Knowledge Translation and Risk Management

Author(s): Michael J. Rouse

Source: Risk Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, Special Issue: Translating Risk Management
Knowledge into Practice (2004), pp. 9-15
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867693 .
Accessed: 01/06/2014 07:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Risk
Management.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International Journal 2004,
6
(2),
9-15
Knowledge
Translation and Risk
Management
Michael
J. Rouse'
Knowledge
translation is a
timely topic generally
and
for
risk
management
particularly.
In this
paper knowledge
translation and its
application
to risk
management
is described. The
papers
in this
special
issue
provide
some theoretical
underpinning of
risk and
knowledge
translation,
and
specific
case
examples of
knowledge
translation
processes
related to risk
management.
Introduction
The
understanding
and
management
of risk is
arguably
the
greatest
differentiator in Western
societies between thousands of
years
of human
history
dominated
by
the Fates and moder
times
(Bernstein, 1998).
The
increasing understanding
of
risk,
in the service of humankind
since the 17th
century,
has been a
key
driver of
scientific,
economic and
general
social
progress.
The
history
of
risk,
though,
is more than the
history
of mathematics and theoretical
probabilities.
It is also the
history
of the
application
of risk. Risk has
always
been about the interaction of
theory
and
practice. During
the
Renaissance,
it was the desire to solve
questions
related to
gambling
that led to the use of mathematical
probability
to forecast the future.
Risk,
whether in
the form of actuarial
tables,
performance
failure
profiles
of
technologies, event-forecasting,
or
the credit
point systems
utilised
by money
lenders,
continues to be linked
closely
to the
practical
application
of what we know about risk.
Our
knowledge
of risk continues to
grow.
Risk
knowledge,
like all forms of data and
information,
has to be
interpreted,
however,
and rendered understandable. That
general process
of
interpreting, understanding
and
applying knowledge
is known as
'knowledge
translation'
(KT) (Rouse
and St.
Amour, 2003).
The
application
of
knowledge
is
becoming
a
top priority
for
governments
and research
funding agencies right
around the world. Risk and
knowledge
translation are
timely topics,
therefore,
for this
special
issue of Risk
Management:
An
International Journal.
KT has
particular
relevance for risk and risk
management,
as is demonstrated in each of the
papers
that
appear
in this
special
issue of the
journal.
First,
though,
I will here describe KT
in
general
terms,
since it is a
concept
that has
implications
for
knowledge generally.
I will
then
apply
KT to risk more
narrowly
as a
particular type
of
knowledge, providing
some
examples
of issues that risk and KT
raise,
before
providing
some
contextualising
comment
on the
papers
that follow.
What is KT?
Anchored within established theoretical
frameworks,
KT is an
inter-disciplinary,
multi-level
construct which
provides
a
way
of
conceptualising, researching
and
understanding applied aspects
of
knowledge management
and
knowledge
transfer.
Copyright
2004
Perpetuity
Press Ltd 9
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International
Journal
2004,
6
(2),
9-15
KT refers to the
dynamic, interpretative ability
of an
organisation
to
recognise, adapt, transform,
operationalise
and
apply knowledge acquired
from one context
(internal
or
external)
to
another,
in a
way
that
generates
or
protects
value for the
organisation.
KT is a
process
of
achieving
shared
understandings-an organisational
act of
sense-making-for-action through interpretative,
applied,
translation
processes.
KT serves to transform data and information into valuable
knowledge,
and facilitates the transfer and
application
of
knowledge
across contexts.
KT is more than a useful
metaphor
for
thinking
about
knowledge
and
knowledge management
processes.
It is a core
process
essential for the effective transfer and
application
of
knowledge.
KT comes to us via
understandings gained
from the
sociology
of translation
(Callon, 1986;
Easterby-Smith
et
al, 2000; Latour, 1981;
Law and
Hassard, 1999), interpretation (Crossan
et
al, 1999;
Porac et
al, 1989), sense-making (Weick, 1995;
Wenger, 1998)
and
technology brokering
(Hargadon
and
Sutton, 1997).
In
linguistics,
translation involves
converting meanings
from one
language
to another.
Linguistic
translation, however,
is not mere substitution of words between
languages, 'dog'
for chien.
Translation is a much more
complex concept.
