Answering the Call for Scholarship: The Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research

Crisis events have the potential to create broad impacts across a variety of contexts and require multi-disciplinary approaches to understand the causes and consequences. Communication is instrumental to both the understanding and the management of risks and crises and needs to be systematically examined within these contexts. The Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research is designed to be an outlet for multi-disciplinary inquiry of communication phenomena within a wide range of crises and risks using multiple methods and perspectives

Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process

The description of ''best practices'' is widely used to improve organizational and professional practice. This analysis describes best practices in crisis communication as a form of grounded theoretical approach for improving the effectiveness of crisis communication specifically within the context of large publicly-managed crises. The results of a panel of crisis communication experts are reviewed. Ten best practices for effective crisis communication, which were synthesized from this process, are presented and described. The purpose of this analysis is to describe best practices in crisis communication. My goal is to characterize the best practices approach as a form of grounded theory for process improvement and to specifically describe the role of best practices in crisis communication. The results of a best practices panel of crisis communication experts are also presented. These are then synthesized into a set of ten general best practices for effective crisis communication

Crisis Communication Research In The United States

Crisis communication research in the United States (US) is multidisciplinary and expansive. This chapter summarizes US crisis communication research through the identification of six primary research streams: public relations, sociology of disaster, crisis occurrence, crisis development, crisis management, and mediating crises. Within these research streams, we explore concepts such as image repair, warnings, failures in foresight, stages through which crises evolve, mindfulness, and news framing. Each model, theory, or concept helps to explain the complexity and simultaneous order of a crisis event. Although US crises vary widely, the streams of research provide a sense pattern to the communication that occurs before, during, and after their onset

The Complexities Of Place In Crisis Renewal Discourse: A Case Study Of The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

The discourse of renewal is an established strategy for crisis recovery. The current analysis examines the role that place plays in postcrisis communication, in general, and the discourse of renewal, specifically. We describe the extent to which place-bound crises affect the ability of an organization to enact a discourse of renewal. We propose a modification of renewal discourse to include place as a condition that may make the successful enactment of renewal rhetoric more likely. Specifically, we argue that the place of the crisis can be a decisive element in whether or how renewal is enacted. We analyse the case of the Sandy Hook School shooting to explicate the opportunities and challenges of dealing with a place-bound crisis

Assessing Boil Water Notices as Health-Risk Communication: Risk Perceptions, Efficacy, and Compliance during Winter Storm Uri

Winter Storm Uri was an extreme disaster that impacted much of the United States during February of 2021. Texas and Oklahoma were generally not prepared for such an event and experienced massive power grid failures. This led to cascading risks including water system disruptions and many boil water notices (BWNs). The breakdown of some communication channels and the inability to enact protective actions due to power outages, as well as travel limitations on public roads, complicated both dissemination and implementation. Under these conditions, a non-representative, cross-sectional, survey was collected to assess individuals experience BWNs and how perceived efficacy impacts compliance. The survey was performed in accordance methods approved by Institutional Review Boards at the University of Texas at Tyler (IRB-FY2021-129) and Wayne State University (IRB-21-02-3278 using Qualtrics XM (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Participants were restricted to adults living in Texas or Oklahoma during February 14 to February 26, 2021 that were at least 18 years of age. Responses from adults (18+ years old) living in Texas and Oklahoma during the Winter Storm Uri were collected March 2 through April 21, 2021. Overall, there were a total of 893 respondents; 775 from Texas, 101 from Oklahoma (including Native American reservations), and 17 respondents that did not identify their location. 886 record dataset, results of survey Data dictionary: WHIRLid: Number identify a unique survey respondent (excluding previews); State: State or Territory; Q5IMPACTEDBYSTORM: Were you in an area impacted by the winter storm during approximately February 14th through the 26th?; Q7BWADURINGSTORM: Was your home under a boil water advisory or notice, or a do not drink order following the winter storm during this time period?; Q11RUNNINGWATER: Since the winter storm, did you experience a loss of running water?; Q12_1ELECTRICITY: During the time of the water advisory did you have: - Electricity to boil water; Q16_1LOWPRESSURE: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Low pressure/low flow; Q16_3DISCOLOR: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Discolored (e.g., red water); Q16_4BADSMELLING: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Water that smelled; Q16_6FROZEN: Identify all of the conditions with drinking water in your home since the winter storm started on February 14th, 2021? - Frozen pipes; Q35BWAPERCEPTIONS1: How would you rate the quality of the water at your faucet?; Q36BWAPERCEPTIONS2: Would you say you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the water at your faucet?; Q37rBWAPERCEPTIONS3: In your view, how safe or unsafe is the water at your faucet?; WQPerception: Water Quality Perception Scale based on AWWA Survey (Mean scores of Q35, Q36, and Q37r); RiskPerception: Risk Perception Scale based on Rimal and Real (2003) (Mean of Q38 and Q39); Q38SUSCEPTIBILITY: Susceptibility (Mean of scores from Q38_1SUSCEPTIBILITY1 and Q38_2SUSCEPTIBILITY2 ); Q38_1SUSCEPTIBILITY1: Compared to most people my age, I understand that my risk of getting a water borne disease is:; Q38_2SUSCEPTIBILITY2: The likelihood of my getting a water borne disease is:; Q39SEVERITY: Severity (Mean of scores from Q39_1SEVERITY1 and Q39_2SEVERITY2); Q39_1SEVERITY1: Water borne diseases are serious diseases that can cause harm.; Q39_2SEVERITY2: Water borne diseases are more serious than most people realize; Q40EFFICACYSCALE: Efficacy Scale (Mean of Q40RESPONSEEFFICACY and Q40SELFEFFICACY); RESPONSEEFFICACY: Response Efficacy (Sum of Q40_1-3); Q40_1RESPONSEEFFICACY1: Water advisories work in preventing water borne diseases.; Q40_2RESPONSEEFFICACY2: Following a water advisory is effective in preventing water borne diseases.; Q40_3RESPONSEEFFICACY3: If I follow a water advisory, I am less likely to get a water borne disease.; SELFEFFICACY: Self Efficacy (Sum of Q40_4-5); Q40_4SELFEFFICACY1: I am able to follow a water advisory to prevent getting a water borne disease.; Q40_5SELFEFFICACY2: Following a water advisory is easy to prevent getting a water borne disease.; Q40_6SELFEFFICACY3: Following a water advisory to prevent water borne diseases is convenient.; Q43AGE: Age Group; Q44RACE: Race; MinorInHouse: Does child under 18 live in your household?; GenderGroup: Gender; Q47FAMILYINCOME: Family Income; EducationGroup: What is the highest level of education you have received?; Q49EMPLOYMENT: Employment statu