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.