intentional and strategic ways to achieve desired outcomes. The movement to develop a body of practical theory helps bridge the traditional divide between theory and practice by developing fuller understandings of how the two domains can be productively related. It also downplays the tendency to view theorizing as a more important and valued process than practice. Practical theory may be especially useful as a tool for making strategic decisions under conditions of high uncertainty, such as crises.
Theoretical approaches take a variety of forms. Some of these approaches provide broad conceptual grounding for the object of study. Some are based on observations that become formalized. These approaches can provide unifying orientations and clarify underlying philosophies for a domain of theorizing. They clarify values, the overall purpose of theorizing, and the way scholars think about their work, often described as meta-theories.
Meta-theory represents the underlying philosophy behind a body of theory or the fundamental set of ideas about how a phenomenon of interest in a particular field should be thought about and studied (Wagner & Berger, 1985). Meta-theoretical perspectives are the fundamental assumptions regarding and domain of study that guide theorizing. It describes what researchers will focus on, how, with what goals, and with what outcomes. A meta-theoretical perspective identifies the problem(s) to be addressed by theory (see McPhee, 2000). A meta-theoretical perspective of a phenomenon can be described using four broad concepts: ontology, axiology, epistemology, and methodology. Ontology concerns the nature of the reality being examined. Epistemology concerns the character of knowledge about a particular domain of inquiry and asks questions such as how do we know what we know, what can we know, and what counts as legitimate knowledge. Value questions, including aesthetic, ethical, and broader utility, are addressed by axiology. Domains of inquiry may have intrinsic value and may be seen as worthwhile based on the outcomes they achieve. Finally, methodology concerns the accepted epistemologies of the field and the established ways of conducting inquiry. A meta-theoretical approach to crisis communication addressed these four elements (see Table 2.1).
We discuss the traditions of crisis communication inquiry throughout this book. The dominant method of crisis communication research is the case study, largely because of the challenges of collecting data around disasters. Case studies employing thick description, rhetorical analysis, content analysis, interviews, formal reports, and media accounts are useful in capturing the dynamics of a crisis. Other approaches, especially survey research and laboratory investigations, have also become increasingly important methods for crisis communication investigations. The epistemology of crisis communication is grounded in a view that theory should be contextually relevant. That is to say, any theory of crisis communication should account for the essential elements of the crisis context, including uncertainty, immediacy, and harm. Diverse kinds of knowledge can provide insight into the conditions of a crisis. This includes experiences and personal accounts, empirical and qualitative data, and critical analyses. Much of crisis communication theory is particularly attuned to those individuals, groups, organizations, and communities suffering harm. Some theories privilege organizational harm while others privilege the harm to individuals. Several theories described in the following chapters can be critiqued on the grounds that they have a managerial bias because of the tendency to privilege organizations. The axiology of crisis communication has been driven largely by questions of ethics especially as they relate to rights of individuals to have access to information and the duty to help and care for those who face harm. The concepts of significant choice and autonomy concern the rights of individuals to have access to information about matters that might impact them (Ulmer & Sellnow, 1997). Beneficence and the ethic of care concern the obligation to care for those harmed in ways that are beneficial to their needs (Egilman, 2006). Finally, the ontology of crisis communication focuses on the reality of crisis, especially as experienced by those most directly impacted. As we have noted in Chapter 1, a crisis creates high uncertainty, a threat, and the need for an immediate response. A crisis often engenders intense feelings of fear, dread, anxiety, and uncertainty. The reality of crisis often involves confusion, chaos, disruption, and the lack of normalcy.
Table 2.1 Meta-Theoretical Elements of Crisis Communication.
| Ontology:High uncertaintyImmediacyThreatDisruption and chaosEmotional Responses: fear, dread, anxietyAxiology:Ethics of significant choice and right to knowEthic of careAutonomyBeneficenceEpistemology:Diverse kinds of knowledgeExperiencesEmpiricalCriticalQualitativeMethodology:Case Studies: thick description, rhetorical analysis, survey, content analysis, interviews, formal reports, and media accountsExperiments |
While meta-theoretical underpinnings (Table 2.1) of a domain of study help clarify the goals, the function, structure, form, and nature of what constitutes a theory are also important to examine. There are many formal definitions of theory, such as those presented in Table 2.2. At some level, however, the very straightforward “If A then B” proposition underlies most formal theories. For example, a basic crisis theory might propose, “If a condition is perceived to be a crisis (A), then people will experience high levels of uncertainty (B).” This theory does not necessarily propose that all people will feel uncertainty or that all crises will produce high levels of uncertainty. A theory is never “proven” as a universal law covering all cases, particularly when considering human behaviors where so many factors may interact. This proposition does suggest, though, is that as a general principle, crises are characterized by uncertainty. It is then possible to follow the initial proposition with a second, “If people experiencing a crisis feel high levels of uncertainty (A), then they will seek out information (B).” This is an example of how theories can be systems of propositions.
Table 2.2 Definitions of Theory.
| “A theory is a description of concepts and specification of the relationship between or among those concepts” (Baldwin et al., 2004).“A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among the variables, with the purpose of explaining and (or) predicting the phenomena” (Kerlinger, 1986).“Theory is a tentative explanation invented to assist in understanding some small or large part of the ‘reality’ around us. Ideally, theoretical concepts are measurable and propositions testable and therefore subject to refutation” (Donohew & Palmgreen, 2003).Theory can be seen, “in its broadest sense as any conceptual representation or explanation of phenomena” (Littlejohn, 1999).“Theory is a generalization separated from the particulars, an abstraction separated from a concrete case” (Alexander, 1987). |
This example of theories as systems of propositions illustrates some of the functions of theory (Table 2.3). The first is to organize a set of observations. One of the most striking behaviors people exhibit upon experiencing or learning about a crisis is their attempt to find a television or radio for a news report or a website for more information. These observations about crisis behaviors can be organized in an “If A then B” proposition that allows for a second function: to explain some phenomenon or something that needs explanation. It may not be immediately clear why people experiencing a crisis are talking on their cell phones, texting friends, meeting in small groups, or spending time on the web. These propositions provide an explanation for that behavior. A third function of theory is to predict what will happen in a particular situation. If we know that A is followed by B, then it is possible to predict when B will occur. Crisis managers, for example, know that in a crisis the public will have an intense need for information and will seek it out from any available source, usually an immediate source such as radio, television, or the web. Crisis managers also understand that if they do not provide the information and meet the informational needs of the public, other often less credible sources will fill the informational void. The fourth function of a theory is to help exert some control over behavior by informing practice. By providing immediate, credible, and easily accessible sources of information to people who are experiencing
