Want to read my publications? - handy links

Articles in international peer-reviewed journals:

Measuring Crisis Communication Preparedness Across Different Branches of Government – Sharing Experiences Gained in Finland. Vos, M., Kekäle, P., Ruggiero, A. & Palttala, P. (2018). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 8(1), 60-69. link JYX (click Draft) or OJCMT

Decomposing issue patterns in crisis communication – the case of the lost airliner. Zhang, B., Vos, M. & Veijalainen, J. (2018). International Journal of Emergency Management, 14(1), 72-89. link JYX

The issue arena of a corporate social responsibility crisis – The Volkswagen case in Twitter. Zhang, B., Vos, M., Veijalainen, J., Wang, S. & Kotkov, D. (2016). Studies in Media and Communication, 4(2), 32-43. link JYX or Redfame

Crisis communication competence in co-producing safety with citizen groups. Laajalahti, A., Hyvärinen, J. & Vos, M. (2016). Social Sciences, 5(1), 13. link JYX

Enhancing citizen response to crises through communication – Investigating expert views. Hyvärinen, J., Laajalahti, A. & Vos, M. (2015). International Journal of Emergency Management, 11(4), 302–319. link JYX

Communication challenges in CBRN terrorism crises – expert perceptions. Ruggiero, A. & Vos, M. (2015). Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(3), 138-148. link JYX or JCCM

Developing a conceptual framework for investigating communication supporting community resilience. Hyvärinen, J. & Vos, M. (2015). Societies, 5(3), 583-597. link JYX

Communication Health Check – Measuring Corporate Communication Performance. Vos, M. (2015). Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(1), 63-70.  link JYX or JBSQ

The contribution of public relations to organizational decision making: Insights from the literature. Mykkänen, M. & Vos, M. (2015), Public Relations Journal, 9(2). link JYX  

How and why some issues spread fast in social media. Zhang, B. & Vos, M. (2015). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 5(1), 371–383. link JYX or OJCMT

Public Discourse on Human Trafficking in International Issue Arenas. Meriläinen, N. & Vos, M. (2015). Societies, 5(1), 14-42. link JYX or MDPI

Community Resilience in Crises: Technology and Social Media Enablers – Guest-Editorial. Vos, M. & Sullivan, H.T. (2014). Human Technology, 10(2), 61–67. link JYX or HT

Social media monitoring: methods, benefits and difficulties for international companies. Zhang, B. & Vos, M. (2014). Corporate Communications - an International Journal, 19(4), 371–383. link JYX

Framing by actors in the human rights debate: the Kony 2012 campaign. Meriläinen, N. & Vos, M. (2014). Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 32(3), 238–257. link JYX

The role of broadcast media in disaster preparedness education; lessons learned in the scientific literature 2002-2012. Romo-Murphy, E. & Vos, M. (2014). Media Asia, 41(1), 71-85. link JYX

Setting the agenda for research on issue arenas. Vos, M., Schoemaker, H. & Luoma-aho, V. (2014). Corporate Communications - an International Journal. 19(2), 200-215. link JYX  

Social media monitoring for crisis communication: process, methods and trends in the scientific literature. Ruggiero, A. & Vos, M. (2014). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 4(1), 103-130. link JYX or OJCMT  

Challenges in joint place branding in rural areas. Vuorinen, M. & Vos, M (2013). Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(3), 154-163. link JYX

Terrorism communication: characteristics and emerging perspectives in the scientific literature 2002–2011. Ruggiero, A. & Vos, M. (2013). Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(3), 153-166. link JYX or Wiley

Monitoring the arenas of the swine flu discussion. Luoma-aho, V., Tirkkonen, P. & Vos, M. (2013). Journal of Communication Management, 17(3), 239-251. Link JYX

Framing issues in the public debate: the case of human rights. Meriläinen, N. & Vos, M. (2013). Corporate Communications - an International Journal, 18(1),119-134. link JYX

