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/
