Governmental crisis communication after flight MH17 : shedding light on the ones in the dark : relatives’ evaluations of crisis communicative efforts during the crash of flight MH17

Governmental crisis communication after flight MH17

Shedding light on the ones in the dark; relatives’ evaluations of crisis

communicative efforts during the crash of flight MH17

Tim Zuidberg | 10651640 Master Thesis

Graduate School of Communication

Master’s programme Communication Science; Corporate communication (MSc) Thesis Supervisor: T. van der Meer

Abstract

During large-scale crises, governments face a lot of challenges as they are responsible for

handling the crisis and communicate with the relatives of the victims. Relatives are the most

important stakeholder group, not only argued from an ethical perspective, but also because

they are able to influence the public’s perception about the crisis communication through for

instance, media appearances. Despite relatives being the most important stakeholder group,

most research is focused on the image repair and reputation management of organizations and

not on how relatives evaluate crisis communicative efforts. By conducting interviews with

relatives of victims of flight MH17, this study gives insights in how relatives evaluate crisis

communication efforts after a large-scale crisis and shows that different elements of crisis

Introduction

The Black Saturday bushfires in Australia (2009), the firework disaster in Enschede (2000), the plane crash in Tripoli (2010) the Train accident at Santiago the Compostella (2013), and most recently, the crash of flight MH17 (2014) that departed from Schiphol Amsterdam, killing all of the 298

passengers. Despite that these crises differ in nature, they have in common that they were

unpredictable events that caused multiple casualties and harm to their relatives, and had significant impact on society and the government as an organization (Coombs, 2015). When a crisis is so extensive that it affects an entire society, governments are responsible for handling the crisis and communicating about it. These large-scale crises come with great challenges for the government, as they are concerned with the difficult task to communicate with relatives of the victims (Reddick, Chatfield & Brajawidadga, 2016).

When a crisis of such magnitude occurs, the first concern should be to protect victims from harm and deal with the ones duped by the crisis, and not focus on organizational reputation, as this is perceived as unethical (Coombs, 2015). It is undesirable and unethical to focus on organizational reputation as relatives face high levels of uncertainty during the first stages of a crisis; they seek information about what happened, how it happened and want to know whether their family members are still alive (Brashers, 2001; Black, 1985). Despite this, most crisis communication research is focused on the image repair and reputation management side of crisis communication and not on the evaluation of the crisis communication among relatives of victims (Coombs & Holladay, 2002; Olsson, 2014). One of the reasons why there is much focus on this side is because practitioners may tend to use strategies that favor the interests of the organization rather than those of the stakeholders affected by the crisis (Xu & Li, 2012). Therefore, most research is aimed at which response strategies are best suited when an organization wants to protect the reputation, and less focused on how crisis communicative efforts are evaluated among relatives. Next to that, relatives of victims of a crisis can be a very difficult population since they are hard to reach and therefore hard to study. As a result, there is limited knowledge on how relatives of victims evaluate crisis communication efforts (Olsson, 2014).

For handling future potential crises, it is of great importance to investigate how affected relatives evaluate crisis communication efforts from organizations, as they are the most important stakeholder group. This is not only the case when argued from an ethical point of view, but also, if the

communication with the relatives is done poorly, it is possible that they will express their feelings and opinions to other stakeholder groups, being media and the general public (Olsson, 2014). This was also the case when Valujet 592 crashed in 1996, where poor communication with the relatives led to intensified media attention (Fishman, 1999). This can threaten the organizational reputation to great extent, and makes future adoption of communicative efforts by governments even harder(Olsson, 2014). This is especially the case for governments as it is hard to gain a solid reputation because of the politics, consistency, charisma, uniqueness and excellence problem that governmental organizations face (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012).

As mentioned above, a crisis can have negative consequences for the organization, seen from a governmental perspective, but a crisis has the most negative impact for the relatives of the victims. They have lost family members and have to cope with the intense emotional consequences of the sudden loss (Johannesson, Stefanini, Lundin, & Anchisi, 2006). They are often in shock, experience anxiety attacks and are under high levels of stress (Black, 1985). As a government has the function to serve its inhabitants, crisis communication efforts should be aimed at serving the needs of the relatives as they experience the highest levels of uncertainties and are most likely to suffer psychological damage. When done properly, the pain of the relatives can be relieved to some extent, as they will feel supported by the organization (Reddick et al., 2016; Xu, 2018). Relatives may potentially have more confidence that the government is able to handle the crisis properly, when they are able to take away uncertainties (Liu, Bartz & Duke, 2016; Reddick et al., 2016; Kim, 2010).

There are several elements in crisis communication that can play a role in taking away uncertainties and reducing psychological damage (Black, 1985). This research is aimed at finding out how relatives evaluate these different elements of the crisis communication. Uncertainties should be taken away by contacting the relatives as soon as possible and provide them with rich and transparent information that answers their questions; this may also enhance the feeling that the government is doing everything

in its power to help and create a feeling of trust (Liu et al., 2014; Reynolds & Seeger, 2005; Black, 1985). Next to that, when the crisis progresses and the identification process of the victims start, the actual loss of family members becomes more reality. Some of the psychological consequences that may potentially come up in this stage can be reduced by showing empathy (Xu, 2018; Black, 1985). Therefore, this study will focus on how governmental crisis communication is evaluated by relatives, based on the pace of the information dissemination, transparency of the information, the information quality, the level of trust, the level of professionalism, and the level of empathy.

As argued above, crisis communication efforts by the government should be aimed at serving the needs of the relatives. However, there has been little research on how the communication efforts by organizations during crises are evaluated by relatives of the victims, as the main focus mostly lies on other stakeholder groups that influence the reputation of the organization (Hearit, 2006; Coombs, 2015). This study is aimed to fill this information gap and to find out how relatives as stakeholders interpret the governmental communication during a crisis; the research question is as follows,

How do relatives of victims evaluate governmental crisis communication during large-scale crises?

In order to answer the research question, relatives of the victims of crash of flight MH17 will be interviewed. Relatives of victims are the stakeholder-group that will be investigated as it is expected that they hold the most valuable information about the crisis communication process because they have experienced the crisis from a very close range. To find out how relatives evaluate governmental communication and find out underlying motivations for their evaluation, an interview-study is the most appropriate. Through this methodology, this research can provide interesting insights about what relatives value the most when it comes to crisis communication. Next to that, this study seeks to contribute to the public administration practice and can identify lessons learned from the MH17 crisis that can be implemented in future crisis preparation plans, as it is inevitable that a country faces a crisis in the future (Elzinga et al., 2010). Ultimately, this study can also point out the difficulties that an organization faces when dealing with a crisis situation, regarding communication with relatives of victims. This research does therefore not only add academic value, there is also societal relevance for performing this research.

