Table Of Content- i.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RISK ROLES,
RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY
OF TWO NEARNEIGHBOR CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES
By
MICHAEL PALENCHAR
J.
A DISSERTATION TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORDA
2005
Copyright 2005
by
MICHAEL PALENCHAR
J.
i*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Completing a dissertation is not possible without the guidance and assistance
from an eclectic range ofpeople. A special thank you goes to Dr. Linda C. Hon, my
my
advisor, for her support, encouragement, and guidance throughout stay at the
University ofFlorida and specifically the dissertation process. I would also like to
acknowledge my committee members. Dr. Kathy Fitzpatrick, Dr. Debbie M. Treise, Dr.
Richard J. Lutz and Dr. Marilyn S. Roberts, for their support, assistance and sticking with
me through the extra year for completion. A special thank you goes to Jody Hedge for
her friendship and assistance throughout my stay in the program.
I am especially grateful to the residents ofDeer Park and Galena Park, Texas,
who participated in this research project. This dissertation is not so much about them but
because ofthem and their willingness to invite me into their homes and businesses, their
narratives and their lives. My hope is that this study will one day make a difference in
the lives ofresidents who face increased health and safety risks related to living near
chemical manufacturing, storage, and transportation facilities.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, John and Consuelo Palenchar. To my
mother for her strength and unquestionable support, and to my father, who passed away
right before I entered the doctoral program and who always pushed all four ofhis sons to
reach higher levels ofeducation - I hope they both enjoy this gift.
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Hi
ABSTRACT
vi
CHAPTERS
INTRODUCTION
1
Setting the Stage 1
Statement ofPurpose 7
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2
Risk Analysis, Perceptions and Communication 10
Evolution ofRisk Communication 12
Risk Communication Orientations 22
Risk Communication Challenges 26
Responsible Advocacy 29
Risk Communication Process Variables 31
Social Construction ofReality 47
Social Risk Perspectives 52
Narrative Theory and Rhetorical Enactment 57
Culture 63
Community Right to Know 65
Research Questions 83
METHODOLOGY
3
Assumptions and Worldviews 85
Researcher Subjectivity 88
Research Design 90
Data Collection Method 93
Sampling Strategy 94
Feasability and Emergent Design 98
Summary ofData Collection and Information Pool 99
Limitations ofthis Study 107
IV
4 SITUATING THE RESEARCH
Community Context ofHarris County, Texas 109
Community Context ofDeer Park, Texas 1 13
Deer Park's Story: OneDay ofRisk 118
Community Context ofGalena Park, Texas 137
Galena Park's Story: One Day ofRisk 140
5 RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Community Residents' Perceptions ofRisk Roles 154
Risk Communication Process Variables 170
Community Risk Perceptions ofSARA Title II and Responsible Care 190
Similarities and Differences 207
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6
Summary 216
Lessons for Risk Communication and Public Relations Practitioners 218
Implications for Further Research 220
APPENDIX
A INTERVIEW QUESTION GUIDE
223
B FOCUS GROUP QUESTION GUIDE 226
C UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUATIONAL REVIEW BOARD
INFORMED CONSENT RELEASE 229
D SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 230
E SAMPLE FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT 242
F SAMPLE FIELD NOTES 259
REFERENCES 263
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
281
Abstract ofDissertation Presented to the Graduate School
ofthe University ofFlorida in Partial Fulfillment ofthe
Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor ofPhilosophy
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RISK ROLES,
RISK PERCEPTIONS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES:
AN ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY
OF TWO NEAR NEIGHBOR CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES
By
Michael J. Palenchar
December 2005
Chair: Linda C. Hon
Major Department: Mass Communication
Social perspectives on risk communication are gaining ground in a field that has
been historically dominated by actuarial, economic, and psychological approaches.
Through qualitative research methods, the purpose ofthis study was to examine how
residents perceive and socially construct their risk roles related to living near chemical
manufacturing facilities, explicating and expanding on taxonomy ofrisk roles. The study
also examined and refined previously identified risk communication process variables
and residents' perceptions ofcommunity-right-to-know provisions and commxmity
emergency response measures. Based on 193 days ofobservation-participafion while
living in two communities as part ofan ethnographic case study, which included 15 focus
groups and 27 in-depth interviews, results ofthis study suggest that residents perceive
their risk roles in more specific categories than previous research identified, and that
residents' sense ofrisk and knowledge ofemergency response measures are socially
constructed with emphasis on harms and benefits, control, uncertainty, and trust. This
vi
Study also suggests that sense ofrisk may increase with the use ofsophisticated risk
communication campaigns in response to community-right-to-know pubHc poUcies,
elevating the diligence ofcommunity residents, and that part ofthe community's social
construction ofrisk includesjustification for living in the community. Also, effective
risk communication campaigns were demonstrated to have a positive effect on support
for industry. This analysis adds depth to the risk communication literature and suggests
that public relations practitioners can and should attempt to understand risk discourse
content as well as the communication processes and risk perceptions socially constructed
by key publics.