A translated
document,
for
example,
must be true
to its source in terms of
accuracy, completeness, felicity, fidelity, meaning
and sense.
KT,
similarly,
goes beyond interpretation
and
sense-making
because of its
applied
focus on
generating
and/or
protecting
value,
which makes it a much
deeper
and
socially complex concept.
KT is a multi-level construct. At one
level,
it is
important
in
technology
and other
knowledge
transfers between
organisations,
in domestic and international contexts. It is also relevant when
transferring knowledge
or
technology,
for
example
a soft
technology
such as a
system,
within
an
organisation,
from research and
development
to
marketing.
At
yet
another
level,
KT has
implications
for
knowledge
creation that is
effective,
available and
appropriate.
These
multiple
levels of
analysis
mean that KT is relevant at three critical
points (Rouse
and St.
Amour, 2003),
for
understanding
how
learning
and
knowledge
are linked to the
generation
or
protection
of value:
* the
learning
or creation of new
knowledge,
whether
generated
from research or individual
experiences,
or encountered
externally,
intra- or
inter-organisationally;
*
sharing,
transfer or diffusion of
knowledge
within or between
organisations;
and
*
knowledge application
as
part
of value creation
processes.
Learning
and
knowledge
creation
Latour
(1987)
makes the
point
that
knowledge emerges
from translation. In other
words,
confronted with data and
information,
individuals-as social
beings
embedded in social
contexts-construct situated
meaning
for those data and that information. Translation is an
active
process during
which
knowledgeable
actors
change
information into
knowledge,
given
what individuals know about their environments and the
potential
use-values of the
knowledge.
There is a clear link here with Crossan et al's
(1999) framework,
in which
feed-forward and feed-backward
dynamics
feature
strongly.
The act of
absorbing knowledge
may
well be
dependent upon
an
anticipated
use-value which then feeds back into
learning
activities. That
is,
knowledge,
which
may generate
or
protect organisational
value,
may
well be selected on the basis of
people's expectation
or
anticipation
of some
potential
for
such value
generation
or
protection.
Knowledge
Translation and Risk
Management
10
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International Journal
2004,
6
(2),
9-15
Knowledge sharing, transfer, diffusion
It
may
be difficult to
separate
transfer from
application
in
many
instances,
since it is often the
case that the transfer of
knowledge,
of a new
technology,
for
example,
occurs in the context of
applying
that
technology.
Douthwaite et al
(2001) provide
some evidence of
this,
and
additionally
come to conclusions relevant to KT.
They
describe the transfer of
agricultural technologies
that
result in
changes (both positive
and
negative)
to those
technologies,
because of
knowledge gaps
on the
part
of both researchers and users. Not
only
does
knowledge change
with transfer but the
translation
process
must,
it
seems,
work both
ways. Using technology
transfer,
for
example,
the
context for
implementation
must be translated to the R&D team and the
technology
must be
translated for use
by
the
key
stakeholders.
Dixon
(2000)
shows
convincingly
that modes of
knowledge
transfer are a function of the receiver
of the
knowledge,
defined
by
context and task
variables,
the nature of the task or the
perceived
use of the
knowledge,
and the
type
of
knowledge being
transferred. Rouse and St. Amour
(2003)
propose
that
anticipated
end-use
might
be added to the
list,
which would mean that KT
may
influence
knowledge
transfer modes. Andrews and
Delahaye (2000) go
some
way
towards
helping
our
understanding
of the social
complexity
of
knowledge-sharing processes by invoking
the
useful
concept
of the
psycho-social
filter,
which functions to ensure that
knowledge
is shared in
a deliberate and
thoughtful way. Coupled
with the work of
Wagner
and
Sternberg (1987),
who
focus on
knowledge-filtering
based on need and
relevance,
and Dixon's
(2000)
mode
variables,
we have the basis for further
explorations
into the social
complexity
of how
knowledge,
once
selected for its relevance in value
generation,
is translated for others as
part
of
knowledge sharing,
diffusion and transfer
processes.
Translation
may play
a
role, therefore,
in
knowledge
flows from
individual
learning
to
group
and
organisational learning.
Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) clearly identify
that more than transfer must occur.
