Syllabus: Risky Environments and Risky Technologies

Download this syllabus in Microsoft Word (.doc) format

X:XX-X:XX Xday and Xday, Room XXX
Prerequisite: None

Prof. Stentor Danielson
Office: XXX Building, Room XXX
Phone: xXXX
Email: sdanielson@XXXXXXX.edu
Office hours: Tuesday 2:00-5:00 or by appointment

People have always been subject to risks that threaten their lives and livelihoods, but only in modern times has "risk" become a political issue of its own. From radon to nuclear power, forest fires to climate change, there seems to be no end to the things that might hurt us.

To say that risk is a political issue means that an "objective" scientific analysis is not enough. Scientists struggle to analyze many risks in the face of deep uncertainties and resistance from a public that has grown increasingly skeptical of the establishment's claims. What's more, there can be no scientific resolution of questions that are fundamentally about values -- what kind of a world do we want to live in?

This class aims to introduce students to the breadth of approaches that the social sciences have taken in trying to understand how people grapple with environmental and technological risks. We will examine the psychological, cultural, economic, sociological, and ethical questions that arise when uncertain events threaten people's well-being. Students should leave this class better equipped to be a responsible participant in social debates over risk issues.

General assignments policies

All written assignments must be received in my office or email inbox by 5 p.m. on Friday of the week they’re due. Assignments will be docked one +/- grade (e.g. from a B+ to a B) for each school day they are late, unless a documented unforeseeable excuse is provided. Since you have the entire semester's schedule now, please plan your time so as to complete all assignments early, so that you are prepared if something unexpected happens. Written assignments may be printed double-sided or on old paper (i.e. paper that has had something else printed on the other side, available in all campus computer labs), or submitted by email in .doc (Microsoft Word), .rtf, or .odt (OpenOffice.org -- a free program equivalent to MS Office) format. Word limits are meant to give you a sense of how comprehensive the paper ought to be, not as strict rules. If you have something important to say, say it. If you don’t, don’t waste your time (and mine) by padding the word count.

1. Risks in the news: Due at the end of Week 2

For this assignment, you will need to locate 4 news stories published since the start of the semester discussing different environmental or technological risks that face our society. The stories may be about risks that people anticipate in the future, or risks that have been realized (e.g., about predictions of a bad hurricane season or about a hurricane actually striking land). For each story, you should write one or two sentences answering each of the following questions:

What is the risk? What kind of harms could it produce, and how likely is it to occur?
What is the cause of the risk? (Remember to consider both sides of the PAR model)
What, if anything, are people proposing to do about it?

You must turn in copies of the news stories with your answers. Stories should come from established newspapers or magazines, including online ones -- if you’re not sure where to look, try the New York Times, the Washington Post, or National Geographic.

2. Critique of the Psychometric Paradigm: Due at the end of Week 5

Research in the "Psychometric Paradigm," such as our readings from Week 3, shows that ordinary people don't think about risks in the same way that scientists, engineers, and economists do. Some people, such as law professor Cass Sunstein and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, think that means that more decisions should be made by unbiased experts. But others, including psychologist Paul Slovic, think that it means the experts are out of touch and should be making fewer of our decisions.

Your assignment is to write 2,000 words taking sides with either Sunstein and Breyer or Slovic -- or proposing another way of looking at what the Psychometric Paradigm means for risk management. Your paper should summarize the findings of Psychometric research on risks, describe any important holes or oversights in the Psychometric Paradigm theory, and justify your position on the Sunstein/Breyer-Slovic debate.

3. Major paper: Progress report due at the end of Week 9, full paper due at the end of Week 14

The major paper is an opportunity for you to dig deeper into one particular risk that interests you. You should use the concepts and theories we cover in class to analyze, and weigh in on, the controversy (or questionable lack of controversy!) over one risk issue. Example topics include bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease"), hurricanes, or genetically engineered crops.

I expect your paper to combine citations of the class readings with additional topic-specific research.

During week 6, all students must make an appointment to discuss their paper idea with the professor. You need not have a detailed topic worked out in advance, but if you come to the meeting completely unprepared, it will not be a productive use of your time or mine!

