Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LEISS, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice

WILLIAM LEISS

Effective communication between interested parties is widely held to be a vital element in health and environmental risk management decision making. There have been three phases in the evolution of risk communication during the last twenty years. Phase I emphasized risk: in a modern industrial economy, we must have the capacity to manage risks at a very exacting level of detail. Phase II stresses communication: statements about risk situations are best regarded as acts of persuasive communication, that is, as messages intended to persuade a listener of the correctness of a point of view. Now, in Phase III, public and private sector institutions increasingly are recognizing their responsibility to deal adequately with both dimensions and to carry out sound risk communication as a matter of good business practice.

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 545, No. 1, 85-94 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716296545001009
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
V. Bakir
Policy Agenda Setting and Risk Communication: Greenpeace, Shell, and Issues of Trust
International Journal of Press/Politics, July 1, 2006; 11(3): 67 - 88.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
D. W. Cash, J. C. Borck, and A. G. Patt
Countering the Loading-Dock Approach to Linking Science and Decision Making: Comparative Analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Forecasting Systems
Science Technology Human Values, July 1, 2006; 31(4): 465 - 494.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
Z. Gurabardhi, J. M. Gutteling, and M. Kuttschreuter
The Development of Risk Communication: An Empirical Analysis of the Literature in the Field
Science Communication, June 1, 2004; 25(4): 323 - 349.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 OrganizationHome page
H. Tsoukas
David and Goliath in the Risk Society: Making Sense of the Conflict between Shell and Greenpeace in the North Sea
Organization, August 1, 1999; 6(3): 499 - 528.
[Abstract] [PDF]