Theoretical Framework

Defining a crisis

Every government has the possibility of facing a crisis situation. When defining crises, most research tends to focus on the organizational consequences the crisis may have (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998; Hearit, 2006; Burns & Bruner, 2000). And as Coombs (2015) states, crises have in common that they are unpredictable events that caused, or have the potential to cause, multiple casualties and harm to their relatives, as well as damaging organizational reputation. However, when a crisis is more aimed at the community level, it can be defined as a situation where core values or systems of a community are under threat, which enhances senses of urgency and creates considerable uncertainties regarding the nature of the event and the consequences (Olsson 2014; Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2005). When a crisis affects both the organizational operations and reputation, as well as having significant impact on a community and therefore creates uncertainties and threatens its core values, it can be defined as a large-scale crisis (Olsson, 2014). This study looks beyond organizational consequences a crisis has by focusing on the impact it has on the community, in this case the relatives.

Stakeholders

During a large-scale crisis, it can be hard for organizations to determine which stakeholder group is the most important and should get the most attention throughout the crisis (Seeger, 2003). It can also be challenging to find out which kind of communication should be prioritized and how it can be used. When a government is involved in a large-scale crisis, it has great responsibilities in terms of communication and management of the crisis, as it is their function to serve the public and therefore provide them with information (Olsson, 2014). Each stakeholder group has their own functional roles, long term influence and power to resolve the situation (Herrero & Pratt, 1996). Alpaslan, Green and Mitroff (2009) add that, stakeholders can be grouped based on power, legitimacy and urgency. However, when a crisis occurs, these stakeholder-groups can change in salience as some stakeholders become more important and require more attention. An example of stakeholders that become more salient in times of crisis, are victims and relatives of victims. During a crisis it is important that the

government attends to the needs of the victims, and performs an accommodative function (Alpaslan et al., 2009).

Relatives as stakeholders

Coombs (2015) argues that when there is no direct threat for the public, the communication should be aimed at taking away uncertainties and avoiding psychological consequences among stakeholders. A government should therefore determine which stakeholder group will most likely experience the highest level of uncertainties and chance of psychological damage. Thus, this is also the group that should get high priority when it comes to communication. As argued by Black (1985), victims and relatives can suffer severe psychological consequences and are therefore the most important group to take into account. Next to that, it can be argued that relatives of victims are the most important group because they have long term influence during the crisis as they can share their opinions on the crisis communication with other stakeholder groups, through for example, media appearances. Therefore, communication with the relatives of the victims should have the priority of a government during large-scale crises, making them the most important stakeholder group.

Interestingly, despite many scholars arguing that relatives of victims can be seen as the most important stakeholder group, many researches are still focused on the image repair and reputation restoring side of crisis communication. As relatives of the victims hold valuable information it is interesting to explore how they evaluate the crisis communication efforts by the Dutch government.

Role of communication

In general, crisis communication can perform multiple functions which serve different purposes and stakeholder groups (Coombs, 2015). Firstly, crisis communication can have an instructive function that is aimed at informing people that are affected by the crisis how to physically react to the crisis in order to avoid danger. Secondly crisis communication can have an adjusting function that is aimed at informing people in order to help them coping with uncertainties and psychological consequences of the crisis. Finally, crisis communication can have an internalizing function that is aimed at influencing people’s perception about the image of the government. Coombs (2015) argues that the first phase of a crisis, the communication should have an instructive and adjusting function, whereas most research

focuses on crisis response strategies that have an internalizing function. There is limited attention for the first act of the organization, that is, their communicative efforts with victims and relatives.

When a crisis does not result in immediate dangers that require certain action, communication does not have to focus on informing people what to do and therefore has no instructive function. In this case the communication during the first phase of the crisis should be aimed at having an adjusting function, and is therefore aimed at reducing uncertainties by people that are affected and avoid negative psychological consequences (Black, 1985). Nonetheless, many organizations still tend to put a lot of communication efforts on the internalizing function in order to protect their reputation during the first phase of the crisis (Holladay, 2009). However, an organizations reputation will not only be affected by deliberate actions to manage the reputation but will also be formed on stakeholder’s judgments on how well the instructive and adjusting communication efforts on behalf of the affected groups were

(Olsson, 2014). Consequently, it can be argued that, when there are no immediate threats for the public, crisis communication should focus on the adjusting function.

Evaluation of the crisis communication

As crises differ in nature and therefore have their own characteristics, they come with great challenges for the government (Coombs, 2005). Due to the sudden emergence of a crisis, complexity and

uncertainties are among the challenges the government faces (Seeger et al., 2003). According to Brashers (2001), uncertainties exist when certain details of situations are ambiguous, complex, and unpredictable, and therefore create a feeling of insecurity among relatives. Crisis communication during a large-scale crisis should be aimed at reducing these uncertainties among relatives, to minimize information gaps and to avoid negative psychological consequences. However, during aviation disasters, the nature of the crisis can be hard to determine and the information the government has itself is also very minimal (Reddick et al., 2016). They may therefore be unable to share

information with relatives and take away uncertainties; this creates even more uncertainties and can be described as hyper-uncertainty (Reddick et al., 2016). According to Reddick et al. (2016), during times of hyper-uncertainty, in which the government is not able to take away uncertainties, they should focus on process openness to relieve some of the crisis stress.

According to previous research, quick information dissemination and rich, transparent information can take away uncertainties among stakeholders (Reddick et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016; Coombs, 2015; Liang et al., 2014; Chen, 2012). Next to that, previous research suggests that the expressing empathy and professionalism are elements that are able to take away feelings of anger and anxiety during crises (Coombs, 2015). When discussing the crisis communication from the Dutch government during the crash of flight MH17, it is interesting to find out how these elements are evaluated by relatives. The section below will give a comprehensive overview of these elements. Each of these elements will be discussed in a separate research question.

