hh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Giritli Nygren, Katarina
    et al.
    Forum for Gender Studies, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden.
    Öhman, Susanna
    Risk and Crisis Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
    Olofsson, Anna
    Risk and Crisis Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
    Doing and undoing risk: the mutual constitution of risk and heteronormativity in contemporary society2017In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 20, no 3, p. 418-432Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper develops the concepts of ‘doing’ and ‘undoing’ risk, a new approach to risk research that echoes the ‘doing gender’ of gender studies. In this way, we combine intersectional and risk theory and apply the new perspective to empirical material. To better explore the doing and undoing, or the performance, of risk, we will refer to practices that simultaneously (re)produce and hide socio-political norms and positions, played out in contemporary, hierarchical relations of power and knowledge. The aim is to develop a theoretical understanding of doing and undoing risk. The study makes use of transcripts from five focus group interviews with men and women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of different ages living in Sweden to develop a theory of ‘doing risk’. The doing of risk of our informants takes place within the frame of a hegemonic heteronormativity. The way that risks are perceived and done in everyday life therefore always needs to be read within a frame of prevailing structures of power. This counts for all of us as we are all part of the hegemonic power structures and thereby are both subject to the intersecting doings of risk and performatively reproducing these power structures in practice. © 2015 Taylor & Francis.

  • 2.
    Hunka, Agnieszka D.
    et al.
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark & Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Philosophy, 3TU.Ethics Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
    Meli, Mattia
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Palmqvist, Annemette
    Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.
    Thorbek, Pernille
    Syngenta Jealott's Hill International Research Centre, Bracknell, United Kingdom .
    Forbes, Valery E
    School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States.
    Ecological risk assessment of pesticides in the EU: What factors and groups influence policy changes?2015In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 18, no 9, p. 1165-1183Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    For the last couple of years, European environmental risk assessment (ERA) regulations have undergone significant changes. The new 1107/2009 directive which came into effect in 2011 has triggered an on-going debate on defining specific protection goals for ERA. During this period, we conducted a study on policy change among the most influential ERA stakeholders from Europe. We interviewed 43, purposively sampled, participants from the European safety authorities, plant protection product industry and academia. Transcribed interviews underwent thematic analysis conducted separately by two coders. As we followed the advocacy coalition framework, our findings focus on stakeholders processes, interrelations and values behind the ERA policy change. The main challenges emerging from our analysis turned out to be the slow uptake of scientific developments into ERA and very broadly defined protection goals. The use of safety factors and cut-off criteria left risk assessors with many uncertainties. With ERA in its current form it turned out to be impossible to determine whether the current scheme is over- or under-protective. Still, the study shows that the problem of over- or under-protectiveness lies deep in the perception of stakeholders and depends greatly on their priorities. Academics strive for better ecological relevance as a priority. They have concerns that ERA is oversimplified. Regulators worry that ERA relies too much on risk mitigation and is possibly not protective enough, but at the same time, the majority believes that the assessment is well established and straightforward to follow. Industry representatives would like to see ERA based more on probabilistic risk assessment. Recent changes, according to risk assessment and management practitioners have led to an inevitable increase in complexity, which is not perceived as a positive thing, and does not necessarily translate into better risk assessment. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

  • 3.
    Olofsson, Anna
    et al.
    Department of Social Science, Mid Sweden University, Sweden.
    Öhman, Susanna
    Department of Social Science, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
    Views of Risk in Sweden: Global Fatalism and Local Control — An Empirical Investigation of Ulrich Beck’s Theory of New Risks2007In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 10, no 2, p. 177-196Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Ulrich Beck's theory of risk society has been criticised because there is lack of empirical evidence. By comparing people with different life contexts and experiences, the aim of this study was to investigate how these people view risk, and if 'new' risks are perceived differently by different groups in society. Five focus-group interviews were conducted in Sweden, in 2004/05, with people in rural and urban areas, people with a foreign background and experts. The groups consisted of four people each and lasted for two hours. The results show that 'new' risks are not something people worry about; 'risk' is associated with personal experiences and life context. This indicates a traditional or at least modern way of viewing risk, and contradicts the idea of a reflexive view of risk. However, a division between the urban versus the rural-migrant groups appears: the expert-urban groups show a more global - fatalistic strategy to handle of risk, while the rural - migrant group shows a more traditional approach to risk, where control and the local context are in focus.

  • 4.
    Olofsson, Anna
    et al.
    Risk and Crisis Research Center, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
    Öhman, Susanna
    Risk and Crisis Research Center, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden.
    Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour2015In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 18, no 1, p. 2-20Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim is to investigate differences in risk perception and behaviour among different population groups selected by gender, age, country of birth, disability and sexual orientation in the light of general values and vulnerability. The analyses use data from two Swedish national surveys from 2005 to 2008. People with foreign background perceive controlled and dread risks as a greater threat than do native-born people, but there is no difference in behaviour when general values and vulnerability have been controlled for. Compared to women, men rate known and dread risks as lower, but controlled risks as higher. Further, men’s behaviour is more risk-oriented and less risk-reducing, and homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to report risk behaviour. Compared to previous studies of the so-called White Male Effect carried out in the USA, gender does not play a similar role in Sweden. On the contrary, it seems as if gender is of less importance and that the strength of the association varies depending on type of risk or risk behaviour. © 2014 Taylor & Francis.

1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf