Risk studies at St. Petersburg State University: From tradition to new challenges

Authors

  • Andrei V. Aleinikov St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
  • Artem N. Sunami St. Petersburg State University, 7–9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
  • Eric Shiraev George Mason University, 4400, University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.407

Abstract

The article examines the thirty-years’ experience in risk studies that has been acquired by scholars at St. Petersburg State University. The authors analyze the distance travelled from the first attempts to integrate risk approach into Soviet sociology to current research carried out at the intersection of conflict studies and risk studies approaches. Using classic research interpretations of risk and risk perception, such as “risk society” (U.Beck), “cultural theory” (M.Douglas, A.Wildavsky), “system theory” (N.Luhmann), the authors identify several features that distinguish the St. Petersburg University approach in risk studies, such as applying risk theory to the whole social system rather than isolated business or political cases. As an example of this approach to examining risk, the article presents the results of an all-Russian survey carried out by project group of St. Petersburg University in order to identify risk-reflections as a factor in conflict strategy choice. The collected data demonstrates that the integration of risk and conflict studies offers significant opportunities for highlighting the divergence of interests between producers and consumers of risks. At the same time, the original research strategy should facilitate the creation of a realistic model for the evaluation of effective political risk management. The authors conclude that the present phase of risk research by scholars at St. Petersburg University is characterized by the consolidation of conflict and risk studies that makes it possible, on the one hand, to investigate any risk as a conflicting phenomenon and, on the other hand, to examine risk perception as a special discursive practice which has a high manipulative potential.

Keywords:

risk, conflict, risk perception, risk studies, St. Petersburg University

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References


References

Rubtsov, A.V. (2020), Viruses and civilizations. The new impact of biocataclysms on the evolution of sociocultural models and civilization projects, Voprosy filosofii, no. 8, pp. 20–31. (In Russian)

Algin, A.P. (1989), Risk and its role in public life, Moscow: Mysl’ Publ. (In Russian)

Agamben, G. (2020), The Invention of an Epidemic. Available at: https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers (accessed: 12.07.2020).

Žižek, S. (2020), Pandemic! COVID-19. Shakes the World, New-York: OR Books.

Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage Publ.

Jaeger, С.С., Webler, T.Renn, О. and Rosa, E.A. (2001), Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action, London: Routledge.

Tulloch, J. and Lupton, D. (2003), Risk and Everyday Life, London: Sage.

Heidegger, M. (1972), Time and being, New-York: Harper and Row.

Pavlovsky, G. (2019), Ironic Empire. The risk, the chance, and the dogmas of the Russian Federation system, Moscow: Evropa Publ. (In Russian)

Tierney, K.J. (1999), Toward a critical sociology of risk, Sociological Forum, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 215–242.

Crozier, M. (1965), The bureaucratic phenomenon, New York: Oxford University Press.

Giddens, A.Runaway world: as globalization changes our life, London: Routledge.

Douglas, M. (1990), Risk as a Forensic Resource, Daedalus, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 1–16.

Aleinikov, A.V., Artemov, G.P. and Pinkevich, A.G. (2020), Risk reflections as a factor for choosing forms of political participation (results of the all-Russian survey), RUDN Journal of Sociology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 847–863. (In Russian)

Gavrilov, K.A. (2020), Psychometric paradigm in risk research: a translation into Russian and a pilot study with a student sample, Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no. 2, pp. 33–50. (In Russian)

Slovic, P. (2000), The perception of risk, London: Routledge

Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2016), Organizing risk: discourse, power and riskification, Academy of Management Review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 80–108.

Thomas, K.W. and Kilmann, R.H. (1977), Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument, Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 309–325.

Hocker, J. and Wilmot, W. (2017), Interpersonal conflict, New-York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Pruitt, D. and Kim, S. (2003), Social conflict escalation, stalemate, and settlement, New-York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Kriesberg, L. (2002), Constructive conflicts. From escalation to resolution, New-York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Simmel, G. (1955), Conflict and the Web of Group-Affiliations, New York: Free Press.

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1983), Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hammer, M.R. (2009), Solving problems and resolving conflict using the intercultural conflict style model and inventory, in Moodian, M.A. (ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publ., pp. 219–232.

Coser, L. (1956),The functions of social conflict, New York: Free Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993), Sociology of politics, Moscow: Socio-Logos Publ. (In Russian)

Kravchenko, S.A. (2017), The coexistence of riskophobia and riskophilia — an expression of “normal anomie”, Sociological Studies, no. 2, pp. 3–13. (In Russian)

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T. and Marcus, E.C. (2006), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Robin, C. (2004), Fear. The History of a political idea, Oxford: Oxford university press.

Bauman, Z. and Donskis, L. (2016), Liquid evil: living with TINA, Cambridge: Polity Press

Abgadzhava, D.A. (2020), Risk, risk-reflection and the problem of the socio-political order, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 511–527. (In Russian)

Strebkov, A.I. and Musaev, A.I. (2020), Risk of power — power of risk, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 394–406. (In Russian)

Rubinshtein, A.Y. and Gorodetsky, A.E. (2018), State paternalism and paternalist failure in the theory of patronized goods, Journal of Institutional Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 38–57. (In Russian).

Baland, J.-M., Moene, K. and Robinson, J. (2010), Governance and Development, Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 5, pp. 4597–4656.

Luhmann, N. (2002), Risk. A sociological theory, London: Routledge

Pavlovsky, G. (2012), Brilliant power!, Moscow: Evropa Publ. (In Russian)

Pavlova, E.V. and Sunami, A.N. (2021). Manifestation of digital transformation risks — marginality or insight? E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 266. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202126605011.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-31

How to Cite

Aleinikov, A. V. ., Sunami, A. N., & Shiraev, E. (2021). Risk studies at St. Petersburg State University: From tradition to new challenges. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 37(4), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2021.407

Issue

Vol. 37 No. 4 (2021): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Conflict studies

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.

Most read articles by the same author(s)