Theorizing Crisis Communication. Timothy L. Sellnow
to any effort to create systematic understanding. Theory plays an especially important role when there is confusion and uncertainty about what is happening, why, and what the consequences might be, such as during a crisis. We also believe that theory is critical to practice, or as noted social scientist Kurt Lewin observed, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (1951, p. 169).
Arguably, theory is the most important tool researchers have for building broader understanding of any phenomena. Theory is also a widely misunderstood concept often denoting an esoteric and generalized abstraction bearing no relationship to reality or practice. This is reflected in the common statement: “Well, that’s all well and good in theory, but it doesn’t work in reality.” Theory by definition must be related to the reality it seeks to explain; in its most basic form, a theory is simply an explanation created for something that needs further understanding. Theory is an abstraction of reality, a way of framing, modeling, and understanding what is observed to be happening. By explaining the reality of what is observed, theory can be used to inform practice. On one hand, formal theory can be quite rigid in its efforts to describe a formal system or proposition framed in a way that allows for developing specific predictions, testing, and validation. On the other hand, a theory can be as simple as an individual’s expectation based on observations and experiences. These lay theories are formulated by all of us and help us explain, organize, and make sense of the world we experience. Theories, formal or informal, are simply sensemaking devices, sets of concepts, definitions, or ideas that allow individuals to organize observations in ways that account for the observations they make about the world.
One of the traditional conceptualizations of theory and research makes a distinction between basic research, which is associated with theory development, and applied research, which is associated with practice (Stokes, 1997). Basic research does not consider the practical ends of the work and seeks to identify fundamental theoretical concepts and principles (Reagan, 1967). Traditionally, basic research was valued over other forms in part because it was not influenced by practical issues and problems. Applied research is more likely to be influenced by practical or even political concerns. Theory and principles of application are both improved, however, when they are developed and refined in relation to one another.
The relationship between theory and practice is complex and dynamic, governed by disciplinary norms and conventions, and influenced by changing political and economic forces (Hutchings & Jarvis, 2012). Some disciplines rely heavily on theory while others are more application and practically oriented. In many cases, practice comes first and leads to the development of theory. The relevance of fields of study changes as social conditions change. Issues or problems emerge, giving rise to investigations and the development of theory. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, promoted a surge of government-funded research seeking to solve a range of practical problems, including interoperability of first responder communication systems, effectiveness of warning and risk recognition systems, the factors associated with resilience, and the conditions that might give rise to terrorism. The emergence of new infectious diseases, such as the Zika outbreak and COVID-19, spur programs of research, which in turn give rise to theories. Crises often point out unforeseen issues, problems, and areas of vulnerability that then require systemic programs of research. In many cases, researchers must move very quickly to help address practical issues associated with emerging risks. During the early stages of the COVID-19 disasters, a group of microbiologists, material scientists, engineers, and clinicians from around the country came together to investigate protocols for decontaminating the N95 masks used to protect medical and frontline workers. These protocols were needed to address a severe and immediate shortage of personal protective equipment created by COVID-19.
While the conceptual distinction between theory and practice has been part of an ongoing discussion in research communities, communication scholars have begun to question this distinction (see Barge & Craig, 2009; Eadie, 1990; Petronio, 1999). Several emerging communication traditions – including applied communication, engaged scholarship, action research, translational research, and value-based scholarship, among others – seek to both understand and apply communication inquiry to solve problems, engage issues, and address social inequities (Seeger, 2009). This movement has been driven by the ongoing recognition that communication processes are necessary to address a variety of social problems and issues. This includes the management of risks and crisis events. The group of researchers developing N95 decontamination protocols described earlier turned to communication researchers to develop methods for effectively disseminating their protocols. The development of practical theories of communication has been “explicitly designed to address practical problems and generate new possibilities for action” (Barge & Craig, 2009, p. 95). As such, they hold a specific relevance to crisis communication.
One example of a practical theory that emerged from observations during crises is the Waffle House Index. This index was derived from observations by employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the severity of a crisis and the ability of local Waffle House restaurants to stay open. This restaurant chain has an established record of good emergency preparedness and is generally able to continue operations except during the most extreme weather events. Thus, a full menu, a limited menu, or restaurant closure is a general indication of the severity of a crisis (McKnight & Linnenluecke, 2016). The Waffle House Index can be described as a theory of crisis severity and has practical utility as a means to assess the severity of a crisis and what resources a community might need for recovery.
Barge (2001) and Barge & Craig (2009) suggest three broad approaches to the development of practical theories of communication: mapping, engaged reflection, and transformative practice. Mapping takes many forms and is a process necessary to almost all theorizing. It involves creating some form of representation of the reality being examined. Although all theory should bear a direct correspondence to reality, practical theory is perhaps more attuned to the dynamics of the context than other forms. The idea of mapping is that by creating a symbolic abstraction of a system, process, structure, or phenomena allows for understanding of the relationship between the various sub-components. Reflexivity concerns the dialogue that occurs between theory and practice when theory is deployed as a tool for addressing problems and issues. Practical theory is refined, tested, and critiqued based on its utility. Barge & Craig (2009) argue that practical “theory emerges from a systematic reflection on communicative practice in terms of the kinds of problems, dilemmas, and sites that people engage in the conduct of their lives and how they manage them” (p. 59). Finally, transformative practice means using theory to “make sense of situations and take action that is intended to improve those situations.” Theory may be transformative in its ability to fundamentally reframe practice in 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