Risk Management

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 177–201 | Cite as

Getting pandas to breed: Paradigm blindness and the policy space for risk prevention, mitigation and management

  • Denis Fischbacher-Smith
Original Article

Abstract

The manner in which organizations are able to accept challenges to their worldviews is an important element in the identification and prevention of risk and the development of the policy spaces that seek to control the consequences of hazardous activities. A key consideration here is the manner in which paradigm blindness can prevent organizations from accepting challenges to these worldviews. This article considers paradigm blindness through a focus on the development of the policy space around the technical verification of risk as a policy construct. The article has a focus on those policy areas where there is a high level of uncertainty surrounding the technical determinations of both probabilities and consequences. Following on from a consideration of the processes around failure, the article considers the importance of paradigms in determining organizational decision making. The article moves on to consider the role of expertise within the process, and outlines two theoretical perspectives that seek to explain the relationships between the wider context of risk and the processes around technical verification.

Keywords

risk prevention mitigation risk management paradigm blindness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the comments made by three referees on this article and to Moira as a Managing Editor for facilitating the review process. The author would also like to acknowledge the comments made by Bob McMaster, Alan Irwin and Ray DeSouza on an earlier draft of this article. As usual, all errors of omission and commission remain those of the author. The work underpinning this article was made possible due to a grant from the EPSRC (EPRSC EP/G004889/1) and the author wishes to acknowledge that support in the preparation of this article.

References

  1. Bates, T.R. (1975) Gramsci and the theory of hegemony. Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (2): 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (2011) Collateral Damage. Social Inequalities in a Global Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  3. Boin, A. and McConnell, A. (2007) Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: The limits of crisis management and the need for resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 15 (1): 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boin, A. and Smith, D. (2006) Terrorism and critical infrastructures: Implications for public–private crisis management. Public Money and Management 26 (5): 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Coffee, J.C. (2006) Gatekeepers. The Professions and Corporate Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collingridge, D. (1989) Incremental decision making in technological innovation: What role for science? Science, Technology & Human Values 14 (2): 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collingridge, D. and Reeve, C. (1986) Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy-Making. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
  10. Corbett, J.B. and Durfee, J.L. (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science. Science Communication 26 (2): 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, R.W. (1983) Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 12 (2): 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalby, S. (2009) Security and Environmental Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, J.B. (2006) The turn in economics: Neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism? Journal of Institutional Economics 2 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dieckmann, N.F., Mauro, R. and Slovic, P. (2010) The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Analysis 30 (6): 987–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dopfer, K. (1986) Causality and consciousness in economics: Concepts of change in orthodox and heterodox economics. Journal of Economic Issues 20 (2): 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelsky, C. (1990) Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher 19 (8): 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, M. and Davies, J. (1999) Understanding policy transfer: A multi-level, multi-disciplinary perspective. Public Administration 77 (2): 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischbacher-Smith, D. (2010) Beyond the worse case scenario. ‘Managing’ the risks of extreme events. Risk Management: An International Journal 12 (1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischbacher-Smith, D. and Hudson, R. (2010) Exporting Pandora's box – Exploitation, risk communication and public health problems associated with the export of hazard. In: P. Bennett, K. Calman, S. Curtis and D. Fischbacher-Smith (eds.) Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, F. (1980) Politics, Values, and Public Policy: The Problem of Methodology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, F. (1990) Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, F. (2005) Are scientists irrational? Risk assessment in practical reason. In: M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds.) Science and Citizens. Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: Zed Books, pp. 54–65.Google Scholar
  24. Garnett, R.F. (2006) Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics. Review of Political Economy 18 (4): 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gramsci, A. (1971) In: Q. Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith (eds.) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffman, F.O. and Hammonds, J.S. (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: The need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis 14 (5): 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hudson, R. (2009) The costs of globalization: Producing new forms of risk to health and well-being. Risk Management: An International Journal 11 (1): 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science. A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Irwin, A., Dale, A. and Smith, D. (1996) Science and hell's kitchen – The local understanding of hazard issues. In: A. Irwin and B. Wynne (eds.) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James, W. (1904) A world of pure experience. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1 (20): 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, J.D. and Hurley, R.J. (2012) Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science 21 (6): 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnston, B. (1998) The contemporary crisis and the social relations department at Harvard: A case study in hegemony and disintegration. The American Sociologist 29 (3): 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn, T.S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawson, T. (2006) The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30 (4): 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nowotny, H. (2008) Insatiable Curiosity. Innovations in a Fragile Future, Translated by M. Cohen. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Omerod, P. (2005) Why Most Things Fail. Evolution, Extinction and Economics. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  38. Parenti, C. (2011) Tropic of Chaos. Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  39. Parker, C.F. and Stern, E.K. (2002) Blindsided? September 11 and the origins of strategic surprise. Political Psychology 23 (3): 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Phillips, D.L. (1973) Paradigms, falsification, and sociology. Acta Sociologica 16 (1): 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson, K. (2005) The hegemony of the physical sciences: An exploration in complexity thinking. Futures 37 (7): 615–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rumsfeld, D. (2002) DoD news briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers. News Transcript. US Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636, accessed 17 August 2011.
  44. Rumsfeld, D. (2011) Known and Unknown. A Memoir. New York: Sentinel.Google Scholar
  45. Sabatier, P.A. (1987) Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Science Communication 8 (4): 649–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sabatier, P.A. (1991) Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics 24 (2): 147–156.Google Scholar
  47. Sabatier, P.A. and McLaughlin, S.M. (1990) Belief congruence between interest-group leaders and members: An empirical analysis of three theories and a suggested synthesis. The Journal of Politics 52 (03): 914–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology & Human Values 21 (3): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, D. (1990) Corporate power and the politics of uncertainty: Risk management at the Canvey Island complex. Industrial Crisis Quarterly 4 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
  50. Smith, D. (1991) The Kraken wakes – The political dynamics of the hazardous waste issue. Industrial Crisis Quarterly 5 (3): 189–207.Google Scholar
  51. Smith, D. (1994) Exploring the myth: The sinking of the Titanic. Organization & Environment 8 (3): 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, D. (1995) The dark side of excellence: Managing strategic failures. In: J. Thompson (ed.) Handbook of Strategic Management. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 161–191.Google Scholar
  53. Spiegelhalter, D.J. and Riesch, H. (2011) Don’t know, can’t know: Embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1956): 4730–4750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stacey, R.D. (2010) Complexity and Organizational Reality. Uncertainty and the Need to Rethink Management After the Collapse of Investment Capitalism, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Thompson, G.F. (1993) Causality in economics: Rhetorical ethic or positivist empiric? Quality & Quantity 27 (1): 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tushman, M.L. and Katz, R. (1980) External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science 26 (11): 1071–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Urry, J. (2011) Climate Change and Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  58. Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies. Natures. Cultures. Spaces. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Wynne, B. (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wynne, B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds.) Risk, Environment & Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 44–83.Google Scholar
  61. Wynne, B. (2002) Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50 (3): 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Fischbacher-Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business SchoolGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations