IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/idsxxx/v45y2014i2-3p7-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighing Up the Risks: The Challenge of Studying ‘Risk’ in Empirical Research

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Whitfield

Abstract

Studying multifaceted risks that are simultaneously and differently perceived and experienced presents significant challenges, but gaining insight into multiple realities and rationalities is crucial for achieving effective and collaborative governance. This article describes the challenges of a recent study that looked at how different actors, ranging from smallholder farmers to international biotechnology development projects, weigh up the risks associated with the uncertain future of maize agriculture in Kenya. It presents personal reflections on a 12‐month experience of applying a multi‐sited, ethnographic research approach in Kenya and the UK, in an attempt to observe the creation, perception and experience of risks. The article demonstrates the importance of history, knowledge, social and institutional settings, trust and politics in the ways that risks are created, perceived and experienced by these different actors, and argues for the necessity of engaging with these highly contextualised processes at individual, local and institutional levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Whitfield, 2014. "Weighing Up the Risks: The Challenge of Studying ‘Risk’ in Empirical Research," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(2-3), pages 7-17, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:idsxxx:v:45:y:2014:i:2-3:p:7-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1759-5436.12079
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louise Beveridge & Stephen Whitfield & Andy Challinor, 2018. "Crop modelling: towards locally relevant and climate-informed adaptation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 475-489, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:idsxxx:v:45:y:2014:i:2-3:p:7-17. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0265-5012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.