自上世纪七十年代经典风险分析方法出现以来,风险分析领域长期存在着“客观性立场”和“建构性立场”的分野。前者认为风险是客观、可测量的实在,希望使用量化方法以及专家知识,客观地描述并测量风险；后者针锋相对地指出风险是社会建构的产物,批评量化方法,并建议在风险分析中纳入更多的定性方法与公众参与。只有以审度立场反思两派的争论,整合两派的合理观点,才能使风险分析方法更好地服务于风险社会的技术与工程实践。

Since the emergence of the classical Risk Analysis in the 1970s, there have been two research schools in the field of risk analysis for a long time. They can be named as “objectivism” and “constructivism” respectively. The former believes that risk is an objective and measurable reality and hopes to describe and measure risk objectively by using quantitative methods and expert knowledge. In contrast, the latter points out that risk is a product of social construction, criticizes quantitative methods, and suggests the inclusion of more qualitative methods and public participation in risk analysis. In order to better serve the technology and engineering practice of risk society, risk analysis method must reflect the arguments of the two schools by a “reconsideration” standpoint, and integrate the reasonable viewpoints of them.

国家社科基金重大项目“现代技术治理理论问题研究”(21 ZD064)