Module 7

Delivering the message: Balancing expertise with emotion
Brandon Wei

Chapter 3.4 Mainstream Media addresses that, to deliver a message effectively, the expert needs to balance their expertise with relatability to connect with the lay person. Someone I find who does this very well is Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C.’s provincial health officer who has been giving frequent press briefings with updates about COVID-19 cases in B.C.

The briefings are often televised or streamed online, and Henry always speaks in a calm, measured tone, emphasizing key points such as the risk remaining low in B.C. despite new cases, and community transmission, while concerning, is also to be expected. Hence, when it did occur this weekend, we were prepared. These points add a strong impression of expertise and knowledge to Henry’s message delivery.

But she also strikes a good balance delivering simple, relatable messages. For example, last week she addressed numerous questions about how to wash one’s hands correctly. She gave it an analogy:

Wash your hands like you’ve been chopping jalapenos and you need to change your contacts.

She delivered this at the end of her briefing with a chuckle, leaving viewers with a touch of levity which I found to be very effective.

This weekend, Dr. Henry became the story herself when she teared up delivering a briefing on Saturday announcing B.C.’s — and Canada’s — first reported cases of community transmission in a long-term care facility in North Vancouver.  It occurred when she started speaking about the elevated risk the elderly and front-line healthcare workers face from the virus. When asked about it — rather ungracefully by the reporter, in my opinion — she said:

I went through SARS. I’ve been through Ebola… and maybe I’m also a little bit tired.

The rawness and candor of her delivery garnered a lot of praise from the mainstream media, spurring major outlets to run profiles of the doctor. Below is a tweet from the health columnist at the Globe and Mail.

Dr. Henry shows during all her press briefings — but particularly the one on Mar. 7 — the value of balancing expertise with emotion. And, once again, she ended the tearful briefing with a moment of levity:

“I’m hopeful you won’t play the emotional part of me too much because my parents will be very upset,” she said at the end. “My mother already tells me I look very tired.”

____________

The importance of hosting
Laura Chow

“I was recently asked to speak about disability politics in an inaccessible space.

For future reference to others please don’t put disabled people in this position. Just don’t invite us if you aren’t going to meet minimal levels of accessibility.” – Gabrielle Peters, 2020 (Twitter)

This week’s readings left me with many feelings around how we conduct stakeholder engagement and host meetings. As a planning student, I have been told exhaustively that our engagement with stakeholders must be more diverse inclusive – e.g. better representation across all ethnic backgrounds, gender identities, sexual attractions, income levels, and abilities. In our efforts to do so, however, we forget about the art of hosting and the significance this holds in enabling individuals from providing their opinions freely (Block, 2008).

I recall reading a Twitter thread a couple of months ago (I cannot locate it now) that spoke about an engagement event held specifically for individuals with disabilities; however, but building access from the parking lot was inaccessible for individuals using mobility aids or wheelchairs. Many of the engagement resources read, emphasized the framework of engagement, emphasizing content development, but forgetting about the logistics. Whether we ask individuals to meet in person or come to an engagement, we forget that we are often hosting them in our space, which can be uncomfortable, especially if we’re asking them to share their opinions candidly.

In the Tweet above, Gabrielle Peters highlights event organizers’ lack of awareness around accessibility. We hold a responsibility host our invited guests – even if it is just a meeting – by considering their needs and helping them feel at home.

Peter Block (an American author and speaker who specializes in community building) identifies “hospitality” as part of the stakeholder engagement process (2008).

“We usually associate hospitality with a culture, a social practice, a more personal quality to be admired. In western culture, where individualism and security seem to be priorities, we need to be more thoughtful about how to bring the welcoming of strangers into our daily way of being together.” (Block, 2008).

These considerations are often taken for granted, but we must remember that we are not just hosting and organizing meetings to share information, but to create relationships, formulate trust, and understanding. We must also acknowledge that meeting “bare minimum” does not always permit our participants from engaging with dignity – there are many other considerations in making truly accessible spaces as Emily Gillespie shares here. While disability provides an example of providing for others’ needs, we must consider the needs of other population groups; we can hardly expect to serve an increasingly diverse population without tokenism if we do not show them that we also value their contributions.

