Max Boholm

Risk and Causality in Newspaper Reporting

The study addresses the textual representation of risk and causality in news media reporting. The analytical framework combines two theoretical perspectives: media frame analysis and the philosophy of causality. Empirical data derive from selected newspaper articles on risks in the Göta älv river valley in southwest Sweden from 1994 to 2007. News media content was coded and analyzed with respect to causal explanations of risk issues. At the level of individual articles, this study finds that the media provide simple causal explanations of risks such as water pollution, landslides, and flooding. Furthermore, these explanations are constructed, or framed, in various ways, the same risk being attributed to different causes in different articles. However, the study demonstrates that a fairly complex picture of risks in the media emerges when extensive material is analyzed systematically.

Controversy over antibacterial silver: implications for environmental and sustainability assessments

Abstract The potential risks and benefits of using silver, especially nanosilver, as an antibacterial agent in consumer and healthcare products are under debate globally. Using content analysis of texts from newspaper and TV, government agencies, municipalities, government and parliament, non-governmental organizations, and companies, we analyze the argumentation in the Swedish public controversy over antibacterial silver and relate the findings to environmental and sustainability assessments. We conclude that silver is regarded as either beneficial or harmful in relation to four main values: the environment, health, sewage treatment, and product effectiveness. Various arguments are used to support positive and negative evaluations of silver, revealing several contradictory reasons for considering silver beneficial or harmful. Current environmental and sustainability assessments (i.e. substance flow analysis, risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and lifecycle assessment) cover many of the concerns raised in the public controversy over antibacterial silver and can therefore inform the debate regarding its toxicity, emissions, and environmental impact. However, not all concerns raised in the public controversy are covered by current environmental and sustainability assessments, most notably, concerns over public health and bacterial resistance issues are not paid full attention. For future environmental and sustainability assessments to make an even more significant societal contribution and to inform consumers and decision-makers about concerns articulated in the public debate, a wider range of issues concerning antibacterial silver needs to be considered through a unified framework.

The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting

The morpheme nano in languages such as Swedish and English is a constituent of many words. This article linguistically analyses the meaning potential of nano by focusing on word use in a Swedish newspaper corpus comprising 2,564 articles (1.6 million words) covering a 22-year period (1988–2010). Close to 400 word forms having nano as a constituent have been identified and analyzed. The results suggest that nano covers a broad and heterogeneous conceptual field: (i) as a prefix of the SI system; (ii) in relation to the scientific activities of nanoscience and nanotechnology, including their sub-processes and actors; and (iii) in relation to objects. The identified meanings of nano, besides the standard definition (i.e. ‘billionth part’ in relation to SI units), are ‘operating at the nanometre level’ in relation to activities and their actors and ‘nanometre sized’ and ‘nanotechnological’ in relation to objects; in addition, the less precise and non-technical meaning ‘very small’ is identified. We discuss the implications of the findings for a hypothesis about media influence on public understanding of technology, suggesting that repeated findings in Europe and the USA of little self-reported understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology or nanoscience among the public make sense in light of the polysemy of nano reflected in its broad variety of verbal forms and usages.

The representation of nano as a risk in Swedish news media coverage

Focusing on the role of language in categorization and on the broad conceptual field centred on the morpheme nano, this study addresses the association between phenomena referred to by words having nano as a constituent and risk in Swedish newspaper reporting. The study raises the question of how nano-associated phenomena (e.g. nanotechnology and nanoparticle) are represented as risks? Articles considered for analysis contain both a word having nano as a constituent and the Swedish words for risk or danger. Articles representing nano-associated phenomena (e.g. nanotechnology and nanoparticle) as risks mainly fall into one of five groups: (I) nanotechnology, without reference to particles, materials or products; (II) nanotechnology, nanoparticles, nanomaterials and/or products containing such particles and materials; (III) nanoparticles in products, but without reference to nanotechnology; (IV) nanotechnology and nanorobots; and (V) non-nanotechnological nanoparticles. For each group, using a theoretical approach addressing the relational nature of risk, the paper analyses representations of objects at risk, bad outcomes, causal conditions, reference to applications and sources cited. Various patterns of these categories emerge for the five groups, indicating a diversified set of associations between nano and risk. In certain respects, the findings support the results of other studies of media reporting on nanotechnology, suggesting certain international patterns of newspaper coverage of nanotechnology drawing on both science and science fiction.

