关于专家为风险知情决策提供支持的误解和刻板印象

IF 1.7 3区 工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, CIVIL Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/10286608.2019.1615478
M. Maes
{"title":"关于专家为风险知情决策提供支持的误解和刻板印象","authors":"M. Maes","doi":"10.1080/10286608.2019.1615478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Support for high-level technical and environmental risk assessment and for large-scale decision making in general is typically provided by qualified experts. Often praised, but also reviled and blamed, the expert dwells in a cocoon of models and expertise and is armed with algorithms, regulations, and technical procedures to justify the support provided. At the end of the day experts often find themselves in sensitive and confrontational situations, as communication about highly uncertain issues is inherently ‘risky’. The objective of this paper is to throw some light on common misconceptions about the expert’s role in decision making. Various ill-conceived perceptions and stereotypes are organised in a set of widespread myths or misconceptions which the paper attempts to debunk in a neutral and objective manner. Certain types of flawed behaviour of individuals and organisations that portray themselves as decision making support experts, are also identified. They are categorised into a set of negative stereotypes that should raise red flags in dealing with such experts. The analysis of shortcomings, flaws, and misconceptions presented in this paper carries with it the benefit of providing solutions for a stronger and improved practice of risk-informed decision making.","PeriodicalId":50689,"journal":{"name":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","volume":"17 1","pages":"73 - 82"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Misconceptions and stereotypes regarding experts providing support for risk-informed decision making\",\"authors\":\"M. Maes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10286608.2019.1615478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Support for high-level technical and environmental risk assessment and for large-scale decision making in general is typically provided by qualified experts. Often praised, but also reviled and blamed, the expert dwells in a cocoon of models and expertise and is armed with algorithms, regulations, and technical procedures to justify the support provided. At the end of the day experts often find themselves in sensitive and confrontational situations, as communication about highly uncertain issues is inherently ‘risky’. The objective of this paper is to throw some light on common misconceptions about the expert’s role in decision making. Various ill-conceived perceptions and stereotypes are organised in a set of widespread myths or misconceptions which the paper attempts to debunk in a neutral and objective manner. Certain types of flawed behaviour of individuals and organisations that portray themselves as decision making support experts, are also identified. They are categorised into a set of negative stereotypes that should raise red flags in dealing with such experts. The analysis of shortcomings, flaws, and misconceptions presented in this paper carries with it the benefit of providing solutions for a stronger and improved practice of risk-informed decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"73 - 82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1615478\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1615478","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

一般来说,高水平技术和环境风险评估以及大规模决策的支持通常由合格的专家提供。专家经常受到赞扬,但也受到辱骂和指责,他们住在模型和专业知识的茧中,用算法、规则和技术程序武装自己,以证明所提供的支持是合理的。在一天结束的时候,专家们经常发现自己处于敏感和对抗的情况下,因为就高度不确定的问题进行沟通本质上是“有风险的”。本文的目的是阐明关于专家在决策中的作用的常见误解。各种不良的观念和刻板印象组织在一套广泛的神话或误解,本文试图以中立和客观的方式揭穿。将自己描述为决策支持专家的个人和组织的某些类型的错误行为也被识别出来。他们被归类为一系列负面的刻板印象,在与此类专家打交道时应该发出危险信号。本文中提出的缺点、缺陷和误解的分析带来了为风险知情决策制定的更强大和改进的实践提供解决方案的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Misconceptions and stereotypes regarding experts providing support for risk-informed decision making
ABSTRACT Support for high-level technical and environmental risk assessment and for large-scale decision making in general is typically provided by qualified experts. Often praised, but also reviled and blamed, the expert dwells in a cocoon of models and expertise and is armed with algorithms, regulations, and technical procedures to justify the support provided. At the end of the day experts often find themselves in sensitive and confrontational situations, as communication about highly uncertain issues is inherently ‘risky’. The objective of this paper is to throw some light on common misconceptions about the expert’s role in decision making. Various ill-conceived perceptions and stereotypes are organised in a set of widespread myths or misconceptions which the paper attempts to debunk in a neutral and objective manner. Certain types of flawed behaviour of individuals and organisations that portray themselves as decision making support experts, are also identified. They are categorised into a set of negative stereotypes that should raise red flags in dealing with such experts. The analysis of shortcomings, flaws, and misconceptions presented in this paper carries with it the benefit of providing solutions for a stronger and improved practice of risk-informed decision making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
10
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems is devoted to the advancement of systems thinking and systems techniques throughout systems engineering, environmental engineering decision-making, and engineering management. We do this by publishing the practical applications and developments of "hard" and "soft" systems techniques and thinking. Submissions that allow for better analysis of civil engineering and environmental systems might look at: -Civil Engineering optimization -Risk assessment in engineering -Civil engineering decision analysis -System identification in engineering -Civil engineering numerical simulation -Uncertainty modelling in engineering -Qualitative modelling of complex engineering systems
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of stochastic finite element analyses for the safety assessment of unreinforced masonry shear walls Investigating the influencing parameters with automated scour severity detection using Bayesian neural networks Celebrating 40 years of the CEES journal Carbon footprint assessment of maintenance and rehabilitation techniques for sewer systems Systems methods and real world practice – Paul Jowitt’s pilgrimage in his writings for this journal
×
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