Presentation at ESA 11th Conference "Crisis, Critique and Change". Governmental crisis communications and information management can be represented for clarity as a system which consists of two subsystems. First subsystem is decision-making which applies mechanisms of information processing and coordination between different units. Second subsystem is external crisis communication which includes not only dissemination and exchange of information (this is what we traditionally understand by crisis communications) but also crowdsourcing and citizen involvement in crisis management. This system can function differently and show different results. That’s why we can speak of its various models.

1. Models of Governmental
Crisis Communications and
Information Management
Elena Gryzunova
Ph.D. Student
MGIMO-University
(Moscow State Institute of International Relations), Russia
Paper presented at the European Sociological Association (ESA) 11th
Conference
Section “Crisis Informatics” of the research network “Disaster, Conflict
and Social Crisis”
30 August 2013, Turin, Italy
© Elena Gryzunova, 2013
Intellectual property. No part can be reproduced without a reference to the author
1

2. What is a crisis?
A crisis is an unexpected perceived
disruption of a social unit which threatens
basic structures of a social system, its
integrity, reputation or survival, shatters
the lifeworlds of people by challenging the
public sense of safety, legitimacy or
fundamental values and norms, and
requires critical decisions under time
pressure, uncertainty, complexity and
increased attention.
2

3. Complementarity of crises
• Objective / subjective
• Constructive / destructive
• Point of bifurcation / process
theory of social change
3
Objective disruptions of the
social structure
structure functionalism
Subjective collective
perceptions
symbolic
interactionism, phenomenology,
sociolinguistics, cultural
sociology

4. System of governmental crisis
communications and -management
4
2. External crisis
communication
subsystem
1. Internal
decision-making
subsystem
1.2. Internal
coordination
1.1. Information
processing
2.1. External
communication
2.2.
Coordination of
crowdsourcing
and citizen
participation

5. Crowdsourcing and citizen
participation in crisis management
Balance between civil self-organization and public
administration is required.
Civil self-organization can be influenced not
through formal control but through creating stable
attractors (social practices, values) and facilities.
“Bureaucratization” Attractors
of civil participation
5

6. Working hypotheses
1. - Crisis communications and -management
model is effective when it reaches the goal of CM.
- The goal of crisis management is not reached
when the subsystems and mechanisms apply
dysfunctional strategies and use ineffective tools.
- The strategies are dysfunctional and the tools
are ineffective because they are chosen to reach
divergent goals, not (only) crisis management.
2. - The most effective model reaches the goal of
CM by using more recourses with less input.
- Crowdsourcing and citizen participation
provide additional cost-effective resources.
6

7. Testing hypothesis # 1
Ineffective model of information blockage
The goal is not (only) to manage the crisis but to hide the
information from the community and avoid open discussion.
Divergent goals damage the whole system.
7
1.1. processing:
lack of reliable
external resources,
slow flow of
internal ,
groupthink
1.2. Internal
coordination:
hierarchy,
command and
control, top level
overload
2.2. Formal
control of
participation,
civil self-
organization is
suppressed
1. Internal decision-
making subsystem: slow
decision-making, approval
of operative decisions on
top level
2. External crisis
communication
subsystem: dysfunctional
strategy of information
blockage
2.1. External
communication:
denial, lack of
risk
communication,
vacuum

8. Case study of blockage model:
Chernobyl disaster (1986, USSR)
• Pre-crisis: lack of risk communication, no
manuals for rescue workers (despite previous
accidents as early warning signals).
• Crisis stage: command and control,
hierarchy, slow operative decision-making
(local civil defense headquarter did not
warn people without central approval);
restriction of information about radiation level
and health effects, control over the media, contradictory expert
recommendations, labeling community worries as exaggerated
radiophobia; forcing civil rescue workers to participate in the liquidation
of the disaster’s effects, often with little knowledge about the mission.
• Post-crisis: in 1990 the Soviet government had to admit that wrong
information management had destructive social and political effects
and the crisis threatened legitimacy of local and central government.
8

9. 1.1. processing:
preconceived
analysis, ignoring
some risks & crisis
factors, staging
others
Ineffective model of manipulation
The goal is not (only) to manage the crisis but to gain
political advantage or make a profit out of it. Divergent
goals damage the whole system.
9
2.1. External
communication:
victimization,
discourse of
fear, new
propaganda
1. Internal decision-
making subsystem:
opportunistic decisions
2. External crisis
communication
subsystem: dysfunctional
(crisis-escalating) strategy
of fear management
1.2. Internal
coordination: lack
of coordination
between agencies
leads to
hierarchization
2.2. Symbolic
supportive
activity is
welcomed, other
forms are
suppressed

10. Case study of manipulation model:
9/11 & the “War on terror” (2001, USA)
D. Altheide: “The terrorist attacks on the United States
on September 11, 2001 were strategically used by officials
to justify various domestic and international actions”.
• Pre-crisis: ignoring early warning signals (previous
attacks by non-state terrorists, including first WTC
terror act in 1993; CIA reports about Al Qaeda plans),
focusing on non-existent state-sponsored threat
instead, planning a possible invasion to Iraq;
coordination problems and latent interest conflicts between agencies;
manipulation and discourse of fear in external political communication.
• Crisis stage: coordination problems; justifying military campaign in Iraq
(myths about connection to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction) rather
than analyzing complex reasons of terror acts; fear politics and
propaganda; no democratic debate; substitution of notions; unintentional
legitimation of terror groups as political actors.
• Post-crisis: military campaigns, surveillance, suspension of liberties.
10

11. Hypothesis # 2 is incomplete:
different crisis types should be considered
Crisis classification by social response:
11
E. Quarantelli J. Freund
Conflict
Crises of the
human climate
(O. Lerbinger):
confrontation,
malevolent acts
Consensus
Crises of the
physical
environment
(O. Lerbinger):
natural, biologic
al, technological
Polemic
Complex
structural crises:
system (political,
social & cultural,
economic,
ecological),
transsystem,
institutional

12. Different crisis types require
different communication and
management strategies
12
Conflict:
• citizen engagement
leads to crisis escalation,
unofficial resources
include disinformation &
malevolent propaganda;
• citizen participation
is possible on pre- and
post-crisis stages
(evaluation of issues);
• struggle for media
loyalty (mass media can
take the other side);
• adjusting , defense
against psychological
manipulation & trauma.
Consensus:
• consolidation,
constructive self-
organization => citizen
participation &
crowdsourcing are not
only cost-effective
practice, but also a
chance for development;
• integration of internal
and external
communication;
• citizens are not just
audience, they take part
in management.
Polemic:
• no unique
solution, different
opinions & interests;
• CM through
facilitation & mediation
of negotiations & public
dialogue;
• from organizations
and institutions to
networks & relations;
• from networks of
interest to knowledge
networks;
• participatory
democracy.

13. 3 effective models for 3 crisis types
All models are prescriptive (ideal). However, they
can be illustrated by descriptive real-life case
studies that generally consist with one of the ideal
models though they may have some flaws,
mistakes and minor dysfunctional elements.
13
Conflict
Traditional
information
management
Consensus
Integrated
crowdsourced
and
traditional
information
management
Polemic
Public
dialogue
facilitation and
knowledge
management

14. Model of traditional information
management for conflict crises
14
2.1. External
communication:
expert
consultations on
issues; opposing
manipulation &
trauma; struggle
for media loyalty
2. External crisis
communication
subsystem: speaking with
one voice, getting
feedback
2.2. Public
dialogue on
issues (not on
acute stage);
prevention of
destructive self-
organization
leading to clashes
& ruptures
1.1. processing:
issues evaluation,
conflict analysis,
monitoring of
psychological
threats,
superiority
assessment,
sense-making
1. Internal decision-
making subsystem:
strategic decisions
centralized, operative ones
made on lower levels
1.2. Internal
coordination:
combination of
network and
hierarchy, situati
onal hierarchical
structure

15. Case study of traditional management
model: Counterterrorist operation in the
North Caucasus (2000-2004, Russia)
15
The model evolved from the information blockage
(during the first Chechen campaign, 1994-1996
and after it till 1999), so we can speak of the
information management model only on the
acute crisis stage (2000-2004).
• Crisis stage: creation of the Information Policy Department in the
Administration of the President which coordinated the information flows
between different agencies and was responsible for external
communications; creation of field crisis communications centers on the
territory of the Chechen republic; combination of hierarchical and
network approach; crisis sense-making and framing the counterterrorist
operation (not “war”) based on facts; soft power media relations to win
media loyalty; monitoring of psychological threats, opposing
disinformation, manipulation and trauma; discourse of renewal.
• Post-crisis: discourse of renewal, opposing manipulation and trauma.

