Riskkollegiet bjuder in till en förmiddag om risk den 4 december i Uppsala. Det är ett tillfälle att bekanta sig med olika sätt att se på risk.
Now we have done some Software Carpentry
The uncertainty and evidence lab was part of the organizing team behind a Software Carpentry workshop on shell, git and tidyverse in R. Thanks to Dmytro, Hadrien and Joachim for tutoring us.
Bayesian analysis explained at the Nordic Chapter SRA Conference in Copenhagen
I gave a talk about Bayesian analysis of risk and uncertainty at the Nordic Chapter of SRA meeting in Copenhagen on Nov 7th. Despite having only 15 minutes, I Think I got the message clear. Bayesian analysis is the way to quantify epistemic uncertainty by probability, it is to my knowlege the only principle to integrate data and expert judgement and it this has been known for a long time. Bayesian analysis is not used as often as it could, and the most obvious reason for that is that we, the assessors, are not familiar enough with Bayesian analysis.
The slides from my talk are here Sahlin_NordicChapterSRA2019
The Uncertainty show
A version of our show about uncertainty is available online. The show takes about 30 minutes and targets kids from 8 and upwards. It is currently in Swedish.
Evidence Synthesis
The Evidence Synthesis seminar is organised by the strategic research area BECC.
Part I: Scientific perspectives on epistemic uncertainty
7 November 9.30 – 12. Medical Ethics, Lund University. This seminar was organised together with the program Science and proven experience (VBE).
Background: Epistemic uncertainty is an important component of scientific evidence. This is clearly demonstrated in practically every publication on risk assessment published in recent years as well as in discussions generally on what scientific evidence one needs in order to make practical decisions. At the same time the question of what scientific uncertainty is, or what comprises scientific uncertainty, is not settled.
In order to treat uncertainties in a systematic manner one needs models representing this uncertainty.
The purpose of this seminar is to discuss models for identifying and managing epistemic uncertainty.
Format: Short talks on the topic using the recent paper by van der Bles et al on “Communicating uncertainty in facts, numbers and science” as a starting point.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181870
They provide a model for epistemic uncertainty distinguishing between direct and indirect uncertainty. The purpose of the seminar is to test this model from a theoretical point of view and from practice. Participants are encouraged to comment on the paper and contribute with perspectives on a scientific perspective on epistemic uncertainty or examples from practice.
Part II: Introduction to Evidence-based decision making
What do we mean by evidence synthesis? Is not that what we as researchers do all the time or is it something more specific? This seminar will introduce how evidence synthesis is currently viewed under so called frameworks for evidence-based decision making.
This seminar is the second part of a seminar series on Evidence Synthesis organised by BECC. The seminar is held within a master course and consists of a lecture by Ullrika Sahlin followed by a practical exercise.
Sign up to the seminar on the 18th of November by sending a mail to Ullrika. Note that the number of places are limited.
9 – 12 Lecture Biosfären (Sal 220), Geocentrum II
This lecture begins with an overview of the history of evidence-based decision making and how it is organised. We will study how evidence is characterised and rated according to different guidance documents for evidence based decision making. I will then introduce the method of meta-analysis, ranging from simple to complex multi-parameter analyses. Finally, I will talk about what different frameworks say about the communication of conclusions from a synthesis.
13 – 17 Exercise Altocumulus (Sal 215), Geocentrum II
This will be a practical exercise on meta-analysis and meta-regression. The exercise start with a recapitulation of the mixed linear models, common type of response variables and graphs used in meta-analysis. The exercises are done in R. Bring your own laptop with R installed.
Part III: Shaping evidence synthesis
Early 2020 TBA
UnEviL at the Lund Future Week
This year we have two activities at Lund Future week focusing on how to deal with the fact that the future is uncertain.
Tuesday (Oct 15)
Ullrika will together with Åsa Knaggård (political science) give a crash course on how to make decisions under uncertainty at the public library (in Swedish). https://www.lu.se/event/och-en-osaker-framtid-ar-var
The presentation of our lecture is here Och en osäker framtid är vår Sahlin Knaggård
Saturday and Sunday (Oct 19-20)
Ullrika and Rasmus Bååth will give the show “Bli mästare i osäkerhet” (Become a master of uncertainty) at Vattenhallen Science Center. Watch the show on Youtube https://youtu.be/48x7faZem1U
13 and 15 on Saturday
13 on Sunday
Osäkerhetsexperiment på ForskarFredag
Vi gjorde experiment som förklarar lärande och beslut under osäkerhet för gymnasieelever och besökande under ForskarFredag den 28e och 29e september på Vattenhallen i Lund.
