READINESS as a new framework for crisis management: academic-industry integrated expert insights from practitioners and scholars

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Yan Jin, Brittany N. Shivers, Yijing Wang, W. Timothy Coombs, Toni G.L.A. van der Meer
{"title":"READINESS as a new framework for crisis management: academic-industry integrated expert insights from practitioners and scholars","authors":"Yan Jin, Brittany N. Shivers, Yijing Wang, W. Timothy Coombs, Toni G.L.A. van der Meer","doi":"10.1108/jcom-02-2024-0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The study provides an initial empirical examination of Jin <em>et al</em>.’s (2024) new READINESS model through the expert opinions of crisis communication academics and practitioners. Through this examination, the goal is to understand crisis READINESS and how it relates to other key concepts in the crisis literature, such as preparedness and resilience.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>An exploratory quantitative online survey of 30 experts in crisis communication was conducted. Our participant pool consisted of members from the Crisis Communication Think Tank, which is an established crisis thought leadership network (Jin, 2023). Data collection took place in November and December 2023.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Key findings include the dual nature of crisis READINESS as both a process and an outcome, resilience as both a process and an outcome, and preparedness as an antecedent to READINESS. A key distinction between READINESS and preparedness emerged with the former conceived of as a mindset and the latter conceived of as physical tools, training and planning.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Preparedness and resilience alone are not enough to effectively manage crises and risks, and given this, it is important to study READINESS as a concept beyond (yet connected to) preparedness and resilience. It is our hope that the findings can lead to understanding indicators of crisis READINESS and developing crisis READINESS measurement tools which can equip organizations to more effectively manage crises.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","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-02-2024-0034","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

Abstract

Purpose

The study provides an initial empirical examination of Jin et al.’s (2024) new READINESS model through the expert opinions of crisis communication academics and practitioners. Through this examination, the goal is to understand crisis READINESS and how it relates to other key concepts in the crisis literature, such as preparedness and resilience.

Design/methodology/approach

An exploratory quantitative online survey of 30 experts in crisis communication was conducted. Our participant pool consisted of members from the Crisis Communication Think Tank, which is an established crisis thought leadership network (Jin, 2023). Data collection took place in November and December 2023.

Findings

Key findings include the dual nature of crisis READINESS as both a process and an outcome, resilience as both a process and an outcome, and preparedness as an antecedent to READINESS. A key distinction between READINESS and preparedness emerged with the former conceived of as a mindset and the latter conceived of as physical tools, training and planning.

Originality/value

Preparedness and resilience alone are not enough to effectively manage crises and risks, and given this, it is important to study READINESS as a concept beyond (yet connected to) preparedness and resilience. It is our hope that the findings can lead to understanding indicators of crisis READINESS and developing crisis READINESS measurement tools which can equip organizations to more effectively manage crises.

作为危机管理新框架的 READINESS:来自从业人员和学者的学术界-产业界综合专家见解
目的本研究通过危机传播学者和从业人员的专家意见,对 Jin 等人(2024 年)的新 READINESS 模型进行了初步的实证研究。设计/方法/途径对 30 名危机传播专家进行了探索性定量在线调查。我们的参与者包括危机传播智囊团的成员,该智囊团是一个成熟的危机思想领袖网络(Jin,2023 年)。主要发现包括:危机 "准备就绪 "具有双重性,既是过程也是结果;复原力既是过程也是结果;准备就绪是 "准备就绪 "的先决条件。在 "准备就绪 "和 "有备无患 "之间出现了一个关键的区别,前者被视为一种心态,而后者被视为有形的工具、培训和规划。我们希望研究结果能够帮助我们了解危机准备就绪程度的指标,并开发危机准备就绪程度测量工具,使组织能够更有效地管理危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
29
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信