Communication gaps in disaster management: Perceptions by experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations. Palttala, P., Boano, C., Lund, R. & Vos, M. (2012). Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20(1), 1-12. link JYX

Quality Indicators for Crisis Communication to Support Emergency Management by Public Authorities. Palttala, P. & Vos, M. (2012). Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20(1), 39-51. link JYX

Added Value of Intangibles for Organizational Innovation. Luoma-aho, V., Vos, M., Lappalainen, R., Lämsä, A., Maaranen, P., Uusitalo, O. & Koski, A. (2012). Human Technology, 8(1), 7–23. link JYX or  HT

Mapping critical factors in innovative brand management. Vuorinen, M., Uusitalo, O. & Vos, M. (2012). Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 3(4), 58-76. link JYX or JBSQ

Testing a methodology to improve organizational learning about crisis communication. Palttala, M. & Vos, M. (2011). Journal of Communication Management, 15(4), 314 - 331. link JYX

Human rights organizations and online agenda setting. Meriläinen, N. & Vos, M. (2011). Corporate Communications - an international journal, 16(4), 293 - 310. link JYX

Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model:  The role of issue arenas for corporate reputation. Luoma-aho, V. & Vos, M. (2010). Corporate Communication - an International Journal, 15(3), 315-331 (Highly Commended Award Winner Literati Network 2011). link JYX  

Monitoring the complexities: Nuclear power and public opinion. Luoma-aho, V. & Vos, M. (2009). Public Relations Review, 35(2), 120-122. link JYX

Communication quality and added value: a measurement instrument for municipalities. Vos, M. (2009). Journal of Communication Management, 13(4), 362-377 (among the Most Frequently Downloaded Articles of the year). link JYX

Trends in government communication in The Netherlands. Vos, M. & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 18-29. link JYX

Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Vos, M. (2006). Journal of Communication Management, 10(3), 250-258. link RG

Papers in books and proceedings (selection):

Reputation monitoring. Vos, M. (2016). In Carroll, C.E. (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation, section Research, Measurement and Evaluation, 657-659. Sage, Thousand Oaks. link JYX

Understanding fast diffusion of information in the social media environment: A comparison of two cases. Zhang, B., Semenov, A., Vos, M. & Veijlainen, J. (2014). In ICC 2014 Conference Proceedings, 522-533. link JYX

Synergy and social orientation as quality dimensions for the future communication policy. Vos, M. (2009). In Rogojinaru, A. & Wolstenholme, S., Current trends in international public relations; papers presented at the Euprera Congress 2009, Tritonic, Bucharest, 83-94. link JYX

Image formation about genetically modified food and the communication by the companies involved. Vos, M. & I. Wassenaar (2002). In Proceedings of BledCom in conjunction with EUPRERA. link RG

Books in English (selection):

Communication in Turbulent Times: Exploring Issues and Crisis Communication to Enhance Organisational Resilience. Vos, M. (2017). Reports from the School of Business and Economics, no 40/2017, University of Jyväskylä. link JYX

Developing a crisis communication scorecard. Vos, M., Lund, R., Harro-Loit, H. & Reich, Z. (eds, 2011). Studies in Humanities, University of Jyväskylä. link JYX

Integrated Communication; concern, internal and marketing communication. Vos, M. & Schoemaker, H. (2011). Amsterdam, Eleven Publishing, 4^rd edition. link RG or Academia.edu

Monitoring public perception of organizations. Vos, M. & Schoemaker, H. (2006). Amsterdam, Boom Onderwijs. Gbooks or link RG

Accountability of communication management; a balanced scorecard for communication quality. Vos, M. & Schoemaker H. (2004). Eleven Publishing, The Hague, 2^nd edition. Gbooks or link RG

Setting up a strategic communication plan. Vos, M., Otte, J. & Linders, P. (2003). Amsterdam, Eleven Publishing. publisher

Guides (selection):

CBRN Communication Scorecard. Ruggiero, A., Vos, M., Mykkänen, M. & Palttala, P. (2015). In S. Schmidt, & M. Vos (Eds.), Behavior and communication in CBRN crisis: Findings and recommendations in case of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks on society (106-139). Pabst-Science Publishers. link JYX or CrisCom

