Figure 4 - uploaded by Denis Fischbacher-Smith
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The manner in which organizations are able to accept challenges to their worldviews is an important element in the identification and prevention of risk and the development of the policy spaces that seek to control the consequences of hazardous activities. A key consideration here is the manner in which paradigm blindness can prevent organizations...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... now need to contextualize these issues into a framework that allows us to conceptualize these processes and in a manner that would be transferable to a concrete policy problem. Figure 4 can be used to suggest that the initial framing of any policy space gives shape to the main goals and questions that require interventions to alleviate the problems. Inevitably, this will involve multiple actors who will each bring different perspectives to bear on the policy space and who will seek to provide technical verifi cation for their ideological stance on the problems. ...
Context 2
... the most part, this is a highly technocratic process and is often shaped by the power of the various protagonists and their access to expertise in support of their constructions of risk. Figure 4 also highlights two main theoretical contributions that are useful in assessing the nature of debates around risk. The fi rst is the relationships between technical verifi cation and ideological choice ( Fischer, 1980 ) and its impacts on the development of technocracy and the utilization of local knowledge ( Fischer, 1990( Fischer, , 2000( Fischer, , 2005 ). ...
Citations
... The centrality of science and its experts in helping the public and policymakers make sense of the smoking, MMR vaccine and sugar risks suggests that technical experts have the capacity to influence the perception of others in both obvious and hidden ways. This view is in line with the assertion made in several studies, such as Collingridge and Reeve (1986), Jasanoff (1996) and Fischbacher-Smith (2012), that expertise is seen as a sense-making aid to other stakeholders engaged in dialogue. The centrality of science and its experts suggests that technical experts are key influential amplification agents during unfolding public health controversies, especially in the policy context. ...
... At least, this created doubt in the minds of the public, as there was little or no causal evidence linking smoking tobacco and lung cancer. These findings correspond with the conclusion of other studies such as Saloojee and Dagli (2000), Trochim et al. (2003), World Health (2000) and Fischbacher-Smith (2012). The relationship between economic power and policymaking has also been suggested by previous studies (Smith 1988). ...
... Power can also be exercised through mediated sources (such as technical expertise or media sources) whereby the public makes sense of the risk faced, which in turn shapes its perceptions, desires and needs (Lukes 1974(Lukes , 2004. In the analysis of the smoking, MMR vaccine and sugar debates, technical experts are key influential agents in making sense of the risk faced in the identification, construction and communication of the risk (Collingridge and Reeve 1986;Jasanoff 1996;Fischbacher-Smith 2012). However, a critical review of literature on 'expertise' and the analysis of the smoking, MMR vaccine and sugar debates raised some caution around how technical expertise is used as a sense-making aid in policy inquiry relating to risk. ...
This chapter begins by re-highlighting the weaknesses in existing conceptualisations of the social amplification of risk framework and then provides a detailed account of social amplification of risk from the power and expertise perspectives. The account of the social amplification of risk framework provided here is based on insight from the literature (see Chaps. 1, 2 and 3). The account presented in this chapter focuses less on the ‘who’ factors used in the existing conceptualisation of the social amplification of risk framework, especially in the information mechanism stage. Instead, the emphasis here is on the ‘what’ factors shaping the social amplification (and attenuation) of risk. The emphasis on the ‘who’ factor in the existing conceptualisation of the social amplification of risk framework neglects critical underlying and salient factors that shape social amplification (or attenuation) processes in risk communication about public health and safety. Addressing these weaknesses in the existing conceptualisation of the social amplification of risk framework is essential, as the social amplification of risk framework is a key theoretical framework in the field of risk communication that shapes the understanding of individual and group perception and behavioural responses, and how risk is communicated. Moreover, the insight provided by the Policy Evaluation Risk Communication framework, originally designed within the policy context in this book, provides valuable evidence on how power and expertise shape social amplification or attenuation of risk that is applicable in broader contexts. Therefore, this can be used to adequately address the failing of the social amplification of risk framework.
