Orfalea Center Thematic Research Cluster
Global Futures: Uncertainty, Displacement, Security
Risk Studies Reading List: Technological Risk
This list compiles works that address the role of technology in defining and assessing risk. The contexts in which technology and risk interact on this list include data extraction, surveillance, communication, and scientific development. This list also includes works that address the ways in which technology mediate risk.
Binder, A. R., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Gunther, A. C. (2011). Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 31(2), 324-334.
Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of Blackness. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Ciborra, C. (2006). Imbrication of representations: Risk and digital technologies. Journal of Management Studies, 43(6), 1339-1356.
De Marchi, B., & Ravetz, J. R. (1999). Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach. Futures, 31(7), 743-757.
Delgado, A., & Rodríguez-Giralt, I. (2014). Creole interferences: A conflict over biodiversity and ownership in the south of Brazil. In Medina, E., da Costa Marques, I., & Holmes, C. (Eds.) Beyond imported magic: Essays on science, technology, and society in Latin America (pp. 331-348). Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Fiore-Gartland, B., & Neff, G. (2015). Communication, mediation, and the expectations of data. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1466–1484.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127-152.
Grieger, K. D., Wickson, F., Andersen, H. B., & Renn, O. (2012). Improving risk governance of emerging technologies through public engagement: The neglected case of nano-remediation?. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 10(1).
Hu, T. (2015). A prehistory of the cloud. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.
Kates, R. W., & Kasperson, J. X. (1983). Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(22), 7027-7038.
Nelkin, D. (1989). Communicating technological risk: The social construction of risk perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 10(1), 95-113.
Parikka, J. (2013). Learning from network dysfunctionality: Accidents, enterprise, and small worlds of infection.” In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.) A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 450-460). West Sussex and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pidgeon, N. (2020). Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, values and deliberation. Journal of Risk Research, 1-19.
Renn, O., & Benighaus, C. (2013). Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3-4), 293-313.
Rusert, B. (2019). Naturalizing coercion: The Tuskegee experiments and the laboratory life of the plantation. In R. Benjamin (Eds.) Captivating technology: Race, carceral technoscience, and liberatory imagination in everyday life (pp. 25-49). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Stirling, A. (2008). Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk: converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(1), 95-110.
Walls, J., O’Riordan, T., Horlick‐Jones, T., & Niewöhner, J. (2005). The meta‐governance of risk and new technologies: GM crops and mobile telephones. Journal of Risk Research, 8(7-8), 635-661.
Weizman, E. (2017). Forensic architecture: Violence at the threshold of detectability. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