In week 9, you must submit a "progress report." This progress report will not be graded on mechanics, and you may change your ideas between the progress report and the final paper, so don't be afraid to turn in unpolished ideas or prose. The progress report is meant to keep you from putting off your paper until the last minute, and to allow me to give you feedback on the development of your ideas before the final grading time arrives. Your progress report should include the following:

An outline of the argument of your paper
A bibliography of sources
A draft of part of the written product (optional)

An "A" paper will have the following characteristics:

Thesis: The paper will have a clear thesis statement. The thesis statement will be backed up by sufficient evidence, without extraneous digressions.
Organization: The paper will be well-structured and easy to follow. It will be clear how each part of the paper supports your thesis.
Depth: The paper will cover the issue in sufficient depth to address all the complexities of the issue. It will address potential criticisms of the stance that you take.
Critical Analysis: The paper will weigh the merits of different ways of looking at the issue, rather than simply pasting one theory (or several incompatible theories!) onto the issue.
Originality: The paper will raise new and interesting ideas, rather than just repeating things that have been said by others. You should show an ability to make creative connections between concepts and facts from class and from your research.
Mechanics: The paper will use good grammar, spelling, etc. References will be cited in a complete and consistent way.

During Week 12, each student will make a 10-minute presentation on their research. Remember that you only have 10 minutes -- so it is important to focus in on the most important aspects of your research and be concise! Questions asked of student presenters will help your classmates to improve their final written paper. If you want to use audiovisual technology (such as PowerPoint), that is fine -- but delays for technical difficulties will be counted against your 10 minutes, so make sure you come to class early and test your equipment.

Written papers are due by 5:00 on the last day of classes. Your paper should be 6000-10,000 words long -- but remember that saying everything necessary to make your point without adding extraneous information is more important than stretching or squishing to fit the word count.

4. Final exam: TBA

The final exam will be a 2-hour exam, held during the time slot that the university assigns to this class. It will be a combination of short answer and short essay questions. It will focus on the basic concepts of risk, and on your ability to integrate the different ideas we covered in class.

The final grade for this class will consist of:

10% Risks in the news assignment
20% Critique of Psychometric paradigm
5% Major paper progress report
20% Presentation of major paper
25% major paper
20% Final exam

Risk is a complex subject, and no manageable set of readings can cover all of the information that I think is important to highlight on each topic. Therefore I expect all students to attend every class, because class lectures and discussions will be key to learning the material. While attendance is not factored into your grade, priority for outside-of-class help (such as office hours) will be given to those students who attend class regularly.

Your ability to master the class material should not be hindered by anything other than your own effort. If you have a disability, health issue, outside responsibility, or other concern that may affect your ability to succeed in this class, do not hesitate to contact me or the university’s Students with Disabilities Office (xXXXX or xxx@xxx.edu), and we will work together to find an accommodation for you.

There is one book for this class, plus a reading packet. The book is available through the campus bookstore, or from an online seller such as powells.com or half.com. The reading packet may be purchased at the campus bookstore. Copies are also on reserve in the library.

Löfstedt, R., and L. Frewer, eds. 1998. The Earthscan reader in risk and modern society. London: Earthscan.

Cheating and plagiarism (representing others' work as your own) will not be tolerated, and I will be alert for signs of both. In your papers, any idea that you take from any person other than yourself must be properly cited, and any words or phrases that you take from others must be clearly marked as quotations. You may discuss ideas with your classmates, or get help proofreading, but all of the writing must be your own. Review the section in your Student Handbook on Academic Honesty for a more detailed explanation of the university's procedures for handling cheating and plagiarism.

Week 1: What is risk?

What is risk? What are some different ways that people think about risks?

Adams, J. 1999. Cars, cholera, and cows: the management of risk and uncertainty. Policy Analysis 335. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Week 2: The Pressure and Release Model

How do human and environmental systems interact to produce risks?

Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis 2004. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters. New York: Routledge. Chapters 1 and 2.

Risks in the news assignment due at the end of the week.

Week 3: Psychometric Paradigm

What factors do people use in making judgments about risk? How do rationality, bias, and emotion interact?

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131.

Slovic, P. 1998 [1987]. Perception of risk. In Löfstedt, R., and L. Frewer, ed. The Earthscan reader in risk and modern society. p. 31-43. London: Earthscan Publications.

Fincuane, M. L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson 2000. The affect heuristic in judgements of risks and benefits. In Slovic, P., ed. The perception of risk. p. 413-429. London: Earthscan.

Breyer, Stephen. 1993. Breaking the vicious circle: toward effective risk regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 2: Causes: the vicious circle, p. 33-54.

Sunstein, C. 2002 Laws of Fear: the perception of risk (book review). Harvard Law Review 115: 1119.

Week 4: Cultural Theory

How does culture affect people’s perceptions of risk? Is there only one correct way to look at a risk? Are risk debates really about risks, or about something deeper?

Thompson, M. 1997. Security and solidarity: an anti-reductionist framework for thinking about the relationship between us and the rest of nature. Geographical Journal 163(2): 141-149.

