UNIT GUIDE 2016/17
SOCI30098 Risk, Danger and Disaster
Weeks: 1 – 12
Teaching Block: 1
Unit Owner:
Phone:
Email:
Office:
John Downer
0117 33 17597
[email protected]
2.04 11 Priory Rd.
Unit owner
office
hours:
Mondays 12-1pm and Wednesdays 2-3pm
Level:
Credit points:
Prerequisites:
Curriculum area:
H/6
20
None
N/A
(Scheduled office hours do not run during reading weeks, though you can still contact tutors
for advice by email and to arrange individual appointments)
Timetabled classes:
Seminars: Wednesdays 10am-1pm in G.01, 30-32 Tyndalls Park Road
OR
Thursdays 9am-12pm in G.07, 30-32 Tyndalls Park Road
You are expected to attend ONE seminar each week. Your online personal timetable will inform you to which
group you have been allocated. Seminar groups are fixed: you are not allowed to change seminar groups
without permission from the office.
Weeks 6, 12, 18 and 24 are Reading Weeks; there is NO regular teaching in these weeks.
In addition to timetabled sessions there is a requirement for private study, reading, revision and assessments.
Reading the required readings in advance of each seminar is the minimum expectation. The University
Guidelines state that one credit point is broadly equivalent to 10 hours of total student input.
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the unit, students will be able to:
 Critically examine the notions of risk, danger and disaster, and their role in western society and sociopolitical thought.
 Articulate and engage with different academic perspective on the study of risk, danger and disaster
and analyze their relationship to each other.
 Demonstrate ability to make detailed and appropriate use of these insights to develop an informed
perspective on risk, danger and disaster and apply it to a case study with contemporary relevance.
Requirements for passing the unit:
 Satisfactory attendance at seminars
 Completion of all formative work to an acceptable standard
 Attainment of a composite mark of all summative work to a passing standard (40 or above)
Details of coursework and deadlines
Assessment:
Formative - essay
Summative - essay




Word count: Weighting: Deadline:
1,500 words 0%
9.30am on 10th
November 2016
3,000 words 100%
9.30am on 10th
January 2017
Day:
Thursday
Week:
7
Tuesday
January
Assessment
Period
Summative essay questions will be made available on the individual Blackboard unit sites under
‘assignments’.
Instructions for the submission of coursework can be found in Appendix A
Assessment in the school is subject to strict penalties regarding late submission, plagiarism and
maximum word count. A summary of key regulations is in Appendix B.
Marking criteria can be found in Appendix C.
1
Unit description:
How probable is an accidental nuclear war? Why do men drive more dangerously than women, and 20 year-olds more
dangerously than 30 year-olds? How seriously should we take climate change? Do crowds panic in disaster
situations? Why do western societies see sex on tv as more ‘corruptive’ than violence? This course will look at all
these questions and many more. Risk, danger and disaster are contested ideas, yet they frame everything from our
relationship to modernity to our choice of breakfast food — we draw on them to construct our identities just as we
invoke them to justify our state security policies. The course reflects this diversity; each week draws on a different
literature around the theme of risk, danger and disaster to offer a window into the uncertainties and insecurities of
modern life.
Transferable skills:
·
·
·
·
Presentation skills
The ability to locate appropriate sources of information online and in books and journals
The ability to exposit and analyse critically a range of different ideas and perspectives
The ability to be concise, and convey key information succinctly
The ability to convey your own and others’ ideas clearly both verbally and in writing
Lecture schedule:
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Introduction: Risk & Modernity
Risk-based Governance
Risk Perception
Risk and Culture
Identity and Landscapes
Reading week
Quantifying and Communicating Risks
Knowledge and Uncertainty
Accidents and Disasters
Responsibility, Blame and Power
The End of the World as We Know It
Reading week
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2
WEEK 1: Introduction: Risk & Modernity (How have sociologists theorized risk and
danger?)
Key Questions:
•
What is ‘risk’? How is it different from ‘danger’?
•
What is a ‘risk society’? What are its distinctive features?
•
To what extent are modern risks ‘man-made’?
Essential Reading:
•
Beck, U. (2006). “Living in the World Risk Society.” Economy and Society 35(3): 329–345.
Further Reading:
•
Bernstein, P. (1996) Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. John Wiley & Sons. “Introduction”.
•
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society London: Towards a New Modernity. Sage. London. Chapters 1-2.
•
Beck, Ulrich (1998) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
•
Beck, Ulrich. (2009). World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
•
Bernstein, P.L. (1996) Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk John Wiley: New York
•
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press. Cambridge, UK.
•
Giddens, A. (1999) “Risk and Responsibility” Modern Law Review 62(1): 1-10.
•
Luhmann, N. 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter.
•
Lupton, D. (1999) “Introduction” in Risk (Key Ideas). Routledge; New York: 1-25
•
Lupton, D. (1999) “CHAPTER 4: Risk & Reflexive Modernization” in Risk (Key Ideas). Routledge; New York:
77-112
•
Power, M. (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford University Press;
Oxford.
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 2: Risk-based Governance (How and why is risk used as a tool for decision-making?)
Key Questions:
•
How do governments and organizations mobilize risk as an instrument of control?
