Definition Risk Theories – Annotated Bibliography Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Definition Risk Theories " is an excellent example of an annotated bibliography on social science. In the 1960s, the risk was a neutral term that was essentially concerned with depicting probabilities of gains and losses (Kahn, 1962). In contemporary society, risk has been assimilated into several dashes of realism or social constructs to depict undesirable or negative outcomes. The term is today synonymous with danger, insecurity, disaster, and hazard. Indeed, the risk is defined as the likelihood of undesirable outcomes. An underlying assumption is that the traditional perspectives of risk were concerned with the actuarial tables of life insurers to analyze risk within the business perspective or risk.

In the modern theorem, a range of social sciences discusses how analyses have been created to offer a more critical perspective that address the socially-constructed and historically-specific formulation of the idea of risk, as well as its assessment (Joffe, 2003). This annotative bibliography explores this dichotomy. It also develops a post-modern perspective on risk that confronts the traditional readings. Several theories of risk are explored to show the evolution, namely: Governmentality Perspective theory, Actor-Network theory (ANT), Cultural theory of risk, Social theory of risk, and Collective risk theory. Actor-Network Theory Cordella, A.

& Shaikh, M. (2006). From Epistemology to Ontology: Challenging the Constructed 'truth of 'ANT'. Working Paper Series 143, March 2006. London: London School of Economics and Political Science Summary: The paper introduces Actor-network Theory as a tool for interoperating phenomena rather than informing research. The central argument of the authors is that ANT has been forced to integrate the ontology of interpretivism, hence suppresses its own ontology. Cordella and Shaikh show that unlike ANT, interpretivism is by nature constructivist.

It is further indicated that while interpretivism considers the interpreter of the risks or problems as capable of constructing reality in the mind, ANT underscores the assumption that reality can only be constructed through the interplay of more than one actor and that the reality emerges externally of an individual’ s mind. Hong, J., Wenta, Y., Dora, M. & Xiumei, G. (2011). Risk analysis of GM crops technology in China: Modeling and governance, in F. Chan, D. Marinova, and R. S. Anderssen (ed). 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Dec 12-16 2011, pp.

1687-1694. Perth, WA: The Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Summary: Hong et al. introduce the actor-network theory as appropriate for exploring risk assessment and governance of new technology, such as the genetically modified (GM) crops. Hong et al. further depict the actor-network theory as capable of sociological research analysis to examine technological development. It is established that by using the actor-network theory, technological development is not regarded as a mutual fragmented framework between the social human actors and the non-human actors.

Hong et al. (2011) showed that non-human actors interpret their own benefits based on the entire network, through a chain of translations to undertake technology within the actor-networks. Latour, B. (1990). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. Philosophia 25(3), 47-64 Summary: Latour shows that the actor-network theory was developed as an attempt to come up with a means of explaining agencies, such as society, nature, and entities. Latour explains that three resources have emerged over the years that address the agencies. The first is attributed to the agency's naturality, which relates to nature.

The second is granting them sociality and binding them using social fabric. The third is considering them as semiotic construction and relating agency with the interpretation of meaning. Latour points out that the originality of science originated from the difficulty in distinguishing these three sources.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us