cic ARIEL PHOTOCOPY ILbiad! 517260 ILL Number: 14108660 OWT Borrower: EEM ichigan State University 00 Library Intertiorary Loan Fast Lansing, Ml 48824-1048 [CIC] Xegular Ship vie: CIC Charge fancost $251 Patron: Rudy, Alan Reference: his atlile comes to you fom; riveriy of lino at Urbane-Chempaign (UI) ENOURNAL OLX Serial Tie: Journal of sk research. Article Author: Article Tite: Eugene Rosa; Metatheoreticl Foundations of PostNomal Risk Imprint: London ; Routledge, c1998- Volume: 1 Issue: 4 MonthlYear: 1998 Pages: 1544 OCLC/Dociine; 38549223 Fax: Avie 36.8.221.150 Lender Sting: *UIU,CGUINTE, VGM,UNL Download Date: 11/7/2006 09:42:13 AM Shelf SOU A ¢] Sia Cardex Other LoclNotes Ilse" — lille 2°Joumal of Risk Research 1 (1), 15-44 (1998) Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk* EUGENE A. ROSA. Department of Sociology, Washington State Univers, Pullman, WA 99164 USA Abstract ‘The first goal of this paper is to sketch a three-part, synoptic framework that could cease the way beyond the current impasse of competition among the various meta- theoretical orientations (e.g. realism vs. social constructivism, positivism ys. cultural theory, etc.) in the risk field, ‘The framework will be constructed on a foundation of ‘metatheoretical principles and its form will accommodate the best features of the ‘competing orientations. Because the articulated principles will build first on a position of realism, we can refer to the framework as a whole as Reconstructed Realism (RR). Because the content of the framework comprises its first two key parts, ontological realism and epistemological hierarchicalism, we can refer to the content by the acronym OREH. The second goal of the paper is to epistemically connect the synoptic framework, RR, to a methodological framework for conducting risk analysis, thereby providing a bridge between theory and practice. ‘The existing methodological frame- ‘work that bears logical symmetry to RR is the one developed by Funtowicz and Ravetz, in a suite of papers (1985; 1991; 1992; 1993; 1994) and which they call ‘post-normal science’. Connecting RR — the synoptic framework under development — with post normal science completes the third part of the framework, and the resulting product is properly Iabelled ‘post-normal risk.” Our life of fishing is so perilous that even though we worship all the gods in the world, many of us sill die untimely deaths. Noriko Ogiwara Dragon Sword and Wind Child 1. Introduction Risk hasa very long past, but very short history. Risk history, now three decades and over three thousand books and articles old (Renn, 1998), continues to mature as a distinctly identifiable field of study. As part of that maturity we can detect the emergence of ‘This paper has continclly improved through the varius sages of is development besanse of apporsuites to prosont earlier versions at ‘The London Schoc! of Eeonomics and Poltial Science, The Swedish Collegum for ‘vanced Study in the Soil Sciences, and The Wisensceftszontsm Berlin and Beease it atacte the thaw ght fl ‘comments and eritisms of Rober Brll, Mario Bunge, Tom Burs, Tom Diet, Riley Dualap, Lee Presse, Sivio Fintovice, Rob Grillin, Louis Guay, Katherine Hayles Carlo Jaeger, Jim Jasper, Valerie Jeaness, Alan Mazi, Chandra Marker, Jerry Rave, Ortein Reon, Tom Ruel, Jim Shor, and Kristin ShraderFrechetc, Pal Ser, ‘Torn Weble, Steve Zavestosk, nd the whonymas reviewers Arn ealier versio of this paper Was preseated at the T986 annual mectings of SRAEurope, 3-4 fine, Uniersy of Srey, Guilford, UK. 1366.9877 © 1998 E & FN Spon16 Rosa consensis over several key foundational issues. First, there is growing consensus that while the standard model of scientific investigation remains a necessary form of risk analysis (especially in the tasks of risk identification and estimation), it isno longer a sufficient form (especialy in the areas ofrisk evaluation and management). Second, a corollary of the first generalization, is that there remains considerable work to be done to understand the ‘uman perceptions and responses to identified risks. This need reinforces the importance of continuing to define the risk field as an inherently interdisciplinary activity, and ‘acknowledge the central role of the social sciences in this challenge. Third, there isa con- senais, perhaps the strongest of the three, of the need to devise better procedures for the ‘democratic management of risks in society (Kunreuther and Linnerooth, 1982; Wynne, 1987; NRC, 1989; Shrader-Frechette, 1991; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992; Rosa ef al, 1993; Beck, 1995 [1991]; Renn et a., 1995; Rosa and Clark, 1998; Stern and Fineberg, 1996). Consensus one and three converge to produce a fourth consen sis; namely that the field of risk is atopic involving scientific investigation where the long venerated philosophical dic- tum of separating facts from vahtes, of separating the categorical from the normative (Don't mix is with ought’), is relentlessly blurred (Toulmin, 1982; Graham et al, 1988; Shrader-Frechette 1991).! The motivation for the ideas presented here is the premise that our efforts to get on with the challenges contained within the above areas of consensus are impeded by the absence of a synoptic framework to orient our investigations in a disciplined way.? ‘Too much of our effort toward understanding risk, it seems, is devoted to debating the merits of competing paradigms and metatheoretical orientations (revealed preference veraus perceived preference, cultural theory versis rational action, social constructivism versus naive positivism, methodological individualism versis methodological holism, etc.) with adherents to each point of view becoming more deeply entrenched within the first principles of their orientation the longer the debate continues.’ Such dialectic is, no doubt, an ineluctable feature of incipient fields of inquiry and essential, under most circumstances, to their intellectual vitality. Yet, its unbounded continuance threatens our ability to develop a cumulative understanding of risk, Here I will sketch out the key elements of the synoptic framework premised above. It will be sketched in abstract and meta-terms, leaving the details of examples and implications to the next stage of work. The framework will be erected on a foundation of ‘metatheoretical elements derived from realism. We can therefore refer to the structure of the framework as Reconstructed Realism or RR“ Its planks consist of ontological realism "One of the most significant, but least recognized, features of Thoms Kuhn's (1970 (1962) description of ioe tie pratie was Uh ftrodusion af an awareness of the role of vaulejedgments in scence. Furthermore, KOA vias Explicit about the barring ofthe value based normative prt of sence withthe categorical par A change took place in madeen sence with respect to tho tim honoured philosophical theorem: "1" cant imply “ought” ‘That theorem ha, in prog, become ate, ad is no longer everywhere honaured. A number of contemporary plilorophers ave discovered imporiantcomext in which the normale and deserve ae inextricably minad, Is” fnd “aught” are by n0 means alvays so separate as they have seemed? Postscript to Kuhn, 1970 [1962}20)), This is noe to deny she avellehily of dassiication frameworks (Renn, 1992) and of integrated frameworks (Ksperson eal 198), but to point to the need for a framework that is both philosophically grounded and capable of organizing aernive perspes 5 the collection by Golding and Krimsky (1952) nicely lays cut most of the key perspectives From the point of view of social sent chery the orientation ofthe framework, tbough not its details noe its refinement to risk is comsisent wih te etal ream of Donald Campbell (Cook ind Campbel, 1979) nd Ro Bhaskar (1978 (1975) and the environmental realism of Dunlap and Catton (199), From a philosophy of scence ‘tandpoint ti conssent vith the ‘naturalist? postin of sich philosophers as Lary Lasden (1984 1980), Delley