... In addition, the policy perspective of government departments of public health was aided by the advice and recommendations of expert technical committees and advisory bodies. This observation is in line with the view that sees science and its experts as a sense-making aid to risk issues within the policy domain (Collingridge and Reeve 1986;Jasanoff 1996;Fischbacher-Smith 2012). ...
This chapter discusses the cross-case empirical findings of the smoking, MMR vaccine and sugar safety debates through the lens of the Policy Evaluation Risk Communication framework described in Chap. 4. The chapter begins by briefly summarising the elements of the Policy Evaluation Risk Communication framework using this as a lens to discuss the empirical findings from the smoking, MMR vaccine and sugar safety debates (presented in Chaps. 4, 5 and 6 respectively). The implications of the empirical findings for risk communication about public health and safety and its associated policymaking are then set out, consolidating findings from the three examined case study debates. The chapter concludes by describing how policy regulation transitions in an evolving risk debate.
... The framework identifies four levels in this transition (Fischer 1995, p. 243): the technical analytical discourse (technical verification), situational validation, societal vindication and ideological choice. These four layers are set in such a way that the process of technical verification is influenced by and influences those normative processes of local validation and societal vindication that determine the outcomes of ideological choices made by policymakers (Fischbacher-Smith 2012). ...
... Technical evaluation of the risk is carried out at the technical verification stage to clarify on what is known, and on areas of uncertainty (Fischer 2003). Disagreement may exist between different expert and public groups based on available evidence and its interpretation, as the debate here determines where the burden of proof lies (Fischbacher-Smith 2012). The outcome of the technical verification then leads to evaluation and social construction that raises questions of validation and whether a particular line of argument can be adopted in a local context; "validation is an interpretive process of reasoning that takes place within the framework of the normative belief systems brought to bear on the problem situation" (p. ...
... Fischbacher-Smith (2012) explain that technical analysis of risk takes place between the processes of technical verification and situational validation. The risk acceptability debate takes place between the processes of situational validation and social vindication, and, as we move towards social vindication and ideological choice, the risk debate becomes more politicised, and political power is perceived more as shaping the risk arguments (Fischbacher-Smith 2012). ...
Chapter 10.1007/978-3-030-19314-0_1 has set out the problem space and the book’s aim, which ultimately is to examine how power and expertise in risk communication about public health and safety relate to policymaking. The book takes the view that risk communication is a field of ‘play and competition’ between the interests of competing stakeholders. Within this, the book recognises that the process of risk communication is about both winning an argument and competition for resources. This chapter begins by reviewing the literature on public health policymaking and unpicks the nature of problems faced in public health risk. It then considers the technique of risk assessment and examines the role of expertise in policy inquiry relating to risk.
... In addition, the translation of knowledge to use in risk communication via "expertise" (Pender 2001;Power 2007) and associated calculative practices points to other weaknesses of the SARF. Science and its experts are largely relied upon to make sense of the risk faced (Collingridge and Reeve 1986;Jasanoff 1996;Fischbacher-Smith 2012). Therefore, how expertise is brought to bear on risk has implications for how a risk signal is interpreted and accepted. ...
The social amplification of risk framework is an influential framework in the field of risk communication. It provides a useful lens to examine how a risk argument becomes amplified in a policy context, and it is therefore central to this book. This chapter provides an account of the social amplification of risk framework and explores key concepts within the literature that inform the critique of the framework. Specifically, this chapter teases out the role of power and expertise, and then communication and trust in shaping the social amplification (or attenuation) of public health risk and safety.
... Risk communication is the exchange of risk information (resulting from both human and natural processes (Löfstedt 2008;Veland and Aven 2013)) between various stakeholder groups, such as government agencies, professional organisations, scientists, corporations and individual citizens (Covello, Slovic, and von Winterfeldt 1986). Risk communication contributes significantly to shaping the public understanding of risk and influences the formulation of policy perspectives around managing risk (Fischbacher-Smith 2012;Irwin 2014;Smith 1988;Stilgoe 2007;Irwin, Jones, and Stilgoe 2006;Welsh and Wynne 2013). ...