Public Empowerment – Guidelines for engaging the public in crisis management. Vos, M., Erve, A. van het, Gouw, N. de, Haataja, M., Hokkanen, L., Johansson, C., Linnell, M., Olofsson, A., Rantanen, H., Sullivan, H.T., Vergeer, F., Wall, E. (2014). Project Public Empowerment Policies for Crisis Management (FP7-284927). CrisCom or link RG

Roadmap ‘Public empowerment policies for crisis management’. Vos, M., Erve, A. van het, Gouw, N. de, Hokkanen, L., Johansson, C., Laajalahti, A., Linnell, M., Meriläinen, N., Olofsson, A., Öhman, S., Rantanen, H., Stal, M., Vergeer, F., Wall, E. (2014). Project Public Empowerment Policies for Crisis Management. CrisCom or link RG

Dutch books (selection):

Geїntegreerde communicatie, concern, interne en marketing communicatie. Vos, M. & Schoemaker, H. (2017). Boom, Amsterdam (book 10^th edition). uitgeverij

Accountability van communicatiebeleid: communicatiekwaliteit meten met de balanced scorecard. Vos, M. & Schoemaker, H. (2012). Amsterdam, Boom-Lemma (book, 2^nd edition). uitgeverij

De communicatiemeter; performance indicatoren voor communicatie. Vos, M. (2010). HU Utrecht. link RG

Trendonderzoek Overheidscommunicatie; verschillen en overeenkomsten tussen de overheidssectoren. Vos, M. & Westerhoudt, E. (2006). Utrecht, HU. link RG

Communicatie & Planning. Vos, M., Otte, J. & Linders, P. (2002). Utrecht, Thieme Meulenhof. link RG

Beeldvorming over genetisch gemodificeerd voedsel; hoe bedrijven erover communiceren. Vos, M. & Wassenaar, I. (2002). Cahier 25, Utrecht, HU. link RG

Note: this list with links provides a selection only; for a full list of publications see CV.

Big changes in society call for strategic communication

written for EUPRERA Highlights

I used to tell my students, that change and communication are undeniably intertwined. Without change, who needs to know what’s happening and make sense of it all? Monitoring a changing environment, bringing change about, innovation and adapting to change all require communication. Nowadays, change is even more pervasive in society and this will take the profession to a new level. Change causes pressure but also stimulates creative thinking. Disruptive change will challenge us all, especially new technology related to energy transition, mobility and robotics.

Recently, Uber was criticised when an automatically driven taxi car was involved in an accident. A video showed that the driver, present for safety purposes as the technology is still new, was looking at his phone and, just like the car sensors, he did not take action to prevent a collision when someone crossed the street. New technology may not have made a difference in this case, as the victim crossed the street suddenly in the dark, right in front of the car. Of course, it did not help that the man behind the steering wheel was looking at his phone. It reminded me of another road incident in my country where a traditional car suddenly hit a bicyclist from behind on an otherwise empty road. The car driver was suspected to have used WhatsApp. In the first case, the use of automatic driving was debated in public, whereas in the second case it was the suspected use of WhatsApp behind the wheel that caused discussion. Both incidents relate to human-technology interaction, sense making of new technologies, and communication about risks.

New technology brings new risks and induces market change. Where disruptive change is ongoing, a chaotic period follows with tensions between the old and the new system. New industry struggles to gain a foothold, while industry at the end of its lifecycle maximises creating new affairs, for example, by reopening polluting energy extraction sites or continuing to sell ‘clean diesel’. Fierce competition leads to extensive use of lobbying, propaganda and ‘alternative truths’, as was duly noted in Facebook discussions among professionals. Earlier we investigated the Volkswagen diesel affair. Notably, such car manufacturers still have wide support of politicians and car buyers alike, notwithstanding the growing perception gap between fans and critics. These are strange but exciting times, not only for us as communication experts.

Similarly, the change process of energy transition has consequences on many levels, all of which needing communication. Promotion of renewable energy is urgent, especially in the Netherlands where the gas extraction needs to be brought to a halt in the coming years, as its negative consequences increasingly burden the region. Thus, on the ministry level, contracts with big national and foreign clients are being renegotiated. Energy tariffs and subsidies are in place to steer behaviour, while rethinking the local energy infrastructures and related consequences for users. Naturally, the negotiations, ways to influence behaviour and impacts of infrastructure changes call for strategic communication. Moreover, there also is the level of communities. For example, the apartment building where I live has a green energy committee of volunteers engaging all inhabitants, as both collective and individual actions will soon be required. It’s interesting to be involved in such bottom-up initiatives.

Thus, change is pervasive and creates challenges that our field of communication can greatly contribute to. In other words, we can help shape the future by communicating about such changes and engaging people in an inclusive manner. It is great that BledCom 2018 chose the theme of crisis and change. Communication in turbulent times, indeed! My latest e-book, free to download, may provide more inspiration. 

Multi-stakeholder dynamics

This blog post focuses on multi-stakeholder dynamics and change. The topic is timely as, these days, it seems that nothing can be taken for granted or, as often said, change is the only continuity. Persuasive communication takes a new meaning in the era of social media, and this change is caused by fast multi-stakeholder interplay. Nowadays, communication seems to shake and reshape the world. This requires us to rethink what to investigate and teach.

The developments in the field are a picture of the time. However, it is hard to explain the current events in our lives and the role of communication in these events. What comes to mind, is much debated by scholars in social media. We did not all see Trump’s victory coming, and it can only be understood as a complex combination of factors. Multi-actor expectations and interactions are at the heart of it.

What once seemed usual, cannot always be expected. What we learn our students about press relations was not happening in the White House press briefings recently. We saw trust in the news media being actively eroded, and untruths presented as alternative facts. In social media, the phenomenon is actively discussed, also among scholars. Some even suggested that rhetorical crises are created to divert attention from unfavourable measures.

In the public arena, we see a battle of domination schemes versus problem solving schemes. As the domination-motivated actors may not adhere to the values and norms of others, the battle gets rough. Publics may be drawn in, based on false promises and misunderstood intentions. Public debate literacy is much needed. We can contribute to this form of literacy, by opening up multi-actor debate in our research and enhancing critical analysis skills in our teaching.

What once was, may not prove to be stable. Seemingly ‘strategic’ votes may have unexpected consequences, as any vote against something is, in fact, a vote for something else. Does voting mean giving a signal, or taking responsibility for consequences of the choice made? Of course, these consequences may be unclear and debated. Will, for example, Brexit bring money to voters, or is it likely to cost money and perhaps lead to a smaller United Kingdom? In a complex issue arena, multiple actors behave based on how they perceive their own different interests and their expectations of other actors. In our field, we often talk about co-creating the debate, but not many scholars analyse public interaction over time, which may help understand unexpected outcomes of multi-actor interplay.

Insights that filled our books, cannot always be expected behaviour in practice. This is also true on the level of companies. Recently, for example, there was disappointment about the take-over attempts on Unilever and Akzo Nobel that showed pressure in the direction of shareholder value, above other stakeholder interests and corporate social responsibility.

In a turbulent environment, communication can contribute to resilience, for example, on the level of community and organisational resilience, enhancing agile and anti-fragile organisations. This again needs insights in multi-actor communication in issue arenas. Inspirational works may be by, e.g. Coombs and Holladay (paracrisis), Frandsen and Johansen (rhetorical arena during crisis), Van Ruler (agile planning), Luoma-aho and Vos (issue arenas), and no doubt others.

Now that communication dynamics of multi-actor interaction online shape the world’s events, we need to ask ourselves: is our research and education up to that challenge?

This post was written for EUPRERA and first published in Highlights – new issues concerning research and/or education http://www.euprera.eu/