Читать книгу Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice - Vincent T. Covello - Страница 80

The story of the development of the theory and application of risk communication reveals the basis for current best practice. In one of the most comprehensive recent reviews to date of this history, Lundgren and McMakin (2018) summarized the history of risk communication as one that moved from a rather simplistic, linear, and mechanistic, one‐way, and send‐to‐receiver approach to a much more sophisticated approach that emphasized the importance of two‐way communication; exchanges of information; stakeholder engagement, involvement, participation; relationships and partnership building; consensus building; and constructive dialog.³ This more sophisticated approach drew from the work of communication researchers and practitioners from a diverse set of disciplines, including the behavioral sciences, social sciences, engineering, medicine, public health, industrial hygiene, linguistics, and neuroscience.

In what is now a classic article of the history of risk communication, Fischhoff (1995) identified (somewhat tongue in cheek) eight historical phases or stages in the development of risk management and risk communication practice.⁴ They were:

 Stage 1: “All we have to do is get the numbers right.”

 Stage 2: “All we have to do is tell them the numbers.”

 Stage 3: “All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers.”

 Stage 4: “All we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risks in the past.”

 Stage 5: “All we have to do is to show them it’s a good deal for them.”

 Stage 6: “All we have to do is treat them nice.”

 Stage 7: “All we have to do is make them partners.”

 Stage 8: “All of the above.”

Fischhoff noted that all the principles, strategies, and tools developed in Stages 1–7 have some degree of merit. For example, it is important to know how best to present risk data and facts. Data and facts do not speak for themselves, especially when opposed by strongly held beliefs.

In a review of the history of risk communication practice, Leiss (1996) identified three historical phases in risk communication practice.⁵