The conceptualization of risk as objective, subjective, real or perceived has huge implications for its management as regards policy and governance. The sociological literature concerned with the science, technology and risks associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF) can be broadly divided into two main bodies of literature. The Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) which sees risk as both an objective yet subjective phenomenon and the anthropological branch of Science and Technology Studies (STS) which stems from a more constructivist premise. These distinct bodies of knowledge frame the separate components of the EMF issue differently. Distinct attitudes to uncertainty and ignorance have huge implications for the subsequent governance of risk. How these two distinct bodies of knowledge consequently elaborate strategies of risk communication, public education and public participation gives us insight into the projected relationship between science and society, experts and laypeople, and technocrats and citizens.
BakirV. (2005) “Greenpeace v, Shell: Media Exploitation and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF),” Journal of Risk Research8(7–8): 678–91.
BurgessA. (2002) “Comparing Responses to Perceived Health risks from Mobile Phone Masts,” Health, Risk and Society4(2): 175–88.
4.
BurgessA. (2004) Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BurnsW. J.SlovicP.KaspersonR. E.KaspersonJ. X.RennO.EmaniS. (1993) “Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making,” Risk Analysis13(6): 611–23.
6.
CollinsH.PinchT. (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
DietrichH.SchibeciR. (2003) “Beyond Public Perceptions of Gene Technology: Community Participation in Public Policy in Australia,” Public Understanding of Science12: 381–401.
8.
DietzT.FreyR. S.RosaE. A. (2001) “Risk, Technology and Society,” in DunlapR. E.MichelsonW. (eds) Handbook of Environmental Sociology, pp. 329–69. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
9.
DrakeF. (2006) “Mobile Phone Masts: Protesting the Scientific Evidence,” Public Understanding of Science15: 387–410.
10.
EsplugaJ. (2005) “Precautionary Local Politics and Coping with the Risks of Radiofrequency in Spain,” International Journal of Global Environmental Issues5(1/2): 68–77.
11.
FrewerL.HuntS.BrennanM.KuznesofS.NessM.RitsonC. (2003) “The Views of Scientific Experts on How the Public Conceptualise Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk Research6(1): 75–85.
12.
HabermasJ. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalisation of Society, vol. 1. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
HabermasJ. ([1962] 1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Horlick-JonesT.SimeJ.PidgeonN. (2003) “The Social Dynamics of Environmental Risk Perception: Implications for Risk Communication Research and Practice,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 262–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
IrwinA. (2001) Sociology and the Environment. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
JonesS. (2002) “Social Constructionism and the Environment: Through the Quagmire,” Global Environmental Change12: 247–51.
17.
KaspersonJ.KaspersonR. E.PidgeonN.SlovicP. (2003) “The Social Amplification of Risk: Assessing Fifteen Years of Research and Theory,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 13–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
KaspersonR. E. (1992) “The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework of Risk,” in KrimskyS.GoldingD. (eds) Social Theories of Risk, pp. 153–78. New York: Praeger.
19.
KaspersonR. E.KaspersonJ. X. (1996) “The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences545 (May): 95–105.
20.
KaspersonR. E.RennO.SlovicP.BrownH. S.EmelJ.GobleR.KaspersonJ. X.RatickS. (1988) “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis8: 177–87.
21.
KlinkeA.RennO. (2001) “Precautionary Principle and Discursive Strategies: Classifying and Managing Risks,” Journal of Risk Research4(2): 159–73.
22.
LatourB. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
LawA.McNeishW. (2007) “Contesting the New Irrational Actor Model: A Case Study of Mobile Phone Mast Protest,” Sociology41: 439–56.
24.
LeachM.ScoonesI.StirlingA. (2007) “Pathways to Sustainability: An Overview of the STEPS Centre Approach,” STEPS Approach Paper, STEPS (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Centre, Brighton.
25.
LeissW. (2003) “Searching for the Public Policy Relevance of the Risk Amplification Framework,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 355–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LinderS. H. (1995) “Contending Discourses in the Electric and Magnetic Field Controversy: The Social Construction of EMF Risk as a Public Problem,” Policy Sciences28: 209–30.
27.
LinetM. S.HatchE. E.KleinermanR. A.RobinsonL. L.KayneW. T.FreidmanD. R.SeversonR. K.HainesC. M.HarstokC. T.NiwaS.WacholderS.TaroneR. E. (1997) “Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children,” New England Journal of Medicine337: 1–7.
