受害者、恶棍还是替罪羊?调解社会问题中的组织危机和秩序转变

IF 3.1 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Limin Liang, Yi-Hui Christine Huang
{"title":"受害者、恶棍还是替罪羊?调解社会问题中的组织危机和秩序转变","authors":"Limin Liang, Yi-Hui Christine Huang","doi":"10.1080/03637751.2023.2202717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Western crisis communication theories focusing on individual attribution and stable underlying norms fail to account for crises embedded in larger social problems that lead to regulatory changes. By analysing three cases that Chinese crisis managers initially identified as “commission”, “control” and “agreement” situations (Bradford & Garrett, 1995) but ended up as crises involving “absent standards”, “bad standards” and “overrated standards”, in which the first two resulted in normative changes, we highlight the deliberative potential of crisis communication embodied in the “standards situation”. When neither journalistic narratives portraying the accused as a “villain” nor organizational accounts foregrounding a “victim/scapegoat” self-perception can contain attribution at individual levels, the society enters a deliberative mode that interrogates actors’ collective guilt complicit in a crisis.","PeriodicalId":48176,"journal":{"name":"Communication Monographs","volume":"90 1","pages":"317 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Victim, villain, or scapegoat? Mediating organizational crises embedded in social problems and the transformation of order\",\"authors\":\"Limin Liang, Yi-Hui Christine Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03637751.2023.2202717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Western crisis communication theories focusing on individual attribution and stable underlying norms fail to account for crises embedded in larger social problems that lead to regulatory changes. By analysing three cases that Chinese crisis managers initially identified as “commission”, “control” and “agreement” situations (Bradford & Garrett, 1995) but ended up as crises involving “absent standards”, “bad standards” and “overrated standards”, in which the first two resulted in normative changes, we highlight the deliberative potential of crisis communication embodied in the “standards situation”. When neither journalistic narratives portraying the accused as a “villain” nor organizational accounts foregrounding a “victim/scapegoat” self-perception can contain attribution at individual levels, the society enters a deliberative mode that interrogates actors’ collective guilt complicit in a crisis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Monographs\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"317 - 349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2202717\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2202717","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

西方危机传播理论侧重于个人归因和稳定的基本规范,未能解释嵌入更大社会问题中的危机,这些问题会导致监管变化。通过分析中国危机管理者最初确定的三种情况,即“委托”、“控制”和“协议”情况(Bradford&Garrett,1995),但最终演变为涉及“缺失标准”、“糟糕标准”和“高估标准”的危机,其中前两种情况导致了规范性的变化,我们强调了危机沟通的协商潜力体现在“标准情境”中。当将被告描绘成“恶棍”的新闻叙事和预测“受害者/替罪羊”自我认知的组织叙事都不能包含个人层面的归因时,社会进入了一种审议模式,审问参与者在危机中的集体罪行同谋。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Victim, villain, or scapegoat? Mediating organizational crises embedded in social problems and the transformation of order
ABSTRACT Western crisis communication theories focusing on individual attribution and stable underlying norms fail to account for crises embedded in larger social problems that lead to regulatory changes. By analysing three cases that Chinese crisis managers initially identified as “commission”, “control” and “agreement” situations (Bradford & Garrett, 1995) but ended up as crises involving “absent standards”, “bad standards” and “overrated standards”, in which the first two resulted in normative changes, we highlight the deliberative potential of crisis communication embodied in the “standards situation”. When neither journalistic narratives portraying the accused as a “villain” nor organizational accounts foregrounding a “victim/scapegoat” self-perception can contain attribution at individual levels, the society enters a deliberative mode that interrogates actors’ collective guilt complicit in a crisis.
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
Communication Monographs
Communication Monographs COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Communication Monographs, published in March, June, September & December, reports original, theoretically grounded research dealing with human symbolic exchange across the broad spectrum of interpersonal, group, organizational, cultural and mediated contexts in which such activities occur. The scholarship reflects diverse modes of inquiry and methodologies that bear on the ways in which communication is shaped and functions in human interaction. The journal endeavours to publish the highest quality communication social science manuscripts that are grounded theoretically. The manuscripts aim to expand, qualify or integrate existing theory or additionally advance new theory. The journal is not restricted to particular theoretical or methodological perspectives.
×
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