The area of risk analysis is currently marked by a sharp dichotomy in the way the interactions between scientific experts, public decision makers and lay public are taken into account.

On one hand, a first paradigm ("paradigm of risk perception") emphasizes the discrepancy between scientific experts and public perceptions (see inter alia, Douglas, Slovis, Covello,…). Experts are seen to have rather convergent evaluation of risks; the public disagreements are the explained by different theories (idelology, loss of trust about institutions, rival rationality), but are systematically considered as sources of inefficiency.

On the other hand, the second paradigm (paradigm of public controversies) considers more specifically the interactions between public decision makers and scientific expertise (see inter alia Cambrosio & Limoges, Rip, Latour,…). In such a paradigm, the "public" is not considered as such, but it is taken as a "strategic resource" used by key actors in the controversy. It underlines the dynamics of the controversy, at the expert level or, more widely in public arenas and analyses the way these controversies influence decisions making processes.

The basic argument of this presentation is that it may be useful to make a bridge between these two paradigms since, to say it very briefly, the forces of one are the weakness of the other (and vice versa). However, such a tentative cannot be developed in abstracto, but has to be based on precise and empirical grounds. Therefore, we chose to deal with risk communication. What does risk communication mean in each paradigm? Who are the sources and the targets? What are the objectives and the means of communication? (…)

This general analysis is illustrated by ongoing research projects on mad cow crisis and on the use of GMOs in agriculture.

Go to . . .

1998 SRA-Europe Table of Contents
1998 SRA-Europe Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page