They
make the
point
that
knowledge
often has to be
converted,
and
identify
four mechanisms linked to four
knowledge
conversion modes. Their model also
nicely
summarises that some
knowledge
comes
from external sources and some from internal sources. In both instances it
undergoes
a conversion
process.
These conversions are an
important
element in KT.
Knowledge application
The third locus of KT is in the
application
or the
implementation
of
knowledge.
The
primary
concern of most
organisations
in
respect
of
knowledge
is in its
application
to
processes, products
or services. A focus on KT
provides
a
way
of
looking
at
implementation
that is
particularly
relevant to
practitioners.
Douthwaite et al
(2001),
for
example,
demonstrate that the
application
or transfer of
technologies
can be
problematic, especially
when
technology
is
complex.
The
greater
the
complexity,
the
greater
attention there needs to be on social-technical fit elements. In other
words,
the
greater
the
complexity
the more translation is
required.
Similarly,
in medical science Lemieux-Charles et al
(2002) report,
in the context of
implementing
new stroke
care,
that not
only
did the stroke care
strategy require
the
development
of new
knowledge
within the
organisation,
it also necessitated that clinicians and
managers
in different
settings joined
to
develop
collective
knowledge
about how stroke care would be delivered in
their
region. Essentially,
stroke
care,
which is a
specific example
of
knowledge, requires
translation
for effective
implementation (see
Mather et
al,
this
issue).
In
summary,
KT is a multi-level construct that is
important
at three critical
points: learning/
creation,
transfer and
application.
KT
processes
are in essence the
very
core of
applying theory
to
practice.
Michael J. Rouse
11
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International
Journal
2004,
6
(2),
9-15
What is the relevance of KT for risk
management?
Risk
management depends
for its relevance and success on
research,
learning
and
application.
Data,
information and
knowledge,
whether
generated
from academic
research,
practitioners'
experiences
or the
experiences
of
others, must,
at some
stage,
be
applied
to be relevant.
Within
organisations managers
have to make risk-related decisions at
many
levels. Research
into
managerial decision-making
has
generally
been
normative-prescriptive,
ie
dealing
with
how it should be done rather than how it
actually
is done in
organisations (Beach, 1997).
Precisely
because of
norms, values,
organisational
and other
cultures,
technologies, industry,
and the information and
practice
buried inside
organisations, knowledge
(in
all its
forms)
and decisions based on that
knowledge
need to be translated into
practice, organisational
structures,
routines and
management technologies.
What are the mechanisms for
accessing
and
translating knowledge
into
management
decisions and
organisational agency?
Falconer
(2002),
for
example,
concludes that risk data
presented
to
managers
to
help
risk-related
decision-making
needs to be
quickly
and
easily
assimilated. What is the role of KT in
enabling
these assimilation
processes?
At the
inter-organisation
level,
eg
relations between
regulators
and business
organisations,
KT
plays
a role too. For
example,
there is an issue of
translating occupational
health and
safety
research into
practice (see Gherardi,
this
issue). Regulations
that strive to
capture
best
practice
are often not translated into
day-to-day practice
even in
highly consequential
contexts. For
example, Loghran
et al write that even
though
loss of life occurs
among
fisherman,
'fishermen
themselves
perceive safety
to be a
legislative
and bureaucratic hammer to be hit with'
(2002:19),
and recommend a code of
practice
to be used as
appropriate
to the situation. In other
words,
they
recommend-while not
using
the term-the translation of
regulations
and best
practice
into contextualised
practice.
Similarly,
it is
widely recognised
that there are differences between
laypersons'
and
experts'assessments
of risk
(Fischhoff
et
al, 1981;
Otway, 1987; Slovic, 1987;
Kraus et
al, 1992;
Wiegman
et
al, 1995).
These have been labelled 'rival rationalities'
(Margolis 1996),
and the
'technical' versus the 'democratic' view of risk communication
(Fiorino, 1989; Rowan, 1994).
These rival communications and rationalities have been cited as a
potential impediment
to risk
management (Cvetkovich
et
al, 1989).
What is the role of KT in
bridging
rival rationalities? How
is information translated for stakeholders who have different
experiences
or are embedded in
differing socio-political
contexts? More than mere
communication,
how is risk translated for
groups
or individuals who are characterised
by
differences in
gender
and race
(Johnson, 2002),
age, neighbourhood (Howel
et
al, 2002), region
and
organisational
role?
