Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
KiS baner

Tom 53 Nr 1 (2009): Poza utartym szlakiem

Artykuły i rozprawy

Społeczna konstrukcja ryzyka technologicznego

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/KiS.2009.53.1.3
Przesłane: 20 lipca 2021
Opublikowane: 23 marca 2009

Abstrakt

The decisions concerning post-modern technologies, which have many good and bad (and often hardly predictable) consequences that modify our world, involve difficult scientific, political and axiological questions. The management of technological risk ever more frequently leads to social conflicts where expert knowledge clashes with (not always manifested) preferences regarding the desirable socio-economic development of our world. These “technological conflicts”, being an area where the legitimization of both science and authority are questioned, create, nevertheless, the platform for the solution of this crisis. The article reviews the range of sociological problems related to the management and communication of technological risk as well as to its social representation (both in the form of common-sense and scientific knowledge). It also indicates the trans-disciplinary and philosophical dimensions of this issue and stresses the importance and social functions of the democratic debate on the risk and advantages of post-modern technology and their governance.

Bibliografia

  1. Bauman Zygmunt, 1995, Wieloznaczność nowoczesna, nowoczesność wieloznaczna, tłum. Janina Bauman, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  2. Bauman Zygmunt, 2008, Wspólnota. W poszukiwaniu bezpieczeństwa w niepewnym świecie, tłum. Janusz Margański, Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków.
  3. Beck Ulrich, 1997, The Construction of the Other Side of Modernity: Counter-Modernisation, w: Ulrich Beck, The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking of Modernity in the Global Social Order, Polity Press, Cambridge.
  4. Beck Ulrich, 2004, Społeczeństwo ryzyka, tłum. Stanisław Cieśla, Scholar, Warszawa.
  5. Beck Ulrich, 2005, Władza i przeciwwładza w epoce globalnej. Nowa ekonomia polityki światowej, tłum. Jerzy Łoziński, Scholar, Warszawa.
  6. Bernstein Peter L., 1997, Przeciw bogom. Niezwykłe dzieje ryzyka, tłum. Tadeusz Baszniak, Patryk Borzęcki, WIG-Press, Warszawa.
  7. Capra Fritjof, 1987, Punkt zwrotny. Nauka, społeczeństwo, nowa kultura, tłum. Ewa Woydyłło, PIW, Warszawa.
  8. Cross Frank B., 1998, Facts and Values in Risk Assessment, „Reliability Engineering and System Safety”, t. 59, s. 27–40.
  9. Dake Karl, 1992, Myths of Nature: Culture and Social Construction of Risk, „Journal of Social Issues”, t. 48, s. 21–32.
  10. Davies J. Clarence, Covello Vincent T., Allen Frederick W. (red.), 1987, Risk Communication, The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
  11. Douglas Mary, Wildavsky Aaron, 1982, Risk and Culture?: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  12. Dunlap Riley E., Kraft Michael E., Rosa Eugene A. (red.), 1993, Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
  13. Fischhoff Baruch i in., 1981, Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge–New York.
  14. Gadomska Magdalena, 1988, Public Acceptability of Technology and the Alternatives of Socio-Economical Development, w: G. Borrelli, M. Gadomska, Aspetti sociali del rischio nel workshop EnvRisk’88, zeszyty RTI/STUDI-VASA, nr 9.
  15. Gadomska Magdalena, 1989, „Polish press coverage of Chernobyl incident: A sociological study of communication failure”. Studium wykonane na zamówienie International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg.
  16. Gadomska Magdalena, 1994. Risk Communication, w: Radiation and Society — Comprehending Radiation Risk, praca zbiorowa,. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
  17. Gadomska Magdalena, 2006, Il rischio tecnologico e la società moderna: la comunicazione come barriera e come risorsa, „Sociologia”, t. 40, nr 1.
  18. Gadomska Magdalena, 2008, Potoczna percepcja i spoleczna akceptacja skomplikowanych technologii: Przypadek syntezy termojądrowej, „Postępy Techniki Jądrowej”, t. 51, z. 1.
  19. Gadomska Magdalena, w druku, Scientific Information and Lay Awareness of Fusion Technology: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Message Impact on Attitudes, „Journal of Risk Research”.
  20. Giarini Orio, Stahel Walter, 1989, The Limits to Certainty, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
  21. Giddens Anthony, 2008, Konsekwencje nowoczesności, tłum. Ewa Klekot, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków.
  22. Goszczyńska Maryla, Tyszka Tadeusz, 1986, Jak spostrzegamy ryzyko, „Przegląd Psychologiczny”, nr 1.
  23. Goszczyńska Maryla, Tyszka Tadeusz, Slovic Paul, 1991, Risk Perception in Poland: A Comparison with Three Other Countries, „Journal of Behavioral Decision Making”, t. 4, nr 3.
  24. Hiskes Richard P., 1992, The Democracy of Risk, „Industrial Crisis Quarterly”, t. 6, s. 259–278.
  25. Hiskes Richard P., 1998, Democracy, Risk, and Community: Technological Hazards and the Evolution of Liberalism, Oxford University Press, New York.
  26. Johnson-Laird P. N., 1983, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA.
  27. Kasperson Roger E., Stallen Pieter Jan M. (red.), 1991, Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht–Boston.
  28. Mandl Christoph, Lathrop John, 1983,. LEG Risk Assessments: Experts Disagree, w: Howard Kunreuther i in. (red.), Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of Liquefied Energy Gas Facilities in Four Countries, Springer, Berlin–New York.
  29. Otway Harry, Peltu Malcolm, 1985, Regulating Industrial Risks, Butterworths, London.
  30. Plough Alonyo, Krimsky Sheldon, 1987, The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context, „Science, Technology and Human Values”, t. 12, nr 3–4.
  31. Renn Ortwin i in., 1992, The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications, „Journal of Social Issues”, t. 48, nr 4.
  32. Shrader-Frechette Kristin, 2005, Mortgaging the Future: Dumping Ethics with Nuclear Waste, „Science and Engineering Ethics”, t. 11, nr 4.
  33. Short James F., 1984, The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis, „American Sociological Review”, t. 49, s. 711–725.
  34. Slovic Paul, 1987, Perception of Risk, „Science”, nr 236.
  35. Slovic Paul, 2000, The Perception of Risk, Earthscan, London.
  36. Sokołowska Joanna, Tyszka Tadeusz, 1995, Perception and Acceptance of Technological and Environmental Risk: Why are Poor Countries Less Concerned, „Risk Analysis: An International Journal”, t. 15, nr 6.
  37. Thompson Michael, Ellis Richard, Wildavsky Aaron, 1990, Cultural Theory, Westview Press, Boulder.
  38. Tyszka Tadeusz, Goszczyńska Maryla, Slovic Paul, 1992, Co jest stałe, a co zmienne w spostrzeganiu ryzyka: Porównawcze badania percepcji ryzyka w Polsce i w innych krajach, „Prakseologia”, nr 3–4.
  39. Wildavsky Aaron, 1996, Culture and Social Theory, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
  40. Wilkins Lee, Patterson Philip (red.), 1991, Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk, and Public Policy, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

1 2 3 4 5 > >> 

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.