Pace of the information dissemination

In order to reduce uncertainties, it is important that a government responds quickly and disseminates information as soon as possible (Chen, 2012). This does not only reduce uncertainties but it also shows stakeholders that the government is doing everything in its power to resolve the crisis, and gives relatives understanding about what happened by filling in information gaps (Chen, 2012; Liu et al., 2016). If governments fail to provide this information this can create distrust towards governments (Brajawidadga, Chatfield & Reddick, 2015). Next to that, if the government is not capable of providing information to the stakeholders, stakeholders will seek information through other sources such as social- and traditional media. This amplifies the distrust towards the government and contributes to the feeling that a government is incapable of solving the crisis (Brajawidadga et al., 2015). During a large-scale crisis, relatives most likely want the government to take away their uncertainties and provide them with answers. When speaking about the crisis communication after the crash of flight MH17, the pace of the information dissemination is therefore an important element to study as it is a central in crisis communication, the research question is as follows, RQ1: How did relatives of victims of crash flight MH17 evaluate the pace of the information dissemination?

Transparency and information quality

However, quick information dissemination is not the only factor that helps reducing uncertainties (Liang et al., 2014). Spreading transparent information is also a key factor that reduces uncertainty (Brajawidadga et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2014). In previous research on aviation disasters,

Brajawidadaga et al. (2015) found that, ‘’in the aftermath of the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, the lack of Malaysian government transparency has drawn heavy criticism. The government failed to meet the transparent information demanded by the families of passengers on board, since they were kept in dark on the progress and outcomes of the search and rescue operations of the lost aircraft’’. It is likely that the relatives of the crash of flight MH17 also demanded

transparent information about the faith of their relatives, the following research question is therefore formulated: RQ2: How did relatives of victims of crash flight MH17 evaluate the transparency of the information dissemination?

Other findings by Garnett and Kouzmin (2007) and Chen (2009) indicate that many governments fail to provide stakeholders with transparent information, and thus not capable of reducing uncertainties. Liang et al., (2014) add that transparent information includes both openness and information quality. They argue that information should not only be transparent, it should also be accurate, credible and therefore rich. Therefore, information quality is an important element in crisis communication, and the research question is as follows; RQ3: How did relatives of victims of crash flight MH17 evaluate the information quality?

Expression of empathy

A crisis does not only cause uncertainties amongst the public, it can also create feelings of anger and anxiety. As Coombs (2005) argues, expressing sympathy can help to reduce anger and anxiety. Seeger (2006) adds that empathy and compassion in crisis communication contribute towards credibility and legitimacy. His findings suggest that the audience will respond more positively towards spokespersons that show empathy and compassion for the people who suffer from the crisis. Next to that, showing empathy is also interrelated with perceived professionalism as people have more belief that the organization is doing everything in its power to handle the crisis when the communication is empathetic. How organizations communicate about the crisis gives people who suffer the

consequences the opportunity to make attributions to the character of the organization (Heath, 2006). If a government shows compassion, the public will assign positive attributions to the organization.

In general, there is consensus in the literature that showing empathy and compassion is important for an organization during crisis (Coombs, 2015). As mentioned above, a feeling of empathy can be created by expressing sympathy with the relatives of the victims, not only through communicating with empathy but also acting in an empathic way. Therefore, showing empathy is also interrelated with two-way communication as the government should act as if they understand the grief of the relatives through, for example, listening to their stories and give them individual attention. To investigate this, the following research questions are formulated:

RQ4: How did relatives of the crash of flight MH17 evaluate the level of empathy expressed by the Dutch government?

Professionalism and Trust

The most important indicator for building trust is the extent to which an organization shows it has control over the situation (Cvetkovich & Winter, 2002). Therefore it is important that an organization expresses authority and is up to date about recent developments during the crisis. Expressing authority during a crisis situation and showing that an organization is up to date about recent developments does not only contribute to the level of trust, it also contributes to the level of perceived professionalism. Trust is the organization is an important factor in the evaluation process of a crisis (Gesser-Edelsburg & Zemach, 2012). As a result, it is interesting to study how relatives will evaluate the level of trust in the government, and how relatives experienced the level of professionalism. The following research questions are therefore formulated:

RQ5: How did relatives of victims of the crash of flight MH17 evaluate the level of trust in the Dutch government?

RQ6: How did relatives of victims of the crash of flight MH17 evaluate the level of professionalism of the Dutch government?

Case study

The crash of flight MH17, which is one of the biggest crises that the Dutch government faced in the past century, is a good example of a large-scale crisis. Flight MH17 crashed in east-Ukraine, killing all 298 of which 196 had the Dutch nationality, in an area where pro-Russian separatists were fighting the Ukrainian army. The separatists proclaimed the area as an independent republic and because this republic is not accepted by the Dutch government, direct communication with them was not possible. Therefore, seeking information about what happened, and what was going to happen with the victims was very difficult and caused high levels of uncertainty. Next to that, the crash also caused rising geopolitical tensions with Russia, making it challenging to handle the crisis on a political level. As the report of the council for safety stated, the crash of flight MH17 caused anger and impotence in the Netherlands, with politicians and government officials being scared of rising social unrest. Therefore they felt it was important to provide stakeholder groups with information and to show that they were capable of handling the crisis (Situatieschets en duiding, ICCb, 2014). Because the crisis was of such a large scale, it gained a lot of attention and a lot of actors were involved. There are approximately thousand relatives that have lost a direct family member, and many more people that lost someone in their close proximity. To help relatives process the terrible loss and the traumatic experience, and to serve the interests of the relatives, Stichting Vliegramp MH17 was founded in October 2014. Stichting Vliegramp MH17 is also concerned with communicating with the governmental organizations that handle the crisis, and represent a large group of relatives.

Methods

Design

To get insights in the evaluations of the crisis communication among relatives, qualitative research is the most adequate method. The reason for this is because by conducting interviews, it was possible to find out underlying motivations and get in depth information about the crisis communication process. Next to that, it was also possible to get insights in emotions and create an open interview-setting where relatives were able to be honest about the crisis communication. The interviews were conducted on an individual level. That is because the crash of MH17 is a very sensitive and emotional subject. By

conducting individual interviews on a location that the relatives could choose, a safe atmosphere could be created that enhanced the feeling of sincerity and honesty.

The interviews were semi-structured, as this gave the opportunity to ask more questions about topics that relatives discussed and to get more in-depth information. Beforehand, an interview guide was constructed that encompassed the subjects ought to be present in the evaluations of the relatives. The first section of the interview was aimed at getting insights in how relatives got the information that their family members were on board and how the government distributed information to them. This mostly led to questions in which relatives were asked how they perceived this communication process and how they evaluate the elements related to the research questions, such as the pace of the

information dissemination, transparency and expressed empathy. Based on these insights, relatives were asked how the information distribution after these first moments was organized and how they evaluate these processes. Ultimately this led to questions in which relatives were asked how they feel that the government handled the crisis and what potentially could have been done in a different way. The interview guide can be found in the Appendix A.