•
What administrative function does risk serve? What is its perceived value?
•
What are the potential shortcomings of risk as an instrument of governance?
Essential Reading:
•
Power, M. (2004) “The nature of risk: The risk management of everything.” in Balance Sheet. vol. 12 (5) pp.
19-28.
•
Hagmann, J. & Dunn Cavelty, M. (2012) “National risk registers: Security scientism and the propagation of
permanent insecurity” in Security Dialogue 43(1): 79-96.
Further Reading:
•
Black, J. 2005. ‘Risk Based Regulation: Policy Innovation and Policy Transfer in Financial Services’, Public Law,
Autumn, 512–22.
•
Duffield, M. (2011) “Total War as Environmental Terror: Linking Liberalism, Resilience, and the Bunker” in
South Atlantic Quarterly. Duke Univ Press
•
Heimer C. (1985). Reactive Risk and Rational Action: Managing Moral Hazard in Insurance Contracts.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
•
Hood, C., H. Rothstein and R. Baldwin. (2001). The Government of Risk. Understanding Risk Regulation
Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hutter, Bridget & Power, Michael (eds.) (2005) Organizational Encounters With Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Lupton, D. (1999) “Chapter 5: Risk and Governmentality” in Risk (Key Ideas). Routledge; New York: 113-142
O’Malley, P. (2004). Risk, Uncertainty and Government. London: Glasshouse Press.
Paté-Cornell, E. (2002). Risk and uncertainty analysis in government safety decisions. Risk Analysis 22(3):
633-646.
Power, M. (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford University Press;
Oxford.
Power, M. (1997) “Expertise and the construction of relevance: accountants and environmental audit.” in
Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (2): 123-146
Power, M. (2004) “The nature of risk: The risk management of everything.” in Balance Sheet. vol. 12 (5) pp.
19-28
Rothstein, H.; Huber, M. and Gaskell, G. (2006). ‘A Theory of Risk Colonisation: The Spiralling Regulatory
Logics of Societal and Institutional Risk’, Economy and Society, 35 (1): 91–112. [E-Journals]
Rothstein, H. and Downer, J. (2012) ‘Renewing Defra: Exploring the Emergence of Risk-Based Policymaking in
UK Central Government.’ in Public Administration.
Wynne, B. (1980) “Technology, risk, and participation: on the social treatment of uncertainty”, in J. Conrad
(ed), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment (London, Academic Press, 1980))
Wynne, B. (1989). “Building Public Concern into Risk Management.” In Environmental Threats, edited by J.
Brown. London: Belhaven Press: 118-132. [E-Journals]
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 3: Risk Perception (What psychological factors shape our construal of risk and
danger?)
Key questions:
•
In what ways are risk perceptions shaped by psychological factors?
•
Are people always rational in their understanding of risk?
•
What is “risk homeostasis”? What are its wider implications ?
•
What is meant by ‘risk appetite’? How is it contingent on social choices?
Essential reading:
•
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982) “Why Study Risk Perception?” in Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83–93.
•
Gardner, D. (2008) Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. Virgin Digital. Chapter 4: “Nothing More than
Feelings”
Further reading:
•
Adams, J. (1995). Risk. Routledge
•
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, et al. 1978. ‘How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of
Attitudes towards Technological Risk and Benefits’, Policy Studies, 9, 127–52.
•
Gregory, R.& Mendelsohn, R. (1993) “Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits.” Risk Analysis 13 (3): 259–264
•
Kahneman, D. Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Eds), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
•
Kahneman D. (2013) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
•
Sojberg, L. (2000) “Factors in risk perception”in Risk Analysis. 20 (1): 1-11
•
Slovic, P. (ed). (2000) The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, Virginia.
•
Solvic, P. (ed) (2010) The Feeling of Risk. Routledge.
•
Slovic, P. (1987) “Perception of Risk” in Science, vol. 236, No. 4799: 280-285. [E-Journals]
4
•
•
•
Slovic, P. (2012) “The perception gap: Radiation and risk” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68: 67
Wilde GJS. (1994) “Target risk: dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions.”
Toronto: PDE Publications. “Introduction”
Wynne, B. (1989) “Building Public Concern into Risk Management.” In Environmental Threats, edited by J.
Brown. London: Belhaven Press: 118-132.
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 4: Risk & Culture: (What risks are people willing to tolerate and why?)
Key questions:
•
In what ways can some attitudes to risk be understood as culturally determined?
•
Why do groups differ in their acceptance of different risks?
•
What sociological functions does risk serve?
Essential reading:
•
Wildavsky, A., & Drake, K. (2008). “Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why?” in Daedalus, 119
(4): 41–60
•
Douglas, M. (1990) “Risk as a Forensic Resource.” in Daedalus 119 (4): 1-16
Further reading:
•
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. New York; Praeger.
•
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and
environmental dangers. Berkeley; University of California Press.
•
Heimer C. (1985). Reactive Risk and Rational Action: Managing Moral Hazard in Insurance Contracts.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
•
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London:
Routledge.
•
Lupton, D. (1999) Risk (Key Ideas). Routledge; New York: 37-56
•
Margolis, H. ( 1996). Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues.
