, R. (1992). Risk perception. Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. London: The Royal Society, pp. 89–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N.F., Kasperson, R.K. & Slovic, P. (2003). The Social Amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N.F., Simmons, P. & Henwood, K.L. (2006). Risk, environment and technology. In: P. Taylor-Gooby & J. Zinn (eds) Risk in Social Science (pp. 94–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E. A. & Freudenburg, W. R. (1993). The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: Implications for nuclear waste policy. in: R.E. Dunlap, M.E. Kraft & E.A. Rosa (eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizens’ views of Repository Siting (pp. 32–63). Durham NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T. (2001). In search of value literacy: Suggestions for the elicitation of environmental values. Environmental Values, 10(3) 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T. (2002). Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge, and Emotion in Old-Growth Forests. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., Mertz, C.K. & Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, vulnerability and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 24,115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheman, N. (1993). Introduction: The unavoidability of gender. In: N. Scheman (ed) Engenderings: Constructions of Knowledge, Authority and Privilege (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. & McEvoy, J. (2015). Researching the psychosocial (A Special Issue), Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 1–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch, J. & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and Everyday life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables, D., Pidgeon, N.F., Henwood, K.L., Parkhill, K. & Simmons, P. (2012). Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity and risk perception in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, I. (2001). Anxiety in a risk Society. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willott, S. & Griffin, C. (1999). Building your own lifeboat: Working class male offenders talk about economic crime. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B., Waterton, C., & Grove-White, R., ([2007] 1993). Public Perceptions and the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonabend, F. (1993). The Nuclear Peninsula. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Karen L. Henwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Australia

    Jonathan Crichton (Senior Lecturer) (Senior Lecturer)

  2. Macquarie University, Australia

    Christopher N. Candlin (Professor) & Arthur S. Firkins (Researcher) (Professor) &  (Researcher)

Copyright information

© 2016 Karen L. Henwood and Nick Pidgeon

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henwood, K.L., Pidgeon, N. (2016). Interpretive Environmental Risk Research: Affect, Discourses and Change. In: Crichton, J., Candlin, C.N., Firkins, A.S. (eds) Communicating Risk. Communicating in Professions and Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137478788_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137478788_10

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55659-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47878-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation