Читать книгу Theorizing Crisis Communication - Timothy L. Sellnow - Страница 16

In this chapter, we discuss definitions of theory, theory’s role and function, and the various forms theory takes. We also explore the traditional theory-practice divide and the movement to develop practical theories to bridge the divide. A framework for a meta-theory of crisis communication is presented. Our view is that theory is a necessary component to any effort to create systematic understanding. Theory plays an especially important role when there is confusion and uncertainty about what is happening, why, and what the consequences might be, such as during a crisis. We also believe that theory is critical to practice, or as noted social scientist Kurt Lewin observed, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (1951, p. 169).

Arguably, theory is the most important tool researchers have for building broader understanding of any phenomena. Theory is also a widely misunderstood concept often denoting an esoteric and generalized abstraction bearing no relationship to reality or practice. This is reflected in the common statement: “Well, that’s all well and good in theory, but it doesn’t work in reality.” Theory by definition must be related to the reality it seeks to explain; in its most basic form, a theory is simply an explanation created for something that needs further understanding. Theory is an abstraction of reality, a way of framing, modeling, and understanding what is observed to be happening. By explaining the reality of what is observed, theory can be used to inform practice. On one hand, formal theory can be quite rigid in its efforts to describe a formal system or proposition framed in a way that allows for developing specific predictions, testing, and validation. On the other hand, a theory can be as simple as an individual’s expectation based on observations and experiences. These lay theories are formulated by all of us and help us explain, organize, and make sense of the world we experience. Theories, formal or informal, are simply sensemaking devices, sets of concepts, definitions, or ideas that allow individuals to organize observations in ways that account for the observations they make about the world.

One of the traditional conceptualizations of theory and research makes a distinction between basic research, which is associated with theory development, and applied research, which is associated with practice (Stokes, 1997). Basic research does not consider the practical ends of the work and seeks to identify fundamental theoretical concepts and principles (Reagan, 1967). Traditionally, basic research was valued over other forms in part because it was not influenced by practical issues and problems. Applied research is more likely to be influenced by practical or even political concerns. Theory and principles of application are both improved, however, when they are developed and refined in relation to one another.

The relationship between theory and practice is complex and dynamic, governed by disciplinary norms and conventions, and influenced by changing political and economic forces (Hutchings & Jarvis, 2012). Some disciplines rely heavily on theory while others are more application and practically oriented. In many cases, practice comes first and leads to the development of theory. The relevance of fields of study changes as social conditions change. Issues or problems emerge, giving rise to investigations and the development of theory. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, promoted a surge of government-funded research seeking to solve a range of practical problems, including interoperability of first responder communication systems, effectiveness of warning and risk recognition systems, the factors associated with resilience, and the conditions that might give rise to terrorism. The emergence of new infectious diseases, such as the Zika outbreak and COVID-19, spur programs of research, which in turn give rise to theories. Crises often point out unforeseen issues, problems, and areas of vulnerability that then require systemic programs of research. In many cases, researchers must move very quickly to help address practical issues associated with emerging risks. During the early stages of the COVID-19 disasters, a group of microbiologists, material scientists, engineers, and clinicians from around the country came together to investigate protocols for decontaminating the N95 masks used to protect medical and frontline workers. These protocols were needed to address a severe and immediate shortage of personal protective equipment created by COVID-19.

While the conceptual distinction between theory and practice has been part of an ongoing discussion in research communities, communication scholars have begun to question this distinction (see Barge & Craig, 2009; Eadie, 1990; Petronio, 1999). Several emerging communication traditions – including applied communication, engaged scholarship, action research, translational research, and value-based scholarship, among others – seek to both understand and apply communication inquiry to solve problems, engage issues, and address social inequities (Seeger, 2009). This movement has been driven by the ongoing recognition that communication processes are necessary to address a variety of social problems and issues. This includes the management of risks and crisis events. The group of researchers developing N95 decontamination protocols described earlier turned to communication researchers to develop methods for effectively disseminating their protocols. The development of practical theories of communication has been “explicitly designed to address practical problems and generate new possibilities for action” (Barge & Craig, 2009, p. 95). As such, they hold a specific relevance to crisis communication.

One example of a practical theory that emerged from observations during crises is the Waffle House Index. This index was derived from observations by employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the severity of a crisis and the ability of local Waffle House restaurants to stay open. This restaurant chain has an established record of good emergency preparedness and is generally able to continue operations except during the most extreme weather events. Thus, a full menu, a limited menu, or restaurant closure is a general indication of the severity of a crisis (McKnight & Linnenluecke, 2016). The Waffle House Index can be described as a theory of crisis severity and has practical utility as a means to assess the severity of a crisis and what resources a community might need for recovery.