University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
•
Otway, H., and von Winterfeldt D. (1982) "Risk Management and Acceptable Risk Criteria," in Kunreuther, H.
(ed.) (1982) Risk: A Seminar Series. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: 125-143
•
Sjöberg, L. (1987). Risk, power and rationality: conclusions of a research project on risk generation and risk
assessment in a societal perspective. In L. Sjöberg (Ed.) Risk and Society, Allen & Unwin: London.
•
Tansey, J & O'Riordan, T (1999) “Cultural theory and risk: a review.” in Health, Risk & Society (1 (1): 71-90
•
Vaughan, E., & Seifert, M. (1992). “Variability in the framing of risk issues.” in Journal of Social Issues. 48 (4):
119-135.
•
Wilde, Gerald J.S. (2001). Target Risk 2: A New Psychology of Safety and Health. Pde Pubns
•
Wynne, B. (1980) “Technology, risk, and participation: on the social treatment of uncertainty”, in J. Conrad
(ed), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment (London, Academic Press, 1980))
•
Wynne, B. (1989). “Building Public Concern into Risk Management.” In Environmental Threats, edited by J.
Brown. London: Belhaven Press: 118-132. [E-Journals]
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 5: Identity and Landscapes: (Risk as a Social Resource and Cultural Environment)
Key questions:
•
How have people mobilized risk in the production of their individual or collective identity? (Ie: how is risk
used to define people, and how do people use risk to define themselves?)
5
•
•
•
How are understandings and experiences of risk inscribed into our environments?
To what extent do understandings and experiences of risk arise from our environments?
To what extent is risk gendered?
Essential reading:
•
Lyng, S. (2005) “Edgework and the risk-taking experience.” In Lyng, S. (ed) (2005) Edgework: The Sociology of
Risk-Taking. New York: Routledge”: 17-49
•
Wolfe, T. (1979) The Right Stuff. Farrar, Straus, Giroux; New York. Chapter 2
Further reading:
•
Cohen, Stanley (1978) Escape Attempts: The Theory and Practice of Resistance to Everyday Life. Pelican.
London.
•
Flynn, J. Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. (1994) “Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks.” Risk
Analysis 14(6):1101–1108.
•
Friedman, K. 1987. The study of risk in social systems: an anthropological perspective. In L. Sjöberg (Ed) Risk
and Society, Allen & Unwin: London.
•
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University
Press. Stanford (CA).
•
Hecht, G. (1998) “Enacting Cultural Identity: Risk and Ritual in the French Nuclear Workplace,” Journal of
Contemporary History 32 (4): 483-508.
•
Kuchinskaya, O. (2011) “Articulating the signs of danger: Lay experiences of post-Chernobyl radiation risks
and effects” In Public Understanding of Science 20 (3): 405–421
•
Lupton, D. (1999) “CHAPTER 8 ‘Risk and Pleasure” in Risk (Key Ideas). Routledge; New York: 150-175
•
Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking. American Journal of
Sociology. 95(4): 851–886.
•
Lyng, S. and Matthews, R. (2007) Risk, edgework, and masculinities. In Hannah-Moffat, K. and O’Malley, P.
(eds), Gendered Risks. Milton Park: Routledge-Cavendish: 75-98.
•
McEvoy, A. (1995) Working Environments: An Ecological Approach to Industrial Health and Safety,” in
Technology and Culture: 145-173.
•
Mohun, Arwen (2001) “Designed for Thrills and Safety: Amusement Parks and the Commodification of Risk,
1880-1929,” Journal of Design History 14 (4): 291-306
•
Ronay, R. & Kim, D. (2006) “Gender differences in explicit and implicit risk attitudes: A socially facilitated
phenomenon”in British Journal of Social Psychology. 45: 397–419
•
Short, J. (1984) “The Social Fabric At Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis” in American
Sociological Review. 49 (6): 711-725
•
Smith, C. (2005) “Financial Edgework: Trading in Market Currents.” In Lyng, S. (ed), Edgework: The Sociology
of Risk-Taking. New York: Routledge: 187—200.
•
United Nations (2009) “Making Disaster Risk Reduction Gender-Sensitive: Policy and Practical Guidelines”
Online: < http://www.preventionweb.net/files/9922_MakingDisasterRiskReductionGenderSe.pdf >
•
Weston, J. (1986) ‘The Greens, ‘Nature’ and the Social Environment’ in Weston, J (ed) Red and Green: The
New Politics of the Environment London: Pluto Press (E-reserves)
•
Winner, L. (1986) The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 2
“Do Artifacts have politics?” [E-Reserve]
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 6: Reading Week.
–––––––––––––––––––
6
WEEK 7: Quantifying and Communicating Risks (On Lies, Damn Lies, and Risk Statistics)
Key questions:
•
How do we measure risk?
•
How can risk statistics be misleading, and how are they manipulable?
•
What are the merits and drawbacks of different means of presenting risk information?
•
What is the relationship between risk communication and risk governance? (eg: How much is it right to tell?)
•
In what ways does formal risk discourse prioritize some risks over others?
Essential reading:
•
Clarke, L. (2002). “Panic: myth or reality?” Contexts, 1(3): 21–26.
•
Otway, H., & Wynne, B. (1989). “Risk communication: paradigm and paradox.” Risk Analysis, 9 (2), 141-145.
