The Muhammad cartoon crisis in 2005 provides an illustrative example of how crises travel across geographical boundaries, in this case, from a national newspaper into a full-fledged public diplomacy crisis at the international level. From a crisis management perspective, a multilevel setting poses a real challenge to actors trying to contain the situation at hand. Likewise, the multilevel nature of a crisis poses a challenge to crisis communication theories, which have traditionally focused on rhetorical strategies in single organizational crises. As a response, this article proposes a framework for examining crisis communication based on how actors' framing impact the perceptions of arenas, stakeholders, and communication strategies. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Inc.]
The Muhammad cartoon crisis in 2005 provides an illustrative example of how crises travel across geographical boundaries, in this case, from a national newspaper into a full-fledged public diplomacy crisis at the international level. From a crisis management perspective, a multilevel setting poses a real challenge to actors trying to contain the situation at hand. Likewise, the multilevel nature of a crisis poses a challenge to crisis communication theories, which have traditionally focused on rhetorical strategies in single organizational crises. As a response, this article proposes a framework for examining crisis communication based on how actors' framing impact the perceptions of arenas, stakeholders, and communication strategies.
Climate change has been seen as a crisis looming in the future, and has therefore not reached the top of the political agenda. This no longer holds true when looking at Australia, where climate change has become high politics. In this paper we examine the Australian electoral debate in terms of accountability framing, where the Government and Opposition were involved in a 'framing contest'. We argue that theories on accountability framing in crisis need to be modified in order to capture the complex dynamics of climate change due to its inherent scientific uncertainty and global nature. After conducting an inductive analysis of Australian Broadcasting Corporation‐reporting we found three themes to be of importance for accountability framing in the 'risk society': labeling, linking and coping.
When the so-called anthrax letters began to appear in the U.S.A. in early October 2001, FOI(the Swedish National Defense Research Agency), prepared to put its personnel and its expertknowledge at society's disposal, in case Sweden should be subjected to similar incidents.When the first parcel1 with suspect contents appeared in Sweden in the middle of October,FOI-NBC-Protection (the Division of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection, in thenorthern city of Umeå), abbrev. FOI-NBC, undertook the task of analyzing its contents. Atthe request of the Swedish National Police Board (RPS), FOI also agreed to test the contentsof any further such parcels that might turn up. FOI is traditionally a research and advisoryorganization, not a day-to-day operative organization. Thus, NBC-Protection had to make anumber of quick decisions concerning management and re-organization, in order to meet thedemands of the situation.Since the term "crisis" is central to this report, a short explanation of what the authors meanby this term is justified. A crisis is a situation and a process in which decision makersperceive2 all of the following: • a threat to fundamental values• severe time pressure• uncertainly Such situations can have their origins both in internal organizational factors and in externalfactors (Sundelius, Stern & Bynander, 1997).This report presents an analysis of interviews and testimonies given by staff of FOI-NBC, inconnection with the so-called anthrax crisis. The situation/process which arose at that timewas experienced not only as fundamentally threatening to society, but also to FOI-NBC'scredibility as an organization. It also involved intense time pressure and a great deal of dayto-day uncertainly.However, crises not only involve threats, but also present new opportunities. Morespecifically, if FOI NBC-Protection could successfully master the situation, this could onlylead to an increase in its credibility as a (expert) knowledge organization.In the aftermath of the "anthrax crisis", FOI-NBC was – naturally – interested in finding out ifits staff had been given adequate means to do a proper job, if delegated responsibilities wereaccepted, how assigned tasks were carried out and if the decision making process wasemployed in a competent manner. In short, how well did the organization actually functionwhen, during that short, intense period in the fall of 2001, it was forced to transform itselffrom an "advisory" organization to an "operative" one?Thus, in the spring of 2002, FOI's Division of Defense Analysis in Stockholm was given thetask of studying how FOI-NBC in Umeå handled the events of 2001.
While some of the future impacts of global environmental change such as some aspects of climate change can be projected and prepared for in advance, other effects are likely to surface as surprises -- that is situations in which the behaviour in a system, or across systems, differs qualitatively from expectations. Here we analyse a set of institutional and political leadership challenges posed by 'cascading' ecological crises: abrupt ecological changes that propagate into societal crises that move through systems and spatial scales. We illustrate their underlying social and ecological drivers, and a range of institutional and political leadership challenges, which have been insufficiently elaborated by either crisis management researchers or institutional scholars. We conclude that even though these sorts of crises have parallels to other contingencies, there are a number of major differences resulting from the combination of a lack of early warnings, abrupt ecological change, and the mismatch between decision-making capabilities and the cross-scale dynamics of social-ecological change. Adapted from the source document.
