Multicultural Crisis Communication:

Towards a Social Constructionist

Perspective

Jesper Falkheimern and Mats Heidenn

Crisis communication is a field dominated by case studies and is lacking of systematicknowledge and theoretical framework analysis. Functionalist and objectivist perspectiveshave dominated the field even though there are exceptions. This may be one reason whymulticultural approaches to crisis communication, increasingly relevant in contemporarysociety, are very few and undeveloped. The aim in the article is to give a critical analysis ofresearch that has been done on crisis communication as well as intercultural public relations anddevelop a different theoretical framework. We propose the use of ethnicity, focusing collectivecultural identity as dynamic, relational and situational in crisis theory and practice. Ethnicdifferences seem to escalate during crises. Media use and access are also discussed. A Swedishsurvey shows, among other things, that people with a foreign background read mainstreamnewspapers more seldom than average Swedes, but that the access to Internet and mobilephones is very high. Based on a social constructionist epistemology, the article ends with fourproposals for future research and practice in multicultural crisis communication: (1) audience-orientation – focusing sense-making, (2) a proactive and interactive approach – focusingdialogue, (3) a community-focused approach – focusing a long-range pre-crisis perspectiveand, (4) an ethnicity-approach towards intercultural communication.

Introduction

Crisis communication has a short history as aresearch field in Europe. According to Nohrstedtand Admassu (1993) the communicative aspects ofcrises were neglected for many years and crisiscommunication did not establish itself as an inde-pendent research area until after the Chernobyldisaster in 1986. In the USA, organizational crisiscommunication has been a core interest in publicrelations research and practice for a long period. Inany case, crisis communication is still a field lackingof systematic knowledge and theoretical frameworkanalysis. Instead, research is dominated by empiricalcase studies, often neglecting the transgressingboundaries between risk and crisis communication.Further, functionalist and objectivist perspectiveshave dominated the field even though there areexceptions (Sellnow et al. 2002). In this article wepropose a social constructionist perspective, espe-cially focusing the contemporary multicultural con-text. This means that crisis communication isunderstood and analyzed as a sense-making pro-cess (e.g. Weick, 1979) where reality is negotiatedand constructed in cultural contexts and situations,rather than distributed from a sender to a recipient.

Our social constructionist perspective takestwo late modern societal characteristics as start-ing points. First, that we live in an increasing‘‘environmental complexity’’ (Murphy, 1996), an‘‘era of crises’’ (Lerbringer, 1997), in a ‘‘risksociety’’ (Beck, 1992) as a part of reflexive mod-ernity (Giddens, 1990), where humans and orga-nizations experience a higher degree ofuncertainty than in earlier times. Second, thatwe live in a society that is ethnically diverse andincreasingly multicultural. In Sweden, as an ex-ample, immigration has led to a radical change inpopulation since the 1960s. In 2004, 16 per cent ofthe Swedish population consisted of persons witha foreign background, which means that theywere either born in another country or that bothparents were born abroad, according to StatisticsSweden (2004). These figures are not that differ-ent from other European countries even thoughSweden has had a higher immigration level thanmost other countries, in relation to the popula-tion of approximately 9 million. This develop-ment challenges crisis communication theory aswell as practice. The changes call for a differenttheoretical perspective that enables practitioners tomanage the risk and crisis flow in late modern

nAssistant Professor Depart-ment of Service Management,P.O. Box 822, Campus Helsing-borg, Lund University,SE-251 08 Helsingborg, Sweden

jesper.falkheimer@msm.lu.se,tel. 0046-709 35 06 22, fax04642-35 66 60nnAssistant Professor Depart-ment of Service Management,P.O. Box 822, Campus Helsing-

borg, Lund University, SE-25108 Helsingborg, Swedenmats.heide@msm.lu.se

r 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USAVolume 14 Number 4 December 2006

180 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

organizations and societies from a multiculturalperspective. In fact, this perspective is necessarynot only because of the multicultural context. In awider sense, it may be integrated into a culturaland reflexive communication perspective that chal-lenges the mass and system oriented paradigm.

L. A. Grunig, J. Grunig and Dozier (2002)conclude that crisis communication is an emer-ging field of public relations. We mean that riskand crisis communication is the core of publicrelations practice and theory. From a historicalstandpoint ‘‘damage control’’, managing publicopinion, mainly through mass media, set off thepublic relations industry (Ewen, 1996). Gradually,during the 20th century, public relations devel-oped into a stable communication managementfunction in different organizations. But it is still afact that public relations show its main valuewhen organizations face risks, uncertainty orsuffers from crises. In other words, when organi-zations are in need of professional managementof social reflexivity processes, defending or creat-ing legitimacy between themselves and the public.

In our review of articles in scientific journalsconcerning crisis communication and public rela-tions from a multicultural perspective we found alarge number of articles concerning interculturalcommunication issues, but mainly from an inter-personal and cognitive perspective, i.e. from non-organizational levels. We also found several articlesconcerning crisis management from different an-gles, but not many articles that focused crisiscommunication integrating public relations theoryor vice versa. Finally, multicultural approaches topublic relations and crisis communication werevery few and undeveloped (cf. Banks, 2000). Simi-lar conclusions regarding the field of organizationalcrisis communication are made by Lee (2005: 276)in Communication Yearbook: ‘‘crisis communicationtheory is lacking cultural contextualization, domi-nated by applied case studies and is based on aWestern oriented paradigm’’. Our review supportstwo conclusions: (1) crisis communication as aresearch field is dominated by non-theoreticalcase studies and guidelines, and (2) multiculturalpublic relations is an undeveloped research fielddominated by intercultural theory, quantitativeempirical surveys, analyzed through establishednational frames and discourses.

In the following section we will show somefindings and reflections based on the review, anddevelop a different theoretical framework. Initi-ally, crisis communication will be introduced andintercultural communication will be discussed aswell as the relational and situational concept ofethnicity. Media research regarding media accessand use in relation to multicultural differences isshortly presented. Then follows a section focus-ing multicultural public relations, ending in afinal analysis of multicultural crisis communica-tion as theory and practice.

The aim is to (1) give a critical analysis ofresearch that has been done on crisis commu-nication with a multicultural public, (2) analyzeits strategy value, and (3) propose central con-cepts and a social constructionist perspective thatwould develop theory as well as practice. Swedenis used as an empirical frame but the paper ismainly based on earlier research and theory. Thepaper is based on an on-going research projectabout multicultural crisis communication fundedby the Swedish Emergency Management Agency.

Crisis Communication

Crisis is in this paper defined as a wide conceptcovering societal as well as organizational dimen-sions. In fact, definitions of societal and organiza-tional crises do not differ very much. According toSwedish crisis researchers Sundelius and Stern(1997: 13), a societal crisis is based upon a situationwhere the central operators experience that signifi-cant values are threatened, with only limited time athand and circumstances which are very unpredict-able. An organizational crisis is defined by similarcharacteristics: significant threats, unpredictabilityand urgency. But the perspective and aim differs.From a societal perspective the public is, or shouldbe, at the centre. From an organizational perspectivethe subject that is threatened and under pressure isthe organization itself where management findthem selves in a situation that ‘‘[. . .] interruptsnormal organizational functioning’’ (Lee, 2005: 278).

Risks are, obviously, related to crises in severalways. From an organizational perspective it isconcluded that if risks are neglected, crises mayhappen. This is the argument behind issuesmanagement, aimed to find risk issues beforethey escalate. The whole idea of finding risks andissues gives a notion of how the natural sciencesview risks: ‘‘as the product of the probability andconsequences of an adverse event’’ (Lupton,1999: 16). From a social constructionist perspec-tive risks are not defined by rational experts ororganizations, but by ordinary humans.

Traditionally, a crisis is seen as a very unusualsituation that may threaten an organization’sbusiness, reputation, image, and relation, or inany way harm its publics. In most cases, threatsare regarded as external threats from the marketor the surrounding environment. It usually be-comes the responsibility of public relations practi-tioners to control and transmit information inorder to maintain or recover the image of theorganization and the relations with importantpublics. Often crisis communication situationsare handled as fire emergency responses. Thismeans that the sudden crisis is managed in areactive way, hopefully on the basis of well-planned strategies. From a more modern view, acrisis is regarded as a natural stage in an ongoing

MULTICULTURAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION 181

r 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006

evolution (Sellnow, 1993; Weick, 2001; Kersten,2005) and an import part of an organization’songoing learning processes (Stern, 1997). Fromthis point of view, a crisis is not an anomaloussituation but a certain stage in the never-endingdevelopment of an organization. Several phases ofa crisis can be identified, but they are oftendelimited to three: a pre-crisis or an incubationphase, an acute or crisis phase which follows adramatic event, and a post-crisis when questionson cause, responsibility, and preparation for a newcrisis are addressed. This apprehension gives amore holistic view of crisis, and calls attention tothe fact that both crisis and ‘‘business-as-usual’’are normal parts of an organization’s life cycle.

A weakness in the bulk of the research on crisiscommunication is the exclusive focus on post-crisis. Consequently, crisis communication hasmainly focused on production of information –designing material in preparation for crisis, tocope with an existing crisis, and to restore orderafter the crisis has settled (Kersten, 2005). Afteran exposition of earlier trends in crisis manage-ment research, Gonzalez-Herrero and Pratt(1996) conclude that there is a great need forprogress and development of new theories. Themajority of the research in crisis communicationhas had a focus on guidelines and proceduresoften gathered from the experience of practi-tioners, rather than on a more theoretical per-spective (Williams & Olaniran, 1998). Themodern research in crisis communication hasdeveloped in two directions (Seeger, Sellnow, &Ulmer, 2001). One direction encompasses theo-retical models from the research on corporateapologia and impression management (e.g. Be-noit, 1995; Coombs, 1995; Benoit, 1997). The aimof this research is to produce strategies to im-prove an organization’s image after a crisis hasoccurred. The other direction has moved beyondthe post-crisis communication, for example byfocusing on the role of issues management andrisk communication at ‘‘crisis incubation’’.

Crises often result from poor communicationbetween organizations and the public (Zoch &Duhe, 1997; Coombs, 1999) and communicationproblems tend to be intensified in a multiculturalcontext. In mainstream public relations theory,intercultural communication has dominated thesmall but emerging field. In crisis communicationresearch multicultural issues are neglected, evenif there is an increasing need for managementknowledge among practitioners working in aheterogeneous environment.

Intercultural Communication –a Traditional Field

People from different cultures have difficulties inunderstanding each other due to different mean-

ing systems (i.e. language). Another factor thatobstructs understanding is the context whichimportance was observed early by the anthropol-ogist Edward T. Hall, one of the initiators ofintercultural communication in the 1950s. Acontext embraces information not included inthe message and often this information is moreimportant than the message itself. The signifi-cance of a context varies from different languagesand the use of the context to produce a meaningdiffers from culture to culture (Lim, 2002). Thus,to acquire a correct understanding one requiresprofound knowledge of a different group’s cul-ture and language.

Intercultural communication can be defined asthe study of heterophilous interpersonal commu-nication between individuals from different cul-tures (Rogers & Hart, 2002). The scholars of thefield mainly focus on dyads and interpersonalcommunication, in contrast to the field of inter-national communication that tends to work on amacro level with a focus on power, politics, andprocesses of influence over national borders.

Crisis communication takes place at differentlevels, interpersonal as well as mass-mediatedlevels. Intercultural issues and problems may befound in most crises today. This is obvious whenit comes to crises or disasters involving wholecommunities, regions or nations. But it is also afact confronting emergency authorities in localaccidents. For example, this was the case duringand after an industrial accident at the Dutchenergy plant Amercentrale (28 September 2003)where five subcontractor employees died. Theaccident was caused by a scaffolding that col-lapsed and trapped eight people. The last victimwas recovered after five days. According to anevaluation made by the Institute for Safety andCrisis Management on behalf of the municipality(COT, 2003) the incident had a strong intercul-tural dimension since three of the causalities wereTurks and the other two were Americans. Thepre-crisis plans did not take into account anypossible cultural differences, so the practitionershad to improvise. E.g., the notion of familyamong Turks is very wide and meant that theauthorities had to inform approximately 250people, and inform women and men separatelysince they were Muslims.

Another example concerns trust, of major im-portance in crisis communication. If citizens donot trust authorities and their communicators, itis very hard to reach and influence them during acrisis situation. The cultural background is onerelevant factor behind trust and it is not uncom-mon that persons with a foreign non-westernorigin, with experiences from authoritarian re-gimes, have low trust in emergency authorities.In Rosengard, a part of the Swedish city ofMalmo where the majority of inhabitants have aforeign origin, this has caused several incidents.

182 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Police cars have been vandalized and firemenhave been attacked with stones.

In the discussion of intercultural communica-tion issues, habitually different dimensions ofcultural variability are used to explain and predictdifferences and similarities. The most prevalentdimension is individualism–collectivism, which ex-ists both on a cultural level (e.g. cultural normsand laws) and an individual level (e.g. individualvalues) (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). A distinguish-ing factor is ‘‘in-groups’’ that are important forthe members and for which they make sacrifices.In-groups have the power to influence the mem-ber’s behaviour in different situations. In indivi-dualistic cultures members have many in-groups(e.g. family, friends, profession and associations),and consequently they have relative little influ-ence on the members. In collectivistic cultures,the logic is vice versa. Cultural individualism andcollectivism influence the communication in aculture through the norms and laws that areassociated with the dominant cultural tendency(Gudykunst & Lee, 2002). An obvious example ofnorms is the effort of individualistic cultures toreach clarity in conversations, which is perceivedas fundamental for effective communication. Re-quests are often apprehended as the most effec-tive strategy to reach the goal of clarity. Thisstands in opposition to collectivistic cultureswhere direct request is understood as the leasteffective strategy. As a result, there is potential fora cultural collision when members of these twocategories are about to communicate. Anotherdifference is that low-context communicationtends to dominate in individualistic cultures andhigh-context communication is predominant incollectivistic cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey,1988). According to Hall (1976), high-contextcommunication occurs when most of the informa-tion is either in the physical context or internalizedin the person. Low-context communication takesplace when the larger part of the communicationis explicitly coded in the message.

Hall’s use of high and low context dimensionshave links to Hofstede’s (1980) macro-analyticalscales and indexes for classifying national differ-ences, that has dominated the intercultural fieldfor several years. Hofstede’s analytical dimen-sions are originally based on a large data basestudy of employee values in approximately 56countries, collected by IBM. Through analysis ofthis database he found four primary dimensionsthat differentiated cultures at national levels:power distance, individualism–pluralism, mascu-linity–femininity and uncertainty avoidance. Helater supplied one more dimension: Long-TermOrientation. There are some examples of multi-cultural public relation studies that use Hof-stede’s dimensions. Sriramesh (2002) reportsthat in countries that are not characterized bypluralism or foster open disagreement with

authorities, public activism is non-existent orrestrained.

There are obvious limitations with Hofstede’sgrand theory, let us mention some of them.Despite the large amounts of survey data, onemay question if employees at IBM representnational cultures. The concept of nationality isquite difficult to handle. Cultural identity iscomplex, situational and dynamic and may notbe definable through quantitative surveys. Onemay also – and this is the main problem with thewhole idea of thought – question the nationalcultural determinism that Hofstede’s research isbased upon. Explaining organizational behaviouras based on national cultural differences is tooeasy. Hofstede (2002) has answered some ofthese arguments and means that surveys dohave limitations but that the study of IBM em-ployees has been validated by himself and otherresearchers over the years. Still, the criticismremains – summarized by McSweeney (2002:113) in a debate with Hofstede in the journalHuman Relations:

Instead of seeking an explanation for assumednational uniformity from the conceptual la-cuna that is the essentialist notion of nationalculture, we need to engage with and usetheories of action which can cope with change,power, variety, multiple influences – includingthe non-national – and the complexity andsituational variability of the individual subject.

Intercultural communication appears to be arather traditional field with a positivistic episte-mology and the scholars seem not to have takennotice of the recent ‘‘turns’’ in the social science.A majority of the studies are quantitative, com-parative and conducted by Western scholars(Barnett & Lee, 2002). The quantitative bias inthe research fails to grip the complex and inter-twined relation of context, including economic,educational and political factors, and communi-cation in an intercultural setting. Consequently,there is a need for a cultural and critical turn inthe field to get more innovative and contempor-ary based research results. One possibility is todig into another intercultural concept, ethnicity,focusing collective cultural identity as a relationaland situational perspective.

Ethnicity as a Relational andSituational Concept

The concept ethnicity is defined in several waysdepending on perspective and aim. Historicallythe term has been used to classify racial differ-ences, but in social anthropology and sociology,ethnicity has been a main concept since the late1960s. In contemporary social science, ethnicity isused to describe and understand cultural group

MULTICULTURAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION 183

r 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006

identities. In comparison with traditional inter-cultural communication research, ethnicities areusually analyzed from an interpretative perspec-tive applying qualitative methodologies on mi-cro-levels (Halualani, 2000). There are two mainproblems with using the concept. First, in publicdiscourse it has often been used to subordinategroups of people, as a way to explain socialbehaviour from a dominant and discriminatingstandpoint. Second, there are two opposite waysof understanding ethnicity intellectually. So-called primordial and objective definitions ofethnicity classify groups of people according todefinite and non-changeable divisions, closelyrelated to socio-biological theory. Social con-structionist definitions do the opposite and viewethnicity as something that is dynamic, situa-tional and depending upon the social context,and something that everyone in one way oranother is a part of. Ethnicity has in this sensestrong links to communication theory, since it iscommunication-in-situation-and-context thatcreates identity. This way of viewing ethnicitywas originally developed by the scholars from theChicago School during the 1920–1950s (e.g. Park,1950). Oriented by social problems in the city ofChicago and applying an ethnographic metho-dology focusing symbolic dimensions, theyturned racial socio-biology upside-down.

The Norwegian anthropologist Eriksen (1993)summarizes his theory on ethnicity from a holis-tic and social constructionist perspective that wefind fruitful. Ethnicity, according to Eriksen, be-comes meaningful when it is experienced asbeing threatened. This means that ethnicity as asocial formation is relational – it develops as areaction to social pressure at different levels.Ethnicity is also something that may be used asa strategy to reach certain political or commercialobjectives. Ethnicity is used in this way both inpolitical combats where history or language isused as arguments for increasing independence,and in tourism where ethnic stereotypes aremarketed. Eriksen interprets ethnicity as a con-temporary social process and gives several exam-ples of how history is constructed afterwards togain modern objectives. He mentions some typi-cal and effective ethnicity strategies such asnaming, standardization of mass education andthe repetition of ‘‘we’’ through different mediaand symbols. These strategies may in the longrun create increasing social identification, but themost impact is related to relational pressurethrough rapid social changes, threats and crises.

One of the central issues in ethnicity researchregards how and why identity formation takesplace. Is ethnicity something that one is posi-tioned in dependent on structural cause, or is itsomething that one chose through rational ac-tion? But this classical dichotomy is, as always,too theoretical. A more pragmatic understanding

of how ethnicity is constructed may be basedupon Anthony Giddens (1984) theory of struc-turation that focus upon a mediating spacebeyond but influenced by structure or agency.From a macro-structural standpoint it is possibleto view ethnic identities as the result of radicalsocial changes. From a micro-agency level ethni-city is, at the same time, not a forced identity.People also, in different ways, make reflexivechoices trying to differentiate themselves fromother people. In fact, making difference betweenthem and us is the main cause for constructingethnicity.

When it comes to crisis communication, casestudies have shown that ethnic differences seemto escalate during crises. This seems for exampleto have been the case during the 1998 Gothen-burg Fire in Sweden that killed 63 young peopleand injured 213. The fire took place during a partyin the Macedonian Meeting Hall where 400young people representing 19 nationalities hadgathered. According to a qualitative interviewstudy with 34 young people of different ethnicbackgrounds: ‘‘A relatively wide gap between‘the immigrant group’ and Swedish society wastraceable, as was an implicit fear of severe con-flicts between immigrants and racists in connec-tion with the fire’’ (Andersson, 2000: 258). Theconclusion that ethnicity becomes more impor-tant during radical changes, threats and crises areas earlier mentioned supported by Eriksen (1993).Ethnic identities are useful to rationalize andmeet these processes, but they may also beobstacles from an organizational risk and crisismanagement perspective.

Societal Fragmentisation: MediaPerspectives

In media and communication research it is aknown fact that technological, cultural and soci-etal changes have led to an increasing audiencefragmentisation. Media researcher McQuail(2005: 12) concludes that this development ob-viously also effects strategic communicators: ‘‘[i]tis generally harder for would-be persuaders,whether political or commercial, to reach anylarge general public’’. He illustrates the develop-ment through four models: (1) a unified modelwhere the media output as well as audience istotally homogenous, (2) a pluralistic model wherethe audience have more choices but mostly chosethe same channels anyway, (3) a centre-periph-ery model where the audience has segmenteditself into several micro-audiences, even if therestill is a media centre where the elitist societaldiscourse is taking place and (4) a totally frag-mented model where there is no centre, onlydifferent micro-audiences with limited relationsor contacts between them.

184 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

The empirical issue at stake in contemporarysociety is whether the pluralistic model or centre-periphery model would best describe reality.There are few reliable investigations that havetried to answer this question from a multiculturalperspective. One explanation is that it is hard toget immigrants to answer surveys. According to aSwedish media survey analysis covering the lastdecades (Andersson, 2005), there are some dif-ferences between immigrants and native Swedesmedia access. The relevant differences are that:

(1) immigrants more often possess cable, satel-lite and digital television technology thannative Swedes.

(2) less immigrants have access to subscribeddaily newspapers, but the reading of freedaily local newspapers (such as Metro) ishigher than among native Swedes.

(3) second generation immigrants are graduallyassimilating into similar media use patternsas native Swedes.

(4) Internet access, of increasing importance incrisis situations, is high among first andsecond generation immigrants.

(5) there are obvious language barriers for firstgeneration immigrants, and sometimes a lackof interest in local and national news com-pared to international news.

Some of the differences, such as the lack ofsubscriptions to newspapers, may be explainedpartly as a cultural issue, partly as a financial one.It is a fact that the degree of occupation as well asincome is lower among first and second genera-tion immigrants than among native Swedes.When it comes to media uses, the differences fitin this context. Less immigrants than Swedesread national newspapers, more immigrantsthan Swedes watch international TV-channelsas well as Internet. Immigrants more often readforeign newspapers, obviously, but it is not acommon pattern (16 per cent of the first genera-tion immigrants read them regularly). If onetrusts this survey analysis, one may concludethat media access and use are relevant factors tointegrate into multicultural public relations ana-lysis, but that there relevance should not beoverestimated.

Multiculturalism and Public Relations

Multiculturalism, as a concept, has only slowlyemerged in the research of public relations.Motion and Leitch (1996, cited in Macnamara,2004) reminds us that the lack of focus andunderstanding of multicultural and cross-culturalcommunication obstructs the possibilities forcommunicating successfully. Macnamara (2004)means that multicultural and cross-culturalcommunication can often be characterized as

‘‘Chinese whispers’’ – what one communicatesis seldom what others hear or see. Even though,many companies and authorities have a lowunderstanding of the importance of a closeunderstanding of the public with which theywish to communicate and build relationships.Durazo (1994) came to the conclusion thatpublic relations people want to communicatewith ethnically dissimilar publics, but they arerestrained by fear of failure. For practitioners toovercome this fear, Durazo offers ten tips.Kruckeberg (1995) concludes that future publicrelations practitioners need to be more sensitiveto the multicultural nuances of different publics,both in an international arena and within theirown geographic locales. Also FitzGerald andSpagnolia (1999) argue for a greater sensitivityamong public relations practitioners to culturaldifferences.

Vasquez and Taylor (2000) have investigatedwhat cultural values influence on American pub-lic relations practitioners work, grounded in aconcern for ethnocentrism in public relations, i.e.a belief that the theories of public relations areapplicable across all countries. They have com-bined Hofstede’s dimensions of culture withGrunig’s models of public relations to investigatethe cultural foundation of American practice.The ontological underpinning of their researchis a traditional, functionalistic view. Vasquez andTaylor regard culture as a variable that have someeffects on different items. Their study shows thatculture is a key variable in the practice of publicrelations, and that there are links between theAmerican practice of public relations and societalculture. One interesting finding is that powerdistance correlate with both of the one-waymodels of public relations (press agency andpublic information) and also with the respon-dent’s worldview. According to Vasquez andTaylor, practitioners choose to practice a one-way model because it is easier compared with thetwo-way models, less skill is required, or becausethey do not have information about the alter-natives.

One of the most comprehensive efforts toencompass the subject of multicultural publicrelations comes from Banks (2000). He wants toget an improved understanding of diversity onpublic relations. The concept of culture has beenunder intense discussion among scholars, andas early as the mid 20th-century Kroeber andKluckholm (1952) identified 160 different defini-tions of culture. Since then, multiple differentdefinitions have been produced and still thescholars cannot come to terms on a single defini-tion. However, culture can roughly be divided intwo perspectives – an objective and a subjectiveperspective of culture. Banks prefers the subjec-tive view of culture, and states that culture canbee seen as a system of meaning differently

MULTICULTURAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION 185

r 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006

available to groups of individuals. For this reason,understanding of a culture requires a focus ofmeanings and contexts. In other words, one mustunderstand the real-world settings in which peo-ple live and work, and their standpoints on thosesettings and performance. Banks underscoresthat discrepancies of cultures are matters ofwhat people believe they are doing when theyare performing their normal, everyday practices.

When discussing multiculturalism the termdiversity cannot be avoided. Basically, diversitystands for difference from what is apprehendedas ‘‘normal’’ in a certain context, and specificallyit is about factors that separate people. Banksemphasizes that a shortcoming in the populardiversity management literature is the focus onhow the ‘‘diverse’’ shall adjust to the system.Another, more positive, meaning of diversity isthat of variety or ideas, styles and behaviour.Diversity stands in this sense for an enhancementof subtypes of one comprehensive group,maintaining commonalities while recognizingdissimilarities. Banks suggests that cultural diver-sity can be understood as the normal humanvariation in the systems of meaning by whichgroups make sense of and enact their realities.The meanings are not stable, but subject tocontinuous change.

Multicultural public relations have virtuallyno theories. Banks (2000) proposes a conver-gence of intercultural communication theoryand multicultural public relations. He considerseffectiveness in a multicultural context as thesuccessful negotiation of mutual meanings thatends up in positive results in any communicativeactivity. Such outcomes are, due to Banks, re-inforcements of the participant’s self-concepts,affirmation of cultural identities, enhancement ofthe relationship and accomplishment of strategicgoals. Consequently, communication from aninterpretive perspective enhances the functionof communication from just being a tool fordiffusion of information. As a consequence, pub-lic relations practitioners must acknowledge thatpeople always create meanings in different situa-tions, and their interpretation will inevitably bedissimilar to the sender’s original meaning.

Towards a Social ConstructionistPerspective in Multicultural CrisisCommunication

In many classical texts organizations are reified,i.e. treated as a natural concrete phenomenon‘‘out there’’ in the objective reality. The origin ofthis way of thinking is the Enlightenment and thedream of discovering ‘‘the real’’, already existing,orderly principles underlying peoples’ behaviour(Shotter, 1993). From a positivistic point of view,only one real reality exists with objects, occur-

rences, and processes, and it is the task ofresearchers to make ‘‘true’’ and ‘‘correct’’ de-scriptions and explanations. It is assumed thatlanguage stands in a clear and an unambiguousrelation to the reality, i.e. words have a certainmeaning that everybody knows and understands.The tendency to reify is certainly the case when itcomes to the major part of texts within the field ofpublic relations and crisis communication. Itseems that researchers, within the modernist orfunctionalist frame, see organizations as ‘‘con-tainers’’ in which the organizational membersfunction, work, and interact with each other andwith actors outside the organization. Further, it ispresumed that the researchers easily may observeand collect empirical ‘‘data’’ of the organizationallife with quantitative methods. In this perspectiveon organizations and zeitgeist, it is the scholar’stask to develop variables, standardize measures,and assess casual relations to get a grip of theobjective reality.

McKie (2001) notes that critical reflections onethnocentric tendencies in the field of publicrelations, which crisis communication belongsto, have only just been initiated. He furtherdeclares that there has to be a greater opennessto other bodies of knowledge or the field’s poorreputation almost certainly will be cemented. Thelatest decennium, the epistemology of socialconstructionism has received remarkable atten-tion among social scientists. The globalizationand the development of ICT (information andcommunication technology) have gradually madeorganization researchers realize the flowingand changing character of organizations. Theepistemology of social constructionism offers ashift from a focus on stable organization struc-tures to ever-changing processes. We are ofthe opinion that social constructionism wouldpromote a reflective approach to the field ofcrisis communication, integrating multiculturalapproaches.

Social constructionism originated as a reactionagainst the dominating positivistic research in thesocial science (Gergen, 1998) and challengesmany of the taken-for-granted assumptions,e.g. the notion of organization, culture andpower. Scholars within the movement of socialconstructionism question the idea of objectivefacts (Burr, 1998). The role of language in theperspective of social constructionism is not towork as a picture or map of what has happened(Gergen, 1985). Instead, the perspective under-scores that meanings are produced through peo-ple’s interaction. The social constructionistperspective (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Shotter& Gergen, 1994; Gergen, 1999; Czarniawska,2003) does not question the existence of a reality‘‘out there’’, but emphasizes people’s relation toit – what it means for different people. Somescholars, as Alvesson and Karreman (2000), claim

186 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

that there has been a ‘‘linguistic turn’’ in organi-zation studies with the implication that scholarsno longer perceive language as a passive, simplemedium that mirrors an objective reality. Accord-ingly, researchers should place language in thecentre of their interest and acknowledge lan-guage as a carrier of power. Social construction-ism draws attention to the importance oflanguage and emphasizes the weight of socialinteraction processes (Shotter & Gergen, 1994).Implicit in this is also a multicultural approachsince it focuses upon socio-cultural understand-ing.

Accordingly, an organization is not a stablephenomenon, for more than a short while. In-stead, it is continually transforming, progressingand adjusting to the environment. The socialstructure that constitutes an organization isproduced and reproduced by the members ofthe organization through communication (cf.Shotter, 1993). The language is both a vehicleto produce and reproduce the social reality, and avehicle to understand the world around us. Newmembers are socialized into the organization,and internalize the institutional world of theorganization. If organizations are regarded associal constructions, communication among theorganizational members is the essence of theproduction and reproduction of the social struc-ture.

The American organizational psychologist KarlE. Weick (1979, 1995, 2001), probably one of themost quoted writers in organizational theory, hashad great importance for the development of thefield of organizational communication but is sofar under-used in public relations theory. Weickintroduced the concepts of sensemaking andenactment. Sensemaking involves the construc-tion and bracketing of cues to be interpreted,linking them to frame of reference, and revisingthe interpretations that have been produced dueto actions, interactions and their consequences(Weick, 1995). The result of people’s sense-making depends on where they look, how theylook, what they want to represent and their toolsof representation (Allard-Poesi, 2005). Accordingto Weick, an organization’s environment is notthe physical surrounding, but the information themembers of the organization reacts on. Thisimplies that an organization will not react tochanges in the environment in a causal way,which is proposed by the functionalist tradition.The members will not only react on informationin the environment, but also actively enact thesocial reality of the organization. The essence ofWeick’s theory is that people are active in theconstruction of the social reality, and that thereality of organizations could be seen as a com-munication product.

Following a social constructionist perspective,the aim of public relations would be extended to

communication to develop positive and support-ive communities in which an organization re-gards itself as a member. Communication is seenas a reciprocal process in which the participantsproduce a mutual understanding of the reality,i.e. they make sense of the world and enact asocial constructed reality.

As we mentioned in the introduction, we findthat risk and crisis communication are the core ofpublic relations theory and practice. The multi-cultural context of late modern organizations areconditions one cannot neglect anymore. Ourreview and analysis show that these two assump-tions need more theoretical and empirical focusamong public relations researchers. There areexamples of growing interest and new perspec-tives, such as Banks (2000) and Lee (2005), but sofar the field of multicultural public relations andcrisis communication is undeveloped. A majorreason behind this limitation, discussed in thispaper, is linked to the foundation of mainstreampublic relations theory that neglects cultural con-texts. If culture is used in traditional and func-tionalist theory it is mainly as a national variablenot taking into account culture as defined by thepublic themselves. The dichotomy between amodern transmission model of communication,focusing the distribution of messages andneglecting cultural contexts, and a ritual modelof communication, focusing communication assensemaking rituals, is well-known to most ofus (Carey, 1988). In fact, multicultural issuesmore than any others put this dichotomy incentre. We propose a new perspective foundedon social constructionism as discussed above:interpreting communication processes as rela-tional, contextual, dynamic and ritual. This pro-posal would in methodological terms lead tomore qualitative and theoretical analysis con-cerning the multicultural public, not acceptingnational cultural determinism that has dominatedintercultural communication. Instead, we recom-mend using the concept of ethnicity, defined asdynamic cultural identities. Based on a socialconstructionist epistemology, we have four pro-posals for future research and practice in multi-cultural crisis communication:

(1) a public perspective – audience-orientation(2) a proactive and interactive approach –

focusing dialogue(3) a community-focused approach gaining a

long-range pre-crisis perspective(4) an ethnicity-approach towards intercultural

communication issues.

From an applied perspective the development ofa constructionist ethnicity-based perspectivewould probably lead to a turn of interest: fromsenders, channels and messages towards theaudience as an active public. This could leadto higher efforts in proactive risk and issues

MULTICULTURAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION 187

r 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006

communication, using and developing newmedia for listening to and defining differentmulticultural publics and communities, usingreference and focus groups, involving localeveryday field communicators, giving multicul-tural publics active parts in information produc-tion and distribution processes.

References

Allard-Poesi, F. (2005), ‘The Paradox of Sensemakingin Organizational Analysis’, Organization, Volume12, Number 2, pp. 169–197.

Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000), ‘Taking theLinguistic Turn in Organizational Research: Chal-lenges, Responses, Consequences’, The Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, Volume 36, Number 2,pp. 136–158.

Andersson, U. (2000), ‘Goteborgs ungdomar berattarom branden’ [Gothenburg Youth Tell about theFire], in Larsson, L. and Nohrstedt, S.-A. (Eds),Goteborgsbranden 1998: En studie om kommunikation,rykten och fortroende, Styrelsen for psykologisktforsvar, Stockholm.

Andersson, U. (2005) ‘Nya svenskar och svenska medier’[New Swedes and the Swedish Media] (Arbetsrap-port nr. 34), Institutionen for Journalistik och Mass-kommunikation, Goteborg, Sweden.

Banks, S.P. (2000), Multicultural Public Relations: ASocial-Interpretive Approach (2nd edition), IowaState University Press, Ames.

Barnett, G. A. and Lee, M. (2002), ‘Issues in Inter-cultural Communication Research’, in Gudykunst,W. B. and Mody, B. (Eds), Handbook of Internationaland Intercultural Communication, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 275–290.

Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity,Sage, London.

Benoit, W. L. (1995), Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: ATheory of Image Restoration Strategies, State Univer-sity of New York Press, Albany.

Benoit, W. L. (1997), ‘Image Repair Discourse andCrisis Communication’, Public Relations Review,Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 177–186.

Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Con-struction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology ofKnowledge, Doubleday, New York.

Burr, V. (1998), ‘Overview: Realism, Relativism, SocialConstructionism and Discourse’, in Parker, I. (Ed.),Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism, Sage,London.

Carey, J. W. (1988), Communication as Culture: Essays onMedia and Society, Routledge, New York.

Coombs, W. T. (1995), ‘Choosing the Right Words:The Development of Guidelines for the Selection ofthe ‘‘Appropriate’’ Crisis-Response Strategies’,Management Communication Quarterly, Volume 8,pp. 447–476.

Coombs, W. T. (1999), Ongoing Crisis Communication:Planning, Managing, and Responding, Sage, Thou-sand Oaks, CA.

COT (Institute for Safety and Crisis Management)(2003) Accident Involving the Collapse of Scaffolding

at the Amercentrale Power Plant, 28 September 2003,Municipality of Geertruidenberg.

Czarniawska, B. (2003), ‘Social Constructionism andOrganization Studies’, in Westwood, R. andClegg, S. R. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point–Counterpoint in Organization Studies, Blackwell,Malden, MA, pp. 128–139.

Durazo, R. (1994), ‘Getting to Know Ethnic Audiences’,Public Relations Tactics, Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 4–6.

Eriksen, T. H. (1993), Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthro-pological Perspectives, Pluto Press, London.

Ewen, S. (1996), PR! The Social History of Spin, BasicBooks, New York.

FitzGerald, S. S. and Spagnolia, N. (1999), ‘FourPredictions for PR Practitioners in the NewMillennium’, Public Relations Quarterly, Volume44, Number 3, pp. 12–15.

Gergen, K. J. (1985), ‘The Social Constructionist Move-ment in Modern Psychology’, American Psychologist,Volume 40, Number 3, pp. 266–275.

Gergen, K. J. (1998), ‘Constructionism and Realism:How Are We to Go On?’, in Parker, I. (Ed.),Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism, Sage,London.

Gergen, K. J. (1999), An Invitation to Social Construction,Sage, London.

Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outlineof the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Cam-bridge.

Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity,Polity, Cambridge.

Gonzalez-Herrero, A. and Pratt, C. B. (1996), ‘AnIntegrated Model for Crisis-CommunicationsManagement’, Journal of Public Relations Research,Volume 8, pp. 79–105.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E. and Dozier, D. M. (2002),Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations:A Study of Communication Management in ThreeCountries, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Gudykunst, W. B. and Lee, C. M. (2002), ‘Cross-Cultural Communication Theories’, in Gudykunst,W. B. and Mody, B. (Eds), Handbook of Internationaland Intercultural Communication, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 25–50.

Gudykunst, W. B. and Ting-Toomey, S. (1988), Cultureand Interpersonal Communication, Sage, NewburyPark, CA.