[E-Journals]
•
Ripley, R. (2009) “Risk: Gambling in New Orleans” Chapter 2 in The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster
Strikes and Why. Arrow Books. London. 22-51
Further reading:
•
Blastland, M. & Spiegelhalter, D. ( 2013) The Norm Chronicles: Stories and Numbers about Danger. Profile
Books. London.
•
Clarke, L. & Perrow C. (1996) “Prosaic organizational failure” in American Behavioral Scientist; 39 (8): 10401056
•
Clarke, L. (2005) Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe in the Popular Imagination. University of Chicago
Press; Chicago. Chapter 2: “The Sky Could Be Falling: Globally Relevant Disasters and the Perils of
Probabilism.”
•
Bottle
•
Covello, V. and Allen, F. (1988). Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. OPA-87-020. Online: <
http://www.epa.gov/care/library/7_cardinal_rules.pdf >
•
Cottle, S. (1998) “Ulrich Beck, `Risk Society’ and the Media: A Catastrophic View?” European Journal of
Communication 13 (1): 5–32.
•
Fortun, K. (2004) “From Bhopal to the Informating of Environmentalism: Risk Communication in Historical
Perspective,” Osiris 19 : 283-296.
•
Gutteling, J.M. & Kuttschreuter, M. (2002). “The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople’s and
expert’s perception of the millennium bug risk in the Netherlands.” Journal of Risk Research 5 (1): 35-47.
•
Hamblin, J. (2007) “‘A Dispassionate and Objective Effort:’ Negotiating the First Study on the Biological
Effects of Atomic Radiation” In Journal of the History of Biology 40:147–177
•
Kasperson, R.E. 1986. Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication.
Risk Analysis 6: 275-81.
•
Khripunov, I. (2006) “What We Need To Know and When” IAEA Bulletin. 48 (1): 39-41
•
Lundgren, R. E., & McMakin, A. H. (2013). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating
environmental, safety, and health risks. Wiley. com.
•
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
•
Reynolds, B. S., Galdo, J. H., & Sokler, L. (2004). Crisis and emergency risk communication. School of Public
Health, University at Albany.
•
Richardson, John (2015) “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job” Esquire JUL 7, 2015. Online:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
•
Ropeik, D. (2008) “Risk Communication: More than Facts and Feelings” in IAEA Bulletin 50 (1): 58-60 Online:
< http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull501/50107295860.pdf >
•
Sandman, P. (2006) “Tell it Like it Is” in IAEA Bulletin. March 47 (2): 9-13 Online:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull472/pdfs/tmi.pdf
7
•
U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2002) “Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication”
Online: < http://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/pdf/CERC-SEPT02.pdf >
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 8: Knowledge & Uncertainty (How trustworthy are risk ‘facts’?)
Key questions:
•
Why is ‘objectivity’ sometimes problematic?
•
How do societies construct ‘experts’ and ‘expertise’?
•
How are organizations able to invoke uncertainty as a political resource?
Essential reading:
•
Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). ‘Climate Change Prediction: Erring on the Side
of Least Drama?’ Global Environmental Change, 23 (1): 327–337.
•
Morris-Suzuki, T. (2014). Touching the Grass: Science, Uncertainty and Everyday Life from Chernobyl to
Fukushima. Science Technology & Society, 19(3), 331–362.
Further reading:
•
Brown, P. Kroll-Smith, S. & Gunter, V. (2000) “Knowledge, Citizens, and Organizations: An overview of
Environments, Diseases, and Social Conflicts” in Kroll-Smith, S. Brown, P. & Gunter, V. (eds) (2000) Illness and
the Environment: A Reader in Contested Medicine. NYU Press; New York.
•
Collins, Harry & Pinch, Trevor (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
•
Collins Harry. & Pinch, Trevor (1998). The Golem at Large: What You Should Know About Technology.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
•
Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz. (1993). ‘The Emergence of Post-normal Science’, in R. von Schomberg (ed.),
Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
•
Greene, G. (2012) “Science with a Skew: The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and Fukushima” in
Japan Focus. Online: http://japanfocus.org/-gayle-greene/3672/article.html
•
Johnston, B. R. (2011) “In this nuclear world, what is the meaning of 'safe'?” in Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.18 March, 2011 Online: http://thebulletin.org/node/8641
•
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. Sage. Beverly Hills.
•
Mackenzie, D. (1996) “How Do We Know the Properties of Artifacts? Applying the Sociology of Knowledge to
Technology.” In R. Fox (ed.), Technological Change. Amsterdam: 249-51
•
MacKenzie, D. (1998). “The Certainty Trough.” in Williams, R; Faulkner, W. & Fleck, J. (Eds) Exploring
Expertise: Issues and Perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan. pp. 325–29 [E-Reserves]
•
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on
Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury. London.
•
Petroski, Henry. 1992. To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. New York: Vintage
Books.
Rip, A. (1986) “The Mutual Dependence of Risk Research and Political Context” in Science & Technology
•
Studies 4 (3/4): 3-15
•
Sjöberg, L. (2001). “Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust.” Risk Analysis 21(1): 189-198.
