Do communicators take over? Mediatization and conflicts in civil society

Abstract

The article investigates internal strategies and struggles in civil society organizations' (CSOs') policy advocacy work from the vantage point of policy professionals by using the concepts of field, symbolic capital, and logics. A main claim is that mediatization acts as a strategic‐tension mechanism within a CSO, putting communicators at the center of policy units, which in turn is consequential for the strategies chosen for the organization's policy work. In this way, mediatization as a process celebrates certain professionals and strategies as particularly relevant, creating frustration among employees not specializing in communication. The study identifies a trend for organizations to put more resources and influence into communication and less into actual policy analysis. This article combines research on organizational logics, policy professionals, and mediatization by drawing on 38 interviews with, and ethnographic work among, policy professionals in Sweden, Latvia, and the Netherlands. Related Articles Selling, Niels, and Stefan Svallfors. 2019. “The Lure of Power: Career Paths and Considerations among Policy Professionals in Sweden.” Politics & Policy 47(5): 984–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12325. Svallfors, Stefan. 2016. “Out of the Golden Cage: PR and the Career Opportunities of Policy Professionals.” Politics & Policy 44(1): 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12149. Svallfors, Stefan, Erica Falkenström, Corrie Hammar, and Anna T. Höglund. 2022. “Networked Reports: Commissioning and Production of Expert Reports on Swedish Health Care Governance.” Politics & Policy 50(3): 580–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12462.

Note from the Editors

“…Moviéndonos a Europa, en “¿Do Communicators Take Over? Mediatization and Conflicts in Civil Society,” Joanna Mellquist (2023) se une a la creciente lista de artículos de P&P sobre profesionales de las políticas y los roles de los expertos que influyen en las políticas y la promoción de políticas (ver, por ejemplo, Selling y Svallfors 2019; Howlett y Wellstead 2011; Svallfors 2016; Shen, Ieong y Zhu 2022; Svallfors et al 2022). El estudio detallado cubre la comunicación estratégica de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) en los Países Bajos, Letonia y Suecia.…”

“…将重点转向欧洲，Joanna Mellquist(2023)的文章《传播者占主导地位了吗?公民社会中的媒介化与冲突》加入了P&P正在扩充的文章列表，聚焦于政策专业人士以及影响政策和政策倡导的专家角色(例如，参见Selling and Svallfors 2019; Howlett and Wellstead 2011; Svallfors 2016; Shen, Ieong, and Zhu 2022; Svallfors et al 2022)。这篇详细的研究涵盖了荷兰、拉脱维亚和瑞典公民社会组织(CSO)的战略传播。Mellquist强调，政策专业人士受到媒介化过程的显著影响，并且当内部组织冲突出现时，传播者通常会占主导地位。事实上，公民社会组织的内部斗争经常导致组织将更多的资源、注意力和对议程的控制投入到传播和媒体考量上，而不是专家的政策分析——这会影响政策专业人员之间的权力平衡，并可能倾向于除知识生产之外的框架。Mellquist(2023)发出提醒:这“可能会使政策专业人员和公民社会组织成员脱离‘事业’，因为所制定的政策与公民社会组织本应代表的成员脱节。”…”

“…Indeed, struggles inside CSOs frequently led the organizations studied to devote more resources, attention, and control of the agenda to communication and media considerations than to expert policy analysis-affecting the power balance between policy professionals and potentially favoring framing over and above knowledge production. Mellquist (2023) warns that this "may risk alienating both policy professionals and members of CSOs from 'the cause,' with the policy produced becoming detached from the members whom CSOs are supposed to represent. "…”

“…Moving to Europe, in “Do Communicators Take Over? Mediatization and Conflicts in Civil Society,” Mellquist (2023) joins P&P's growing list of articles on policy professionals and the roles of experts influencing policy and policy advocacy (see, e.g., Howlett & Wellstead, 2011; Selling & Svallfors, 2019; Shen et al, 2022; Svallfors, 2016; Svallfors et al, 2022). The detailed study covers the strategic communication of civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Netherlands, Latvia, and Sweden.…”

“…De hecho, las luchas dentro de las OSC llevaron con frecuencia a las organizaciones estudiadas a dedicar más recursos, atención y control de la agenda ejercido por los comunicólogos, lo que afectó el equilibrio de poder entre los expertos de políticas y favoreció potencialmente el encuadre, por encima de la producción de conocimiento. Mellquist (2023) advierte que esto "puede correr el riesgo de alienar tanto a los profesionales de la política como a los miembros de las OSC de 'la causa,' y la política producida que se separa a los miembros de los que se supone que representan a las OSC. "…”