Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice

The dynamics of organizational risk communication is an understudied topic in risk research. This article investigates how public officials at six government agencies in Sweden understand and relate to risk communication and its uses in the context of agency organizational work on policy and regulation. Qualitative interviews were used to explore the practitioners’ views on some key topics in the academic literature on risk communication. A main finding is that there is little consensus on what the goals of risk communication are; if, and how, uncertainty should be communicated; and what role is to be played by transparency in risk communication. However, the practitioners agree that dissemination (top down) to the public of robust scientific and expert knowledge is a crucial element. Dialogue and participation is used mainly with other agencies and elite stakeholders with whom agencies collaborate to implement policy goals. Dialogue with the public on issues of risk is very limited. Some implications of the findings for the practice of risk communication by government agencies are suggested.     

Improving Risk Communication

This paper explores reasons for difficulties in communicating risks among analysts, the laypublic, media, and regulators. Formulating risk communication problems as decisions involving objectives and alternatives helps to identify strategies for overcoming these difficulties. Several strategies are suggested to achieve risk communication objectives like improving public knowledge about risks and risk management, encouraging risk reduction behavior, understanding public values and concerns, and increasing trust and credibility.     

Mixed Messages in Risk Communication

The exchange of risk information between risk managers and affected parties is frequently hampered by differences in the understanding or interpretation of many words and phrases. Much of the terminology used by risk practitioners may have different "technical" and "colloquial" meanings, resulting in "mixed messages" in risk communication. Several words and concepts commonly used in risk management that may be resulting in these "mixed messages" are discussed. These include primary underlying concepts, such as the various meanings of the word "risk" itself, as well as the perplexity of the notions of "safety vs. zero risk" and "probability". The potential "mixed messages" of the derived concepts of "significant vs. nonsignificant", "negative vs. positive results", "conservative assumptions", "population vs. individual risk", "relative vs. absolute risk", and "association vs. causation" are shown to range from mild confusion to the completely opposite interpretation of these words and expressions. Suggested strategies for recognizing and mitigating the use of words and phrases which may create unnecessary confusion are presented.     

Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication

Differences in the conceptual frameworks of scientists and nonscientists may create barriers to risk communication. This article examines two such conceptual problems. First, the logic of "direct inference" from group statistics to probabilities about specific individuals suggests that individuals might be acting rationally in refusing to apply to themselves the conclusions of regulatory risk assessments. Second, while regulators and risk assessment scientists often use an "objectivist" or "relative frequency" interpretation of probability statements, members of the public are more likely to adopt a "subjectivist" or "degree of confidence" interpretation when estimating their personal risks, and either misunderstand or significantly discount the relevance of risk assessment conclusions. If these analyses of inference and probability are correct, there may be a conceptual gulf at the center of risk communication that cannot be bridged by additional data about the magnitude of group risk. Suggestions are made for empirical studies that might help regulators deal with this conceptual gulf.     

Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

The objective of informing and educating the public about risk issues seems easy to attain in principle, but, in practice, may be difficult to accomplish. This paper attempts to illustrate why this is so. To be effective, risk communicators must recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies of the human mind. Doing an adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensible ways of presenting complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand. The problems may not be insurmountable, however, if designers of risk information programs are sensitive to the difficulties.     

The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies

This article aims to bring to the fore some of the underlying rationales that inform common conceptions of the constitution of risk communication in academic and policy communities. “Normative,”“instrumental,” and “substantive” imperatives typically employed in the utilization of risk communication are first outlined. In light of these considerations, a theoretical scheme is subsequently devised leading to the articulation of four fundamental “idealized” models of risk communication termed the “risk message” model, the “risk dialogue” model, the “risk field” model, and the “risk government” model, respectively. It is contended that the diverse conceptual foundations underlying the orientation of each model suggest a further need for a more contextualized view of risk communication that takes account not only of the strengths and limitations of different formulations and functions of risk communication, but also the underlying knowledge/power dynamics that underlie its constitution. In particular, it is hoped that the reflexive theoretical understanding presented here will help to bring some much needed conceptual clarity to academic and policy discourses about the use and utility of risk communication in advanced liberal societies.     

Studying Heuristic-Systematic Processing of Risk Communication

Using a model of risk information seeking and processing developed by Griffin, Dunwoody, and Neuwirth (1999), this study looks at predictors of the processing strategies that people apply to health risk information. Specifically, this article focuses on one relationship within the model--the relationship between perceived amount of information needed to deal with a risk and heuristic-systematic processing. Perceived amount of information needed refers to the gap between one's understanding of a risk and the level of understanding that one needs in order to make a decision about that risk. Building on the work of Chaiken (cf. 1980), the Griffin et al. model predicts--and finds--that the larger the gap, the more likely one will process information systematically. The study employs a novel measure of information processing in a survey setting by sending actual information to participants and then asking them how they attended to it; the researchers evaluate this strategy. Finally, the researchers discuss how these findings might help agencies and practitioners create more effective risk messages.     

Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities

Despite the increased interest in risk communication among government agencies, there is evidence that agencies'risk communication practices lag. We conducted a study to explore which risk communication research would be most important to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. Qualitative interviews and a survey of 145 risk communication experts based in academic institutions and government agencies explored how important research on each of 48 topics would be to improving agencies'risk communication efforts. Respondents identified topics within three areas as priorities for further research: 1) involving communities in agency decisionmaking; 2) communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and incomes; and 3) evaluating risk communication. Both practitioners and researchers responded to additional statements about agencies'risk communication practices with reservations about staff and managers'commitment to effective communication about environmental issues. We discuss the implications of these findings.     

Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion

Proposed in this article is one possible framework for classifying multiple types of ethical issues in risk communication research and practice to help continue a discussion initiated in 1990 by Morgan and Lave. Some of the questions that each stage of the process for planning risk communication strategies appears to pose for ethics are discussed (e.g., selecting issues to be communicated, knowing the issue, dealing with constraints). Also discussed briefly are some issues raised by the possibility that risk communicators aspire to the status of a profession. The purpose is to foster discussion rather than issue a conclusive statement on the topic, because its very nature makes a definitive pronouncement indefensible.     

Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies

A national symposium of risk communication practitioners and researchers was held in 1994 to discuss next steps to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. The symposium focused on three issues which a survey of researchers and practitioners indicated were priorities for risk communication research: integrating outside concerns into agency decision-making; communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds and incomes; and evaluation of risk communication. There are indications that the working assumptions underlying these issues are shifting in several distinctive ways. For example, a shift from simply communicating risk to forging partnerships with communities was clearly evident throughout the symposium. Communicating with different social, ethnic, and racial groups gained recognition as a vital component of the risk communication research agenda. Agencies themselves should be the subject of study, according to many symposium participants who were concerned less about the so-called irrationality of the public and more about the reluctance of agencies to encourage risk communication.     

Risk Communication in The Netherlands: The Monitored Introduction of the EC "Post-Seveso" Directive

Implementation of article 8.1 of the EC-"Seveso" Directive (82/501/EC) is now under way in many countries in Europe. In The Netherlands, the implementation of the Directive started with a carefully monitored introduction of active information provision at two sites (Dordrecht and Elst). This introduction was supported by a multidisciplinary research group. This group helped to develop the risk communication program and also played a role in the evaluation of the program. This paper describes these processes and their evaluation. We will focus on the design of the risk communication programs and the effects of the programs on knowledge and attitudes of the local target groups. This effort and its results clearly started an institutional learning process involving governmental bodies at several organizational levels (local, regional, and national), and industrial organizations (individual firms and organizations of industries). Monitoring the design, the implementation, and the effects of active information provision proves an effective means to gain experience with the implementation of the Seveso Directive and could help to facilitate further implementation.     

Health Risk Communication at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

I have described areas for which ATSDR has responsibilities that we see as involving risk communication. I conclude by indicating, based on our professional experience and from meetings with the public where we have presented health information, what we consider to be five elements required of successful risk communication. The first element we suggest is the credibility of the source. If you have no credibility, no matter how accurate, how truthful, how up-to-date, how important, how dramatic your message is, you are not going to be heard. So you start with credibility. The quality of the message is the second building block of successful risk communication. By quality of the message, I mean whether it is accurate, truthful, up-to-date, and based on current scientific knowledge. The third element is the degree of involvement of the receiver of the message in the shaping of the message. If the receiver has not been involved in the process, then the likelihood of successful risk communication is going to be diminished. Get the receivers involved up front. That means, in the case of community health studies, get those persons involved in the community who have been most concerned about the health issues. To the extent possible, involve community leaders, citizen groups, physicians, the news media, and concerned individual citizens in the design, conduct, and evaluation of community health surveys and studies. The fourth element is the quality of the delivery. If you present the message in government jargon and do not speak with, but to, the audience, you are going to find difficulties in successful communication.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Allocation Processes in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Organizational Justice Perspective

This paper contributes to the understanding of allocation processes in mergers and acquisitions by applying an organizational justice perspective. This is a perspective that has been neglected in past research on mergers and acquisitions, but which is important in understanding the challenges managers face in allocating human resources and other resources of symbolic importance. In particular, the paper examines the trade-offs between multiple goals in selecting distributive and procedural justice rules, and identifies factors that constrain these choices. Mergers and acquisitions are typically driven by multiple motives. The findings presented in this paper suggest that there are different approaches to applying justice rules in mergers and acquisitions and that these approaches have different implications for meeting multiple goals. The choice of equity in combinations with fair procedural rules is an approach which complies with the two goals of maximizing economic productivity and fostering relationships. However, the choice of this approach rests upon an unbalanced power relationship and relatively low ambiguity. When there is a high degree of ambiguity and a balanced power relationship, management has to make trade-offs between maximizing economic productivity and fostering relationships.     

Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process1

Over the past twenty years, risk communication researchers and practitioners have learned some lessons, often at considerable personal price. For the most part, the mistakes that they have made have been natural, even intelligent ones. As a result, the same pitfalls may tempt newcomers to the field. This essay offers a personal (even confessional) history of the field over this period. It identifies a series of developmental stages. Progress through the stages involves consolidating the skills needed to execute it and learning its limitations. Knowing about their existence might speed the learning process and alert one to how much there still is to learn.     

The Role of Society in Engineering Risk Analysis: A Capabilities-Based Approach

This article proposes a new conceptual framework in engineering risk analysis to account for the net impact of hazards on individuals in a society. It analyzes four limitations of prevailing approaches to risk analysis and suggests a way to overcome them. These limitations are a result of how societal impacts are characteristically accounted for and valued. Prevailing approaches typically focus too narrowly on the consequences of natural or man-made hazards, not accounting for the broader societal impacts of such hazards. Such approaches lack a uniform and consistent metric for accounting for the impact of the nonquantifiable consequences (like psychological trauma or societal impacts) and rely upon implicit and potentially inaccurate value judgments when evaluating risks. To overcome these limitations, we propose an alternative, Capabilities-Based Approach to the treatment of society in risk analysis. A similar approach is currently used by the United Nations to quantitatively measure the degree of development in countries around the world. In a Capabilities-Based Approach, the potential benefits and losses due to a hazard are measured and compared in a uniform way by using individual capabilities (functionings individuals are able, still able, or unable to achieve) as a metric. This Capabilities-Based Approach provides a foundation for identifying and quantifying the broader, complex societal consequences of hazards and is based on explicit, value judgments. The Capabilities-Based Approach can accommodate different methods or techniques for risk determination and for risk evaluation and can be used in assessing risk in diverse types of hazards (natural or man-made) and different magnitudes that range from minor to catastrophic. In addition, implementing a Capabilities-Based Approach contributes to the development of a single standard for public policy decision making, since a Capabilities-Based Approach is already in use in development economics and policy.     

