Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

MODELS OF GOVERNMENTAL CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2013-6-33-225-229

Abstract

The research deals with the information system of public administration aimed at decision-making and communication with the society in a crisis. The system’s functionality depends on adequacy of goal-setting and on correspondence of the chosen strategy to a crisis type which differ by social response. The author substantiates traditional model of crisis communications and information management for solving conflict crises, while consensus crises require participative model, and polemic crises are recommended to be managed by negotiation and dialogue facilitation model. The negotiation and dialogue facilitation model for managing polemic crises is aimed at realization of a communicative action concept advocated by J. Habermas. As long as modern complex crises require participation of multiple actors which have different visions of a crisis situation and specific interests, “crisis decision making in such context can be seen as a negotiation process” [16]. On the level of information processing the primary step is to discover both major crisis tendencies in each of the core social systems, and social groups whose opinions and interests should be considered. After that definition of possible crisis triggers, forecasting and crisis planning are realized taking into consideration interests and expert recommendations of different social groups’ representatives. Two basic ways of coordination are suggested: public discussion of issues, or collaborative problem-solving. The first way requires organization of a public dialogue in a form of discussion, citizen jury, or negotiations. Coordination through collaborative problem-solving implies fragmentation of a complex subject which means reducing it into concrete practical questions that require discussion and decision-making. Communication within the framework of the described model is remarkable for the supra-communicative practice of facilitating the interaction of the crisis management participants.

About the Author

E. A. Gryzunova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), 76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russia.
Russian Federation
PhD student in sociology


References

1. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. Трактат по социологии знания. М.:

2. Медиум, 1995. 240 с.

3. Всероссийский центр изучения общественного мнения. Добровольчество в России: потенциал участия

4. молодежи. М., 2011. URL: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=459&uid=111713.

5. Миронова Н. И. Роль гражданского социума в современном государственном управлении. Дис. канд.

6. соц. наук. Екатеринбург, 2006.198 с.

7. Новек Б. Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а

8. граждан – влиятельнее. М.: Альпина Паблишер, 2012. 290 с.

9. Фонд Общественное Мнение. Отчет по проекту «Ресурс добровольческого движения авангардных

10. групп для российской модернизации». М., 2012. URL: http://soc.fom.ru/uploads/files/dobrovolchestvo/

11. Otchet_dobrovolchestvo.pdf.

12. Хабермас Ю. Моральное сознание и коммуникативное действие. СПб.: Наука, 2001. 380 с.

13. Allan, S., Thorsen, E. (eds.). Citizen Journalism: Global Perspectives. N. Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, 2009.277 р.

14. Altheide, D. L. Terror Post 9/11 and the Media. N. Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, 2009.214 р.

15. Freund, J. Observations sur Deux Catégories de la Dynamique Polémogène; de la Crise au Conflit //

16. Communications, 1976. № 25. P.101–112.

17. Lerbinger, O. The Crisis Manager: Facing Disasters, Conflicts, and Failures. N. Y.: Routledge Communication

18. Series, 2012. 378 p.

19. Limbu, M. K. Integration of Crowdsourced Information with Traditional Crisis and Disaster Management

20. Information using Linked Data. Master’s Thesis. Muenster, 2012.

21. McCormick, S. After the Cap: Risk Assessment, Citizen Science and Disaster Recovery // Ecology and Society,

22. № 17 (4).

23. Muhren, W. J., Walle, B. A. van de. Sense-making and Information Management in Emergency Response.

24. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010. № 36 (5).

25. Quarantelli, E. L. Community Crises: An Exploratory Comparison of the Characteristics and Consequences

26. of Disasters and Riots // Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 1993. Vol. 1 (2) P. 67–78..

27. Sturges, D. L. Communicating through Crisis: a Strategy for Organizational Survival // Management

28. Communication Quarterly, 1994. № 7 (3). P. 297–316.

29. Van Santen, W., Jonker, C., Wijngaards, N. Crisis Decision Making through a Negotiation Mental Model //

30. Proceedings of the 6th International ISCRAMConference. Gothenburg, 2009. URL: http://www.iscramlive.

31. org/ISCRAM2009/papers/Contributions/215_Crisis%20Decision%20Making%20Through%20a%20Shared_

32. van%20Santen2009.pdf.

33. Virilio, P., Richard, B. L'Administration de la Peur. Paris: Editions Textuel, 2010. 94 p.


Review

For citations:


Gryzunova E.A. MODELS OF GOVERNMENTAL CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2013;(6(33)):225-229. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2013-6-33-225-229

Views: 1319


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)