•
Steingraber, S. (1998) Living Downstream: A Scientist’ s Personal Investigation of Cancer and the
Environment. First Vintage Books, New York.
•
Wendt, a., & Duvall, R. (2008). “Sovereignty and the UFO.” in Political Theory, 36(4): 607–633.
•
Wynne, B. (1993). “Public Uptake of Science: a case for institutional reflexivity.” In Public Understanding of
Science 2: 321-337.
•
Wynne, B. (1994). “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide.” In S.
Lash & B. Szerszynski (Eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (pp. 44–83). London:
Sage. (E-Reserves).
8
•
Yearly, S. (1992) “Green Ambivalence about Science: Legal-Rational Authority and the Scientific Legitimation
of a Social Movement.” British Journal of Sociology 43 (4): 511-532.
–––––––––––––––––––-
WEEK 9: Accidents and Disasters: (High Reliability Theory & Normal Accidents)
Key questions:
•
•
•
•
In what ways can technological disasters be said to have social causes?
How have sociologists attempted to identify and resolve the social causes of disaster?
Why might we say that some disasters are inevitable?
What are the practical implications of the notion that some disasters are inevitable?
Essential reading:
•
Langewiesche, W. (1999) Inside the Sky: A Meditation on Flight. Vintage. Chapter 7: “Aloha 592”
•
Sagan, S. (1993) The limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton University
Press. Princeton. Chapter 1 “The origins of Accidents”. 11-53 (E-Reserves)
Further reading:
•
Clarke, L. 1999. Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
•
Dekker, S. (2002) “Reconstructing human contributions to accidents: the new view on error and
performance.” in Journal of Safety Research vol. 33 (3) pp. 371-385
•
Downer, J. (2010) “Trust and Technology: The Social Foundations of Aviation Regulation” in British Journal of
Sociology. 61 (1): 87-110.
•
Downer, John. (2011) ‘‘’737-Cabriolet’: The Limits of Knowledge and the Sociology of Inevitable Failure’ in
American Journal of Sociology. 117 (3): 725-762
•
Gephart, R. (1984) “Making sense of organizationally based environmental disasters.” Journal of
Management. 10 (2): 205-225
•
Gladwell, Malcolm (1996) “Blowup” in The New Yorker, January 22
•
Hopkins, Andrew. (1999). “The Limits of Normal Accident Theory.” Safety Science 32 (2): 93–102.
•
Hopkins, Andrew. (2001). “Was Three Mile Island a ‘Normal Accident’?” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management 9 (2): 65–72
•
La Porte, T. 1982. ‘On the Design and Management of Nearly Error-free Organizational Control Systems’, in
D. Sills, V. Shelanski and C. Wolf (eds), Accident at Three Mile Island. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
•
La Porte, T., and P. Consolini (1991) “Working in Practice but Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of ‘HighReliability Organizations.’” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 (1): 19–48
•
La Porte, T. (1994). “A Strawman Speaks Up: Comments on the Limits of Safety.” Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management 2 (2): 207–12. [E-Journals]
•
Langewiesche, W. (1998). “The lessons of ValuJet 592.” In The Atlantic Monthly. March 1998; 281 (3) pp.81Online: < http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/03/the-lessons-of-valujet-592/306534/ >
•
Menad, L. (2013) “Nukes of Hazard” in The New Yorker, September 30. Online:
http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2013/6/28/121158/397
•
Perrow, C. (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, 2d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press
•
Perrow, C. (1982). “The President’s Commission and the Normal Accident.” in Accident at Three Mile Island:
The Human Dimensions. D. Sils, C. Wolf, and V. Shelanski. (Eds) Boulder, Colo.: Westview. pp. 173–84
•
Perrow, C. (1994). “The Limits of Safety: The Enhancement of a Theory of Accidents.” Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management 4 (2): 212–220. [E-Journals]
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rijpma. J (1997) “Complexity, tight-coupling and reliability: connecting normal accidents theory and high
reliability theory.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management vol. 5 (1) pp. 15-23
Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, K.H. (1993) ‘Introduction’, in K.H. Roberts (ed.), New Challenges to Understanding Organisations.
New York: Macmillan, pp. 1–10.
Rochlin, G. I., T. R. La Porte, and K. H. Roberts. (1987). “The Self-Designing High-Reliability Organization:
Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea.” Naval War College Review 40 (4): 76–90.
Sagan, Scott. (1993). The Limits of Safety. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Sagan, S. (2004) “The problem of redundancy problem: why more nuclear security forces may produce less
nuclear security.” Risk Analysis 24 (4): 935-46.
Schlosser, E. (2014). Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of
Safety. Penguin Books.
Shrivastava, P. (1994) “The Evolution of Research on Technological Crises in the US.” in Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management. 2 (1): 10-20
Shrivastava, S., Sonpar, K., & Pazzaglia, F. (2009).“Normal Accident Theory versus High Reliability Theory: A
resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents.” Human Relations, 62(9), 1357–1390.
Silbey, Susan S. (2009) “Taming Prometheus: Talk About Safety and Culture” in Annual Review of Sociology.
35: 341–69
Turner, B. A. (1976). “The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 21 (3): 378–97.
