Social Science Research Committee (SSRC) advice paper:
Making sense of risk and uncertainty: public engagement,
communication and risk assessment policy
Key messages
Even the best communication strategies will not work for everyone.
Numerical and verbal quantifiers of risk and uncertainty are subject to highly variable
interpretations and qualifications based on varied social contexts.
It is therefore vital to understand how risk and uncertainty are understood by experts
and non-experts before a communication strategy is devised.
This understanding should inform not only the communication of risk and uncertainty
but the entire assessment and management process. It should form part of a
codified Risk Assessment Policy.
Background
“It is nearly impossible to design successful messages that bridge the gap between the
expert and the public without knowing what the public thinks” (WHO 2007: 33)
Communicating risk and uncertainty has, until recently, adopted a top-down
approach, attempting to convince publics of the legitimacy and authority of an expertled assessment.
This downstream, „deficit approach‟ (so called because of the implied lack of public
understanding) has often been ineffective and counterproductive.
There is a growing consensus that people‟s beliefs and actions need to be
understood in order to improve risk and uncertainty communications.
Two broad points identified by the SSRC, additional to the “Assessment of the COT
uncertainty framework from a social science perspective”(Rowe, 2011), and elaborated in
the following, are:
There is a need to understand how risks and uncertainties are made sense of and
acted upon as part of the everyday lives of non-expert citizens and by experts in their
professional practices.
Upstream social engagement with uncertainty and risk assessments is necessary as
a means to draw in social expertise, and should be part of a codified Risk
Assessment Policy.
Understanding risk and uncertainty
In technical terms, risks are expressed as the likelihood of a known event occurring.
Uncertainty, on the other hand, is often used to refer to situations where there is a lack of
knowledge with respect to an event‟s likely occurrence – when for example there is sparse
data, few if any precedents, or concerns about the applicability of past experience or
knowledge.
It is helpful though to go further when thinking about public attitudes to both risk and
uncertainty. People often make sense of risk and uncertainty not only in terms of events or
occurrences but also in terms of the social contexts within which those events take place
and are subject to regulation. For instance, when buying foods for a small child versus
eating out with friends we will both perceive and act upon risks in different ways.
1
Several relevant issues to consider are:
1. Risk and uncertainty pronouncements are judged on their ‘realism’, their fit to
known circumstances, and on the trustworthiness of the regulator. If there is any
doubt about the impartiality of assessment, or indeed the ability of the assessment to
take account of real-world complexities that produce greater uncertainty, then estimates
are likely to be either ignored or are less likely to be believed. People respond to risk
and uncertainty in conjunction with a surrounding system of control and regulation.
Understanding the regulatory and social contexts within which risks are evaluated,
ignored or amplified is essential to any framework for future risk communication.
2. People are social as well as individual: As evidenced by a rich sociology of risk
literature, people rarely engage in detailed calculative individual behavior. Our actions
will often change in a manner that is socially sanctioned, responding to retailers, peers,
media, full and busy lives and so on. Risk and uncertainty are matters that are
communicated via many social channels and relate to non-linguistic routines, feelings
and emotions. Risks are appraised by a form of practical reasoning that is embedded in
everyday life (Horlick-Jones & Prada 2009). The focus for communication may be more
successfully focused on these practical communities rather than on individual readers.
3. People recognize and act upon ambiguity and ignorance. There are categories of
uncertainty that refer not so much to events and their likelihoods but to a lack of
knowledge about the meaning and importance of different outcomes. Ambiguity can
refer to situations where a likelihood of an occurrence is well known (e.g. a low
probability of genetic drift from GMOs) but where the consequences of that event are
subject to differing interpretations and value judgments. These social differences are
best explored through methodologies which can bring to light previously ignored
evaluations of consequences. Ignorance refers to situations where both outcomes and
their likelihoods are unknown, requiring a more exploratory approach to find bases for
decision-making and preparedness (Stirling 2010). Risk, uncertainty, ambiguity and
ignorance are mapped onto relevant and suitable methodologies by Stirling (2010)
Sophisticated methodologies are required in order to engage with the rich ways in which
people make sense of and act on risk and uncertainty. These should include both
quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a range of theoretical approaches. The
latter should allow for the study of both individuals and social groupings and take account of
a wide range of issues from social inequality to uneven power. The resulting knowledge can
feed into more robust uncertainty assessments and communication strategies. As Rowe
(2011) notes, one size does not fit all and risk assessment and communication strategies
need to be tailored to specific issues.
Risk Assessment Policy
Within conventional risk and uncertainty assessment there is frequently an assumption that
unknowns are assessed (by experts) and then managed. Assessment is thereby a
technical activity, while management takes on broader social contexts in order to achieve
the best possible communication and optimal compliance. This tends to underestimate the
social resources that people routinely use to act on both risk knowledge and uncertainty
(see above).
2
An alternative way forward would be to incorporate those social resources from the outset,
making them intrinsic to the assessment. Uncertainty and risk are not matters that are
confined to technical assessments and which require successful outward communication.
Rather technical assessments will always compete with public assessments which may be
more or less “rational”, legitimate and so on, but will incorporate elements of trust, practical
know-how, affective alignment, and may be more open to ambiguities and ignorance. In
terms of ways forward, and in line with the CODEX procedural manual (Millstone 2009),
there is a role for the SSRC within the FSA in developing a more robust risk assessment
policy, upstream and downstream of risk assessments, in order that broader issues of trust,
acceptability, context and so on can inform risk and uncertainty assessments and their
communication. The results are likely to be more robust, socially legitimate and
accountable. Members of the Committee could contribute to future communication of
risk/uncertainty through early involvement in risk assessment processes: by discussing and
advising on whether new primary research (and if so what type) would be proportionate and
possible within the given time-frame and available resources.
Prof Steve Hinchliffe and Dr Alizon Draper
On behalf of SSRC, January 2012
References cited:
Horlick-Jones, T. and Prada, A. (2009). “On interpretive risk perception research: some
reflections on its origins; its nature; and its possible applications in risk communication
practice.” Health, Risk and Society 11(5): 409-430.
Millstone, E. (2009). "Science, risk and governance: Radical rhetorics and the realities of
reform in food safety governance." Research Policy 38(4): 624-636.
Rowe, G. (2011). Assessment of the COT uncertainty framework from a social science
perspective: A theoretical evaluation. London, FSA.
Stirling, A. (2010). "Keep it complex." Nature 468(23/30 december): 1029-1031.
WHO (2007). Risk Perception and Communication: Setting the agenda for the 5th
Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health, 2009. Copenhagen, Denmark.
3