210
given to the public by experts. Renn ( 2008 ) identifi es four different types of risk
communication: documentation, information, dialogue and involvement.
Communication as it is used in this context thus includes on the one hand the
provision of information (which in some respects also includes documentation) and
on the other hand dialogue and involvement. These two forms are like two different
models of communication (see, e.g. Fiske 1990 ). It is relevant to distinguish between
them in analyses of governance activities even if there are obvious overlaps between
the two.
In general, research in risk communication still rests on a traditional, and in some
sense obsolete, notion of communication as a linear process, which might be successful but could also fail. This notion has its roots in the classical source-receiver
model where a message is sent from a source to a transmitter who decodes it and
sends it towards the receiver, the audience (Cox 2010 ; Fiske 1990 ). The model has
been applied and somewhat amended to fi t patterns of science and risk communication; where the sources consist of, for example, scientists, public agencies, interest
groups and/or eye witnesses; where the transmitters are mass media, public institutions, interest groups and opinion leaders; and where the receivers include the general public, specifi c target audiences, group members or exposed individuals.
Traditionally risk communication studies have had a focus on the means of transmission as well as on the composition of the message and the ability to persuade the
audience in a particular way with the main aim of changing audience behaviour
(Breakwell 2007 ). Traditionally the communication of risk messages thus has
mainly been about experts ‘informing’ the public (e.g. with regard to the public’s
‘right-to-know’).
The view of seeing communication solely as a one-way endeavour (from
‘experts’ to ‘laymen’) has in many ways been abandoned on behalf of a more inclusive and process-oriented view of communication. Here, communication is seen as
evolving through systems and networks over time and within deliberate decisionmaking about risks (Breakwell 2007 ; Renn 2008 ). This linear model has been criticised for ‘…its naive conception of the public. It views them as passive recipients
of information, taking no account of how the information they receive will interact
with their pre-existing knowledge and attitudes and ignoring any demands they may
have for what they learn to be relevant to their individual situation’ (Gregory and
Miller 2000 : 97).
Public participation and its conceptualisation in risk policy have thus shifted
from a technical one-way communication towards a more inclusive approach, in
which there is a ‘two-way learning’ between science and society (Pidgeon et al.
2006 ). Here we see a parallel development in the fi eld of science communication
with a shift from the defi cit model with its focus on informing the public for the
purpose of increasing scientifi c knowledge among citizens and thus fostering more
positive attitudes towards science to a more dialogical ideal, expressed in Bucchis’
ideas on avoiding the transfer paradigm and instead seeing communication as a
‘crosstalk’ and a ‘double helix’ with one strand representing scientifi c discourse and
the other representing public discourse (Bucchi 2004 ).
A.M. Jönsson et al.
given to the public by experts. Renn ( 2008 ) identifi es four different types of risk
communication: documentation, information, dialogue and involvement.
Communication as it is used in this context thus includes on the one hand the
provision of information (which in some respects also includes documentation) and
on the other hand dialogue and involvement. These two forms are like two different
models of communication (see, e.g. Fiske 1990 ). It is relevant to distinguish between
them in analyses of governance activities even if there are obvious overlaps between
the two.
In general, research in risk communication still rests on a traditional, and in some
sense obsolete, notion of communication as a linear process, which might be successful but could also fail. This notion has its roots in the classical source-receiver
model where a message is sent from a source to a transmitter who decodes it and
sends it towards the receiver, the audience (Cox 2010 ; Fiske 1990 ). The model has
been applied and somewhat amended to fi t patterns of science and risk communication; where the sources consist of, for example, scientists, public agencies, interest
groups and/or eye witnesses; where the transmitters are mass media, public institutions, interest groups and opinion leaders; and where the receivers include the general public, specifi c target audiences, group members or exposed individuals.
Traditionally risk communication studies have had a focus on the means of transmission as well as on the composition of the message and the ability to persuade the
audience in a particular way with the main aim of changing audience behaviour
(Breakwell 2007 ). Traditionally the communication of risk messages thus has
mainly been about experts ‘informing’ the public (e.g. with regard to the public’s
‘right-to-know’).
The view of seeing communication solely as a one-way endeavour (from
‘experts’ to ‘laymen’) has in many ways been abandoned on behalf of a more inclusive and process-oriented view of communication. Here, communication is seen as
evolving through systems and networks over time and within deliberate decisionmaking about risks (Breakwell 2007 ; Renn 2008 ). This linear model has been criticised for ‘…its naive conception of the public. It views them as passive recipients
of information, taking no account of how the information they receive will interact
with their pre-existing knowledge and attitudes and ignoring any demands they may
have for what they learn to be relevant to their individual situation’ (Gregory and
Miller 2000 : 97).
Public participation and its conceptualisation in risk policy have thus shifted
from a technical one-way communication towards a more inclusive approach, in
which there is a ‘two-way learning’ between science and society (Pidgeon et al.
2006 ). Here we see a parallel development in the fi eld of science communication
with a shift from the defi cit model with its focus on informing the public for the
purpose of increasing scientifi c knowledge among citizens and thus fostering more
positive attitudes towards science to a more dialogical ideal, expressed in Bucchis’
ideas on avoiding the transfer paradigm and instead seeing communication as a
‘crosstalk’ and a ‘double helix’ with one strand representing scientifi c discourse and
the other representing public discourse (Bucchi 2004 ).
A.M. Jönsson et al.