28.
LuginaahI.EylesJ.ElliotS. (2004) “Informing the Development of Decision Support Tools for Risk Management: The Case of Electrical and Magnetic Fields,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47(4): 601–21.
29.
MillerS. (2001) “Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads,” Public Understanding of Science10: 115–20.
30.
MitchellL.CambrosioA. (1997) “The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment,” Social Studies of Science27(2): 221–71.
31.
MurdockG.PettsJ.Horlick-JonesT. (2003) “After Amplification: Rethinking the Role of the Media in Risk Communication,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 156–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
OlsenJ.NielsenA.SchulgenG. (1993) “Residence Near High Voltage Facilities and Risk of Cancer in Children,” British Medical Journal307: 891–5.
33.
PidgeonN. F.Rogers-HaydenT. (2007) “Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or ‘Upstream Engagement’?,” Health, Risk and Society9: 191–210.
34.
PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RennO. (1991) “Risk Communication and the Social Amplification of Risk,”in KaspersonR. E.StallenP. J. (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, pp. 287–324. Amsterdam and New York: Kluwer Academic.
36.
RennO. (2003) “Social Amplification of Risk in Participation: Two Case Studies,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 374–401. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
RennO. (2004) “The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management,” in KaspersonR. E.StallenP. J. (eds) Risk Analysis, pp. 289–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
RennO.BurnsW. J.KaspersonJ. X.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (1992) “The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications,” Journal of Social Issues48: 137–60.
39.
RennO.JaegerC.RosaE.WeblerT. (2000) “The Rational Actor Paradigm in Risk Theories: Analysis and Critique,” in CohenM. (ed.) Risk in the Modern Age: Social Theory, Science and Environmental Decision-Making. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
40.
RipA. (1988) “Should Social Amplification of Risk be Counteracted?,” Risk Analysis8(2): 193–7.
41.
SchützH.WiedemannP. (2005) “How to Deal With Dissent among Experts: Risk Evaluation of EMF in a Scientific Dialogue,” Journal of Risk Research8(6): 531–45.
42.
SlovicP. (1999) “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis19(4): 689–701.
43.
SonerydL. (2007) “Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable? Public Protests and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden,” Science, Technology and Human Values32(3): 287–314.
44.
StilgoeJ. (2005) “Controlling Mobile Phone Health Risks in the UK: A Fragile Discourse of Compliance,” Science and Public Policy32(1): 55–64.
45.
StilgoeJ. (2007) “The (Co-) Production of Public Uncertainty: UK Scientific Advice on Mobile Phone Health Risks,” Public Understanding of Science16: 45–61.
46.
ThalmannA.WiedemannP. (2006) “Belief and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals,” Journal of Risk Research9(5): 453–66.
47.
TimotijevicL.BarnettJ. (2006) “Managing the Possible Health Risks of Mobile Telecommunications: Public Understandings of Precautionary Action and Advice,” Health, Risk and Society8(2): 143–64.
48.
Van AsseltM.VosB. A. E. (2006) “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox,” Journal of Risk Research9(4): 1–20.
49.
WertheimerN.LeeperE. (1979) “Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer,” American Journal of Epidemiology109(3): 273–84.
50.
WiedemannP.ClaubergM.SchützH. (2003) “Understanding Amplification of Complex Risk Issues: The Risk Story Model Applied to the EMF Case,” in PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 286–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
WilkinsJ.WellageL. (1996) “Brain Tumor in Offspring of Men Occupationally Exposed to Electric and Magnetic Fields,” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health22(5): 339–45.
52.
WynneB. (1995) “The Public Understanding of Science,” in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C.PinchT. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 361–88. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
WynneB. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in LashS.SzerszynskiB.WynneB. (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44–83. London: Sage.
54.
WynneB. (2002) “Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?,” Current Sociology50(3): 459–77.
55.
WynneB. (2005) “Risk as Globalizing ‘Democratic’ Discourse? Framing Subjects and Citizens,” in LeachM.ScoonesI.WynneB. (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalisation and the Challenge of Engagement, pp. 66–82. London: Zed Books.
56.
ZinnJ. (2004) “Literature Review: Sociology and Risk,” Social Contexts and Responses to Risk Network (SCARR), Working Paper 2004/1, University of Kent.