Works Cited:

  • Block, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging – the structure of belonging. Berrett-koehler.
  • Gillespie, E. (2019, September 18). So, You Built a Ramp…Community Engagement and Meaningful Outreach. Retrieved March 8, 2020, from https://www.workinculture.ca/FYI/WorkInCulture-Connects/September-2019/So,-you-Built-a-Ramp…Community-Engagement-and-Mean
  • mssinenomine. (2020, March 4). I was recent asked to speak about disability politics in an inaccessible space. For future reference to others please don’t put disabled people in this position. Just don’t invite us if you aren’t going to meet minimal levels of accessibility. [Tweet]. https://twitter.com/mssinenomine/status/1235309539479687172

____________

Applying Stakeholder Theory to Risk Communication

By Julie Zhang

This week, we learned that stakeholder engagement for communication planning, while potentially beneficial, should be employed carefully to ensure consultation is meaningful and respectful. The takeaway was straightforward: “poorly done stakeholder engagement is often worse than no stakeholder engagement at all.”1 As such, to practice better stakeholder engagement, I believe risk communicators can benefit from applying stakeholder theory in their communication efforts.

Image by Jim Nuttle, from: https://www.performax360.com/360-stakeholder-engagement-and-collaboration-the-key-to-effective-strategy-management/

What is stakeholder theory?

Stakeholder theory emerged in the business management domain to push back on the narrow and skewed scope of shareholder theory.2 Although several variants exist, the unifying idea of all types of stakeholder theory is that the interests of an organization’s stakeholders—“the individuals and groups who are depending on the firm in order to achieve their personal goals and on whom the firm is depending for its existence”3—are just as important as those of the shareholders. Application of stakeholder theory is focused around the relationships between an organization and its stakeholders by identifying mutual interests, maximizing stakeholder wellbeing and enhancing value for all stakeholders.3

 

How can stakeholder theory improve risk communication?

Below, I highlight two benefits of applying stakeholder theory in risk communication planning:

  • By framing a project as creating value for all stakeholders, communication products will be designed with more equity in mind.

A fundamental idea in stakeholder theory is that the interests of all stakeholders are interconnected such that the mission of a manager should generate value for all stakeholders rather than making trade-offs.2 While it may seem unrealistic to satisfy everyone’s needs without any trade-offs, stakeholder theory posits using a value creation mindset to reframe situations so that everyone can achieve the best possible outcome.

In risk communication planning, communicators should ensure that their products reflect the best interests of all their stakeholders. The key here is equity – all groups should be seen as equally important because their interests are intertwined with each other’s and with those of the communicator.

  • By recognizing the individuality of stakeholders, we reduce likelihood of tokenism from engagements.

A major critique of many stakeholder engagement efforts is how tokenistic they can be, such that stakeholders are only invited to give a project the appearance of inclusiveness while their feedback is disregarded in the actual decision-making process. However, a stakeholder-centric approach necessitates understanding the values, preferences and interests of each stakeholder and how those can be prioritized to improve stakeholder wellbeing.

When running a stakeholder engagement session for a communication program, it will be similarly important to acknowledge the complex social position of each participant and how those can impact their response to risk messaging.

 

In summary, when we create space for public participation in developing a risk communication program via stakeholder engagement activities, the resulting messaging will naturally be more relevant, credible and effective. One way to successfully engage with stakeholders is to apply concepts of mutual value creation and stakeholder wellbeing from stakeholder theory.

(Word Count: 482)

References

  1. Chelsea Himsworth, Kaylee Byers & Jennifer Gardy. The Mission, the Message, and the Medium: Science and Risk Communication in a Complex World. (Pressbooks).
  2. Freeman, R. E. Managing for Stakeholders: Trade-offs or Value Creation. J. Bus. Ethics 96, 7–9 (2010).
  3. Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E. & Schaltegger, S. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management. Organ. Environ. 27, 328–346 (2014).

