Special Section Introduction: Best Practices in Risk and Crisis Communication

Venette, Steven J.

doi:10.1080/00909880600769464

Cited by 25 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The adverse effects of the oil slick include threats to aquatic life, seafood industries, and consumer confidence. The field of risk management or crisis communication concentrates on how to present phenomena in ways that accomplish a rhetor's intent (e.g., Venette, 2006). The goal is to steer perception of a crisis in a specific direction.…”

Section: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster and The Twitter Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage Control: Rhetoric and New Media Technologies in the Aftermath of the BP Oil Spill

Hall¹,

Kice

Choi³

2012

Poroi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster and The Twitter Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage Control: Rhetoric and New Media Technologies in the Aftermath of the BP Oil Spill

Hall¹,

Kice

Choi³

2012

Poroi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Seeger (2006) and Venette (2006Venette ( , 2007 described 10 best practices for risk and crisis communication. Further study might suggest that these or other strategies help communities accurately understand the potential harm and make decisions that mitigate the risks.…”

Section: Limitations Delimitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk as an Inherent Element in the Study of Crisis Communication

Venette

2008

Southern Communication Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Under the pressure of an actual crisis there can be a tendency to conceal information and deny responsibility (Venette, 2006). To help practitioners avoid such pitfalls and bridge the scholar-practitioner divide, researchers put forward lists of best practices (Janoske, Liu, & Madden, 2013).…”

Section: Crisis Communication Theory In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practice

Claeys

Opgenhaffen

2016

Journal of Public Relations Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-five in-depth interviews with Belgian crisis communication practitioners were conducted to examine the gap between theory and practice. Crisis communication has become an important research area within public relations. Several studies have resulted in theories and guidelines regarding the effective use of communication during organizational crises.Unfortunately, these findings are not always put into practice. This study examines to what extent public relations practitioners apply theory in practice during crises and why. The findings offer an opportunity to formulate potential ways in which we can bridge the scholar-practitioner divide in public relations, through guidelines for both scholars and practitioners. Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practiceCrisis communication research has offered a number of clear and useful theoretical guidelines to put into practice. Many of these guidelines stress the accountability of organizations in crisis (cf. Coombs, 2015). Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Coombs, 2007), for instance, indicates that an organization that is blamed for a crisis should communicate crisis response strategies that express acceptance of responsibility. Research on crisis timing strategies similarly stresses the importance of open and responsible communication and shows that organizations should steal thunder (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). That is, they should self-disclose incriminating information instead of trying to conceal it (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012). Research illustrates, however, that while offering a full apology might be the most effective crisis response strategy when responsibility attributions are high, the most frequently employed strategies are bolstering and denial ). In addition, literature suggests that practitioners acknowledge the value of stealing thunder, but rarely selfdisclose crises (Kline, Simunich, & Weber, 2009;Ulmer, 2012). As such, a gap exists between theoretical guidelines and crisis communication practice. This study aims to explore the roots of this gap to formulate solutions to bridge the divide.We first discuss potential causes and solutions for the so-called scholar-practitioner divide, or rigor-relevance gap, based on insights from aligned fields (cf. Kieser, Nicolai, & Seidl, 2015). Then we examine this divide in the context of public relations and, more specifically, crisis communication. A brief overview is given of the most widely supported guidelines in the crisis communication literature. In addition, the few studies that examined the extent of the divide in crisis communication and literature that attempts to bridge it are discussed. Finally, we discuss an exploratory study that conducted 25 in-depth interviews with Belgian communication professionals between February and May 2015. The findings indicate which factors limit the practical application of crisis communication theory, according to senior public relations practitioners. These insights allow us to look ahead and explore how we can furth...

show abstract

Special Section Introduction: Best Practices in Risk and Crisis Communication

Cited by 25 publications

References 0 publications

Damage Control: Rhetoric and New Media Technologies in the Aftermath of the BP Oil Spill

Damage Control: Rhetoric and New Media Technologies in the Aftermath of the BP Oil Spill

Risk as an Inherent Element in the Study of Crisis Communication

Why practitioners do (not) apply crisis communication theory in practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About