Barge (2001) and Barge & Craig (2009) suggest three broad approaches to the development of practical theories of communication: mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Mapping takes many forms and is a process necessary to almost all theorizing. It involves creating some form of representation of the reality being examined. Although all theory should bear a direct correspondence to reality, practical theory is perhaps more attuned to the dynamics of the context than other forms. The idea of mapping is that by creating a symbolic abstraction of a system, process, structure, or phenomena allows for understanding of the relationship between the various sub-components. Reflexivity concerns the dialogue that occurs between theory and practice when theory is deployed as a tool for addressing problems and issues. Practical theory is refined, tested, and critiqued based on its utility. Barge & Craig (2009) argue that practical “theory emerges from a systematic reflection on communicative practice in terms of the kinds of problems, dilemmas, and sites that people engage in the conduct of their lives and how they manage them” (p. 59). Finally, transformative practice means using theory to “make sense of situations and take action that is intended to improve those situations.” Theory may be transformative in its ability to fundamentally reframe practice in intentional and strategic ways to achieve desired outcomes. The movement to develop a body of practical theory helps bridge the traditional divide between theory and practice by developing fuller understandings of how the two domains can be productively related. It also downplays the tendency to view theorizing as a more important and valued process than practice. Practical theory may be especially useful as a tool for making strategic decisions under conditions of high uncertainty, such as crises.

Theoretical approaches take a variety of forms. Some of these approaches provide broad conceptual grounding for the object of study. Some are based on observations that become formalized. These approaches can provide unifying orientations and clarify underlying philosophies for a domain of theorizing. They clarify values, the overall purpose of theorizing, and the way scholars think about their work, often described as meta-theories.

Meta-theory represents the underlying philosophy behind a body of theory or the fundamental set of ideas about how a phenomenon of interest in a particular field should be thought about and studied (Wagner & Berger, 1985). Meta-theoretical perspectives are the fundamental assumptions regarding and domain of study that guide theorizing. It describes what researchers will focus on, how, with what goals, and with what outcomes. A meta-theoretical perspective identifies the problem(s) to be addressed by theory (see McPhee, 2000). A meta-theoretical perspective of a phenomenon can be described using four broad concepts: ontology, axiology, epistemology, and methodology. Ontology concerns the nature of the reality being examined. Epistemology concerns the character of knowledge about a particular domain of inquiry and asks questions such as how do we know what we know, what can we know, and what counts as legitimate knowledge. Value questions, including aesthetic, ethical, and broader utility, are addressed by axiology. Domains of inquiry may have intrinsic value and may be seen as worthwhile based on the outcomes they achieve. Finally, methodology concerns the accepted epistemologies of the field and the established ways of conducting inquiry. A meta-theoretical approach to crisis communication addressed these four elements (see Table 2.1).

We discuss the traditions of crisis communication inquiry throughout this book. The dominant method of crisis communication research is the case study, largely because of the challenges of collecting data around disasters. Case studies employing thick description, rhetorical analysis, content analysis, interviews, formal reports, and media accounts are useful in capturing the dynamics of a crisis. Other approaches, especially survey research and laboratory investigations, have also become increasingly important methods for crisis communication investigations. The epistemology of crisis communication is grounded in a view that theory should be contextually relevant. That is to say, any theory of crisis communication should account for the essential elements of the crisis context, including uncertainty, immediacy, and harm. Diverse kinds of knowledge can provide insight into the conditions of a crisis. This includes experiences and personal accounts, empirical and qualitative data, and critical analyses. Much of crisis communication theory is particularly attuned to those individuals, groups, organizations, and communities suffering harm. Some theories privilege organizational harm while others privilege the harm to individuals. Several theories described in the following chapters can be critiqued on the grounds that they have a managerial bias because of the tendency to privilege organizations. The axiology of crisis communication has been driven largely by questions of ethics especially as they relate to rights of individuals to have access to information and the duty to help and care for those who face harm. The concepts of significant choice and autonomy concern the rights of individuals to have access to information about matters that might impact them (Ulmer & Sellnow, 1997). Beneficence and the ethic of care concern the obligation to care for those harmed in ways that are beneficial to their needs (Egilman, 2006). Finally, the ontology of crisis communication focuses on the reality of crisis, especially as experienced by those most directly impacted. As we have noted in Chapter 1, a crisis creates high uncertainty, a threat, and the need for an immediate response. A crisis often engenders intense feelings of fear, dread, anxiety, and uncertainty. The reality of crisis often involves confusion, chaos, disruption, and the lack of normalcy.

Table 2.1 Meta-Theoretical Elements of Crisis Communication.

