IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i2p291-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communication: The Fernald Radium Case

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Duffield Hamilton

Abstract

Risk disputes are often characterized by tensions between technical and cultural understandings of risk and by communication practices that reflect those differing perspectives. This study considers how participants in risk debates draw upon and combine aspects of technical and cultural rationality as broad orientations to risk in expressing their views and formulating persuasive appeals during risk debates. Rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke's (1984) concept of frames of acceptance is used to analyze a case study involving competing priorities for radium stored at the Fernald site, a former Department of Energy nuclear weapons facility. A rhetorical analysis is conducted using the transcript from a 1995 public meeting during which local residents and a nuclear medicine expert discussed priorities of Fernald site cleanup versus providing radium stored on site for promising cancer research. Two tensions are identified that fostered disagreement among discussants: the first a tension between a local or global context for the controversy and the second a tension between competing definitions of public participation for this issue. This study analyzes the rhetorical strategies by which participants in the Fernald radium debate articulated these tensions and argues that technical and cultural rationality (Plough & Krimsky, 1987) acted as sources of rhetorical invention influencing participants' individual frames of acceptance and the ways they defined and interpreted the situation and crafted persuasive appeals.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Duffield Hamilton, 2003. "Exploring Technical and Cultural Appeals in Strategic Risk Communication: The Fernald Radium Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 291-302, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:291-302
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson, 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 275-281, September.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. Elaine Vaughan, 1995. "The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 169-180, April.
    4. Seth Tuler, 2000. "Forms of talk in policy dialogue: distinguishing between adversarial and collaborative discourse," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    2. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    3. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    4. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    5. Franz, Reiner & Enneking, U., 2005. "Bestimmungsgründe der Verbraucherverunsicherung im Bereich der Lebensmittelsicherheit," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    6. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    7. Ortwin Renn & Birgit Blättel‐Mink & Hans Kastenholz, 1997. "Discursive methods in environmental decision making," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 218-231, September.
    8. Dennis S. Mileti & Colleen Fitzpatrick, 1992. "The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 393-400, September.
    9. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    10. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    11. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    12. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    13. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Gu, Qianxin & Chen, Yang & Pody, Robert & Cheng, Rong & Zheng, Xiang & Zhang, Zhenxing, 2015. "Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 291-299.
    15. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    16. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    17. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    18. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    19. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    20. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.

    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:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:2:p:291-302. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.