The constitution of risk communication in advanced liberal societies.
This article aims to bring to the fore some of the underlying rationales that inform common conceptions of the constitution of risk communication in academic and policy communities. "Normative,""instrumental," and "substantive" imperatives typically employed in the utilization of risk communication are first outlined. In light of these considerations, a theoretical scheme is subsequently devised leading to the articulation of four fundamental "idealized" models of risk communication termed the "risk message" model, the "risk dialogue" model, the "risk field" model, and the "risk government" model, respectively. It is contended that the diverse conceptual foundations underlying the orientation of each model suggest a further need for a more contextualized view of risk communication that takes account not only of the strengths and limitations of different formulations and functions of risk communication, but also the underlying knowledge/power dynamics that underlie its constitution. In particular, it is hoped that the reflexive theoretical understanding presented here will help to bring some much needed conceptual clarity to academic and policy discourses about the use and utility of risk communication in advanced liberal societies.
Wardman
Jamie K
JK
Kings Centre for Risk Management, School of Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London, UK. jamie.wardman@kcl.ac.uk
D003142:Communication; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination / Q000379:methods*; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D011640:Public Policy; D012306:Risk; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D012308:Risk Management