‘It’s not disrespect – it’s putting you at risk’: when right meets risk in the field of cycling research & policy

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Risk & Society Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1080/13698575.2022.2138278
R. Egan, M. Philbin
{"title":"‘It’s not disrespect – it’s putting you at risk’: when right meets risk in the field of cycling research & policy","authors":"R. Egan, M. Philbin","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2022.2138278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the field of cycling studies, explicit and implicit theories of risk are frequently used for the purposes of research design, data collection, data analysis, and policy. In this article, we argue that this field may benefit from theories and concepts that speak to – but go beyond – theories of risk, and more directly focus on matters of right and recognition. Drawing on grounded theory research involving interviews with 28 cyclists in Dublin, Ireland, we analyse the ‘risk talk’ from five participant accounts through an application of the rights-orientated perspective of precarious entitlement theory. We argue for its utility as a theory, specifically as a complementary alternative to risk-focused approaches. First, we illustrate how precarious entitlement goes beyond the conceptual limits of understanding cycling experience from perspectives of ‘risk’ and ‘safety’, by consolidating a concern with ‘right’ and ‘risk’. Second, we illustrate how interpreting particular cycling practices as patterns of submission and social struggle (privatising vulnerability and provoking responsibility) can transcend individualised interpretations of such practices as ‘risk management’ and ‘risk-taking’. In the discussion, we consider the value of this theory in relation to existing research in this field, with reference to socio-cultural risk theory. In conclusion, we argue for a more transparently rights-based approach to cycle policy in light of the dominance of a specific variety of risk discourse that arguably obscures a consideration of rights to use public space and what a realisation of such rights might require from both the public and the state.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"21 1","pages":"199 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2022.2138278","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In the field of cycling studies, explicit and implicit theories of risk are frequently used for the purposes of research design, data collection, data analysis, and policy. In this article, we argue that this field may benefit from theories and concepts that speak to – but go beyond – theories of risk, and more directly focus on matters of right and recognition. Drawing on grounded theory research involving interviews with 28 cyclists in Dublin, Ireland, we analyse the ‘risk talk’ from five participant accounts through an application of the rights-orientated perspective of precarious entitlement theory. We argue for its utility as a theory, specifically as a complementary alternative to risk-focused approaches. First, we illustrate how precarious entitlement goes beyond the conceptual limits of understanding cycling experience from perspectives of ‘risk’ and ‘safety’, by consolidating a concern with ‘right’ and ‘risk’. Second, we illustrate how interpreting particular cycling practices as patterns of submission and social struggle (privatising vulnerability and provoking responsibility) can transcend individualised interpretations of such practices as ‘risk management’ and ‘risk-taking’. In the discussion, we consider the value of this theory in relation to existing research in this field, with reference to socio-cultural risk theory. In conclusion, we argue for a more transparently rights-based approach to cycle policy in light of the dominance of a specific variety of risk discourse that arguably obscures a consideration of rights to use public space and what a realisation of such rights might require from both the public and the state.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“这不是不尊重——这是把你置于危险之中”:在自行车研究和政策领域,当正确遇到风险时
在自行车研究领域,显性和隐性风险理论经常用于研究设计、数据收集、数据分析和政策制定。在本文中,我们认为这一领域可能受益于与风险理论相关的理论和概念,但超越了风险理论,更直接地关注权利和承认问题。通过对爱尔兰都柏林28名骑自行车者的访谈,我们通过应用不稳定权利理论的权利导向视角,从五个参与者的账户中分析了“风险谈话”。我们认为其作为一种理论的实用性,特别是作为风险集中方法的补充替代方案。首先,我们通过巩固对“权利”和“风险”的关注,说明了不稳定的权利如何超越了从“风险”和“安全”的角度理解骑行体验的概念限制。其次,我们说明了如何将特定的自行车实践解释为服从和社会斗争的模式(将脆弱性私有化和激发责任)可以超越对“风险管理”和“冒险”等实践的个性化解释。在讨论中,我们参考社会文化风险理论,考虑这一理论与该领域现有研究的价值。总之,我们主张采用一种更透明的基于权利的方法来制定循环政策,因为特定类型的风险话语可能会模糊对使用公共空间的权利的考虑,以及实现这些权利可能需要公众和国家的什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for mental health and wellness: children’s perspectives from five Majority World Countries The role of trust in government and risk perception in adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures: survey findings among young people in Luxembourg Reassessing social trust: gossip, self-policing, and Covid-19 risk communication in Norway Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths The “risk object” of cannabis edibles: perspectives from young adults in Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1