Presented here is an elaboration of the fundamental features of the meaning of risk. It distinguishes between analytic approaches grounded in realism and postmodern (including constructionist) epistemologies and the presuppositions of each. It argues that attempts to fuse the ontology of risk with epistemological considerations into a common definition is both internally contradictory and a weak foundation for a theoretically justified definition of risk. In place of a fused definition of risk, it re-affirms a definition risk as a state of the world, independent of percipient actors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eugene A. Rosa (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: