Risk and soft impacts

Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1049-1066

  Swierstra, Tsjalling ^a   Te Molder, Hedwig ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85029223157     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Achterhuis H (ed) (2001) American philosophy of technology: the empirical turn. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Minneapolis
2. Akrich M (1992) The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology, building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge
3. Boenink M, Swierstra T, Stemerding D (2010) Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Stud Ethics Law Technol 4(2): article 4
4. Edwards D (1997) Discourse and cognition. Sage, London
5. Heritage J, Raymond G (2005) The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Soc Psychol Q 68(1):15-38
6. Hobson-West P (2007) ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organized resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociol Health Illn 29(2):198-215
7. Idhe D (1993) Postphenomenology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
8. Jaeger CJ, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T (2001) Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. Earthscan, London
9. Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-244
10. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004) States of knowledge: the coproduction of science and social order. Routledge, New York
11. Jefferson G (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner GH (ed) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 13-31
12. Lamerichs J, te Molder H (2011, frth) Reflecting on your own talk: the discursive action method at work. In: Antaki C (ed) Applied conversation analysis. Intervention and change in institutional talk.
13. Pallgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) The sociology of the new mundane artefacts. Shaping technology, building society. MIT Press, Cambridge
14. Marris C (2001) Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep 21(7):545-548
15. Middendorp S, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (in prep.) Responsible innovation in the food sector: what impacts of food technology may enter the public debate? Wageningen University, Wageningen
16. Mill JS (1859) On liberty. Oxford University, Oxford, pp 21-22
17. Potter J (1996) Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, London
18. Ravetz JR (1975)…et augebitur scientia. In: Harré R (ed) Problems of scientific revolution. Progress and obstacles to progress in the sciences. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 42-57
19. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York
20. Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327-399
21. Roesser S (ed) (2010) Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, Dordrecht/London
22. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London
23. Swierstra T (2002) Moral vocabularies and public debate: the cases of cloning and new reproductive technologies. In: Keulartz J, Korthals JM, Schermer M, Swierstra T (eds) Pragmatist ethics for atechnological culture. Kluwer Academic, Deventer, pp 223-240
24. Swierstra T, Waelbers K (2010) Designing a good life: the matrix for the technological mediation of morality. Eng Ethics (Online First, 30 Nov 2010)
25. Swierstra T, Stemerding D, Boenink M (2009) Exploring techno-moral change. The case of the obesity pill. In: Solllie P, Duwell M (eds) Evaluating new technologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119-138
26. te Molder H (2008) Discursive psychology. In: Donsbach W (ed) The international encyclopedia of communication, vol IV. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK/Malden, pp 1370-1372
27. te Molder H, Potter J (eds) (2005) Conversation and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. te Molder H, Bovenhoff M, Gremmen B, van Woerkum C (submitted) Talking future technologies: how celiac disease patients neither accept nor reject a ‘simple pill’
29. Tenner E (1996) Why things bite back. Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Knopf, New York
30. Turkle S (2010) Alone together. Why we expect more from technology and less from another. Basic Books, New York
31. Van der Pot JHJ (1985) Die Bewertung des technischen Fortschritts. Eine systematische Uebersicht der Theorien. Van Gorcum, Maastricht
32. Veen M, Gremmen B, te Molder H, van Woerkum C (2010) Emergent technologies against the background of everyday life: discursive psychology as a technology assessment tool. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510364202. Prepublished 13 Apr 2010
33. Verbeek PP (2005) What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. Pennsylvania State U.P, Pennsylvania, PA
34. Waelbers K (2011) Doing good with things-taking responsibility for the social role of technologies. Springer, Dordrecht
35. Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings. Social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 19-46
36. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):446-481
37. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211-220