Last week I had the pleasure of attending the 2014 AEJMC conference, which took place in my hometown of Montreal. Apart from finally getting the opportunity to meet my fabulous friend and colleague, Karen Freberg, for the first time in person, I got to spend a day watching presentations and engaging with academics (a combination of both professors and students) on their research projects and papers.
I’m always interested in seeing what’s being studied in universities these days, as well as the academic’s approach to the theoretical side of crisis communication, and so this day of observation and interaction was very fascinating for me.
My takeaways: Academic research is lacking a key component
I’m a practitioner so I get the opportunity to test my own and others’ theories when it comes to crisis communication. Academics tend to lack the practical side of the equation so it’s very interesting to hear about their research and then have a discussion with them about how, in their perspective, their theories can then be applied in the real world.
There were a lot of research papers on crisis communication for organizations and government agencies alike. There were also a lot of papers and studies on the use of social media for general communications and customer/stakeholder engagement, and my interviewees varied. Some were very thorough in their research and even took the opportunity to conduct part of their research out in the field. However, for the most part, I found that much of the research was missing some very important variables, which could not have been known by the researcher unless they researched more thoroughly (see my side note below) prior to establishing their variables, or had the hands-on practice and experience required to even know to ask the necessary questions.
Side note: I understand that Google is not a “qualified” part of the academic’s research, which I find interesting considering that it could help immensely in identifying the necessary variables for said research. Since academic research is only based on previous academic research and publications, it is my opinion that much of their research is lacking the timeliness and real-world variables needed to conduct full-scope research and to develop applicable theories. However, if Google were permitted to be used in this research, it would be important to authenticate the validity of the articles, facts and publications used.
For example, a team of graduates conducted a research study on Fortune companies and their application of CSR (corporate social responsibility) on Facebook. The study evaluated how many of these organizations actually had a Facebook page dedicated to CSR and then, of them, what the engagement was like from fans and followers. However, what wasn’t taken into account was Facebook’s algorithms and how, unless an organization is paying for Facebook ads, an average of only 10% of their fans receive their company updates within their mini feed. In my opinion, it would have been beneficial to incorporate this variable within the research to see which of the organizations are in fact advertising on Facebook, and whether or not it has an influence on the engagement levels evaluated. How can you draw a conclusion from Facebook engagement without considering all impacting variables?
In terms of the crisis communication research
The ideas were there, but again, much of the results were purely theoretical, often without even looking into case studies to examine whether or not the theories would work or if they’re being used and if so, what their impacts are.
In other cases, crisis management case studies were incorporated but not to their full extent. In some instances I felt as though the researchers stopped analyzing their chosen case study when they found the results they were seeking (the ones that validated their theories), rather than continuing straight through to the impact the crisis remains to have on the studied organization. For example, one case study stopped at the year 2012 even though the research was done in 2013 and the case continued to progress through that time. Had the researcher looked at the case study past the year 2012, their findings would have been very different – and that difference is very important when evaluating the impact of a crisis on reputation, which was the purpose of the study.
The perfect blend of theory and practice is needed to conduct realistic (and applicable) research
The best presentations were those that had the perfect combination of theory (which guided the study) and applicable results. For this, there were some interesting studies and I’ve invited these scholars to share their results with all of us here on The Crisis Intelligence Blog. Within the next few weeks I’ll be sharing these studies with you as I find them to be a different perspective with actionable takeaways and benefits that can be applied to your organization’s crisis planning and communications department – which, I’d like to add, is (for me) the goal of research in the first place: to contribute to the evolution of a topic, industry, field, etc.
It’s always great to see what students are studying and what their perspectives and interests lead to. They’re hoping to make new waves in their respective topics of research and the only way to do that is to test theories against actual human behavior and within scenarios where those theories can be applied to advance the field and practices of, in this case, crisis communication and crisis management. Otherwise, in my opinion, they’re simply adding to the useless noise that we’re already drowning in. Intentions may be good, but intentions should be to not just write about this important stuff theoretically (nor do I agree with the mindset of “publish or perish” without having a goal of adding value to the subject), but to contribute to the evolution of best-practices that people and organizations can then benefit from.
It may sound like I’m picking on academics and that’s certainly not my intention. Academia is important and highly respectable. However, I do feel that there was an overall disconnect in the want to actually research and develop theories that actually contribute to something greater than just a publication. As a practitioner who aims to help progress this field and provide organizations with useful and actionable takeaways that can and will benefit them, this to me is very important – for both the academic and the practitioner. There seems to be a bridge missing between the two. A bridge that could lead to great things.
Being my first academic conference, I found it to be fascinating and reflective. A very interesting experience, indeed!
Author of Crisis Ready: Building an Invincible Brand in an Uncertain World, Melissa Agnes is a leading authority on crisis preparedness, reputation management, and brand protection. Agnes is a coveted keynote speaker, commentator, and advisor to some of today’s leading organizations faced with the greatest risks. Learn more about Melissa and her work here.
You have some very valid points here. I am an Incident Management Process Manager and I assist when crises occur. I notify the on call Crisis manager of possible crisis situations then assist with process questions and note what work is done by whom during the crisis. From my experience, a communications person is vital to ensuring a crisis does not affect the companies reputation. They have a responsibility to say only what is needed. If they have not worked in a crisis situation they do not appreciate the depth of how many people need to be communicated to and what types of communication are best and who should be responsible for what communications. These all need to be decided and planned in advance, if at all possible. My personal test was the Calgary flood my department has a great crisis plan that is regularly tested. During the flood, we needed to amplify our plan to deal with a crisis that lasted two months and more than 80% of the department had been displaced. Communications was a key element to our connecting with our staff and other departments. We had many points for improvement when everything was reviewed. Our biggest improvements were in communicating with our employees. The other communications were already in our crisis plan. Seems like an odd thing to leave out. This is now part of our crisis plan.