RISKUT2019
On August 22nd I (Ullrika) arranged together with Linda Kvarnlöf and Per Strömsjö a one day meeting about teaching risk. We named this meeting RISKUT as in risk utbildning (risk education). It was very stimulating and fun to meet people passionate about teaching risk both from within and outside academia.
The meeting was supported by the Swedish Society for risk sciences Riskkollegiet and the program is available here
Graduate course: Interdisciplinary in Environmental Research
This course on 3 credits is given as part of the Environmental Science Graduate Studies at Lund University and the research school ClimBEco.
Last day to apply was 15 September 2019
Course Syllabus NMV001F-Eng
Contact: Ullrika Sahlin
1st of .October – Theme Philosophy of Research in Environmental Science and Social Sciences
All lectures are given in Lundmarksalen
11 – 12 Environmental Science – Ullrika Sahlin, Lund University Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, and Henrik Thoren, Philosophy, Helsinki University
12 – 13 Environmental Psychology – Maria Johansson, Environmental Psychology, LTH
Common lunch
14 – 15 Social science – Lars Harrysson, School of Social Work
15 – 16 Sustainability science and transdisciplinary – Barry Ness, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS)
2nd of October – Theme More perspectives on Philosophy of Research in Empirical and Computational Sciences and Interdisciplinarity
All lectures are given in Lundmarksalen
9 – 10 Physics – Leif Lönnblad, Department of particle physics
Coffee
10:30 – 11.30 Philosophical perspectives on computer models when used for policy or as evidence – Wendy Parker, University of Durham (via link)
11:30 – 12 Models and scenarios: know thy assumptions – Markku Rummukainen, Lund University Centre for Environmental and Climate research
Fix your own lunch
13.00 – 15 Natural science – Per Lundberg, Department of Biology
15 – 16 Interdisciplinarity Research – Miles MacLeod, University of Twente, Netherlands
3rd of October – Interdisciplinarity and self-reflection
Biskopshuset/Bishops house
9 – 11 Interdisciplinary – Miles MacLeod och Henrik Thoren
11 – 11.30 My experience of going interdisciplinary – Maria von Post BECC postdoc
11.30 – 12 The Pufendorf Institute work towards interdisciplinary research – Ann-Katrin Bäcklund Director of the Pufendorf Institute
Common lunch
13 – 15 Student self-reflection – discussions in groups and reporting back
Examination
Active participation at lectures and seminar and an individual paper/report of self-reflection considering at least one of the themes.
Instructions for self-reflection: Is my research interdisciplinary? How can it be interdisciplinary? What advantages/disadvantages or barriers/drivers would come from making it more interdisciplinary? Refer to the course literature (at least one of the essays in Humprey or Sayer). 2-3 pages of text sent to ullrika.
Literature
Chalmers, Alan F. What is this Thing Called Science? Buckingham: Open University Press 1999.
Humphreys, Paul. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press 2016.
Parker, Wendy S (2017). Environmental Science: Empirical Claims in Environmental Ethics. In The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Gardiner, Stephen & Thompson, Allen Oxford University Press. 27-39.
Sayer, Andrew. Realism and Social Science. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE 2000.
Öberg, Gunilla. Interdisciplinary environmental studies – a primer. Wiley-Blackwell 2011.
Extra material from the Social Science lecture
Gabriel Abend, The meaning of ‘theory’, Sociological Theory 26:2 June 2008
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2008.00324.x
Discussion about Alfred Kinsey
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.6.894
Introduction to Erwin Goffmans book “Presentation of self in everyday Life”
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6714/6875653/readings/MSL_Goffman_Presentation.pdf
One of many interesting papers by Ellinor Ostrom:
Gunvor Andersson after seven out of nine rounds of interviews in a long term study “Foster children: a longitudinal study of placements and family relationships”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00570.x
Graduate course in Risk, uncertainty and decision making Fall 2019
This is a research-oriented introductory course in risk which gives an introduction into different scientific perspectives on risk with international outlook and aid the students to formulate relevant research questions. The course corresponds to 7.5 credits and takes place at two occasions in Sweden during the fall 2019.
First occasion: October 8-9th in Gothenburg
Second occasion: November 5-6 in Lund (on Nov 7th in Copenhagen there is an opportunity to attend a multi-disciplinary risk conference)
The course is organised by Ullrika Sahlin, Åsa Knaggård and Daniel Slunge. More info: ullrika.sahlin @ cec.lu.se
Funding: ClimBECO research school
Supported by: Centre for Environmental and Climate Reserach, Lund University, FRAM Centre for Future Chemical Risk Assessment and Management Strategies, Lund University Centre for Risk Assessment and Management LUCRAM, the Nordic Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis and Riskkollegiet
Literature list Litlist_2019 see also below in this post
Participants are expected to prepare in advance to the meetings by reading the assigned literature. The course is examined through attendance of the physical meetings and a completed individual paper.