> '>.
\': i.. i[ •'' If :*.'='' ^ "
vu
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
Setting the Stage
Industrialization has been a two-edged sword. Since the latter halfofthe 19
century, as a result ofthe American Industrial Revolution, large industrial combines have
served to createjobs, spawn small support and ancillary businesses, as well as create and
innovate products and services that continually reshape lifestyles. Industrial combines
have shifted wealth into the hands ofa few, created new social classes, increased
population and urbanization, formed at times poor working conditions and labor unrest,
as well as fostered products, working conditions, neighborhoods, and natural
environments that have at times taken advantage ofand at the least strained people's risk
tolerance. Partly as a result ofthe advent and development ofindustrialization and
manufacturing, governments, arts, literature, music, architecture, and man's way of
looking at life, to name a few, have changed dramatically.
Among this progression, industrial refining, and specifically chemical
manufactwing facilities, is one ofthe most significant and controversial inventions of
human beings. Manufacturing facilities coordinate human and environmental resources
to achieve notable and safe, and at times insignificant and hazardous, objectives. These
facilities create constructive and responsible, as well as destructive and irresponsible,
products and services.
N
Life hazards, and the collective management ofthose hazards, are a part of
everyday existence in a modem, industrialized society. Mediareports concerning
hazardous materials, air and waterpollutants, carcinogenic elements in our food supply,
and a host ofother risks bombard our attention on a daily basis. Iconic incidents such as
Bhopal and Mayak internationally, and Three Mile Island and Hanford nationally, will
always remind people ofthe dangers involved with the production, use, storage, and
transportation ofhazardous materials. These life hazards reflect the increasing size and
complexity ofmodem science, technology, and industrial and chemical manufacturing.
Advances in science lead to an increase offields that require risk management
and risk communication initiatives. Biogenetics, travel, petrochemical and other
specialty chemical manufacturing, to name a few, all require risk assessment and
associated political and social discussions ofrisk communicationprocedures. New
developments such as nanotechnology, altemate energy sources, virtual surgery and
advanced space travel only increase the importance ofsophisticated risk management and
risk communication processes.
With the continuous expansion ofproducts and services, however, comes the
challenge ofefficient production embedded in the strategic management ofhealth, safety,
and environmental risks related to manufacturing. In essence, the production and
consumption ofrisks have become equally as ifnot more important than the production
and consumption ofgoods and services (Beck, 1992).
Indeed, as Mary Douglas (1992) has argued, society is organized forthe collective
management ofrisk, which can be more functional through responsible advocacy in open
contest. In this context, discussions center on communication and responsible advocacy.
-^
.•;^
Well beyond any communication model that might adequately rest on what has often
been called sharing information, the sides - and there are many - engage in a marketplace
ofopinion through advocacy. Individuals and organizations make claims, and support
and refute those claims in numerous manners. A variety ofinnovative communication
processes have come to the forefront as companies, governmental and non-governmental
organizations, and residents have engaged in dialogue intended to examine, weigh, and
mitigate risks associated with work conditions, industrial processes near residential areas,
and product design and use.
Community residents who live nearthese manufacturing facilities have legitimate
reasons to be concerned for their own and others' health, safety, and environmental
quality; especially since there are no absolute standards. Alarm, anger, and outrage can
result when people believe they are exposed to technologies that distress and even harm
them, whetherthey live and labor near the risk or encounter it while using or consuming
aproduct.
A
primary motivator ofcommunity involvement and activism is people's desire to
be safe and healthy coupled with their vigilance for problems ofthat sort which need
remedying. They are sensitive to the fairness and equality ofrisk distribution. They do
not like to bear risks that only benefit others. When organizations are seen as abusing the
privileges given to them by their constituencies and other publics who affect and are
affected by them, individual and community responses and governmental controls and
regulations can and should sanction the capacity oforganizations to continue to operate.
"The emergence ofthe powerful consumer and the critical public is not coincidental but a
symptom ofthe emergence ofthe risk society" (Jones, 2002, p. 49).
.'Vf