... What is also important is how power, expertise, communication and trust are contingent upon the evolving nature of information, evidence and knowledge and how that can potentially shift risk arguments forward and backward between under critical and over-critical models (Fischbacher-Smith 2012;Smith 1990). As information, evidence and knowledge become available, it is possible that the uncertainty present in the discussions may decrease. ...
This paper presents a detailed account of policy-making in a contemporary risk communication arena, where strong power dynamics are at play that have hitherto lacked theoretical analysis and empirical validation. Specifically, it expands on the understanding of how public health policy decisions are made when there is a weak evidential base and where multiple interpretations, power dynamics and values are brought to bear on issues of risk and uncertainty. The aim of the paper is to understand the role that power and expertise play in shaping public health risk communication within policy-related debates. By drawing on insight from a range of literatures, the paper argues that there several interacting factors that shape how a particular narrative gains prominence within a wider set of perspectives and how the arguments and findings associated with that perspective become amplified within the context of policy choices. These findings are conceptualised into a new model – a policy evaluation risk communication (PERC) framework – and are then tested using the Electronic cigarette debate as a case study.
... The pre-crisis stagetermed a crisis of management (Smith, 1990(Smith, , 1995 allows for vulnerabilities to be embedded in organisational routines and they arose out of issues relating to systems design and the generation of emergent conditions that invariably exist within complex socio-technical systems. In addition, there are potential problems around the dominant mindset that exists in organisations and which serves to shape the cultural paradigm through which decisions are taken (Fischbacher-Smith, 2012). This initial phase of a crisis is also typified by constraints around the flows of information which arise from both structural and cultural elements within the organisation and which shape and constrain the information around early warnings and weak signals (Ansoff, 1975(Ansoff, , 1980Fischbacher-Smith and Fischbacher-Smith, 2014). ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of the business continuity management (BCM) process and to frame it within wider literature on the performance of socio-technical systems. Despite the growth in BCM activities in organisations, some questions remain as to whether academic research has helped to drive this process. The paper seeks to stimulate discussion within this journal of the interplay between organisational performance and BCM and to frame it within the context of the potential tensions between effectiveness and efficiency.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper considers how BCM is defined within the professional and academic communities that work in the area. It deconstructs these definitions in order to and set out the key elements of BCM that emerge from the definitions and considers how the various elements of BCM can interact with each other in the context of organisational performance.
Findings
The relationships between academic research in the area of crisis management and the practice-based approaches to business continuity remain somewhat disjointed. In addition, recent work in the safety management literature on the relationships between success and failure can be seen to offer some interesting challenges for the practice of business continuity.
Research limitations/implications
The paper integrates work in safety, crisis and risk management with BCM in order to identify the main areas of overlap and synergy between these areas of academic research. By definition, the need for business continuity represents the risks and cost of failure in organisational performance in the absence of continuity. This calls into question the effectiveness of organisational processes around decision making, control, and strategic management. The paper sets out a series of issues that are in need of further research.
Practical implications
The paper draws on some of the practice-based definitions of BCM and highlights the limitations and challenges associated with the construct. The paper sets out challenges for BCM based upon theoretical challenges arising in cognate areas of research. The aim is to ensure that BCM is integrated with emerging concepts in other aspects of the management of uncertainty and to do so in a strategic context.
Originality/value
Academic research on performance reflects both the variety and the multi-disciplinary nature of the issues around measuring and managing performance. Failures in organisational performance have also invariably attracted considerable attention due to the nature of a range of disruptive events. The paper reveals some of the inherent paradoxes that sit at the core of the BCM process and its relationships with organisational performance.
... Expertise is therefore a central component of the ways in which risk is determined; but expert judgments are domain specific and this can generate limitations around complex multi-dimensional forms of hazard that have a low probability of occurrence (Beecher-Monas, 1998;Fischer, 1990;Dwyer, 2007;Fischbacher-Smith, 2010). To that end, the journal has also considered how these extreme events can be planned for (Bailey et al, 2010;Ormerod, 2010;Neal, 2014) and the difficulties that this generates around the dominant world views held by managers (McKelvey and Andriani, 2010;Fischbacher-Smith, 2012). ...