Sample

This study is aimed at adding information to existing theories and to explore how relatives as stakeholders evaluate crisis communication efforts. Therefore, theoretical sampling was the most suitable method. The sample consists of relatives of victims of flight MH17, of which six male and five female. The age of relatives that participated in this study varied between 27 and 68 years. Except for one relative that lost his niece during the crash, all participants in this study lost one, or multiple, first or second line family member(s).

The interviews generated a lot of valuable information and took approximately 50 minutes each and were conducted in a period of six weeks. The longest interview took up to 90 minutes whereas the shortest interview took 38 minutes. After interviewing eleven relatives a saturation point was reach in which new interviews did not add new information.

Description of the process

During the first week of April, a list of potential relatives was drafted. These relatives were found by contacting the MH17 Foundation and by reading news articles that mentioned relatives´ names. After the first week a list with thirty names was drawn up and the relatives were contacted through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Relatives were briefly introduced with the research purpose and the personal connection the researcher has with MH17. On the 13th of April, the first relative responded and the interview was held the 17th of April in the house of the relative. Before the start of the interview the process was explained. Firstly, the personal connection the researcher has with the crash of flight MH17 was explained and the purpose the study serves, as it can be relevant for future crisis communication practices, and add value to the scientific field. Next to that, it was also motivated why relatives were the subjects of this study as it is expected that they hold the most valuable information. The aim of the research and the several topics that will be covered were also briefly mentioned, and that the results will be reported anonymously. The transcription was sent afterwards, so that the relatives could check whether the transcript was accurate. Relatives were also explained that they could stop the interview at any time given, when they did not feel comfortable or did not want to continue because of any other reason. After the interview the relatives were asked their opinion about the design of the interview and whether they were able to put the researcher in contact with other relatives. This process was repeated for every interview. The interviews took one hour on average. After the first interview, other relatives started responding to the request and two relatives were found through the network of earlier interviewed relatives. After the 8th interview, more

interviews did not lead to many new insights and different perspectives. Therefore, the data collection stopped after the 11th interview on the 22nd of May.

Whilst conducting the interviews and transcribing them, the first analysis were also made. To analyze the data, transcriptions were uploaded in Atlas.ti. The results were analyzed with a grounded theory approach, by coding the interviews line by line through open coding and comparing them with the other interviews. After the process of open coding a structure could be identified in which the crisis communication process was divided in three different periods, the first moments of the crisis, the

identification process and the juridical investigation. For each of these periods the evaluations were made based on the pace of the information dissemination, transparency, information quality, expressed empathy and level of professionalism. The structure and the evaluations will be discussed in the result section.

Trustworthiness and credibility

To make sure the research and the results are trustworthy and credible, several measures have been taken. Firstly, the credibility can be guaranteed through member checking, as the quotes used in the study were sent to the relatives to make sure they are not put out of context. To ensure the

trustworthiness of the study, memos were written during the interviews and time notes were made. Next to that, questions were open and non-suggestive to get the most trustworthy answers from the relatives. Most questions during the interviews were singular and did not ask multiple things, this ensured that relatives could clearly describe their evaluations. There was also a great focus on creating a feeling of empathy, so that the relatives felt that they could say everything they wanted. By doing this, the most optimal situation to get as much data as possible, was created.

Results

When discussing the evaluations of the crisis communication after the crash of flight MH17 it is important to stress that, based on the interviews, it became evident that relatives identified different moments and actors that were involved in the governmental crisis communication process. To structure the findings, the evaluations are categorized in three sections that represent successive moments in the crisis. Those are, the first weeks of the crisis, the identification process, and the juridical investigation. This structure is best suited to discuss the evaluations as it encompasses most of the experiences of the relatives and puts the evaluations in chronological order. It also shows how the crisis communication evolved during the crisis and how relatives formulated recommendations based on their experiences. Next to that, it gives a clear overview on how relatives experienced the crisis from the first moment until now, and which actor had the main focus of the evaluation per

moment. For each moment, the Dutch government installed different actors to be in charge and therefore different actors per time frame are evaluated.

Based on the evaluations, a structure could be identified in the evaluation of the crisis communication process. The model below shows the different moments and concepts involved and the results will be discussed following this structure.

Figure 1. Concept-indicator model

Evaluations of the crisis communication

1. First moments of the crisis.

When discussing this period, evaluations are based on the moment the crisis occurred and runs until the moment family members were assigned to the families.

2. Identification process When discussing this period, evaluations are based on the moment the family members were assigned and runs until the identification was completed.

3. Juridical investigation When discussing this period, evaluations are based on the moment the investigation team was formed and is still running to this day.

Before discussing the results, there are some things that should be noted. Firstly, it is impossible to make universal statements on how relatives evaluated the crisis communication. That is because each crisis-communicative interaction on an individual level came with its own challenges and each case of identification was unique. For example, some of the victims’ bodies were repatriated relatively quickly and were in one piece, whereas other victims were repatriated later with bodies being much harder to identify. Consequently, relatives in this study discussed personal experiences of the crisis

communication process and evaluations were sometimes highly depended on their specific case. The A. Pace of the information dissemination B. Expression of empathy C. Information quality & transparency D. Level of professionalism A. Pace of the information dissemination B. Expression of empathy C. Information quality & transparency D. Level of professionalism A. Pace of the information dissemination, information quality & transparency B. Expression of empathy C. Level of professionalism

results do give a clear overview of evaluations that are present among relatives and what relatives valued during the crisis communication process.

First moments of the crisis:

Pace of the information dissemination

As is the case in almost every large-scale crisis, the first moments after the event are accompanied by uncertainties. This was also the case during the first moments of the crash of flight MH17. Among relatives there were uncertainties about what happened, how it could have happened, and about who was on board. Relatives were seeking answers and were trying to contact the Dutch government to gain information. The Dutch government did put some effort in by issuing telephone numbers, but simply could not handle the requests. Relatives agree that it was almost impossible to get answers on their questions as the telephone numbers issued by the government were not working or overloaded, and when they finally get in touch with someone, that person was not capable or allowed to provide them with answers and could not give them any information. Most relatives therefore share the experience that the pace of the information dissemination was extremely bad during the first days after the crash and because they did not get information, this increased the level of uncertainty. They were constantly waiting for answers and this took too long, resulting in anger and frustrations, as the following quote shows: R1: ‘’It was scandalous. I had to give my personal information and after that they would call me back with more information, they did not call back.’’. Consequently, relatives felt that the government failed in providing them with information during this phase. Some relatives even argue they can not evaluate the pace of the information dissemination during the first phase, as they felt that there was no communication at all.

