在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,挪威政府和卫生当局的言论

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Communication Management Pub Date : 2022-10-11 DOI:10.1108/jcom-08-2022-0100
M. Isaksson, M. Solvoll
{"title":"在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,挪威政府和卫生当局的言论","authors":"M. Isaksson, M. Solvoll","doi":"10.1108/jcom-08-2022-0100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the identification and collaboration rhetoric of the Norwegian government and public health authorities during the pandemic. The aim is to show whether and how actors use strategies and themes of identification, and whether they build identification with their publics.Design/methodology/approachThe study combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Six identification strategies were identified through manual text analysis of press statements; word counts of each strategy were registered electronically to access quantitative data of individual actors.FindingsThe three strategies reflecting values, the two strategies reflecting division and disagreement and the strategy reflecting change showed almost equal frequencies. The strategy of shaping community, serving the function of change, and the division strategy, demonstrating identification through dissociation, were the most frequent strategies. Politicians preferred the collaboration strategy, while health experts preferred the strategy of concern and recognition.Originality/valueThe six identification strategies extend the understanding of leadership crisis communication and contemporary rhetoric as community-building discourse aiming for speaker–audience collaboration. The study demonstrates that division and disagreement are equally essential components of crisis communication as values and change. When actors differ in choice of strategy, themes and publics, they may still come across as coordinated and unified in their calls for solidarity, collective efforts and common understanding.","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rhetoric of the Norwegian government and health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"M. Isaksson, M. Solvoll\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcom-08-2022-0100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the identification and collaboration rhetoric of the Norwegian government and public health authorities during the pandemic. The aim is to show whether and how actors use strategies and themes of identification, and whether they build identification with their publics.Design/methodology/approachThe study combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Six identification strategies were identified through manual text analysis of press statements; word counts of each strategy were registered electronically to access quantitative data of individual actors.FindingsThe three strategies reflecting values, the two strategies reflecting division and disagreement and the strategy reflecting change showed almost equal frequencies. The strategy of shaping community, serving the function of change, and the division strategy, demonstrating identification through dissociation, were the most frequent strategies. Politicians preferred the collaboration strategy, while health experts preferred the strategy of concern and recognition.Originality/valueThe six identification strategies extend the understanding of leadership crisis communication and contemporary rhetoric as community-building discourse aiming for speaker–audience collaboration. The study demonstrates that division and disagreement are equally essential components of crisis communication as values and change. When actors differ in choice of strategy, themes and publics, they may still come across as coordinated and unified in their calls for solidarity, collective efforts and common understanding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Communication Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Communication Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-08-2022-0100\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-08-2022-0100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究的目的是检验挪威政府和公共卫生当局在疫情期间的认同和合作言论。其目的是展示行动者是否以及如何使用认同的策略和主题,以及他们是否与公众建立认同。设计/方法论/方法该研究结合了定性和定量方法。通过对新闻稿的手工文本分析,确定了六种识别策略;每种策略的字数都以电子方式登记,以获取各个参与者的定量数据。发现反映价值观的三种策略、反映分歧的两种策略和反映变化的策略的频率几乎相等。塑造社区、服务变革功能的策略和通过分离展示认同的分裂策略是最常见的策略。政客们更喜欢合作策略,而卫生专家则更喜欢关注和认可的策略。独创性/价值这六种识别策略扩展了对领导力危机沟通和当代修辞的理解,将其视为旨在促进演讲人与听众合作的社区建设话语。研究表明,分歧和分歧与价值观和变革一样是危机沟通的重要组成部分。当行动者在战略、主题和公众的选择上存在分歧时,他们在呼吁团结、集体努力和共识方面仍然可能给人以协调一致的印象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The rhetoric of the Norwegian government and health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the identification and collaboration rhetoric of the Norwegian government and public health authorities during the pandemic. The aim is to show whether and how actors use strategies and themes of identification, and whether they build identification with their publics.Design/methodology/approachThe study combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Six identification strategies were identified through manual text analysis of press statements; word counts of each strategy were registered electronically to access quantitative data of individual actors.FindingsThe three strategies reflecting values, the two strategies reflecting division and disagreement and the strategy reflecting change showed almost equal frequencies. The strategy of shaping community, serving the function of change, and the division strategy, demonstrating identification through dissociation, were the most frequent strategies. Politicians preferred the collaboration strategy, while health experts preferred the strategy of concern and recognition.Originality/valueThe six identification strategies extend the understanding of leadership crisis communication and contemporary rhetoric as community-building discourse aiming for speaker–audience collaboration. The study demonstrates that division and disagreement are equally essential components of crisis communication as values and change. When actors differ in choice of strategy, themes and publics, they may still come across as coordinated and unified in their calls for solidarity, collective efforts and common understanding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Subjective well-being perceptions of Portuguese Public Relations practitioners: a gender and stages of life analysis Loneliness, office space arrangement and mental well-being of Gen Z PR professionals. Falling into the trap of an agile office? The influence of leaders’ motivational language on employee well-being through relatedness in remote work environments Subjective well-being of public relations and communication professionals in the context of perceived organisational support Understanding subjective well-being across a multi-generational workforce in public relations: a qualitative study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1