|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
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.
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.
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.
Here is the story of the process by which competitive speech and
debate evolved in the United States during the 20th Century. This
authoritative history shows how forensics, as practiced in the
United States, was an uneasy fusion of contradictory premises that
began as a significant part of the tradition of American public
address: The need for preparing students to participate in
democratic governance in conflict with a student's need to express
personal and competitive impulses. Forensics represented a push and
pull between an activity simultaneously considered to be both a
public and a private good. The book: *identifies the themes and
trends of American forensics within an overarching chronological
framework; *reveals the impact of American forensics on the
communication discipline, as well as America's social and
educational systems; *concentrates on the elements of social
history that contributed to organizational development, leadership,
and politics; and, * provides a base line reflecting the influences
of both American culture in particular, and western culture in
general, for cross-cultural comparisons between processes and
effects of forensics as a form of education. While intrinsically
valuable as part of a comprehensive understanding of the history of
higher education in the United States in the 20th Century,
Forensics in America: A History is significant in providing a
context for understanding the role forensics may play in the 21st
Century. The book expands the study of American public address,
focuses on the pedagogy of forensics training, and explores
cultural dimensions of forensics activities.
|
You may like...
Not available
|