Not alone in crises and disasters

In October 2023, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the German Federal Office for Civil Protection (BBK) and the German Committee for Disaster Risk Reduction hosted a parliamentary evening on successful risk communication “Not alone in crises and disasters” in Berlin. The format aims at informing and connecting elected officials with experts from administration and research. Philipp Schrögel from CAPAS moderated the event. We interviewed Annett Schulze, co-head of project MIRKKOMM (Optimisation of Risk and Crisis Communication by Governments, Authorities and Health Security Organisations) at BfR and one of the organizers of the event:

You investigated risk and crisis communication on the Covid-19 pandemic – would you say that the pandemic was an apocalypse, or was it perceived as such?

The apocalypse as a narrative of a catastrophe with existential risks and the threat of an end to the world as we know it were particularly relevant at the beginning of the pandemic, when there was great uncertainty, e. g. about the consequences of an infection, the high death rates in certain countries and the risks for vulnerable groups in particular.

Such scenarios were particularly discussed on social media, where specific hashtags such as #coronapocolypse were created. Interestingly, there are not only comments that describe doomsday scenarios, but also those that react with humour to the challenges of the pandemic and the modified practices of social interaction.

Let me briefly point out another phenomenon relevant to the crisis in this context: The COVID-19 pandemic coincided with high social media usage. This meant: 1) communication not only from state institutions to the population, but also from the people themselves; 2) the lack of a gatekeeper function with all its advantages and disadvantages; and3) and a widespread shortage of content moderation on social media channels of state institutions. The platform logics and their modes of use led, among other things, to an overabundance of information. The World Health Organization (WHO) had already noted an infodemic as a relevant challenge in the global health crisis in the first year of the pandemic. The spread of false information weakened public health protection services and thus increased the risk of infection and potential multi-organ disease with different disease progressions. Disinformation and a lack of health literacy promote polarisation in the public debate on the sense or nonsense of health policy measures. Health literacy encompasses the handling of health information as a basis for health-related decisions. 

Against this background, the question of how public health messages and information are organised is one side of the coin. The other includes organisational structures and resources. The German Network for Health Literacy stated that achieving health literacy is not just the responsibility of the individual, but must also be seen as a task for society as a whole. Public health organisations in particular have a special responsibility here. Their task is to enable all people to make appropriate health decisions according to their needs, to support them and to create the respective framework conditions.

Communicating about the pandemic seems to mean finding a balance between addressing urgency and threats while avoiding the creation of additional fears or panic. If you look at your results, was that balance met?

We have a slightly different focus when it comes to our research design referring to the digitally communicated content. We wanted to know how multimodal arrangements – i. e. the combination of text, graphics, icons, images, animations and sound – are used in social media by different public health organisations, how users of these platform channels react in the comments, how comprehensible these multimodal products are and how users perceive the value- or science-based advice that these posts often also provide. Again, literacies play an important role here, as do the organisational structures and the resources provided by the health authorities for employees inside and recipients outside the institutions. We will probably be able to answer whether this balance has been achieved at the communication product level in terms of the content of the message in the course of summer 2024.

The team at the Technical University of Ilmenau, led by Prof. Martin Löffelholz, () focusses on the institutional challenges of communicating during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  

In climate change communication, there is an ongoing debate about the role of drastic images – criticized by some as unnecessarily apocalyptic scenes. Was that similar during the pandemic?

We are currently completing our data analysis by considering message appeals, as we would express it in communication science. Thus, we code the identified normative statements and map them to message attributes that relate to the way the messages are presented, such as the different types of appeals (e.g., fear). We will then see what insights and conclusions can be drawn from the data analysis. Let me refer you to another sub-project that also deals with communication content in social media and the recipient perspective (): Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Bucher and his colleagues analyze the collected social media data as well as eye-tracking, interview, questionnaire and knowledge tests data to determine how people weigh and select the information provided in order to make decisions under risk. Therefore, they systemized the audio-visual material on social media platforms to establish a format typology along corresponding main functions, e. g. to emotionalise. Anyone who would like to know more about those functions is welcome to contact the team at the Institute of Technology in Karlsruhe.

Did multimodal discourses about the pandemic pick up pop-cultural references from the myriad of catastrophe and zombie stories and movies?

Our material consists of communications from public health authorities in Germany and reactions to them. In our sub-project “Discourse Analysis” at the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) (), such pop-cultural references to zombie films did not play a role. However, there are quite a few user comments that imply that the official recommendations and information dramatize the situation, the proper evaluation of which they call into question. One possible explanation is that we selected our sample to include posts and tweets from public health institutions that were published after the Resolutions by the Federal Chancellor and the heads of governments of the Länder. In relation to Article 65 of the Basic Law, governments are free to present projects and measures to the public using state resources as long as it is “appropriate, objective information”. Another sub-project, namely the one on legal questions led by Prof. Robert Frau together with Prof. Ines Härtel at the European University Viadrina (), problematises possible shortcomings of this legal basis, for example by legally discussing the loss of objectivity in favour of reaching a wider audience. 

You developed an exhibition to communicate the findings from your project to a wider public, I would say quite unusual for social sciences research. What were your experiences with that?

It was a valuable experience that was only possible because I had extensive support from my home institution, the BfR, my team, especially Fabian Brand, as well as from the research consortium, the Museum for Communication Berlin, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the associated partners in MIRKKOMM. 

The idea came from Prof Michael Beuthner, leading the sub-project “Journalism and Prosumers” (). And without him, his colleagues and the students at the SRH Berlin I University of Applied Sciences, the realisation of this exhibition would have been much more difficult. 

As the BfR was able to provide additional funding from its own resources, the exhibition could be created by a contract service provider, in our case the company Garamantis, following a call for tenders. 

I must also emphasise how challenging it was to work as an “exhibition organiser” alongside the core research work. I am very proud not only of the exhibition () that took place last summer and autumn, but also of the program that included different target-group orientated formats. This was also possible because one of the consortium partners, mecom GmbH (), provided resources and specific contacts such as the German Press Agency (dpa) and the Federal Office of Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK).

Looking back, I would include a position for public relations in a new research proposal, if such communication measures are planned and envisaged.

You organized a parliamentary evening to provide the opportunity for an exchange between researchers and practitioners in risk and crisis communication and elected officials. Often, decision makers look for unambiguous advice on how to handle a crisis. While this is barely possible to answer for natural sciences, the challenge is even bigger for social sciences. How do you handle this in communicating about your project/work?

One approach I use is an established approach in health communication research: Developing communication measures theory-as well as evidence-based. When we evaluate communication material or develop interventions at the BfR-Study Centre for Social Science Research, communicative components are of research interest such as the content addressing behavioural determinants based on health psychology theories or models, message attributes, and target group orientated communication channels and communicators. This holistic approach increases the effectiveness of communication measures.

And one step further, what role can and should humanities play in a dialogue with policy makers and the public about crises?

I would like to endorse the statement of the Members of the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Behavioral Insights and Sciences for Health (): “COVID-19 has confirmed that the behavioural and social sciences have guided our understanding of the drivers of transmission and how to design and deliver effective interventions. Changing behaviours is complex and may not happen even when life is at stake – it requires more than clinical and epidemiological expertise“.

What were your (or those of your colleagues) experiences with conversations with elected officials and policy makers?

I have to say that the networking opportunities were particularly appreciated. Personally, I would have liked the political decision-makers to have contacted us as researchers after the event. This would have made it possible to initiate and establish a more sustainable and, above all, real dialogue.

Photos: Laurin Schmid/bundesfoto