Turner, S. (2001). “What is the problem with Experts?” in Social Studies of Science 31 (1): 123-149
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vaughan, D. (1998). “Foresights of Failure: An Appreciation of Barry Turner.” Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management 6 (2): 72–75.
Weick, K. E. (1987). “Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability.” California Management Review
29:112–27.
–––––––––––––––––––-
WEEK 10: Responsibility, Blame and Power (How do we intellectualize failure?)
Key questions:
•
What is the relationship between risk and blame?
•
What is at stake in different attributions of culpability?
•
In what ways can debates about risk be construed as a function of power?
Essential reading:
•
•
Hamblin, J. (2012) “Fukushima and the Motifs of Nuclear History,” in Environmental History 17:
285–299. [E-Journals]
Giddens, A. (1999) “Risk and Responsibility” The Modern Law Review, 62, (1): 1-10. [E-Journals]
Further reading:
•
Dekker, S. (2002) “Reconstructing human contributions to accidents: the new view on error and
performance.” in Journal of Safety Research vol. 33 (3): 371-385
•
Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: New York; Routledge.
•
Downer, J. (2012) ‘‘Nuclear Safety: A (Charlie) Brownian Notion.” SPAIS Working Paper. No 07-12. University
of Bristol. Available online: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/spais/research/workingpapers/wpspaisfiles/johndowner-07-12.pdf
•
Galison, P. (2000) “An Accident of History” in Galison, P. & Roland, A. (eds.) (2000) Atmospheric Flight in the
Twentieth Century. Kluwer. Bostion: 3-43
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Gephart Jr. (1984) “Making sense of organizationally based environmental disasters.” Journal of
Management. 10 (2): 205
Hood, C. (2002). “The Risk Game and the Blame Game”, Government and Opposition, 37, 1, 15–37.
Hood, C. and M. Lodge. (2006). The Politics of Public Service Bargains: Reward, Competency, Loyalty and
Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutter, B. (2007) “Public accident inquiries: The case of the railway inspectorate.” in Public Administration 70
(2): 177-192
Jasanoff, Sheila (2002). “Science and the Statistical Victim: Modernizing Knowledge in Breast Implant
Litigation,” Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 1, 37-69.
Lezaun, Javier and Yuval Millo (2006). “Regulatory Experiments: Genetically Modified Crops and Financial
Derivatives on Trial,” Science and Public Policy, Vol. 33, No. 3, 179-190.
Molotch, h. (1970) “Oil in Santa Barbara and power in America.” in Sociological Inquiry 40 (Winter): 131-144
Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on
Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury. London.
Pinch, T. (1991). “How Do We Treat Technical Uncertainty in Systems Failure? The Case of the Space Shuttle
Challenger.” Pp. 143–58 in Social Responses to Large Technical Systems: Control or Anticipation, edited by T.
La Porte. NATO Science Series. Boston: Kluwer.
Perrow, C. (1982) “Not Risk but Power” in Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 11, No. 3, (May, 1982): 298-300
Perrow, C. (1983) “The organizational context of human factors engineering.” in Administrative Science
Quarterly. 28 (4): 521-541 [E-Journals]
Roberts (1997) “The Launch of STS-51L.” Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 42, No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp.
405-410
Rothman, S. & Lichter, S.R. (1987). “Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy.” American
Political Science Review 81(2): 383-404.
Sjöberg, L. (1987). “Risk, power and rationality: conclusions of a research project on risk generation and risk
assessment in a societal perspective.” In L. Sjöberg (Ed.) Risk and Society, Allen & Unwin: London.
Snook, S. (2000) Friendly fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vaughan, D. (1998) “Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations.” in Law and
Society Review 32 (1): 23-61
–––––––––––––––––––-
WEEK 11: The End of the World as We Know It (and why we feel fine)
Key questions:
•
How do experts construe low-probability / high-consequence risks?
•
What can be learned from samples of one or fewer?
•
What is an appropriate response to an uncertain future?
•
Has humanity got a future?(!)
Essential reading:
•
To vary by group.
Further reading:
•
Barrat, J. (2015) Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era.
•
Benton, M. J. (2003) When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time. Thames and Hudson.
New York.
•
Bostrom, N. (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Oxford University Press. Oxford.
•
Bostrom, N. (2006) “How Long Before Superintelligence?”Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 5(1):
11-30.
•
Bostrom, N. & Circkovic, M. (2011) Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bryson, B. (2004) A Short History of Nearly Everything. Broadway Books. London
Hoffman, D. (2010) The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy.
Anchor.
Keeney, L. D. (2012) 15 Minutes: General Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation. St.
Martin's Griffin
Kurzweil, R. (2006) The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin London.
Leakey, R. & Lewin, R. (1996) The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind, Anchor.
March, J, L Sproull, and M Tamuz. (1991) “Learning from Samples of One or Fewer.” Organization Science 2
(1): 1–13.
Mason, Ben G.; Pyle, David M.; Oppenheimer, Clive (2004). "The size and frequency of the largest explosive
eruptions on Earth". Bulletin of Volcanology. 66(8): 735–748.
Menad, L. (2013) “Nukes of Hazard” in The New Yorker, September 30. Online:
http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2013/6/28/121158/397
Muller, R. (1988) Nemesis: The Death Star - Story of a Scientific Revolution. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Oppenheimer, C. (2011). Eruptions that shook the world. Cambridge University Press.
