[en] The polarisation of risk perceptions between “experts” and “the publics” has been a major challenge in the development and operation of nuclear power plants across the world. For this reason, much research has been dedicated to better understand public risk perceptions. Yet, nuclear developments in India and many countries in developing Asia continue to be mired in conflicts with the public with vastly different sets of concerns, priorities, and interests that seem irreconcilable with those of the nuclear industry. This calls for a different perspective, and perhaps a broader approach, to understanding the apparent clash of risk perceptions between “experts” and “the publics”. Presenting original data collected from interviews with the nuclear establishment and civil society stakeholders in India, this chapter focuses on the points of convergences and divergences between the two groups. The goal here is not simply to present ‘the other side of the story’ and thus to emphasise polarisations between the two groups. It instead seeks to explore the full range of alternative perceptions evident through the interviews and thence to unpack and challenge practices through which nuclear risk comes to be seen as a straightforward clash of disparate risk perceptions. With this approach, the voices of moderation on both sides start to emerge, illuminating important conversations that can help depolarise the nuclear debate.
Disciplines :
Sociologie & sciences sociales
Auteur, co-auteur :
WONG, Catherine ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education (FLSHASE) > Identités, Politiques, Sociétés, Espaces (IPSE)
Co-auteurs externes :
no
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
The Clash of Risk Perceptions: Reconciling ‘the publics’ and ‘the experts’
Date de publication/diffusion :
2017
Titre de l'ouvrage principal :
Resurgence of Nuclear Power: Challenges and Opportunities for Asia
Abraham, I. (2013). The violence of postcolonial spaces: Kudankulam. In: Conflict, Security and Development (CSD) Conference: Habitations of Violence. Hyderabad.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (2010). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bidwai, P. (2012). The politics of climate change and the global crisis: Mortgaging our future. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkley, Los Angeles, California: University of California Press Berkeley.
EPW. (2012). Cooking up environmental assessments. Economic and Political Weekly. XLVI, 8, 7-8.
Fereday, J. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Flynn, J. (2003). Nuclear stigma. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 326-352). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freudenburg, W. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.
Freudenburg, W. (1993). Risk and recreancy weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71(4), 909-932.
Freudenburg, W. (2003). Institutional failure and the organizational amplification of risks: The need for a closer look. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 102-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gadgil, M. (2014). Knowledge as power. The Hindu. 13 January.
Gaikwad, R. (2014). Under nuclear plant's shadow, Moticher's women refuse to vote. The Hindu. 28 April.
Gupta, C., & Sharma, M. (2008). Contested coastlines: Fisherfolk, nations, and borders in South Asia. New Delhi: Routledge.
Healy, S. (2004). A 'post foundational' interpretation of risk: Risk as 'performance'. Journal of Risk Research, 7(3), 277-296.
Jasanoff, S. (1994). Learning from disaster: Risk management after Bhopal. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jayaraman, N. (2013). The coast is not clear. Hindustan Times. 10 March.
Jebaraj, P. (2012). Environment reports have 'cooked data' says tribunal. The Hindu. 13 February.
Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N. F., et al. (2010). The social amplification of risk-assessing 15 years of research and theory. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception (pp. 317-344). London: Routledge.
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2014). Expertise and experience: A deliberative system of a functional division of labor for post-normal risk governance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 442-465.
Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lockie, S., & Measham, T. (2012). Social perspectives on risk and uncertainty: Reconciling the spectacular and the mundane. In S. Lockie & T. Measham (Eds.), Risk and social theory in environmental management (pp. 1-14). Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.
Muralidharan, S. (2004). Bhopal: Continuing crisis institutional. Economic and Political Weekly, 39(49), 5196-5198.
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest & K. M. McQeen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137-162). Plymouth: AltaMira Press.
NDTV. (2011b). Students of Tata Institute of Social Sciences protest against Jaitapur N-plant NDTV. 11 May.
Perrow, C. (1991). A society of organizations. Theory and Society, 20(6), 725-762.
Reiss, Jr A. J. (1992) The institutionalization of risk. In: L. Clarke & J.F. Short (Eds.), (pp. 299-308). Boulder: Westview Press Oxford.
Renn, O. (2006). Risk Governance: Towards an integrative approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.
Renn, O. (2014). Towards a socio-ecological foundation for environmental risk research. In: S. Lockie, D.A. Sonnenfeld & D. Fisher (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of social and environmental change (pp. 207-220). Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.
Renn, O. (2015). Stakeholder and public involvement in risk Governance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(1), 8-20.
Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2012). Complexity uncertainty and ambiguity in inclusive risk governance. In S. Lockie & T. Measham (Eds.), Risk and social theory in environmental management (pp. 59-76). Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.
Roy, R. (2010). Haripur nuclear power plant becomes bone of contention. Business Standard. 10 February.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Short, J. F. (1984). The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49(6), 711-725.
Short, J. F., & Clarke, L. (1992). Organizations, uncertainty and risk. Boulder: Westview Press, Oxford.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risk. Environment, 21(3), 14-29.
Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2010). The socio-political economy of nuclear energy in China and India. Energy, 35(9), 3803-3813.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Srikant, P. (2009). Koodankulam anti-nuclear movement: A struggle for alternative development? Working paper no. 232. The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.
Srikant, P. (2010). Reconceptualising rights-A study of micro social movements in India (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Mysore, Bangalore.
Times of India. (2013). Parties oppose Haripur N-plant. Times of India. 21 October.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 271-305.
Wong, C. M. L. (2015a). The mutable nature of risk and acceptability: A hybrid risk Governance framework. Risk Analysis, 35(11), 1969-1982.
Wong, C. M. L. (2015b). Organisational risk perception and transformations in India's nuclear establishment. Journal of Risk Research, 18(8), 1012-1029.
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-ay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 44-83). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