Hall, E. T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Press, Gar-den City, NY.

Halualani, R. T. (2000), ‘Rethinking ‘‘Ethnicity’’ asStructural-Cultural Project(s): Notes on the Inter-face between Cultural Studies and InterculturalCommunication’, International Journal of Intercul-tural Relations, Volume 24, Number 5, pp. 579–602.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: Inter-national Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Hofstede, G. H. (2002), ‘Dimensions Do Not Exist: AReply to Brendan Mcsweeney’, Human Relations,Volume 55, Number 11, pp. 1355–1361.

Kersten, A. (2005), ‘Crisis as Usual: OrganizationalDysfunction and Public Relations’, Public RelationsReview, Volume 31, Number 4, pp. 544–549.

Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952), Culture: ACritical Review of Concepts and Definitions, PeabodyMuseum, Cambridge, MA.

188 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006r 2006 The Authors

Journal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Kruckeberg, D. (1995), ‘The Challenge for Public Rela-tions in the Era of Globalization’, Public RelationsQuarterly, Volume 40, Number 4, pp. 36–40.

Lee, B. K. (2005), ‘Crisis, Culture, Community’, inKalbfleisch, P. J. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 29,Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 275–309.

Lerbringer, O. (1997), The Crisis Manager, LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Lim, T.-S. (2002), ‘Language and Verbal Communica-tion across Cultures’, in Gudykunst, W.B. andMody, B. (Eds), Handbook of International and Inter-cultural Communication, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 69–87.

Lupton, D. (1999), Risk, Routledge, London.Macnamara, J. R. (2004), ‘The Crucial Role of Research

in Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Communica-tion’, Journal of Communication Management,Volume 8, Number 3, pp. 322–334.

McKie, D. (2001), ‘Updating Public Relations: ‘‘NewScience’’, Research Paradigms, and Uneven Devel-opments’, in Heath, R. L. (Ed.), Handbook of PublicRelations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 75–91.

McQuail, D. (2005), McQuail’s Mass CommunicationTheory (5th edition), Sage, London.

McSweeney, B. (2002), ‘Hofstede’s Model of NationalCultural Differences and Their Consequences: ATriumph of Faith – a Failure of Analysis’, HumanRelations, Volume 55, Number 1, pp. 89–118.

Motion, J. and Leitch, S. (1996), ‘A Discursive Perspectivefrom New Zealand: Another World View’, PublicRelations Review, Volume 22, Number 3, pp. 297–310.

Murphy, P. (1996), ‘Chaos Theory as a Model forManaging Issues and Crises’, Public Relations Re-view, Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 95–113.

Nilsson, A. (2004), Immigration and Emigration in thePostwar Period, Statistics Sweden, Stockholm.

Nohrstedt, S.-A. and Admassu, T. (1993), Communicationand Crisis: An Inventory of Current Research, NationalBoard of Psychological Defence, Stockholm.

Park, R. E. (1950), Race and Culture, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.Rogers, E. M. and Hart, W. B. (2002), ‘The Histories of

Intercultural, International, and Development Com-munication’, in Gudykunst, W. B. and Mody, B. (Eds),Handbook of International and Intercultural Communica-tion, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–18.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L. and Ulmer, R. R. (2001),‘Public Relations and Crisis Communication:

Organizing and Chaos’, in Heath, R. L. (Ed.),Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA, pp. 155–165.

Sellnow, T. L. (1993), ‘Scientific Argument in Organi-zational Crisis Communication: The Case of Exxon’,Argumentation & Advocacy, Volume 30, Number 1,pp. 28–43.

Sellnow, T. L., Seeger, M. W. and Ulmer, R. R. (2002),‘Chaos Theory, Informational Needs, and NaturalDisasters’, The Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, Volume 30, 269–292.

Shotter, J. (1993), Conversational Realities: ConstructingLife through Language, Sage, London.

Shotter, J. and Gergen, K. J. (1994), ‘Social Construc-tion: Knowledge, Self, Others, and Continuing theConversation’, in Deetz, S. A. (Ed.), CommunicationYearbook 17, Sage, London, pp. 3–33.

Sriramesh, K. (2002), ‘The Dire Need for Multicultur-alism in Public Relations Education: An AsianPerspective’, Journal of Communication Management,Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 54–71.

Stern, E. (1997), ‘Crisis and Learning: A ConceptualBalance Sheet’, Journal of Contingencies and CrisisManagement, Volume 5, Number 2, pp. 69–87.

Sundelius, B., Stern, E. and Bynander, F. (1997)Krishantering pa svenska [Crisis Management inSwedish – Theory and Practice], Nerenius &Santerus, Stockholm.

Vasquez, G. M. and Taylor, M. (2000), ‘What CulturalValues Influence American Public Relations Practi-tioners?’, Public Relations Review, Volume 25, Num-ber 4, pp. 433–449.

Weick, K. E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing(2nd edition), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Weick, K. E. (2001), Making Sense of the Organization,Blackwell Business, Oxford.

Williams, D. E. and Olaniran, B. A. (1998), ‘Expandingthe Crisis Planning Function: Introducing Elementsof Risk Communication to Crisis CommunicationPractice’, Public Relations Review, Volume 24, Num-ber 3, pp. 387–400.

Zoch, L. M. and Duhe, S. F. (1997), ‘‘‘Feeding theMedia’’ During a Crisis: A Nationwide Look’, PublicRelations Quarterly, Volume 42, Number 3, pp.15–20.

MULTICULTURAL CRISIS COMMUNICATION 189

r 2006 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 14 Number 4 December 2006