Expression of empathy

During the first phase of the crisis, relatives felt that the Dutch government showed great empathy and compassion for them. Relatives valued the sincere media appearances by Dutch politicians, the empathetic speeches in the European parliament and the efforts the government did to form an international investigation team. Next to that, relatives appreciated that the government organized

information meetings that were open for all relatives, which contributed to a feeling of compassion. In some cases, these empathetic acts took away some of the uncertainties, because it showed that the government was trying to resolve the situation and help the relatives. During the information meetings relatives were able to ask members of the government questions and have conversations with them. They state that this personal approach felt very comfortable, as it also gave them insights in how the members of the government experienced the crisis themselves. Witnessing the emotions of involved politicians enhanced the feeling of compassion among relatives. However, the atmosphere during the meetings was much tensed, especially during the first meeting. When relatives got the opportunity to ask questions to the Prime Minister and other politicians that were present, a small group of relatives used this opportunity to express their anger and emotions. This was perceived as very unpleasant by almost every relative in this study and because of this, they were not able to get the information and ask the questions they wanted to ask.

Information quality & transparency

Relatives evaluate the information quality and the level of transparency during the first moments of the crisis as being very poor. Firstly, they felt that the government was not transparent in

communicating the names of the passengers and felt that the government was holding back

information. According to the relatives, the government wanted to wait with confirming the names of the passengers until they had certainty about every passenger that boarded, this led to frustrations among relatives as they felt the government was not being transparent. Relatives state that when they contacted the government, they received little to no information and therefore felt that the information did not have much value. During the first information meeting that the Dutch government organized after the crash, relatives experienced the information they got as being very general and it did not answer their questions. Thus, the information they got did not take away uncertainties and was not rich. Secondly, relatives feel that the government was sometimes not completely honest and were drawing misguiding expectations. During the communication process, relatives state that the Dutch government drew certain expectations and some of these expectations did not match the actual truth, or later came out as incorrect, in some cases this caused a lot of anger and incomprehension of the

situation among relatives. This was for instance the case when the government communicated that they will ‘’get to the bottom of the matter’’, as this created certain expectations. Some relatives argue that it would be better if the government just said that they will do everything in their power to bring those responsible to justice, but that the situation is very complex and that it may take a lot of time, as this creates a more realistic expectation and saves the relatives from disappointments. As a result, most relatives evaluate the level of transparency as being very low during this phase. Some relatives also argue that if the government does not have new information, they should still communicate about the process and give updates on what they are doing. Relatives feel that the government was not putting emphasis on this during the first phase, and if they would have done that, it would have created a feeling of process openness and a feeling of trust.

Level of professionalism

Almost every relative feels that the persons who were responsible for the information dissemination on the telephone were unprofessional and not trained properly. Relatives state that they did not know what they had to do with all the incoming requests, they were not capable of documenting the

information that the relatives provided them, and they were not able to share any form of information. This can be derived from the following quote: R3: ‘’Yes, that did not make sense at all, even collecting my information. If she would have just wrote down my name, that would be something, but even that went wrong. Next to that, relatives stated that government officials were also not professional or trained when it comes to handling the emotions of the relatives, who were obviously in shock. This caused remarkable situations in which some relatives said they spoke with civil servants that were panicking or even crying. The organization of the process during the first days is also evaluated as highly unprofessional and unstructured, as relatives felt that there were too many actors not knowing what to do or how to handle the situation. Some relatives felt that the organization of the first information meeting was, however, very professional.

Identification process

Pace of the information dissemination

Many relatives said that the assignment of family detectives was a turning point in the crisis communication that resulted in structured and faster information dissemination. In the period that followed, relatives had contact with the family detectives about the identification process, but they could also reach out to them with general questions. In most cases, relatives feel that the family detectives were able to take away uncertainties because of the personal and transparent way of communicating, but also because they were able to respond fast and directly. On average, relatives were satisfied about how fast the information about the identification process reached them. Relatives underline that even if they had a question the family detectives were not able to answer immediately, they responded very quickly and tried everything in their power to provide them with answers, as the following quote explains: R4: ’’I can only say, they did a good job during this process. About the identification, constantly keeping us in the loop. Ask everything you want about the identification, if we can’t answer your question, we will look it up’’. Relatives positively evaluate that fact that during this phase they were updated about the process even when there was no new information.

Unfortunately, there are two victims who have never been identified, so stating that the information about the process was quick is in some cases paradoxical, as the communication with the family detectives could have been swift and direct, but relatives still had to wait long, or are still hoping and waiting, until they got or will get the news about the actual identification of their family. This shows the complexity of crisis communication, as it always needs to be personalized per relative. The evaluations of the crisis communication process might always be both good and bad at the same time.

Expression of empathy

Most relatives evaluated the communication and activities during the identification process as very compassionate and felt the family detectives were very concerned with them, as the following quote shows: R5; Yea, but the communication with the family detectives, who were obviously trained, was really empathic and humane’’. In general relatives had the most trust in the family detectives. This had

to do with the way they engaged and communicated with them, which was very personal. The assigning of family detectives to personally inform relatives and keep them up to date about the identification process, but also the fact that the relatives were able to create a personal bond with the family detectives, was evaluated as very a positive development in the crisis communication process. Relatives evaluate the repatriation ceremonies organized by the Dutch government as very empathetic and respectful because of the nationwide attention it got and because they were honoring the victims. Some relatives argue that this gave them much strength and it created the feeling that they were supported by the Dutch government.

Information quality & transparency

When evaluating the communication during the identification process, many relatives underscore that it was very transparent and that it was therefore very clear what they could expect. In most cases, relatives were able to ask everything to their family detectives and evaluated the family detectives as being open and honest in their responses. It is interesting to see that relatives feel that a transparent, open way of communicating leads to trust in the government. When ministers and family detectives showed this kind of transparency in their communication, it created a feeling of sincerity and this contributed to the feeling that the information they got was genuine and was therefore evaluated as trustworthy. Relatives also appreciate the fact that the Dutch cabinet was easy to approach and that they shared their professional personal opinions about the situation when talking with relatives.

