Greene, A; Thorpe, A and Austin, S A (2002) As likely as not it could happen: Linguistic interpretations of risk. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
This paper describes a study highlighting the predominance of linguistic, as opposed to numerical percentile expressions of probability, amongst project management groups during risk assessment. When group members were unable to draw upon decisive historical data or personal experience phrases such as 'could happen' and 'as likely as not' were used. Arguably such expressions amount to meaningless 50/50 probabilities indicating that often probabilities are compiled in ignorance. The effects of such linguistic interpretations of likelihood and their impact upon risk management strategies are discussed. The study methodology utilized conversation analysis techniques within a phenomenological-oriented case study framework that allowed the observation of contemporary group discussion events. The objective of the case study was to establish the 'methods' used by individual group members to establish the subjective probabilities of risk occurrence within structured risk management frameworks.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | linguistics; possibility; probability; risk; conversation analysis |
| Index terms: | risk assessment, methodology, risk management, project management, case study, strategy |
| Subjects: | financial risk, project management theory and practice, management, research methods, risk assessment, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here