____________

Media Across Cultures
Nilou Tafreshi

The idea of propaganda and hidden agendas kept popping-up in my head as I was going through this week’s reading. It must be easy to fall into the trap of agreeing to an interview only to find out the interviewers aims were malicious or that they were following a hidden agenda. For example, I know celebrities often are tricked into saying things that can be misquoted only to generate attention-grabbing magazine articles. I am a Noam Chomsky fan and I bet he has had to learn to ensure media outlets he chooses to engage with “jive” with him over the years given his very strong views on many controversial topics in his career. But even someone as serious as Chomsky has been willing to take some risks. Watch this video:

 

I found the concept of interviewing the interviewer very intriguing. I guess when you are early on in your career the idea of anyone being interested in your thoughts is exciting enough and you would most likely jump at the opportunity to be formally interviewed, but upon further reflection it makes perfect sense. You are giving your time, credibility, and expertise; the information you provide should be in good and capable hands. Learning more about the organization that wants to interview you is the least you can do. But then if you are someone like Noam Chomsky, you can somehow stay on brand and focused, no matter who and what character is interviewing you!

Also, I wonder how the material in this module would have been changed if we lived in a different country. As I was reading the material this week I found myself nodding in agreement, taking notes for future reference, and reflecting on mistakes I had made in the past. Then I realized, how interesting it would be to bring in different cultures. For example, in some countries, eye contact is considered rude, shaking your head side to side is like nodding, and a simple thumbs up is equal to the middle finger! That being said, as the world becomes more connected, the way we communicate professionally is becoming more and more similar but I can’t help but find myself amused when travelling to watch local television. The way the media works really is different in some countries. In many countries showing emotions publicly is frowned upon or men cannot directly interact with women in a certain way. I imagine reporters who work internationally give this topic a lot of thought and must receive training; not only to be professional but in some cases to ensure they remain safe!

____________

 

It takes two to communicate

Alison Knill

The content this week was really interesting for me because I got to see what happens on the other side of the microphone. I’ve never been on the science communicator side, I’ve only been The Media. It was interesting for me to see the different perspective, particularly when it came to accuracy.

The textbook talked about accuracy among journalists as something that can be sacrificed for speed. But accuracy is a key concept in journalism. If a journalist becomes known to editors and publications as someone who frequently publishes inaccuracies, they won’t be hired. Publications don’t want to be constantly publishing corrections because they own up to mistakes to build trust, but too many mistakes will just as easily take that trust away. In print media, the any corrections to past stories are published on page two. In online media, it’s added at the very end of the story to show that corrections were made, alongside a link for readers to report a typo or error. It builds trust, just as it was mentioned to do for science communicators as well.

Accuracy in journalism really hit close to home for me because I take it very seriously and will be quick to argue edits if they try to prioritize style at the expense of accuracy. I’m not saying there aren’t inaccuracies in the media. I know there’s tons. But how can a publication make corrections if they don’t know the claim is false in the first place? A lot of falsities are published because of ignorance, not speed or laziness. The journalist doesn’t know because they don’t necessarily have a degree’s worth of knowledge in that subject. They’re relying on their sources to help explain concepts to them. There have been many times that I’ve been interviewing a researcher and they will only really start to answer my questions once I’ve proven that I have a university degree in the subject. It’s the responsibility of both the journalist and the science communicator to work together to create an accurate, but still compelling, narrative. This means that the journalist needs to ask clarifying questions and follow-up with their source to check facts, and it means that the communicator needs to be ready to fully explain the concepts and be available for those follow-up questions. They also need to call a journalist out when if they see something that’s inaccurate in the final article. That’s when the corrections can happen.

The need for even more open communication between science communicators and journalists was highlighted for me when I came across a Twitter post last year about Amy Corben. Her research was covered in multiple news outlets including Wired, Slate, Tech Crunch, and Forbes to name a few. But she was often misrepresented in the coverage. She was both the lead and the corresponding author on the study, but often wasn’t identified as either. I see the misidentification as a consequence of ignorance, rather than malicious. Journalists won’t know that author order matters in research. I only know because I’ve been involved in research. If there was more open communication about the nuances of each profession, though, I think that many inaccuracies could be avoided from publication. In this case, ignorance is a mistake.