Reading block I
Prepare to literature seminar
Meeting in Gothenburg
Oct 8th Scientific perspectives on risk analysis
10.30 Introduction to the course, Ullrika Sahlin and Daniel Slunge
11.00 Risk assessment in water management – examples of methods and applications, Lars Rosén
12.00 The anthropology of risk management, Åsa Boholm
The lectures by Lars and Åsa were recorded by Riskkollegiet (the Swedish Society for Risk Sciences).
Lunch
Theme Chemical mixtures – risk, uncertainty and decision making
14.00 Chemical risk assessment, Thomas Backhaus
15.00 Health impacts from chemical mixtures, Lars Barregård
16.00 Mixtures exposure and effect in Ecology, Maj Rundlöf
17.00 An economic perspective on assessing and managing chemical mixture risks, Jessica Coria
Oct 9th Scientific perspectives on uncertainty and decision making
09.00 Uncertainty and decision theory, Ullrika Sahlin
10.15 Working with risk in an interdisciplinary context, Kelsey Lamere
11.00 – 14.00 Literature seminar incl. lunch
Reading block II
Read all course literature (see literature list)
Meeting in Lund
Room Maskrosen, bottom floor at the Ecology Building
Nov 5th Social science and Philosophical perspectives on risk, uncertainty and decision making
10.30 – 14.45 Scientific perspectives on risk communication, Ragnar Löfstedt (incl lunch)
15.00 – 16.00 Social sciences approaches in risk research, Åsa Knaggård
Nov 6th Scientific perspectives on managing and assessing risk and uncertainty
Room Maskrosen, bottom floor at the Ecology Building
10:00 Risk Philosophy, Sven Ove Hansson
Lunch
14.00 Uncertainty communication and its psychological effects, Anne Marten van der Bles
16.00 – 17.30 Discussion seminar ”Self-reflection on students own research in the context of risk, uncertainty and decision making” – Åsa Knaggård and Ullrika (Research questions on risk, Methods to study risk)
Nov 7th Copenhagen (optional) Networking, keynotes and contributing talks
Nordic Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis Conference: keynote and contributed talks on different topics in risk research. www.risklab.dtu.dk/sra-nordic-2019. The course participants are encouraged to attend and we are looking for options to cover the conference fee.
Individual paper (mandatory)
The individual paper should be reflection where at least two themes of the course is discussed in relation to the participants PhD subject or field of interest. Length – at least 3 pages. Cite at least three references on the literature list. Include at least two scientific perspectives on risk, uncertainty or decision making.
Send as Word or pdf to Ullrika before January 7th 2020.
Literature seminar on Oct 9th
The Purpose of the Seminar
This seminar offers you an opportunity to deepen your understanding of key concepts related to risk, uncertainty and decision-making based on a set of papers on the topic.
Preparation for the Seminar
Before the seminar, you should read the articles listed below and think about possible answers to the questions posed.
Question 1: How can risk be defined? Which different definitions of and perspectives on risk are represented in the articles (listed below). Are these definitions contradictory or convergent?
– Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On The Quantitative Definition of Risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11-27. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
– Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems-Based Approach. Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1647-1654. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01310.x
– Boholm, Å. & Corvellec H. 2011. A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 14 (2): 175 – 190.
Question 2: Are risk perceptions rational? When and why is there a divide in expert and laypersons perceptions of risk?
– Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. doi:DOI 10.1126/science.3563507
– Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., . . . Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk – a Conceptual-Framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
– Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 12, S85-S106. doi:10.1080/14693062.2012.702982
– Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty – Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi:DOI 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Question 3: What is the role of uncertainty and ambiguity in science communication? Discuss definitions and perspectives on these concepts based on the articles below.
– Fischhoff, B. (1995). RISK PERCEPTION AND COMMUNICATION UNPLUGGED – 20 YEARS OF PROCESS. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x
– Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2002). A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis, 22(6), 1071-1094. doi:Doi 10.1111/1539-6924.00274
– Kinzig, A. P., Starrett, D., Arrow, K., Aniyar, S., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., . . . Walker, B. (2003). Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio, 32(5), 330-335. doi:Doi 10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032[0330:Cwuacf]2.0.Co;2
– Cairney, P., Oliver, K., & Wellstead, A. (2016). To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399-402. doi:10.1111/puar.12555
During the seminar you will be divided into three groups, each discussing one of the three questions. Then each group will share their reflections and conclusions with the other groups. We strongly encourage you to participate actively during the seminar so that we can have a fruitful and lively discussion!
Comments