Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Misfits (Education (Use of methodology (6a. Many outdated methods are…
Misfits
Education
- Most programs lack decision analysis component.
- Most programs lack consequence modeling component.
6a. Many outdated methods are taught by intertia, ignoring or not being aware of methods in state-of-the-art research
6b. Methods are taught in a Methods class/module, out of particular context. Students expected to learn a list of methods, all in equal degrees.
6c. Particular method(s) might be selected as relevant in given curriculum, but no justification is provided for the choice of method(s). Usually applies in programs focused on particular industrial application (e.g. oil and gas sector), where the method(s) selected are based on industry best practice.
- No programs integrate risk with resilience and sustainability considerations.
- No evidence in the curricula or didactic practice for programs claiming to be multi-/inter- disciplinary
- No programs incorporate a contextual, epistemic, and/or historical understanding of concepts and methods as might be presented from the perspective of Philosophy of Science or other relevant branches of philosophy and mathematics (e.g. Logic, Epistemology, Phenomenology, and Axiology.
10a. Master number crunchers incapable of understanding/describing model assumptions; relevance of assumptions in a given context, implications of erroneous assumptions; or ability to see relations among conceptual schemes from multiple domains
10b. master ideologists incapable of understanding either the relevance or the quality of a quantitative risk assessment. This type falls into further 2 categories: (i) useless - at best and (ii) architects of gross unintended consequences.
- Many programs lack a "red thread"/cohesion in either purpose or methodology
- Curricula of different programs is based either on particular hazards or on a particular industrial or public sector.
-
-
11c. No consideration given to communication as a factor in generating system changes through indirect consequences related to perception and behavior. Communication thus left out of the model building, potentially resulting in (adverse) strategic surprise.
- Strong division between quantitative programs focusing on risk assessment and qualitative programs focusing on risk management
- Risk perception as studied by cognitive science, psychology and anthropology is almost entirely absent from the curricula.
-
1c. Programs with "risk" in the title target foreign students. Programs where "risk" is not explicit in the title but described as a specialization within a traditional discipline, e.g. Engineering, Economics, target domestic students.
1a. Popularity of risk master programs based on fashion, not academic rigor
Research
- Scientific frameworks integrating risk, sustainability and resilience considerations are almost purely descriptive, not operational
- Stated preference for trans-disciplinary research in risk, resilience and sustainability is unrealized in practice
- Procedural frameworks for risk analysis do not facilitate the potential for utilizing indicators of evidence for the updating of new knowledge
- Low awareness among researchers of the constraints shaping decision-makers' preferences
- Research dominated by highly developed Western countries
-
6c. Actions based on scientific results often do not fit well into non-Western/under-developed contexts
-
- No agreed definitions of concepts
-
-
-
2d. Ambiguity about who has ownership and responsibility over various phases of the risk analysis process
- Methodologies are better developed and more comprehensive for engineered and ecological systems. Methodologies for social systems are underdeveloped and highly biased by the fields of Economics and Behavioral Sciences.
- Vast body of knowledge with little or no cootdination among the contributing disciplines