Ontology:High uncertaintyImmediacyThreatDisruption and chaosEmotional Responses: fear, dread, anxietyAxiology:Ethics of significant choice and right to knowEthic of careAutonomyBeneficenceEpistemology:Diverse kinds of knowledgeExperiencesEmpiricalCriticalQualitativeMethodology:Case Studies: thick description, rhetorical analysis, survey, content analysis, interviews, formal reports, and media accountsExperiments

While meta-theoretical underpinnings (Table 2.1) of a domain of study help clarify the goals, the function, structure, form, and nature of what constitutes a theory are also important to examine. There are many formal definitions of theory, such as those presented in Table 2.2. At some level, however, the very straightforward “If A then B” proposition underlies most formal theories. For example, a basic crisis theory might propose, “If a condition is perceived to be a crisis (A), then people will experience high levels of uncertainty (B).” This theory does not necessarily propose that all people will feel uncertainty or that all crises will produce high levels of uncertainty. A theory is never “proven” as a universal law covering all cases, particularly when considering human behaviors where so many factors may interact. This proposition does suggest, though, is that as a general principle, crises are characterized by uncertainty. It is then possible to follow the initial proposition with a second, “If people experiencing a crisis feel high levels of uncertainty (A), then they will seek out information (B).” This is an example of how theories can be systems of propositions.

Table 2.2 Definitions of Theory.

“A theory is a description of concepts and specification of the relationship between or among those concepts” (Baldwin et al., 2004).“A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among the variables, with the purpose of explaining and (or) predicting the phenomena” (Kerlinger, 1986).“Theory is a tentative explanation invented to assist in understanding some small or large part of the ‘reality’ around us. Ideally, theoretical concepts are measurable and propositions testable and therefore subject to refutation” (Donohew & Palmgreen, 2003).Theory can be seen, “in its broadest sense as any conceptual representation or explanation of phenomena” (Littlejohn, 1999).“Theory is a generalization separated from the particulars, an abstraction separated from a concrete case” (Alexander, 1987).

This example of theories as systems of propositions illustrates some of the functions of theory (Table 2.3). The first is to organize a set of observations. One of the most striking behaviors people exhibit upon experiencing or learning about a crisis is their attempt to find a television or radio for a news report or a website for more information. These observations about crisis behaviors can be organized in an “If A then B” proposition that allows for a second function: to explain some phenomenon or something that needs explanation. It may not be immediately clear why people experiencing a crisis are talking on their cell phones, texting friends, meeting in small groups, or spending time on the web. These propositions provide an explanation for that behavior. A third function of theory is to predict what will happen in a particular situation. If we know that A is followed by B, then it is possible to predict when B will occur. Crisis managers, for example, know that in a crisis the public will have an intense need for information and will seek it out from any available source, usually an immediate source such as radio, television, or the web. Crisis managers also understand that if they do not provide the information and meet the informational needs of the public, other often less credible sources will fill the informational void. The fourth function of a theory is to help exert some control over behavior by informing practice. By providing immediate, credible, and easily accessible sources of information to people who are experiencing a crisis, managers can reduce uncertainty and anxiety and influence what messages the public receives. Creating some sense of control and, thus, order is critical during the uncertainty and chaos of a crisis. Finally, a theory can help guide research by creating questions that can be tested and by generating new theories. Theory guides research by pointing to the questions that need to be answered and by putting them in a form that can be answered. Once research is completed, the results can be placed in the theoretical framework to refine the propositions further or, in some cases, demonstrate that the theory is incorrect. In this case, an entirely new set of propositions is needed. Thus, theory is tested through research. A theory cannot be proven to be entirely accurate or correct, however, because there are always new cases. It is more accurate, therefore, to say a theory has received support than to claim it is true or proven.

Table 2.3 Functions of Theory.

Organize observations of a phenomenon or sets of related phenomenaDescribe what is observedExplain the relationships between constructsPredict what will happen in a particular circumstanceControl the outcome when it is possible to predictInform practice by helping people understand what is happeningFacilitate critique by promoting understanding of what can happenPromote inquiry and research by helping investigators form questionsPromote other theory building by proving related insights

Within the structure of the “If A then B” proposition is the explicit expectation that A is related to B is some way. The connection between A and B may take many forms and sometimes the form is not clear or self-evident. The most obvious form is that A causes B, but causality is very difficult to establish, particularly in the social sciences, where individuals make choices about their behavior. Cause implies a direct almost law-like relationship between variables that is rare in cases of human behavior, although it is still the goal of some theoretical perspectives. In other theories, the expected relationship may be simply temporal, that A precedes B in some logical way. Many developmental theories are grounded in this form of relationship, assuming that A must occur before B can occur and that completing A makes room for B. It may also be that A is correlated with B in the sense that the two are connected in either a positive or negative way. A positive relationship means a change in A results in a change in B in the same direction, where a negative correlation indicated that changes in one direction in A results in a change in the opposite direction in B. Some theories specify multi-directional relationships where A influences B and B also influences A. A structural relationship between A and B may occur when they are both part of a larger system, such as a cultural system, creating a relationship where one is related to the other.

