Theorizing Crisis Communication. Timothy L. Sellnow

elements – such as threat, uncertainty, and the need for an immediate response – and that common response contingencies will be required.

Crisis research and theory have historically been driven largely by the need to improve crisis management practice. Initially, practitioners sought to develop frameworks and models to promote understanding and improve their practice. After analyses and critiques of their responses, managers often developed after action reports, which were then used in subsequent training and planning for future events. These efforts began to reveal patterns and relationships that eventually led to more general theoretical frameworks and systematic research. Experience-based approaches eventually evolved into formal case studies, which remain a dominant methodology used for studying crises. For the emergency manager, the primary communication issues relate to coordination of efforts and logistics and public warnings and notification. Communication technologies – such as 800 MHz radios, web-based systems of targeted text alerts, warning systems such as sirens, and mass media alerts such as the emergency broadcasting system – were the primary focus for improving communication. More recently, social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have become important tools for crisis communication.

      Case studies have been enriched as researchers combined them with survey questionnaires and ethnographic techniques. Survey data has contributed significantly to understanding audience needs and interests. Ethnographies have helped capture the complex and often devastating experiences of people living through crises. In addition to case studies, laboratory-based research including simulations and experiments has been used to test specific hypotheses, thereby contributing to the development and refinement of crisis communication theory. These include investigations of attribution of crisis cause, examinations of how audiences perceive and respond to crises, and tests of the effectiveness of various message forms. Critical methodologies, including descriptive and rhetorical approaches, have been employed to develop more general frameworks of crisis communication that address issues such as ethics and social justice.

      In this chapter we provide an overview of crisis and communication concepts. Crisis communication theorizing and the development of a wide range of theoretical frameworks is necessary to explain, understand, and predict crises as well as inform crisis communication practice. Crisis theory also draws on both field research and research in controlled experimental settings as well as qualitative and critical approaches. Theory drives research by suggesting relationships and questions and by calling attention to gaps in our understanding and deficiencies in practice.

      We begin this chapter by discussing definitions of crisis, communication, and crisis communication. Definitions are essential elements of any theorizing process, which provide the basic conceptual component necessary to build a theory.

      Defining Crisis

As with many fields of study, scholars have debated the merits of various definitions of crises. In addition, different fields of study favor different terms. Sociology generally uses the term disaster while organizational studies and communication researchers prefer the term crisis. Regardless of the terminology, these debates about definitions are important in establishing the parameters of a field and indicating the principal components of the phenomenon. Definitions are also important components of any theory. For example, within the area of crisis studies some debate exists about the level of harm necessary for an event to qualify as a crisis. A bad snowstorm may be disruptive to a community, but the storm may only be characterized as a crisis when it threatens public safety and property. High winds may be disruptive but only constitute a crisis when they create significant property damage. To construct a theory of crisis, it is first necessary to ensure the event under examination actually meets the definition of a crisis.

The FEMA uses several criteria to determine when a situation qualifies as a disaster. A disaster declaration is required for federal aid to be available to communities (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 FEMA Disaster Declaration Criteria.

Amount and type of damage (number of homes destroyed or with major damage);Impact on the infrastructure of affected areas or critical facilities;Imminent threats to public health and safety;Impacts to essential government services and functions;Unique capability of federal government;Dispersion or concentration of damage;Level of insurance coverage in place for homeowners and public facilities;Assistance available from other sources (federal, state, local, voluntary organizations);State and local resource commitments from previous, undeclared events; andFrequency of disaster events over recent time period (FEMA, 2011).

      Source: FEMA (2011), Declaration Process Fact Sheet.

      These criteria allow FEMA to assess the relative magnitude of disruption and harm an event has created and determine the amount and form of assistance a community may need. A federal disaster declaration is necessary under the provisions of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and the Stafford Act of 1988 for federal assistance and aid to be distributed. The WHO identifies elements required for an infectious disease outbreak to be declared a pandemic. An epidemic involves the emergence of a new disease or reemergence of a disease, with sustained human transmission, occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people (Kelly, 2011).

Some crises are distinct in terms of their scope and the level of harm created. These so-called mega-crises “defy boundaries, limits, neat demarcations, patterned connections and linear consequences” (Helsloot et al., 2012, p. 5). Mega-crises create especially significant threats, overwhelm capacity to respond, and have both short- and long-term consequences. These events are often inconsistent with the “traditional dichotomy between natural and man-made disasters” by creating complex interactions between human-caused and natural phenomena (Helsloot et al., 2012, p. 5). Mega-crises may profoundly and permanently undermine the viability of communities, institutions, and regions and require a fundamental rethinking of preparation, response, management. Most importantly, mega-crises require consideration of causes and consequences. Climate change, for example, involves the complex and nonlinear interaction of human and natural phenomena. As climate patterns that have been relatively stable for thousands of years shift, the consequences for local weather patterns, sea level rises, agricultural practices, and human migration will be profound. Management of this mega-crisis will require sustained, cooperative, multinational efforts and social and political change on a scale not seen before. Managing the consequences of climate change will become an imperative for communities, organizations, industries, and countries. Mega-crises such as climate change have prompted an emphasis on building and improving resilience as an important strategy of response.

      From other perspectives, the question of the magnitude of a crisis is best understood as a matter of personal, community, and even cultural perception. Not surprisingly, people are more likely to understand an event as a crisis when it affects them. Coombs (2010) describes a crisis as a function of perceptions based on a violation of some strongly held expectation. Food, for example, should be safe to eat and free of harmful E. coli contamination. Tap water should be safe to drink. It is generally expected that rivers will remain within defined areas and not spread to inundate residential or downtown areas. Seasonal influenza should be a relatively minor disorder and should not create widespread illness, death, and social disruptions. The violation of these expectations and some level of community and social consensus about the relative level of risk and threat create the perception of a crisis. A crisis condition is in contrast to what would be considered a normal condition. When people believe there is a crisis, they are likely to behave differently than they would in so-called normal times.

Similar debates about definitions have also focused on the notion of the intentional creation of harm. For example, some scholars have argued that international conflicts between countries represent crises, while others have suggested that war itself should not be classified as a crisis, although the consequences, such as the dislocation of populations, disruption of food supplies, or disease outbreaks, do represent crises. War usually but not always is the outcome of some extended conflict and as such is not surprising in the same way as most crises.