Sjöberg, L. 1998 [1997]. Explaining risk perception: an empirical evaluation of cultural theory. In Löfstedt, R., and L. Frewer, ed. The Earthscan reader in risk and modern society. p. 115-131. London: Earthscan Publications.

Elkington, J., and A. Trisoglio 1996. Developing realistic scenarios for the environment: lessons from Brent Spar. Long Range Planning 29(6): 762-769.

Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. 2006. Cultural evaluations of risk: "values" or "blunders"? Harvard Law Review 119: 166-172.

Week 5: Sociological Views

How do communities cope with facing serious risks?

Carroll, M. S., P. J. Cohn, D. N. Seesholtz, and L. L. Higgins 2005. Fire as a galvanizing and fragmenting influence on communities: the case of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Society and Natural Resources 18(4): 301-320.

Erikson, K. 1994. A new species of trouble: explorations in disaster, trauma, and community. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Chapter 1

Perrow, C. 1984. Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books. Introduction.

Critique of the Psychometric Paradigm assignment due at the end of the week.

Week 6: Risk Society

Is risk a fundamental force in modern society?

Beck, U. 1992. From industrial society to the risk society: questions of survival, social structure, and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture and Society 9(1): 97-123.

Freudenberg, W. R. 2001. Risk, responsibility, and recreancy. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 9: 87-108.

Wiedemann, P. M. 1993. Taboo, sin, risk: changes in the social perception of hazards. In Rück, B., ed. Risk is a construct: perceptions of risk perception. p. 41-63. Munich: Knesebech.

Week 7: Trust

Is distrust the cause of risk controversies? Is building trust the solution?

Slovic, P., J. Flynn, and M. Layman 1991. Percieved risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254: 1603-1607.

Slovic, P. 1998 [1993]. Percieved risk, trust, and democracy. In Löfstedt, R., and L. Frewer, ed. The Earthscan reader in risk and modern society. p. 181-192. London: Earthscan Publications.

Danielson, S., S.L. Santos, T. Webler, and S.P. Tuler. 2007. Building and Breaking a Bridge of Trust in a Superfund Site Remediation. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues.

Week 8: Vulnerability

Can we measure how much different groups are at risk?

Cutter, S., J. T. Mitchell, and M. S. Scott 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90: 713-737.

Turner, B. L., II, P. Matson, J. McCarthy, R. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, G. K. Hovelsrud-Broda, J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, S. Mathiesen, R. Naylor, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller, H. Selin, and N. Tyler 2003. Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8080-8085.

Turner, B. L., II, R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(14): 8074-8079.

Week 9: Environmental justice

Is the distribution of risks in our society unjust?

Miller, V., M. Hallstein, and S. Quass 1996. Feminist politics and environmental justice: women's community activism in West Harlem, New York. In Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari, ed. Feminist political ecology: global issues and local experiences. p. 62-85. London: Routledge.

Spieldoch, R. L. 1996. Uranium is in my body. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20(2): 173-185.

Bullard, R. D., P. Mohai, R. Saha, and B. Wright 2007. Toxic wastes and race at twenty: 1987-2007: grassroots struggles to dismantle environmental racism in the United States. Cleveland: United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries. Executive Summary.

Major paper progress report due by the end of the week.

Week 10: The precautionary principle and uncertainty

How does uncertainty limit scientists’ ability to provide answers? What is the precautionary principle, and does it provide a good guide for making decisions under uncertainty?

Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, ed. Social theories of risk. p. 251-274. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Bodansky, D. 1991. Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment 33(7): 4-5, 43-44.

Wildavsky, A. 1979. No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist 67(1): 32-37.

O'Brien, M. 2002. Critiques of the precautionary principle. Rachel's Environment & Health News 781.

Week 11: Democracy versus technocracy

Is public participation a solution to risk controversies?

Fiorino, D. J. 1989. Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 9(3): 293-299.

Renn, O., T. Webler, and H. Kastenholz 1998 [1996]. Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: a Swiss case study. In Löfstedt, R., and L. Frewer, ed. The Earthscan reader in risk and modern society. p. 253-270. London: Earthscan Publications.

Pelletier, D., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo, and R. Rich 1999. The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: an empirical study from New York's North Country. Policy Sciences 32: 102-131.

Week 12 and 13: Student presentations

Students will present the results of their research projects to the class.

Week 13: Final paper and final exam

Your final paper is due by 5:00 on the last day of classes. The time and place of the final exam is TBA by the university.

Return to Teaching Portfolio