Breadth for depth? The sociology of risk at a crossroad

Abstract

The sociology of risk has produced over the years an impressive amount of research. But much like economics, it has often traded depth for breadth, i.e. produced concepts, tools and intermediate theories capable of describing and establishing the causal patterns of a wide array of phenomenon, capable also of travelling across national settings, capable finally of providing policymakers with evidence for making decisions. The psychometric paradigm, science and technology studies, cultural theory, and even in a sense policy studies and governmentality theories have produced analyses free of any attachment to specific social and historical conditions. By doing so, they offered limited explanations of the emergence and construction of risk issues, of the terms under which risk discourses diffuse across different institutional settings, of the multiplicity of meanings and uses attached to the notion of risk. Yet these dimensions also need to be acknowledged if we want to avoid the production of artifacts. The point is not to abandon breadth for depth, but to consider ways in which “thin” and “thick” (to quote Ted Porter) descriptions can be articulated more usefully. This presentation will consider various ways in which a thick description of risk issues can usefully supplement thinner theories of risk in sociology (and possibly economics).