Do not bank on us! Taking stock of transparency and accountability during crises in Uganda: the case of Crane Bank collapse

A. Napakol, Ann Mugunga
{"title":"Do not bank on us! Taking stock of transparency and accountability during crises in Uganda: the case of Crane Bank collapse","authors":"A. Napakol, Ann Mugunga","doi":"10.30658/ICRCC.2019.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined transparency and accountability as bridges to the interpretative and sense making capabilities of the public following the collapse of Crane Bank, Uganda. Content and critical discourse analysis methods were used to: investigate the nature of communication, the information shared; review honesty and responsibility in communication, and also analyze how accountability and transparency are constructed during crisis situations in the South. Assessment of 120 newspaper articles showed that both Crane Bank and Bank of Uganda mainly left it to the media to create and give meaning to stakeholders. Initial communication from both institutions was delayed and subsequent communication was made in a casual, vague and dismissive manner. Transparency and accountability either as information disclosure, responsibility or mutual understanding to translate into sense making for the audience were grossly undermined. Most of the shared information was not aligned to the interpretive capabilities of audiences; and there was no effort to create a good image or influence the audience. The research underscores the importance of transparency and accountability as essential for creating trust in leadership and management, in order to better manage crisis and risk situations.","PeriodicalId":18859,"journal":{"name":"Multifaceted Protocols in Biotechnology, Volume 2","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multifaceted Protocols in Biotechnology, Volume 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30658/ICRCC.2019.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study examined transparency and accountability as bridges to the interpretative and sense making capabilities of the public following the collapse of Crane Bank, Uganda. Content and critical discourse analysis methods were used to: investigate the nature of communication, the information shared; review honesty and responsibility in communication, and also analyze how accountability and transparency are constructed during crisis situations in the South. Assessment of 120 newspaper articles showed that both Crane Bank and Bank of Uganda mainly left it to the media to create and give meaning to stakeholders. Initial communication from both institutions was delayed and subsequent communication was made in a casual, vague and dismissive manner. Transparency and accountability either as information disclosure, responsibility or mutual understanding to translate into sense making for the audience were grossly undermined. Most of the shared information was not aligned to the interpretive capabilities of audiences; and there was no effort to create a good image or influence the audience. The research underscores the importance of transparency and accountability as essential for creating trust in leadership and management, in order to better manage crisis and risk situations.
别指望我们!评估乌干达危机期间的透明度和问责制:Crane Bank倒塌的案例
本研究考察了透明度和问责制作为乌干达Crane Bank倒闭后公众解释和理解能力的桥梁。运用内容和批评话语分析方法:考察传播的性质、信息的共享;审查沟通中的诚实和责任,并分析在南方危机局势中如何建立问责制和透明度。对120篇报纸文章的评估表明,Crane Bank和乌干达银行主要是把媒体留给利益相关者去创造和赋予意义。两家机构最初的沟通都被推迟了,随后的沟通都是一种随意、模糊和不屑一顾的态度。透明度和问责制,无论是作为信息披露,责任或相互理解转化为听众的意义,都受到严重破坏。大多数共享的信息与受众的解释能力不一致;也没有努力去创造一个好的形象或影响观众。该研究强调了透明度和问责制的重要性,这对于建立对领导和管理的信任至关重要,从而更好地管理危机和风险情况。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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