Indeed,
Williams makes
the
point
that: 'As a
species
and as
individuals,
how we learn about risk is how we survive'
(2002:244).
What is the
impact
of
stigma
and the social
amplification
of risk
(and other social
variables)
on effective KT?
Finally,
there are issues related to
translating
research into
practice
and to
practice informing
research. At one
level,
there are issues
regarding
the translation of informants' verbal
expressions
of likelihood with numerical
representations
of
probability.
In the
opposite direction,
how are
probabilities effectively
translated into verbal
expressions
that are understandable and actionable?
How is research translated into
practice?
Can
co-operation among
stakeholders or
co-produced
knowledge
embed translation in their
knowledge generation processes?
Can KT have a role in
better
enabling
balanced
decision-making
in risk assessment
procedures,
when critics and
supporters
use different criteria to evaluate
evidence,
as
suggested by
Schotland and Bero
(2002)?
In the event of terrorist or accidental release of
chemical,
radiological
or
biological agents,
can
the science to deal with such disasters be translated into
political,
social and
community
domains
to ensure successful
response
and crisis
management?
Knowledge
Translation and Risk
Management
12
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International
Journal
2004,
6
(2),
9-15
KT is relevant to all these levels of risk
analysis/management.
The
question
of the
importance
and relevance of KT and its
ability
to
improve
our
understanding
and
application
of risk and risk
research are
empirical questions
which it is
hoped
will further be stimulated
by
this
special
edition of Risk
Management:
An International Journal.
The
papers
in this
special
issue
The
papers
collected in this
special
issue have been selected to demonstrate the relevance of KT
for risk
management.
The first
paper, by
A.J.
Maule,
Translating
Risk
Management Knowledge:
The Lessons to be
Learnedfrom
Research on the
Perception
and Communication
of
Risk,
provides
a
comprehensive
review of
theory
and research on risk
perception
and communication. The
paper
focuses
specifically
on the 'social
amplification
of risk framework' as a
way
of
identifying
threats to effective risk KT and
provides
some recommendations on how to
manage
those threats.
This
paper nicely
sets the scene for the more
empirical papers
to follow.
The second
paper, Interpersonal
Risk Aversion: An
Impediment
to
Learning
and
Knowledge
Translation
for Innovation,
by
W. St.
Amour,
takes us into the heart of a
high-reliability
organisation,
in a
newly deregulated industry, looking
at the notion of
interpersonal
risk and its
implications
for
decision-making
and innovation. He shows not
only
how notions of risk and risk
aversion are constructed at the level of the
top management
team,
but also how those
very
perceptions
of risk then become risks to the innovative
capabilities
of the
organisation.
The next
paper, Translating Knowledge from
Bench to Bedside: The Controversial Social
Life of
t-PA,
by
C.
Mather,
U.
Fleising
and L.
Taylor, presents
data from a
study
of the social life of a
medical
commodity-t-PA,
for the treatment of stroke-to underscore the risk
management
and
organisational learning problems
associated with
therapeutic
reform. Theirs is a
fascinating
account
of a
seemingly objective,
scientific
therapy
that has been translated
differently
in different contexts.
They point
out that what is
missing
in the
scientist-to-physician
translation literature is
adequate
consideration of the
political
and
organisational
contexts for
action,
and what is
missing
in the
organisational
literature is the
local,
contentious
social-psychological
context of
therapeutic
reform
and innovative diffusion. This
presents
risks for medical
practitioners
and
patients
alike. The
authors
clearly
demonstrate the contentious nature of the
knowledge
claims and translation
processes
which underestimate the role of
ideology
and the
symbology
of
power.
In their account
Mather et al demonstrate that KT can be an
ideological
success at the
organisational
level but
therapeutically suspect
at the level of
practice,
and this has
consequential implications
for
patient
and healthcare risks.
The final
paper, Translating Knowledge
While
Mending Organisational Safety Culture,
by
S.
Gherardi,
uses
finely grained ethnographic
data in a
study
of
safety
and accidents in the Italian
construction
industry.
She makes a
strong
case for her
description
of how
organisational knowledge
regarding occupational
health and
safety
risks is
continually
translated into
practice,
and into
practical knowledge
about what constitutes
risk,
as
opposed
to
normalcy.