Rees, M. (2004) Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning Basic Books. London.
Sagan, S. (1993) The limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton University
Press. Princeton.
Schlosser, E. (2014). Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of
Safety. Penguin Books.
Tonn, B. E. (2002), "Distant futures and the environment" Futures, 34 (2): 117–132,
Turco, R.P.; Toon, O.B.; Ackerman, T.P.; Pollack, J.B.; Sagan, C. (December 23, 1983). "Nuclear Winter: Global
Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions". Science. 222 (4630): 1283–92.
Urban, T. (2015) “The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction.” Waitbutwhy.com. Online:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html.
Webb, S. (2015). If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens... Where Is Everybody? Seventy five Solutions to the
Fermi Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life (2nd ed.). Copernicus Books.
–––––––––––––––––––
WEEK 12: Reading Week.
–––––––––––––––––––
12
Appendix A
Instructions on how to submit essays electronically
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Log in to Blackboard and select the Blackboard course for the unit you are submitting work for. If you cannot see
it, please e-mail [email protected] with your username and ask to be added.
Click on the "Submit Work Here" option at the top on the left hand menu and then find the correct assessment from
the list.
Select ‘view/complete’ for the appropriate piece of work. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have selected
both the correct unit and the correct piece of work.
The screen will display ‘single file upload’ and your name. Enter your name (for FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS
ONLY) or candidate number (for SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS ONLY) as a submission title, and then select the
file that you wish to upload by clicking the ‘browse’ button. Click on the ‘upload’ button at the bottom.
You will then be shown the essay to be submitted. Check that you have selected the correct essay and click the
‘Submit’ button. This step must be completed or the submission is not complete.
You will be informed of a successful submission. A digital receipt is displayed on screen and a copy sent to your
email address for your records.
Important notes
 You are only allowed to submit one file to Blackboard (single file upload), so ensure that all parts of your work
– references, bibliography etc. – are included in one single document and that you upload the correct version.
You will not be able to change the file once you have uploaded.
 Blackboard will accept a variety of file formats, but the School can only accept work submitted in .rtf (Rich Text
Format) or .doc/.docx (Word Document) format. If you use another word processing package, please ensure
you save in a compatible format.
 By submitting your essay, you are confirming that you have read the regulations on plagiarism and confirm that
the submission is not plagiarised. You also confirm that the word count stated on the essay is an accurate
statement of essay length.
 If Blackboard is not working email your assessment to [email protected] with the unit code and title in the
subject line.
How to confirm that your essay has been submitted
 You will have received a digital receipt by email and If you click on the assessment again (steps 1-4), you will
see the title and submission date of the essay you have submitted. If you click on submit, you will not be able
to submit again. This table also displays the date of submission. If you click on the title of the essay, it will open
in a new window and you can also see what time the essay was submitted.
Appendix B
Summary of Relevant School Regulations
(Further information is in the year handbook)
Attendance at classes
SPAIS takes attendance and participation in classes very seriously. Seminars form an essential part
of your learning and you need to make sure you arrive on time, have done the required reading and
participate fully. Attendance at all seminars is monitored, with absence only condoned in cases of
illness or for other exceptional reasons.
If you are unable to attend a seminar you must inform your seminar tutor, as well as email [email protected]. You should also provide evidence to explain your absence, such as a selfcertification and/or medical note, counselling letter or other official document. If you are unable to
provide evidence then please still email [email protected] to explain why you are unable to
attend. If you are ill or are experiencing some other kind of difficulty which is preventing you from
attending seminars for a prolonged period, please inform your personal tutor, the Undergraduate Office
or the Student Administration Manager.
Requirements for credit points
In order to be awarded credit points for the unit, you must achieve:
 Satisfactory attendance in classes, or satisfactory completion of catch up work in lieu of poor
attendance
 Satisfactory formative assessment
13

An overall mark of 40 or above in the summative assessment/s. In some circumstances, a mark
of 35 or above can be awarded credit points.
Presentation of written work
Coursework must be word-processed. As a guide, use a clear, easy-to-read font such as Arial or Times
New Roman, in at least 11pt. You may double–space or single–space your essays as you prefer. Your
tutor will let you know if they have a preference.
All pages should be numbered.
Ensure that the essay title appears on the first page.
All pages should include headers containing the following information:
Formative work
Name: e.g. Joe Bloggs
Unit e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count .e.g. 1500 words
Summative work
**Candidate Number**: e.g. 12345
Unit: e.g. SOCI10004
Seminar Tutor: e.g. Dr J. Haynes
Word Count: e.g. 3000 words
Candidate numbers are required on summative work in order to ensure that marking is anonymous.
Note that your candidate number is not the same as your student number.
Assessment Length
Each piece of coursework must not exceed the stipulated maximum length for the assignment (the
‘word count’) listed in the unit guide. Summative work that exceeds the maximum length will be subject
to penalties. The word count is absolute (there is no 10% leeway, as commonly rumoured). Five marks
will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the word limit. Thus, an essay that is 1 word
over the word limit will be penalised 5 marks; an essay that is 101 words over the word limit will be
penalised 10 marks, and so on.