Despite a number of relatives being content with the quality of the information during the

identification process, there are also a number of relatives that feel that the quality of the information they received during the identification process was not adequate. Some relatives encountered

situations where the information that they received from the family detectives was not the same as the information that was shared about the same subject with other involved parties. Among some relatives, this caused confusion about what story was actually the correct version. Relatives state that the

information about the identification process was always shared verbally with them, and not through an official written document. In some cases, relatives said this led to the fact that the same stories with slightly different details were shared with all the various parties. According to some relatives,

transparency in communication does not only consist of openness, but also honesty. Relatives appreciate when the government is open and honest, even if the message is that they can’t give information about certain topics, because it may be politically sensitive.

The repatriation and identification of the bodies and body parts was a very complex situation. This was not only because the location where the airplane crashed was hard to reach, but also because some bodies were heavily burned, partially found, or spread around the area. Therefore, the repatriation of bodies and bone fragments happened on several occasions. Some relatives were informed multiple times that body parts of their family members were identified and are, in some extreme cases, still waiting for identification. The information quality regarding this process is in some cases evaluated as poor. These evaluations are based on the fact that at a certain point, the government communicated that they would not expect any more body parts to be repatriated and because of this, some relatives made the decision to organize obsequies. However, this message was not right, because after this message some relatives were contacted multiple times that body parts of their family members were found. This put the relatives under emotional stress, and in some cases caused anger, because each time they received new body-parts, they had to decide what to do with them. Some relatives feel that these contradicting messages emerged because the different governmental actors that were involved in the identification and repatriation process did not gave each other all the information and therefore were not up to date about the situation, thus communicating messages that were not right. Before communicating, relatives feel the governmental actors should have consulted with each other about potential repatriations and identifications.

Level of professionalism

The communication during the identification process, and the level of professionalism of the family detectives was almost in every case evaluated as highly professional. Relatives agree that the family detectives were fully in service to help them and were also up to date about the situation, and when they did not know certain aspects they would immediately start looking for answers. Relatives appreciated that everyone involved in the identification process was willing to obliterate themselves and putting the victims on the first place. The repatriation ceremonies and the identification process

itself were also evaluated as very professional and most relatives are very grateful about the efforts made by all involved parties.

However, not all relatives feel that the family detectives were very professional in the way they communicated. Some relatives felt that they did not receive all the information they wanted and the family detectives were also not capable of sharing the information in a professional manner and only had top-level information, as the following quote shows, R1: Yes and with all respect for the family detectives, you know, this is not their discipline, to communicate this kind of messages. It is like, asking for information getting lost or distorted’’. Ultimately, there are mixed opinions about the level of professionalism of the family detectives, but most relatives evaluate the family detectives as professional.

Juridical investigation

Pace of the information dissemination, Information quality & transparency

When evaluating the communication during the juridical investigation, the pace of the information dissemination, the information quality and transparency are discussed together because most relatives evaluate these elements as being complementary in this phase. Relatives underline the fact that when a crisis is of such large-scale and of complex nature, the juridical investigation takes a lot of time and a thorough approach, and relatives positively evaluate the fact that the joint investigation team was honest and open since the start of the investigation, regarding the time the investigation will take. This increased their level of understanding for the situation and for the fact that the public prosecutor in the Netherlands or the joint investigation team can’t share much information as this may potentially harm the investigation. The communication about the juridical investigation is therefore not evaluated as fast and the quality of the information that is shared does not have the richness they would ideally like to see, but this not experienced as tedious. When evaluating the transparency of the communication around the juridical investigation, relatives mention they do get occasional updates from the investigation team about what they are doing and what they are analyzing and evaluate this way of communication as fairly well.

Because many relatives knew from the beginning that the investigation is going to take a lot of time and because the Joint Investigation Team communicated that they can’t afford to speculate, relatives don’t expect much information to be released, unless it is fully confirmed. Thus, relatives feel that the investigation team does not speculate and only communicates aspects that are certain and fully proven which makes their communication trustworthy.

Empathy

When discussing the level of empathy expressed during this phase, relatives feel that the public prosecution and members of the investigation team understand them and combined with openness in the communication, this creates a feeling of trust and compassion. Relatives notice that the

investigation team understands that it is important for the relatives to get regular updates and relatives appreciate efforts by the investigation team to provide them with information. An example is the reconstruction of the plane and the interim presentation of results. However, not all relatives agree on this point as they feel that if the public prosecution did fully understand them they would be more open about the fact that it is going to be hard to actually prosecute someone. Additionally, some relatives argue that the level of empathy decreased during this phase as they feel more emotionally connected to the investigation than the government, who tend to act more rational in the long run. They state that this can be dangerous as it can increases the gap between the government and the relatives and can therefore lead to a decrease in the level of trust the relatives have in the government. Next to that, when relatives have questions about things that don’t have to do with the juridical investigation, they have to reach out to regular civil servants who were not involved from the beginning. Some relatives argue that this creates a feeling of distance as the people who now do the work and communications around the crisis are not as emotionally bonded to the issue as the people who were involved in the crisis from the beginning.

Professionalism

Most relatives extensively discuss the level of professionalism of the Joint Investigation Team and the public prosecution. They feel that the Joint Investigation Team is operating very accurate, and knows what they are doing to make sure the juridical investigation is as complete as possible in order to

correctly end this type of crisis and bring the ones responsible to justice. When the juridical

investigation is finished, some relatives argue that the functional role of the government is over and that future efforts should be aimed at serving an accommodative function during ceremonies. Most relatives feel that the juridical investigation that is led by the Joint Investigation Team is very thorough and precise. This contributes to the fact that relatives feel that the Joint Investigation Team is very professional. This perceived level of professionalism also contributes to the level of trust relatives have in the Joint Investigation Team and the juridical investigation. Almost every relative in this study evaluates the Joint Investigation Team as professional and they have a lot of trust that they will present a solid case when the investigation is complete. Some relatives argue that the investigation team should incorporate more international knowledge and add more international investigators to the case as this will lead to an increase in the level of professionalism.

In addition to the sections above, it is crucial to remark that most relatives in this study state that the communication and the way the Dutch government handled the crisis in general was good, but that there were some points that could be improved or could have gone better. Most relatives also feel that the Dutch government is doing everything they can and most relatives also trust the government. Relatives acknowledge that crisis communication and crisis management during a large-scale crisis can never be hundred percent satisfying. Relatives’ understanding for the complexity makes the evaluations very valuable, as they are not based purely on emotions.

Recommendations

Based on the evaluations, several recommendations are made to improve future crisis communication and management.

Firstly, relatives emphasize that it is important that victims’ names should be communicated as fast as possible during large-scale crises, even if relatives may be quite certain that their family-members are among the victims, they still want an official confirmation. In the aftermath of the crash of flight MH17, the Dutch government waited with releasing the victims’ names until all victims were

confirmed. Many relatives argue that this is not the best option as it causes undesirable delay for a lot of relatives, which result in more uncertainties.

Secondly, relatives think that the Dutch government should invest in education of crisis

communication personnel; they feel that the lack of speedy information dissemination correlated with the unprofessionalism of the people that were supposed to give them information. They state that the people working on the crisis line were not instructed properly and did not know how to cope with all the information, emotions, requests, and phone calls they got, and because of that slowed down the process even more. Relatives state that each crisis differs in nature and has its own elements and they understand that a government can never be fully prepared. However, they do feel that if the first-line respondents are better trained and specialized government officials, the dissemination will be a lot quicker.

Thirdly, as mentioned, some relatives experienced a decrease in the level of understanding and empathy the Dutch government had for them when the crisis entered later stages. To prevent this from happening relatives feel it is important that the government tries to keep together a select group who works on the crisis that were involved from the beginning, as they understand the situation of the relatives and often have a personal connection with them.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was aimed at finding out how relatives as stakeholders evaluate crisis communication efforts by governments during large-scale crises. Several elements that ought to be present in the evaluation of crisis communication were studied. Since there is not much research on relatives as stakeholders, the elements were based on the extent to which they are able to take away uncertainties, and feelings of anger and anxiety. As a result, this study provides insights on how relatives evaluate pace of the information dissemination, transparency, information quality, expressions of empathy and level of professionalism during large-scale crises. The crisis

communication was evaluated differently for each phase, also because different actors were more prominent during different stages.

As Coombs (2015) argues, when there is no direct physical threat to stakeholders, communication efforts should be aimed at adjusting information during the first moments. The findings of this study support this argument as relatives state that information issued during the first phase of the crisis should be aimed at reducing uncertainties. Earlier research by Garnett and Kouzmin (2007) and Chen (2009) indicate that many governments fail to take away uncertainties among stakeholders; relatives also experienced this because there was a lack of fast and transparent information, which resulted in the government being incapable of taking away uncertainties during the first phase of the crisis. In contrast to this, relatives experienced a high level of empathy during this phase. As Coombs (2005) and Seeger (2006) argue, this can help in reducing anger and enhance a feeling of credibility. However, expressing empathy did not make up for the lack of slow and transparent information, indicating that rich, quick and transparent information can’t be compensated by expressing empathy. Therefore, during the first phase of a crisis organizations should focus on transparency, information quality and quick information dissemination.

When the crisis proceeded, the Dutch government installed family detectives to communicate with the relatives about the identification process and serve as a general point of contact. Most relatives agree that this took away uncertainties and increased the transparency of the communication, because they were able to create a personal bond and could directly contact the government, ultimately leading to a feeling of trust. Next to that, the personal approach of the government during this phase also created a feeling of empathy. This indicates that direct communication and personal attention are of great importance when communicating with relatives during large-scale crises. During this phase, relatives also valued the fact that the government gave updates about the process, even when they had no new information. This indicates that being transparent and open about the crisis is of great importance and because the government kept giving updates, relatives felt taken seriously, which also contributed to the perceived level of empathy. This supports earlier findings that organizations should focus on transparency and empathy in order to take away uncertainties and create a feeling of trust (Veil & Ojeda, 2010; Brajawidadga et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2014). It is important that organizations keep

showing empathy throughout the crisis, as relatives state that a lack of empathy can increase the gap between the government and the relatives and can therefore lead to a decrease in the level of trust.

Regarding the juridical investigation, most relatives evaluate the Dutch government as trustworthy and professional, mainly because they don’t speculate about potential outcomes and only communicate aspects that are fully confirmed. The level of professionalism of governmental actors seems to be a key element in how relatives evaluate the crisis communication. When the actor is evaluated as professional, the crisis communication is mostly evaluated positively, as is the case for the actors that handled the crisis communication during the identification process and the juridical investigation. During large-scale crisis it is therefore important that governments make sure the responsible actors are perceived as professional. Next to that, during this phase the government regularly shared updates about what they are doing, this transparent way of communication and process openness is evaluated positively by most relatives. This supports earlier findings by Reddick et al., (2016) and implies that when the organization is not able to provide much information, they should focus on transparency.

Based on these findings, it can be argued that the individual elements of crisis communication can only influence the evaluations to a certain extent and that some elements may be more important throughout the different phases. For instance, during the first phase, taking away uncertainties was perceived as being more important than expressing empathy. During later stages, expressing empathy was more important as it created a feeling of trust. This is interesting as it indicates that relatives’ needs differ and develop throughout the crisis.

Discussion

One of the limitations and biggest challenges of this study is making generalizable statements about how relatives evaluate crisis communication efforts by the Dutch government. However, each crisis has its own characteristics and challenges and is evaluated differently. It is therefore not the aim to make universal statements on how the crisis communication is evaluated in general, but to give suggestions on which elements are important in the evaluation that may also hold across different crises. As a result, this study gives insights in how relatives evaluate the crisis communication process,

what they valued and which elements they feel are most important. For further research it is interesting to see whether these elements are transferable to other crises. Next to that, this study can give

suggestions for further theory-building and quantitative, empirical research.

A second limitation of this study is arguably the sample, as some relatives that contributed in this study are found through news articles. In these news articles some relatives already gave interviews and formulated opinions about the Dutch government and the crisis communication process. However, there are also a lot of relatives in this study that were found through the personal connections of the researcher and have never made media appearances before. Therefore this study gives a balanced overview of evaluations that are present among relatives of the victims of flight MH17.

For further research it can be very interesting to interview government officials and family detectives that were involved in the crisis communication process. This can give insights in how they have experienced the crisis and the challenges that they had to deal with. Their evaluations can be compared to those of the relatives and discrepancies can be identified and investigated. The results can help organizations in dealing with future crisis and can give insights in struggles and challenges involved personnel may encounter. Next to that, it is interesting to quantitatively study perceptions of crisis communication among relatives as stakeholders, as this gives more generalizable results. Ultimately, it is interesting to study how different stakeholders experience the role of the media during crises, as this can reveal how media are used during large-scale crises in modern times.

