It is all about the message in chapter nine...
As Courtney pointed out, the article about AIDS in Uganda is an excellent example of chapter nine. Creating an appropriate message that is sent during risk and crisis situations is possibly the most important thing that a communicator can do for their organization or individual that he or she represents. We discussed audience analysis last week, and it is very important to the message that is developed, but audience analysis should never replace it. What does the stakeholder public need to hear? How do they need to hear it? The text tells us that it is not just a catchy slogan but the message that will be most appropriate and effective in the specific situation.
To build on what Courtney said, chapter nine also mentions user centered risk information guidelines of the mental models approach. I could see how this could be applied to the AIDS situation in Africa, when educating the people about the risks.
The first, “Focus on not only what people believe, but why and how they reduce risks” (L & M, p. 149). Now, obviously, believing something does not always make it true. There are probably many people with AIDS now that didn’t believe they were going to contract the disease. I don’t know what the majority of Africans or the Chinese believe about this situation, but it is important for the communicators to have a clear grasp of who they are talking to and the beliefs that they hold coming into the situation, and their current plans to reduce the risk.
Secondly, “Include divergent views related to demographics, length of work experience, and disability” (p. 149). When creating the message, it is important to have other people around who are different than you representing the audience. Everyone has different life experience to pull from, as well as different ways of thinking and different opinions. In a situation such as the AIDS pandemic, one person creating the messages would probably not be nearly as effective to the intended audience that a group of people that may have been either victims of the disease or a family member of one infected.
Third, “Realize that there may be more than one expert model” (p. 149). Basically, there may be more than one way to communicate a risk, depending on your problem.
Fourth, ask and answer the obvious questions while presenting the information. Such as, “How might this happen? What can it do to me? How can I protect myself?” (p. 149). Think about what kind of questions you might get from people, and decide on what the most effective way to answer them is.
Fifth, “Test whether new risk messages affect behavior, not just improve understanding” (p. 149). You might of improved understanding, but if nothing is changed in the behavior, you have not accomplished your goal. In order to find out whether you have really successfully communicated the risk, you must monitor and measure the change in behavior.
As Courtney mentioned, this seemed to be the success in the communication plan in Uganda. The point she raised about the amount of information the communicator should give to the people in this kind of situation is an important one to consider. In the situation in Africa, education about AIDS is a problem, so providing as much information as possible seems to be a good plan. As we know, raising a panic could be a problem, but in a situation like this is might be better than apathy towards the problem.
Giselle also mentioned to us the benefits of message mapping that are discussed in this chapter. This makes sure the messages stay on target and are consistent. I found the website for Dr. Vincent Covello, who invented this approach, and I thought you may think it is interesting. This is a pdf file that explains the message mapping approach in a systematic way that gives more detail than chapter nine. http://publichealth.yale.edu/ycphp/CERCFiles/TrainerResources/Covello_message_mapping.pdf
To build on what Courtney said, chapter nine also mentions user centered risk information guidelines of the mental models approach. I could see how this could be applied to the AIDS situation in Africa, when educating the people about the risks.
The first, “Focus on not only what people believe, but why and how they reduce risks” (L & M, p. 149). Now, obviously, believing something does not always make it true. There are probably many people with AIDS now that didn’t believe they were going to contract the disease. I don’t know what the majority of Africans or the Chinese believe about this situation, but it is important for the communicators to have a clear grasp of who they are talking to and the beliefs that they hold coming into the situation, and their current plans to reduce the risk.
Secondly, “Include divergent views related to demographics, length of work experience, and disability” (p. 149). When creating the message, it is important to have other people around who are different than you representing the audience. Everyone has different life experience to pull from, as well as different ways of thinking and different opinions. In a situation such as the AIDS pandemic, one person creating the messages would probably not be nearly as effective to the intended audience that a group of people that may have been either victims of the disease or a family member of one infected.
Third, “Realize that there may be more than one expert model” (p. 149). Basically, there may be more than one way to communicate a risk, depending on your problem.
Fourth, ask and answer the obvious questions while presenting the information. Such as, “How might this happen? What can it do to me? How can I protect myself?” (p. 149). Think about what kind of questions you might get from people, and decide on what the most effective way to answer them is.
Fifth, “Test whether new risk messages affect behavior, not just improve understanding” (p. 149). You might of improved understanding, but if nothing is changed in the behavior, you have not accomplished your goal. In order to find out whether you have really successfully communicated the risk, you must monitor and measure the change in behavior.
As Courtney mentioned, this seemed to be the success in the communication plan in Uganda. The point she raised about the amount of information the communicator should give to the people in this kind of situation is an important one to consider. In the situation in Africa, education about AIDS is a problem, so providing as much information as possible seems to be a good plan. As we know, raising a panic could be a problem, but in a situation like this is might be better than apathy towards the problem.
Giselle also mentioned to us the benefits of message mapping that are discussed in this chapter. This makes sure the messages stay on target and are consistent. I found the website for Dr. Vincent Covello, who invented this approach, and I thought you may think it is interesting. This is a pdf file that explains the message mapping approach in a systematic way that gives more detail than chapter nine. http://publichealth.yale.edu/ycphp/CERCFiles/TrainerResources/Covello_message_mapping.pdf
posted by Catherine at
2/03/2007 03:27:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home