Robert Littlefield – författare

Risk and Crisis Communication addresses how the interaction between organizations and their stakeholders manifests during a risk or crisis situation.Littlefield and Sellnow contend that when best practices are considered, there are certain tensions to which an organization responds. These tensions are similar to those experienced among individuals when managing their relationships. As such, Littlefield and Sellnow apply an interpersonal theory, known as relational dialectics (RDT), to risk and crisis communication and examine the outcome from the vantage point of the officials and the public. Previous research has focused on top-down, sender-oriented communication to evaluate the effectiveness of particular strategies used by spokespeople to repair public image or relay an apology. In contrast, Littlefield and Sellnow’s approach relies on culture-centeredness and suggests how cultural elements may have influenced the kinds of tensions each organization faced. Risk and Crisis Communication exemplifies the use of RDT through seven case studies, each focusing on one of the tensions, making it of interest to both scholars and organizational leaders.

Coordination of risk assessments and risk communication strategies requires information sharing and establishing networks of working relationships between groups and agencies. Establishing these relationships necessitates overcoming - stitutional, cultural, and political boundaries. Signi?cant barriers exist between r- ulatory agencies and industry groups. Traditionally, these groups have mistrusted one another, and cooperation and collaboration, including sharing information, c- respondingly has been limited. The adoption of radio frequency identi?cation te- nology for tracking livestock, for example, has been met with signi?cant resistance due in part to mistrust between regulatory agencies and producers (Veil, 2006). In the food industry, the need for coordination has been enhanced by industry in- gration and globalization of both markets and production. In the case of GM foods discussed earlier, disagreements between U. S. , European Union, and Canadian r- ulatory agencies fueled the debate over the safety of GM crops. Overcoming institutional and cultural barriers, and mistrust is necessary to create consistency in risk messages. Open communication and information sharing can help clarify where risk perceptions diverge and identify points of convergence. The outcome may not be universal agreement about risks, but convergence around the general parameters of risk. Summary These best practice strategies of risk communication are not designed to function as distinct steps or isolated approaches. Rather than being mutually exclusive, they serve to complement one another and create a coherent approach to confronting risk communication problems.

Coordination of risk assessments and risk communication strategies requires information sharing and establishing networks of working relationships between groups and agencies. Establishing these relationships necessitates overcoming - stitutional, cultural, and political boundaries. Signi?cant barriers exist between r- ulatory agencies and industry groups. Traditionally, these groups have mistrusted one another, and cooperation and collaboration, including sharing information, c- respondingly has been limited. The adoption of radio frequency identi?cation te- nology for tracking livestock, for example, has been met with signi?cant resistance due in part to mistrust between regulatory agencies and producers (Veil, 2006). In the food industry, the need for coordination has been enhanced by industry in- gration and globalization of both markets and production. In the case of GM foods discussed earlier, disagreements between U. S. , European Union, and Canadian r- ulatory agencies fueled the debate over the safety of GM crops. Overcoming institutional and cultural barriers, and mistrust is necessary to create consistency in risk messages. Open communication and information sharing can help clarify where risk perceptions diverge and identify points of convergence. The outcome may not be universal agreement about risks, but convergence around the general parameters of risk. Summary These best practice strategies of risk communication are not designed to function as distinct steps or isolated approaches. Rather than being mutually exclusive, they serve to complement one another and create a coherent approach to confronting risk communication problems.

Coordination of risk assessments and risk communication strategies requires information sharing and establishing networks of working relationships between groups and agencies. Establishing these relationships necessitates overcoming - stitutional, cultural, and political boundaries. Signi?cant barriers exist between r- ulatory agencies and industry groups. Traditionally, these groups have mistrusted one another, and cooperation and collaboration, including sharing information, c- respondingly has been limited. The adoption of radio frequency identi?cation te- nology for tracking livestock, for example, has been met with signi?cant resistance due in part to mistrust between regulatory agencies and producers (Veil, 2006). In the food industry, the need for coordination has been enhanced by industry in- gration and globalization of both markets and production. In the case of GM foods discussed earlier, disagreements between U. S. , European Union, and Canadian r- ulatory agencies fueled the debate over the safety of GM crops. Overcoming institutional and cultural barriers, and mistrust is necessary to create consistency in risk messages. Open communication and information sharing can help clarify where risk perceptions diverge and identify points of convergence. The outcome may not be universal agreement about risks, but convergence around the general parameters of risk. Summary These best practice strategies of risk communication are not designed to function as distinct steps or isolated approaches. Rather than being mutually exclusive, they serve to complement one another and create a coherent approach to confronting risk communication problems.