In sum, organizations that encounter a large-scale crisis should aim to seek out to relatives

immediately, listen to them throughout the entire process, and provide them with the information they need to take away their uncertainties. When organizations are unable to give information, they should focus on transparency, in the sense that they give updates on what they are doing. Organizations should always put relatives in the spotlight, instead of leaving them in the dark.

Literature

Alpaslan, C. M., Green, S. E., & Mitroff, I. I. (2009). Corporate governance in the context of crises: Towards a stakeholder theory of crisis management. Journal of contingencies and crisis

management, 17(1), 38-49.

Boin, A., 't Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81-106.

Brajawidagda, U., Chatfield, A. T., & Reddick, C. G. (2015, May). The imperative of government transparency in crisis communication: the case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 51-60)..

Black Jr, J. W. (1987). The libidinal cocoon: A nurturing retreat for the families of plane crash victims. Psychiatric Services, 38(12), 1322-1326.

Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of communication, 51(3), 477-497

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation review, 10(3), 163-176.

Coombs, W. T. (2014). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage Publications.

Coombs, W. T. (2015). The value of communication during a crisis: Insights from strategic communication research. Business Horizons, 58(2), 141-148.

Chen, N. (2009). Institutionalizing public relations: A case study of Chinese government crisis communication on the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 187-198.

Chen, N. (2012). Beijing's Political Crisis Communication: an analysis of Chinese government communication in the 2009 Xinjiang riot. Journal of Contemporary China, 21(75), 461-479.

Cvetkovich, G. T., & Winter, P. L. (2002). Social trust and the management of threatened and endangered species: A study of communities of interest and communities of place. Res. Paper PSW-RP-247. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; 65 p., 247.

Fishman, D. A. (1999). ValuJet Flight 592: Crisis communication theory blended and extended. Communication Quarterly, 47(4), 345-375

Iyengar, S. (1996). Framing responsibility for political issues. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, (1), 59-70.

Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (2007). Communicating throughout Katrina: Competing and complementary conceptual lenses on crisis communication. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 171-188.

Gesser-Edelsburg, A., & Zemach, M. (2012). From a fiasco to the Supertanker grand finale: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s crisis communication during the Carmel disaster. Journal of Risk Research, 15(8), 967-989.

Holladay, S. J. (2009). Crisis communication strategies in the media coverage of chemical accidents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 208-217.

Johannesson, K. B., Stefanini, S., Lundin, T., & Anchisi, R. (2006). Impact of bereavement among relatives in Italy and Sweden after the Linate airplane disaster. International Journal of Disaster Medicine, 4(3), 110-117.

Jin, Y., Pang, A., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). Integrated crisis mapping: Toward a publics-based, emotion-driven conceptualization in crisis communication. Sphera Publica, (7).

Liu, B. F., Bartz, L., & Duke, N. (2016). Communicating crisis uncertainty: A review of the knowledge gaps. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 479-487.

Olsson, E. K. (2014). Crisis communication in public organisations: Dimensions of crisis communication revisited. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis management, 22(2), 113-125.

Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Brajawidagda, U. (2016). Open government process and government transparency in crisis communication: The case of AirAsia QZ8501 crash. Information Polity, 21(3), 255-271.

Reynolds, B., & W. Seeger, M. (2005). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication as an Integrative Model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43-55

Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and

organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 78-95.

Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244.

Xu, S. (2017). Crisis communication within a community: Bonding, coping, and making sense together. Public Relations Review.

Appendix A: Interview Guide

Introductie Introductie van het onderzoek:

- Uitleggen waarom het onderzoek gedaan wordt. - Vertellen hoe het interview verloopt en wat het doel is.

- Zorgen dat de geinterviewden zich op hun gemak voelen door eerst te laten vertellen over de situatie an sich, daarna focus op het communicatieproces. - Informed consent formulier.

Topic 1: Beschrijven van de communicatie. Doel: Inzicht verkrijgen in hoe de informatie bij de nabestaanden terecht kwam

Introductie: Ik ben benieuwd naar manieren waarop u

informatie heeft verkregen in de nasleep van de ramp, begin v/d ramp

Initiële vraag: Via welke kanalen verliep de

informatievoorziening in het algemeen?

Doorvragen:

- Welke kanalen gebruikte u het meeste om informatie te verkrijgen?

- Op welke manieren heeft u informatie ontvangen? - Welke vormen van communicatie werden gebruikt? - Wanneer begon er structuur in te komen

Topic 2: Evaluatie van de crisiscommunicatie Doel: Inzicht krijgen in hoe de betrokkenen de crisiscommunicatie evalueren.

Introductie: Ik ben voornamelijk benieuwd naar de

manier waarop de overheid met u communiceerde en zou daar graag wat vragen over willen stellen.

Initiële vraag: Kunt u vertellen hoe u de

communicatie vanuit de overheid ervaren heeft?

Doorvragen:

- Hoe verliep de informatievoorziening vanuit de overheid?

- Wat vond u van de snelheid van de communicatie? - Was de informatie die u ontving juist?

- Was de informatie ‘’rijk’’ genoeg?

- Was er de mogelijkheid om uw eigen vragen te stellen aan de overheid?

- Hoe verliep dit proces?

- Kunt u iets vertellen over de familierechercheurs? - Welke vorm van communicatie vond u het prettigst? - Hoe verliep de communicatie over de repatriering van de slachtoffers?

- Hoe verliep de communicatie over het identificatieproces?

- Vond u dat er iets miste in de communicatie, zo ja wat? Wat vond u goed aan de communicatie? Wat vond u minder goed aan de communicatie?

- Zou u achteraf aanbevelingen hebben hoe het anders zou kunnen?

- Had u het gevoel dat er naar u geluisterd werd? - Was er voldoende individuele aandacht?

- Denkt u dat de betrokkene overheidsprofessional uw verdriet begreep? Had u dit verwacht?

Topic 3: Beoordeling van het handelen

Doel: Inzicht krijgen in vertrouwen in de overheid.

Introductie: Ik ben geïnteresseerd in wat u van de

overheid vindt.

Initiële vraag: Hoe vindt u dat de overheid heeft

gehandeld, met betrekking tot het communicatieproces?