16. Model of integrated crowdsourced
and traditional information
management for consensus crises
16
1.1. processing:
traditional
integrated with
crowdsourced
, citizen science &
community-based
risk assessment
1. Internal decision-making
subsystem: crowdsourced
& citizen knowledge
enhance decision-making
1.2. Situational
flexible
coordination of
official CM team
with volunteers;
web-resources for
crowdsourcing &
network-building
2. External crisis
communication
subsystem:
openness, voice of citizens
as both transmitters &
receivers
2.1. External
communication:
traditional +
through
committed
citizens &
organizations;
discourse of
consolidation
2.2. Creating
attractors (web-
resources, open
scientific
projects, etc.) for
constructive
self-organization
& participation
of citizens in CM

17. Case study of integrated crowdsourced &
traditional information management model:
Hurricane Sandy (2012, USA)
• Pre-crisis: call of Obama to promote volunteering
culture & self-organization, creation of HandsOn
University & CNCS (2009); launching of FEMA
GeoPlatform, an integrated online resource for
informing, network-building & crowdsourcing
(Aug., 2012); risk communications using different channels including social
media on several languages; good coordination between agencies & local
authorities (Oct., 2012).
• Crisis stage: good coordination (regardless of parties); cooperation with
volunteer organizations & networks through CNCS & ad hoc; use of FEMA
GeoPlatform & Google Crisis Map; discourse of consolidation; constant
presence in traditional & new media; monitoring of rumours & quick response
• Post-crisis: use of crowdsourcing for creating map of fuel scarcity (together
with “Waze” mobile application) & damage assessment; cooperation with
volunteers
17

18. Model of public dialogue facilitation and
knowledge management for polemic crises
18
1. Internal decision-making
subsystem: decisions
through “communicative
action”, negotiations,
balance of interests & citizen
knowledge networks
1.2. Coordination
through public
dialog
(discussion,
negotiations,
citizen jury or
council) &
participatory
problem-solving
2. External crisis
communication subsystem:
based on new
communication culture of
open public dialogue space
2.1. External
communication:
negotiations
between groups
& networks;
supra-
communicative
practices of
facilitation &
mediation
2.2.
Development of
participatory
democracy &
civil society
institutions that
further
constructive
self-organization
1.1. processing:
detection of
problems &
opinion (interest)
groups; creation
of multiple think
tanks; knowledge
management;
sense-making;
crisis simulations

19. Case study of public dialogue facilitation and
knowledge management model: nuclear policy
dialogue & crowdsourcing (1999-2006, Russia)
Nuclear industry provokes issues and crises which
are transsystem (concern ecology, economics,
politics, health, etc.) & polemic by social response
because of different interests and opinions.
• Pre-crisis: civil-society nuclear policy dialogue
(1999-2003), meetings between Russian ecological
network, experts, governmental & municipal
structures, participatory decision-making, transsystem problem approach,
creation of Minatom’s (now Rosatom’s) citizen council (2002).
• Crisis: criminal case against CEO of governmental nuclear plant “Mayak”
for severe ecological damage to Techa River & contiguous area during the
years 2001-2004 (the prosecution was stopped in May 2006 due to amnesty).
• Post-crisis: knowledge management program “Techa-2006” (formally
connected to Kyshtym disaster of 1957) granted by Rosatom & “Mayak” which
included crowdsourcing of citizen project ideas for ecological, social &
information policy in the region, then financial support of the best projects.
19

20. Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
Contact information:
Elena Gryzunova
MGIMO-University
Moscow, Russia
+7-916-607-2770
+7-926-170-7334
Mail2.elena@mail.ru
20