Accidents become an
occasion for
repairing
the normal social order and for
learning, by translating
the
experience
of
accident into
experiential
ideas about risk.
Conclusion
Based on the
quality
of the
papers
in this
special
issue,
the translation of risk
management
knowledge
holds out the
promise
of an
exciting
and valuable avenue of research. Issues of
theory
to
practice,
research to
practice,
and
experience
to
practice
in the risk
management
fields are
highly consequential,
and
worthy
of a
great
deal more attention.
Michael J. Rouse 13
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International
Journal 2004,
6
(2),
9-15
In the
presentation
of these
papers,
KT has been
positioned
as a multi-level construct that
provides
a link between
risk,
risk
management
and the
application
of risk. The
papers
in this
special
issue
provide
an initial discussion and
conceptualisation
of KT in the context of risk
management,
and
make a contribution towards
rethinking
risk
management explicitly
linked to
practice.
Anchored
within established theoretical
frameworks,
KT is
positioned
as an
inter-disciplinary,
multi-level
construct which
may
have the
potential
to
provide
scholars and
managers
with a
way
to
conceptualise,
research,
and
improve understanding
of
key processes
in risk
management
which
are as
yet relatively unexplored.
These
papers
also
suggest
that
risk,
its
management,
and KT
processes
are
dynamic, provisional,
and contested constructs that are
constantly negotiated
and
re-negotiated.
The risk
management
issues
highlighted
in these
papers
all have
implications
that
range
from human to
organisational
health,
and even survival-issues that
may
well drive research into KT and risk
management
in
the foreseeable future.
Notes
1 Michael Rouse is a Senior Lecturer in the Leeds
University
Business
School;
email:
m.rouse@lubs.leeds.ac.uk.
References
Andrews,
K.M. and
Delahaye,
B.L.
(2000)
Influences of
Knowledge
Processes in
Organizational Learning:
The
Psychosocial
Filter. Journal
of Management
Studies. Vol.
37,
No.
6,
pp
797-810.
Beach,
L.R.
(1997)
The
Psychology of
Decision
Making.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Bernstein,
P.L.
(1998) Against
the Gods: The Remarkable
Story of
Risk. Chichester:
Wiley.
Callon,
M.
(1986)
Some Elements of a
Sociology
of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops
and the
Fishermen of St. Brieuc
Bay.
In
Law,
J.
(ed.)
Power, Action and
Belief:
A New
Sociology of Knowledge?
London:
Routledge
&
Kegan
Paul.
Crossan, M.M., Lane,
H.W. and
White,
R.E.
(1999)
An
Organizational Learning
Framework: From Intuition
to Institution.
Academy of Management
Review. Vol.
24,
No.
3,
pp
522-37.
Cvetkovich, G, Vlek,
C.A.J. and
Earle,
T.C.
(1989) Designing Technological
Hazard Information
Programs:
Towards a Model of
Risk-adaptive
Decision
Making.
In
Vlek,
C.A.J. and
Cvetkovich,
G.
(eds)
Social
Decision
Methodology for Technological Projects.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Dixon,
N.M.
(2000)
Common
Knowledge:
How
Companies
Thrive
by Sharing
What
They
Know.
Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Douthwaite, B., Keatinge,
J.D.H. and
Park,
J.R.
(2001) Why Promising Technologies
Fail: The
Neglected
Role of User Innovation
during Adoption.
Research
Policy.
Vol.
30,
No.
5,
pp
819-36.
Easterby-Smith,
M., Crossan,
M. and
Nicolini,
D.
(2000) Organizational Learning:
Debates
Past,
Present
and Future. Journal
of Management
Studies. Vol.
37,
No.
6,
pp
783-96.
Falconer,
L.
(2002) Management Decision-making Relating
to
Occupational
Risks: The Role of
'Grey
Data'. Journal
of
Risk Research. Vol.
5,
No.
1,
pp
23-33.
Fiorino,
D.J.
(1989)
Technical and Democratic Values in Risk
Analysis.
Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
9,
No.
3,
pp
293-9.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic,
P. and
Lichtenstein,
S.
(1981) Lay
Foibles and
Expert
Fables in
Judgements
about
Risks. In
O'Riordan,
T. and
Turner,
R.K.