The word count includes all text, numbers, footnotes/endnotes, Harvard referencing in the body of the
text and direct quotes. It excludes, the title, candidate number, bibliography, and appendices.
However, appendices should only be used for reproducing documents, not additional text written by
you.
Referencing and Plagiarism
Where sources are used they must be cited using the Harvard referencing system. Inadequate
referencing is likely to result in penalties being imposed. See the Study Skills Guide for advice on
referencing and how poor referencing/plagiarism are processed. Unless otherwise stated, essays must
contain a bibliography.
Extensions
Extensions to coursework deadlines will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. If you want to
request an extension, complete an extension request form (available at Blackboard/SPAIS_UG
Administration/forms to download and School policies) and submit the form with your evidence (e.g.
self-certification, medical certificate, death certificate, or hospital letter) to Catherine Foster in the
Undergraduate Office.
Extension requests cannot be submitted by email, and will not be considered if there is no supporting
evidence. If you are waiting for evidence then you can submit the form and state that it has been
requested.
All extension requests should be submitted at least 72 hours prior to the assessment deadline. If the
circumstance occurs after this point, then please either telephone or see the Student Administration
Manager in person. In their absence you can contact Catherine Foster in the UG Office, again in
person or by telephone.
14
Extensions can only be granted by the Student Administration Manager. They cannot be granted by
unit convenors or seminar tutors.
You will receive an email to confirm whether your extension request has been granted.
Submitting Essays
Formative essays
Summative essays
Unless otherwise stated, all formative essay
submissions must be submitted electronically
via Blackboard
All summative essay submissions must be
submitted electronically via Blackboard.
Electronic copies enable an efficient system of receipting, providing the student and the School with a
record of exactly when an essay was submitted. It also enables the School to systematically check
the length of submitted essays and to safeguard against plagiarism.
Late Submissions
Penalties are imposed for work submitted late without an approved extension. Any kind of
computer/electronic failure is not accepted as a valid reason for an extension, so make sure you back
up your work on another computer, memory stick or in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive or Dropbox). Also
ensure that the clock on your computer is correct.
The following schema of marks deduction for late/non-submission is applied to both formative work
and summative work:
Up to 24 hours late, or part thereof
For each additional 24 hours late, or
part thereof
Assessment submitted over one week
late



Penalty of 10 marks
A further 5 marks deduction for each 24 hours,
or part thereof
Treated as a non-submission: fail and mark of
zero recorded. This will be noted on your
transcript.
The 24 hour period runs from the deadline for submission, and includes Saturdays, Sundays,
bank holidays and university closure days.
If an essay submitted less than one week late fails solely due to the imposition of a late
penalty, then the mark will be capped at 40.
If a fail due to non-submission is recorded, you will have the opportunity to submit the essay
as a second attempt for a capped mark of 40 in order to receive credit points for the unit.
Marks and Feedback
In addition to an overall mark, students will receive written feedback on their assessed work.
The process of marking and providing detailed feedback is a labour-intensive one, with most 2-3000
word essays taking at least half an hour to assess and comment upon. Summative work also needs to
be checked for plagiarism and length and moderated by a second member of staff to ensure marking
is fair and consistent. For these reasons, the University regulations are that feedback will be returned
to students within three weeks of the submission deadline.
If work is submitted late, then it may not be possible to return feedback within the three week period.
Fails and Resits
If you fail the unit overall, you will normally be required to resubmit or resit. In units where there are
two pieces of summative assessment, you will normally only have to re-sit/resubmit the highestweighted piece of assessment.
Exam resits only take place once a year, in late August/early September. If you have to re-sit an exam
then you will need to be available during this period. If you are not available to take a resit examination,
then you will be required to take a supplementary year in order to retake the unit.
15
Appendix C
Level 6 Marking and Assessment Criteria (Third / Final Year)
1st (70+)
o
o
o
o
o
2:1 (60–69)
o
o
o
o
o
2:2 (50–59)
o
o
o
o
o
3rd (40–49)
o
o
o
o
o
Marginal
o
Fail
o
(35–39)
o
o
o
Outright
Fail
(0–34)
o
o
o
o
o
Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical
understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues
A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and wellsupported
Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’
Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of
evidence to enhance the overall argument
Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent
and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting
Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive and
accurate knowledge and understanding
Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though
not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question
A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent
thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported
Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the
prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of
material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe
Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and
concisely; fairly consistent referencing and bibliographic formatting
Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors and/or
gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with little
understanding of how they relate to the question
Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical;
Tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and
evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical
Good attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; but
displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material
Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward;
some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but
generally accurate bibliography.
Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and
generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues
Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case;
underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or
incorrectly
Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources
Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling
errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations)
and containing bibliographic omissions.
Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of subject; limited or no
understanding of theoretical/methodological issues
Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and lacking a coherent
structure
Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues, based on
description or opinion
Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or are irrelevant
and/or misunderstood
Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; very limited attempt at providing
references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic
omissions
Very limited, and seriously flawed, knowledge and understanding
No comprehension of the implications of the question and no attempt to provide a
structure
No attempt at analysis
Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources
Very poorly presented: lacking any coherence, significant problems with spelling and
grammar, missing or no references and containing bibliographic omissions
16