Risk Communication,Public Engagement,and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions

This article discusses the potential role that emotions might play in enticing a lifestyle that diminishes climate change. Climate change is an important challenge for society. There is a growing consensus that climate change is due to our behavior, but few people are willing to significantly adapt their lifestyle. Empirical studies show that people lack a sense of urgency: they experience climate change as a problem that affects people in distant places and in a far future. Several scholars have claimed that emotions might be a necessary tool in communication about climate change. This article sketches a theoretical framework that supports this hypothesis, drawing on insights from the ethics of risk and the philosophy of emotions. It has been shown by various scholars that emotions are important determinants in risk perception. However, emotions are generally considered to be irrational states and are hence excluded from communication and political decision making about risky technologies and climate change, or they are used instrumentally to create support for a position. However, the literature on the ethics of risk shows that the dominant, technocratic approach to risk misses the normative‐ethical dimension that is inherent to decisions about acceptable risk. Emotion research shows that emotions are necessary for practical and moral decision making. These insights can be applied to communication about climate change. Emotions are necessary for understanding the moral impact of the risks of climate change, and they also paradigmatically provide for motivation. Emotions might be the missing link in effective communication about climate change.     

Managing Risk: A Joint U.S.-German Perspective

Ideas from a USA-FRG conference on risk management are presented. In general, the difficulties confronted by risk management authorities in the two countries are similar, from discovering important risks at an early stage to setting acceptable goals. Government regulation is overburdened and somewhat inefficient in both countries, leading to greater search for alternatives. The many differences in approach between the two countries can inform both. German risk management is done largely through negotiations among the affected parties; when this does not resolve a dispute, a specialized administrative court takes charge. In both countries nonregulatory methods of managing risk should be enhanced and given a larger role. A matrix of risk management method versus criteria proved stimulating in comparing and ranking approaches. The conceptual differences between managing discrete events (auto crashes, boiler explosions, etc.) and chronic exposures have not been appreciated. Although uncertainty and probability are involved in both, there are qualitative differences in both analysis and management. Public perceptions of risk and the role these should play have been characterized by "objectivist" and "subjectivist" positions. In the former view, risks are subject to analysis, are calculable, and the public must be educated to accept the conclusions of experts. In the latter view what people perceive is what is most important, both psychologically and politically, and the risk experts must understand public fears and desires. These are important opportunities for cross cultural studies.     

Physician support groups in a multispecialty group practice setting

With a moderate expenditure of time and energy on the part of a physician executive, the group support concept can be used in any organization to help physicians overcome social obstacles and learn to cope with the disturbing changes that are occurring in medicine. By selecting the most suitable candidates, anticipating obstacles, and simply beginning an effort, one can bring about optimal change for physician members of an organization despite their apparent reluctance. The optimal time for suggesting help in this group support manner is when the problem is acute and significant, i.e., "a crisis."     

Putting the First Audience First: Conducting Useful Evaluation for a Risk-Related Government Agency

The risk communication practitioner in a government agency has two essential, interdependent tasks. One is to help develop and monitor effective communication programs with various external public audiences. The other task is to do the same thing for the senior government managers whose support is a prerequisite to addressing the first audience. Hence, the second audience–the manager–is really the first. This paper addresses ways in which communication practitioners can satisfy this crucial audience. A profile of these managers suggests that they would find it highly beneficial to have more control over the public problems they encounter, especially in view of the growing pressures to do more with less and demonstrate "customer satisfaction." They would rather avoid crises than manage them. And they would rather have their bosses praise their successes than challenge their budgets or punish their perceived difficulties or failures. Communication practitioners who can help them attain such benefits will find their efforts in great demand. They would be helpful team members who provide timely insights that can make and show agency success. We offer ten ways for communication practitioners to be more useful which focus their current strengths on satisfying senior managers'needs by becoming more valuable members of the program team. By becoming more useful to the senior manager they serve both the agency and its publics.