(eds) Progress
in Resource
Management
and Environmental
Planning.
New York:
Wiley.
Knowledge
Translation and Risk
Management
14
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Risk
Management:
An International
Journal 2004,
6
(2),
9-15
Hargadon,
A. and
Sutton,
R.I.
(1997) Technology Brokering
and Innovation in a Product
Development
Firm. Administrative Science
Quarterly.
Vol.
42,
No.
4,
pp
716-49.
Howel, D., Moffatt, S., Prince, H., Bush,
J. and
Dunn,
C.E.
(2002)
Urban Air
Quality
in North-East
England:
Exploring
the Influences on Local Views and
Perceptions.
Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
22,
No.
1,
pp
121-30.
Johnson,
B.B.
(2002)
Gender and Race in Beliefs about Outdoor Air Pollution. Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
22,
No.
4,
pp
725-38.
Kraus, N., Malmfors,
T. and
Slovic,
P.
(1992)
Intuitive
Toxicology: Expert
and
Lay Judgments
of Chemical
Risks. Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
12,
No.
2,
pp
215-32.
Latour,
B.
(1981)
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and
Engineers Through Society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press.
Law,
J. and
Hassard,
J.
(1999)
Actor Network
Theory
and
After.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Lemieux-Charles, L., McGuire,
W. and
Blidner,
I.
(2002) Building Interorganizational Knowledge
for
Evidence-based Health
System Change.
Health Care
Management
Review. Vol.
27,
No.
3,
pp
48-59.
Loughran,
C.G,
Pillay,
A.,
Wang,
J. and
Wall,
A.
(2002)
A
Preliminary Study
of
Fishing
Vessel
Safety.
Journal
of
Risk Research. Vol.
5,
No.
1,
pp
3-21.
Margolis,
H.
(1996) Dealing
With Risk:
Why
the Public and the
Experts Disagree
on Environmental Issues.
Chicago,
IL:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Nonaka,
I.
(1991)
The
Knowledge-creating Company.
Harvard Business Review.
November-December,
pp
96-104.
Nonaka,
I. and
Takeuchi,
H.
(1995)
The
Knowledge-creating Company.
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Otway,
H.
(1987) Experts,
Risk
Communication,
and
Democracy.
Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
7,
No.
2,
pp
125-9.
Porac, J.F., Thomas,
H. and
Baden-Fuller,
C.
(1989) Competitive Groups
as
Cognitive
Communities: The
Case of Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers. Journal
of Management
Studies. Vol.
26,
No.
4,
pp
397-416.
Rouse,
M.J. and St.
Amour,
W.F.
(2003) Knowledge
Translation as a Source
of Competitive Advantage.
Paper presented
at the
Academy
of
Management
Conference, Seattle, WA, August.
Rowan,
K.E.
(1994)
The Technical and Democratic
Approaches
to Risk Situations: Their
Appeal,
Limitations,
and Rhetorical Alternative.
Argumentation.
Vol.
8,
No.
4,
pp
391-409.
Schotland,
M.S. and
Bero,
L.A.
(2002) Evaluating
Public
Commentary
and Scientific Evidence Submitted
in the
Development
of a Risk Assessment. Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
22,
No.
1,
pp
131-40.
Slovic,
P.
(1987) Perception
of Risk. Science. Vol.
236,
pp
280-5.
Wagner,
R.K. and
Sternberg,
R.J.
(1987)
Tacit
Knowledge
in
Managerial
Success. Journal
of
Business and
Psychology.
Vol.
1,
No.
4,
pp
301-12.
Weick,
K.
(1995) Sensemaking
in
Organizations.
London:
Sage.
Wenger,
E.
(1998)
Communities
of
Practice:
Learning, Meaning,
and
Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Wiegman,
O., Gutteling,
J.M. and
Cadet,
B.
(1995) Perception
of Nuclear
Energy
and Coal in France and
the Netherlands. Risk
Analysis.
Vol.
15,
No.
4,
pp
513-21.
Williams,
C.
(2002)
'New
Security'
Risks and Public
Educating:
The
Significance
of Recent
Evolutionary
Brain Science. Journal
of
Risk Research. Vol.
5,
No.
3,
pp
225-48.
Michael J.
Rouse 15
This content downloaded from 210.56.13.7 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014 07:10:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions