Risk Communication and Ethics - Chapter 5
I thought i was going to be writing too early.. I am glad to see that i am not the first one to blog.
Chapter 5 is about ethical issues regarding risk and crisis communication. Ethics is hard to define and it is subjective because people have personal morality and ethical rules, which change from person to person. Ethical issues arise in risk and crisis communication when one has to consider concerns about how much information to release, to whom it should be released, and who makes those decisions
Ethics is divided into 3 different types: social, organizational, and personal ethics. Social ethics are the codes of conduct by which the members of the society judge our behavior. These social ethics and approaches change as the society evolves.
As public participation in risk and crisis decision making and communication is gaining popularity, risk communication starts to resemble symmetrical communication, including the ideas and concerns of the public into the decision making process. Since the 1980s, members of the society feel like they need to take part in the decision making process. Public involvement, which means involving the public in all aspects of risk management and communication, is what the general public values. People’s concerns and perceptions must be taken into account when making decisions about risk management and communication.
As the social ethics evolve and public participation becomes the norm, people try to be more involved in all aspects of the risk and crisis communication process. “If the public demands the right to be involved in risk decisions throughout the cycle of assessment, management, and communication, then is it appropriate for organizations to stick to the old ways of making decisions and informing the public afterward?” (p. 76).
Organizations need to consider involving the public when they plan to design and conduct risk and crisis communication. Public input can help an organization to be successful in their communication effort, especially when they include public’s views, concerns and perceptions starting from the risk assessment process. “Those who are communicating risk must determine audience concerns and perceptions of the risk and help decide how to factor these concerns and perceptions into the risk assessment process” (p.77).
A major question the authors ask about risk and crisis communication and the importance of public involvement is: what happens if messages are misunderstood. “Who is to blame when a worker misunderstands a safety procedure and is injured?” Who’s fault is it? That is why you need to do research about how the audience thinks and involve them in the risk and crisis communication decision process.
Another crucial issue regarding organizational ethics is organizational constraints regarding releasing information and organizational structures which may not allow the risk and crisis communicator to act as freely as he/she wishes and may not allow public’s point of view to be involved in the risk assessment and management processes. This might be a problem since it hurts public participation in risk and crisis decision making. “Audiences generally want as much as information as they can as early in the process as possible. However, organizations often release as little as possible as late as possible”
Personal ethics, on the other hand, are the hardest among the three types of ethics to determine and control. What should be the role of the risk and crisis communicator is a major concern in personal ethics. The role of the risk or crisis communicator depends on organizational and personal factors. “If the organization recognizes that those who are communicating risk are a vital part of the risk assessment team, the range of roles available will be wider than in a organization that views risk communication as a necessary evil.
Chapter 5 is about ethical issues regarding risk and crisis communication. Ethics is hard to define and it is subjective because people have personal morality and ethical rules, which change from person to person. Ethical issues arise in risk and crisis communication when one has to consider concerns about how much information to release, to whom it should be released, and who makes those decisions
Ethics is divided into 3 different types: social, organizational, and personal ethics. Social ethics are the codes of conduct by which the members of the society judge our behavior. These social ethics and approaches change as the society evolves.
As public participation in risk and crisis decision making and communication is gaining popularity, risk communication starts to resemble symmetrical communication, including the ideas and concerns of the public into the decision making process. Since the 1980s, members of the society feel like they need to take part in the decision making process. Public involvement, which means involving the public in all aspects of risk management and communication, is what the general public values. People’s concerns and perceptions must be taken into account when making decisions about risk management and communication.
As the social ethics evolve and public participation becomes the norm, people try to be more involved in all aspects of the risk and crisis communication process. “If the public demands the right to be involved in risk decisions throughout the cycle of assessment, management, and communication, then is it appropriate for organizations to stick to the old ways of making decisions and informing the public afterward?” (p. 76).
Organizations need to consider involving the public when they plan to design and conduct risk and crisis communication. Public input can help an organization to be successful in their communication effort, especially when they include public’s views, concerns and perceptions starting from the risk assessment process. “Those who are communicating risk must determine audience concerns and perceptions of the risk and help decide how to factor these concerns and perceptions into the risk assessment process” (p.77).
A major question the authors ask about risk and crisis communication and the importance of public involvement is: what happens if messages are misunderstood. “Who is to blame when a worker misunderstands a safety procedure and is injured?” Who’s fault is it? That is why you need to do research about how the audience thinks and involve them in the risk and crisis communication decision process.
Another crucial issue regarding organizational ethics is organizational constraints regarding releasing information and organizational structures which may not allow the risk and crisis communicator to act as freely as he/she wishes and may not allow public’s point of view to be involved in the risk assessment and management processes. This might be a problem since it hurts public participation in risk and crisis decision making. “Audiences generally want as much as information as they can as early in the process as possible. However, organizations often release as little as possible as late as possible”
Personal ethics, on the other hand, are the hardest among the three types of ethics to determine and control. What should be the role of the risk and crisis communicator is a major concern in personal ethics. The role of the risk or crisis communicator depends on organizational and personal factors. “If the organization recognizes that those who are communicating risk are a vital part of the risk assessment team, the range of roles available will be wider than in a organization that views risk communication as a necessary evil.
posted by emelo at
1/19/2007 01:14:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home