Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
A recent structured review of the qualitative risk perception literature (Hawkes and Rowe 2008 Hawkes, G. and Rowe, G. 2008. A characterisation of the methodology of qualitative research on the nature of perceived risk: Trends and omissions. Journal of Risk Research, 11(5): 617–643. Taylor & Francis Online, Web of Science ® , Google Scholar) found that research has tended to focus on a narrow range of samples, using a limited range of techniques, looking at immediate perceptions (rather than changes over time), and focusing upon a limited range of hazards. As such, it may be argued that the risk perception ‘universe’ remains relatively unexplored. One method little utilised in the risk perception domain is the diary. Diaries are more commonly associated with historical, personal documents, and rarely have been used in wider social research. Nevertheless, contemporary, solicited diaries can provide a different perspective on risk than that acquired through the more traditional route of interviews and focus groups. Diaries may allow the elicitation of narratives of risk contextualised within people's everyday lives, as well as allowing consideration of how people's perceptions of risk develop and change over time. In this paper, we discuss the benefits of diary research, reporting results from a pilot qualitative study about people's everyday concerns. We focus on the comparative nature of the study and contrast the findings from diaries with data attained from interviews, highlighting qualitative and quantitative differences in the results obtained by the two methods. The findings emphasise the importance of taking a multi-method approach to understanding risk perception.
Hawkes et al. (Mon,) studied this question.