Dis-Ag-reement: the construction and negotiation of risk in the Swedish controversy over antibacterial silver

What constitutes a potentially hazardous object is often debated. This article analyses the polemic construction and negotiation of risk in the Swedish controversy over the use of antibacterial silver in health care and consumer products. This debate engages the media, government agencies, parliament and government, non-governmental organizations and companies. Texts and websites from these actors were studied using content analysis. Antibacterial silver is construed by some actors as a risk object with harmful effects on a series of objects at risk: the environment, public health, organisms and sewage treatment. In contrast, other actors deny that antibacterial silver is a risk object, instead construing it as mitigating risk. In such a schema, antibacterial silver is conceived of as managing the risk objects of bacteria and micro-organisms, in turn managing the risk objects of infection, bad smell and washing, and in turn helping the environment and public health (objects at risk). The structure of the debate suggests two basic modes of risk communication. First, antibacterial silver is construed as a risk object, endangering a variety of objects at risk, such as organisms, public health, the environment and sewage treatment. Second, this association between antibacterial silver and objects at risk is obstructed, by denying that antibacterial silver is a risk object or by associating silver with the benefit of mitigating risk.

Risk association: towards a linguistically informed framework for analysing risk in discourse

This article addresses a fundamental feature of risk discourse, namely, risk association, defined as the process whereby an agent establishes a connection between something, x, and the notion of risk. In addition, risk association can be defined as the result of such a process, i.e. an established connection between x and risk. A special case of risk association is when x is linked to harmful properties and thus is represented as a risk. Although fundamental to any analysis of socio-cognitive attention to risks, the process of risk association is often taken for granted in risk research. A layered model of risk association is presented taking linguistic practices, i.e. the use of words, as the point of departure. Accordingly, there are both central and more peripheral means of risk association. The central means include the morpheme ‘risk’. More peripheral means of risk association are close synonyms and antonyms of risk (e.g. ‘hazard’, ‘danger’, ‘safety’ and ‘security’) and other related words (e.g. ‘crisis’, ‘protection’ and ‘threat’). For an illustration, the model is applied to an empirical example: the instructions for Swedish government agencies. The example illustrates how the exact vocabulary considered for operationalization in analysis has important consequences for the conclusions that follow with respect to the extent to which government agencies are associated with risk.

How do Swedish Government agencies define risk

Abstract This study is guided by two research questions: first, how is the word risk defined by Swedish Government agencies and, second, do these agencies use the word risk consistently with how it is defined? These questions are answered by first selecting relevant agencies and then systematically searching for definitions of risk on these agencies’ websites. The study demonstrates that risk is defined in 14 ways, many of which vaguely express the idea that risk is the probability of an unwanted event multiplied by some measure of its consequences. The study also demonstrates that agencies often define risk in ways that are inconsistent with how they use the term (i.e. over and above how it is defined). The findings are discussed in light of normative desiderata for effective risk communication and risk management. The paper concludes with six recommendations for improving definitions of risk used by public agencies.

Towards a semiotic definition of discourse and a basis for a typology of discourses

Abstract This article engages with the widely used academic concept of discourse. The aim is threefold: first, to provide a comprehensive overview of how the notion of discourse is conceived based on (a) definitions in the academic literature, (b) dictionary definitions, and (c) corpus data; second, to define discourse as a set of related representations; and, third, to suggest a basis for a typology of discourses. Following Peirce, a representation is regarded as a relationship between a signifier, signified element, and interpretant. A basis for a typology is developed by considering various types of representations and ways they are related.

“Just Carbon”: Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors

Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being “just carbon”). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.