... The value of a multi-disciplinary journal such as Risk Management has been its ability to transcend boundaries and do so in a way that allows experiences across a range of contexts to be brought together and exposed to different theoretical perspectives. We have argued that a narrow perspective on risk may lead to paradigm blindness (Fischbacher- Smith, 2012) and inhibit effective learning. The argument that the destructive aspects associated with risk need to be seen within the context of production and the flows that underpin them has also been highlighted as a key component of a more holisitic approach to risk (Hudson, 2009;Johnson, 2009;Fischbacher-Smith and Smith, 2015). ...
... The pre-crisis stagetermed a crisis of management (Smith, 1990(Smith, , 1995 allows for vulnerabilities to be embedded in organisational routines and they arose out of issues relating to systems design and the generation of emergent conditions that invariably exist within complex socio-technical systems. In addition, there are potential problems around the dominant mindset that exists in organisations and which serves to shape the cultural paradigm through which decisions are taken (Fischbacher-Smith, 2012). This initial phase of a crisis is also typified by constraints around the flows of information which arise from both structural and cultural elements within the organisation and which shape and constrain the information around early warnings and weak signals (Ansoff, 1975(Ansoff, , 1980Fischbacher-Smith and Fischbacher-Smith, 2014). ...
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore the notion of effectiveness in the context of organisational crisis. It considers the “darker” side of organisational effectiveness by exploring the processes by which effectiveness can be eroded as an organisation moves from an ordered state, through a complex one, and into a state of chaos, or crisis. It brings together complementary literatures on risk, crisis management, and complexity, and uses those lenses to frame some of the key processes that allow organisations to transition to a state that shapes their inabilities to remain effective.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper sets out a theoretical framework for the analysis of a crisis event and does so in a way that emphasises the role of the human element in the various stages of a crisis: the incubation phase, the operational crisis, and the post-event legitimation phase. The paper uses the emerging crisis around the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 to illustrate some of the task demands associated with a crisis and the manner in which crisis events challenge the efficiencies and capabilities of organisations to deal with complex, multi-layered issues in which uncertainty is high. Given the emergent nature of that particular crisis, the use of the case is purely illustrative rather than analytically grounded in a normal case study approach.
Findings
– The paper highlights a number of underlying elements that contribute to the generation of crises and offers recommendations for managers on how to deal with those demands. The paper shows how an organisation can move from an ordered state into a complex or chaotic one and highlights some of the problems that arise when an organisation does not have the capabilities to respond to the task demands generated by such a shift in the environment.
Practical implications
– The paper challenges some of the normal practices of management in a “steady state” environment and highlights the need to consider the organisational capabilities that are necessary to deal with the transition from a stable to an unstable system state and ensure organisational effectiveness in the process. A core message within the paper is that the “normal” processes of management can contribute to the generation of crises as organisations prioritise short-term efficiencies over the strategies for longer-term effectiveness. The implications for crisis management practices are discussed.
Social implications
– The paper considers an issue that has wider applicability within society namely the relationships between organisational effectiveness and risk. The issues raised in the paper have applicability in a range of other societal settings.
Originality/value
– The key output from the paper is the development of a theoretical framework that allows for an analysis of the relationships between crises and organisational effectiveness. The paper argues that effectiveness and crisis management are intrinsically linked and that crises occur when organisational effectiveness is impaired. The paper highlights the role that template-based approaches to dealing with complex problems can have in terms of the generation of crisis events.
Crisis management research traditionally focuses on the role of formal communication networks in the escalation and management of organisational crises. Here, we consider instead informal and unobservable networks. The paper explores how hidden informal exchanges can impact upon organisational decision-making and performance, particularly around inter-agency working, as knowledge distributed across organisations and shared between organisations is often shared through informal means and not captured effectively through the formal decision-making processes. Early warnings and weak signals about potential risks and crises are therefore often missed. We consider the implications of these dynamics in terms of crisis avoidance and crisis management.
