Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Risk, responsibility, and blame

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Risk, responsibility, and blame: An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Risk, responsibility, and blame : An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses. / Bickerstaff, Karen; Walker, Gordon.

In: Environment and Planning A, Vol. 34, No. 12, 01.12.2002, p. 2175-2192.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bickerstaff K, Walker G. Risk, responsibility, and blame: An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses. Environment and Planning A. 2002 Dec 1;34(12):2175-2192. doi: 10.1068/a3521

Author

Bickerstaff, Karen ; Walker, Gordon. / Risk, responsibility, and blame : An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses. In: Environment and Planning A. 2002 ; Vol. 34, No. 12. pp. 2175-2192.

Bibtex

@article{df5baa06464543e48c703a7236ece674,
title = "Risk, responsibility, and blame: An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses",
abstract = "In this paper we analyse the reasonings that people deploy in explaining and rationalising their behaviour in relation to the collective environmental and health-risk problem of urban air quality. We draw on an empirical study of public perceptions of air pollution to identify a range of 'vocabularies of motive' or discourses that serve to move responsibility to act away from the individual and onto other groups. We consider how far each of these 'vocabularies' can be interpreted as a mode of blaming, and draw conclusions linking our analysis to wider relational and moral tensions. Our analysis suggests that blame, although conceptually powerful, falters under empirical scrutiny. On this basis we argue for a more sensitive reading of responsibility discourses in academic debate and enquiry. Conclusions and policy implications are developed, linking our interpretation to the (confrontation of) wider relational and moral tensions, which characterise collective-risk situations.",
author = "Karen Bickerstaff and Gordon Walker",
year = "2002",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1068/a3521",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "2175--2192",
journal = "Environment and Planning A",
issn = "0308-518X",
publisher = "SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk, responsibility, and blame

T2 - An analysis of vocabularies of motive in air-pollution(ing) discourses

AU - Bickerstaff, Karen

AU - Walker, Gordon

PY - 2002/12/1

Y1 - 2002/12/1

N2 - In this paper we analyse the reasonings that people deploy in explaining and rationalising their behaviour in relation to the collective environmental and health-risk problem of urban air quality. We draw on an empirical study of public perceptions of air pollution to identify a range of 'vocabularies of motive' or discourses that serve to move responsibility to act away from the individual and onto other groups. We consider how far each of these 'vocabularies' can be interpreted as a mode of blaming, and draw conclusions linking our analysis to wider relational and moral tensions. Our analysis suggests that blame, although conceptually powerful, falters under empirical scrutiny. On this basis we argue for a more sensitive reading of responsibility discourses in academic debate and enquiry. Conclusions and policy implications are developed, linking our interpretation to the (confrontation of) wider relational and moral tensions, which characterise collective-risk situations.

AB - In this paper we analyse the reasonings that people deploy in explaining and rationalising their behaviour in relation to the collective environmental and health-risk problem of urban air quality. We draw on an empirical study of public perceptions of air pollution to identify a range of 'vocabularies of motive' or discourses that serve to move responsibility to act away from the individual and onto other groups. We consider how far each of these 'vocabularies' can be interpreted as a mode of blaming, and draw conclusions linking our analysis to wider relational and moral tensions. Our analysis suggests that blame, although conceptually powerful, falters under empirical scrutiny. On this basis we argue for a more sensitive reading of responsibility discourses in academic debate and enquiry. Conclusions and policy implications are developed, linking our interpretation to the (confrontation of) wider relational and moral tensions, which characterise collective-risk situations.

U2 - 10.1068/a3521

DO - 10.1068/a3521

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:0036942753

VL - 34

SP - 2175

EP - 2192

JO - Environment and Planning A

JF - Environment and Planning A

SN - 0308-518X

IS - 12

ER -