This “If A then B” structure underlies most theories, as theories do take many other forms. One form is the taxonomy, which might be framed as “A is not B, is not C, is not D.” A taxonomy is a system of classification whereby some groups of phenomena are sorted according to their types. Table 1.2 presented three common crisis taxonomies. The value of a taxonomy is that it specifies similarities and differences. As with definitions, taxonomies help clarify the range of concepts under investigation. A second form of theory is the model; in fact, all theories can be described as models in the sense that they are representations or abstractions of the real world. The theory “If a condition is perceived to be a crisis, then people will experience high levels of uncertainty” is a verbal model. The description is a verbal representation or model. There are also pictorial models, such as the food recall model presented in Chapter 4, or models of hurricane tracks and land falls. Mathematical models, system models, scale models, and hybrid models are also used in research. Each seeks to represent reality and describe the relationship between elements. Models are particularly helpful in demonstrating relationships such as time, sequence, or proximity. They can help clarify and visualize the relationships between elements of the theory, especially when those relationships are complex.

Another distinction sometimes made between theories is logical positivist versus social constructivist approaches. These approaches represent two philosophical orientations and tend to be associated with different methodological stances. Logical positivism is a rational approach to human behavior that follows empirical assumptions. According to this approach, the truth or accuracy of a statement lies in its ability to be empirically verified. Logical positivists believe in a material reality that can be measured and verified through empirical observation. They seek more law-like relationships in their efforts to understand behavior. In contrast, constructivists or social constructivist approaches typically favor more qualitative approaches and argue that much of meaning is socially constructed through perception, interaction, and language. For the students of theory, it is important to understand that these philosophical stances underlie various propositions and influence how the propositions are formulated. Both approaches are represented in theories of crisis communication.

Theories may also be described as specialized, narrow, or grand. A specialized theory is a narrow proposition designed for a very limited application or circumstance. Most crisis theories are relatively specialized formulations developed to explain specific phenomena. A grand theory is a formulation that seeks to describe and explain a much broader range of phenomena. These theories are appealing in that they have the potential to unify many more limited theories and create an overall picture of the phenomenon under investigation. Chaos theory, with very wide-ranging application as described in Chapter 6, is one such theory. While chaos theory explains a great deal, it falls short of being a grand theory in that it does not create a complete understanding of any one phenomenon. When a set of propositions becomes general and abstract, it is called a paradigm. “A paradigm can be viewed as a set of basic beliefs (or metaphysics) that deals with ultimates or first principles” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 107). It is a mental window or worldview that specifies elements, relationships, and assumptions. According to Kuhn (1962), a paradigm can also be described as a “coherent set of concepts, principles, assumptions, and basic axioms that have come to be accepted by a sufficiently significant number of researchers or practitioners in the field” (cited in Dills & Romiszowski, 1997, p. xi). Probably the most popular paradigm in communication research is systems theory, which outlines the general dynamic homeostasis that characterizes the relationship between supra systems, systems, and subsystems (Bertalanffy, 1950). According to systems theory, various forms of feedback maintain stability by regulating the operation of systems. As a paradigm, systems theory is too general to generate specific testable hypotheses. Nonetheless, it has been widely influential in the formulation of other theories.

Theories are also sometimes described as emergent when they are in the early stages of development. As propositions are offered, tested, refined, and critiqued, more scholars may find they have utility. When this happens, theories typically reach some level of development where they are no longer emergent but represent mainstream sets of ideas that have been agreed upon and accepted as useful. Grounded theory is a qualitative approach designed to lead to the emergence of new theories. Rather than following the traditional approach of beginning with a theory and testing its propositions through the collection of data or observations, this approach begins with data and allows the propositions to emerge (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Observations are coded, concepts are developed, observations are categorized, and theoretical propositions are then generated.

Finally, theories themselves may be loosely grouped or categorized by similar characteristics in form, function, or area of explanation. These families of theories, such as developmental theories, mass communication theories, or theories of warning, typically focus on similar issues or phenomena. In doing so, they comment on one another and create a richer, more complete understanding of the area being examined. Often within a family of theory there are conflicting and competing formulations and research is required to sort out which is the most useful explanation. Image repair theories of crisis are a family of related theories that, taken together, provide a rich perspective to explain how organizations respond to crises. Various theories of warning address the challenges of disseminating messages about impending risks under conditions of uncertainty that will motivate people to take appropriate action.