Author
Listed:
- Camille La Brooy
- Bridget Pratt
- Margaret Kelaher
Abstract
This paper explores the role of consensus statements in a risk society. It uses Beck’s theory of risk to show that scientists have employed consensus statements in order to re-establish faith in science. Through analysing the goals of participants in consensus fora and comparing them to the fora processes, this paper considers how consensus statements and guidelines in public health can be viewed as remedies for the decline in expert trust experienced in the current risk society. To collect data, 25 interviews were undertaken with consensus panel participants from the USA, UK and Australia. Interviewees were from peak national agencies/commissioning agencies and were categorised as policymaker, practitioner and consumer stakeholders. Participants made recommendations for improving consensus processes in order to mitigate perceptions of risk. These were: (1) clearly stated goals; (2) robust, evidence-based and transparent processes of methodological development and participation/deliberation/decision-making; (3) diverse stakeholder representation, including increased consumer participation; (4) transparency about conflicts of interest; and, (5) robust, carefully worded recommendations. Poor-quality consensus statements can further entrench scepticism about the scientific enterprise. While consensus statements can be seen as a tool for moderating perceptions of risk, policymakers and scientists must ensure the integrity, strength and transparency of their research methods. This has the potential to facilitate policy, improve scientific accountability to the public and legitimise processes. While fostering greater trust is not a primary objective for scientists, an increase in legitimacy of process can be an important unintended consequence of improved quality consensus statements and an important antidote to the risk society.
Suggested Citation
Camille La Brooy & Bridget Pratt & Margaret Kelaher, 2020.
"What is the role of consensus statements in a risk society?,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 664-677, May.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:5:p:664-677
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1628094
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:23:y:2020:i:5:p:664-677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.