Dutch government use of Twitter in crisis communication. An exploratory research to the extent of which, and how the Dutch government used Twitter in crises in 2014

(1)

Dutch government use of Twitter in

crisis communication

An exploratory research to the extent of which, and how the Dutch

government used Twitter in crises in 2014.

Bastianne Renée van Dorp

S1598953

Supervisor: Dr. Ruth S. Prins

Second Reader: Dr. Elke Devroe

MSc thesis submitted in part fulfilment

of the Master Crisis and Security Management

Public Administration

Leiden University

11 August, 2016

(2)

ii

Abstract

This research studied to what extent, and how the Dutch government used Twitter as part of crisis communication in crises in 2014. This exploratory research was conducted via content analysis of Twitter messages disseminated by Dutch government actors. The findings show that the Dutch government uses Twitter as part of their crisis communication. While some functions of social media are relatively often used, others are relatively little or not used at all. Finally, the findings indicate that the Dutch government uses operational reputation-oriented communication as an overall strategy to communicate with the public in crises in 2014. Keywords: crisis communication, Twitter, social media, the Netherlands, public organisations.

(3)

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank a few people whom without, this thesis would not have been here. First, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Ruth Prins, for providing me with advice, feedback, and answers to all my questions. Writing this thesis was not the smoothest process, and the end result would not have been here without her. Second, I would like to thank dr. Elke Devroe for being my second reader.

I would also like to thank Veerle van Winden for taking the time to sit down with me to brainstorm on how I could gather the data, and writing a computer program to collect the data. Fourth, I would like to thank my family, my mom and sisters who read and reread my thesis to provide me with feedback. Finally, I would like to thank my friend Helene Hage, who I could always phone to talk about the thesis.

List of figures

Figure 1. The four dimensions of crisis communication by public organisations. P. 14 Figure 2. Schematic view of dimensions of crisis communication. P. 15

Figure 3. Traditional media versus social media. P. 19

Figure 4. Framework of social media use by Houston et al., 2015. P. 21 Figure 5. Schematic view of function of social media. P. 22

Figure 6. Scheme of theoretical framework for government actors. P. 29 Figure 7. Number of Twitter messages by crisis. P. 38

Figure 8. Overview of crises and Twitter accounts. P. 38

Figure 9. Percentage of messages disseminated by Dutch government actor for every function in comparison to the total amount of messages sent. P. 43

Figure 10. Percentage of messages disseminated by Dutch government actor for every function in comparison to the total amount of messages sent. P. 48

(4)

iv

1. Introduction

One of the changes the world is recently experiencing is the emergence of social media, which can be described as a revolution in communication in all areas of our lives (Taylor, Wells, Howell & Raphael, 2012). In early 2016, the world had approximately 2,31 billion active social

media users1 (We Are Social, 2016). In other words, more than one third (31%) of the world

population makes use of social media (We Are Social, 2016). With over half of the Dutch citizens being an active social media user (56%; 9,50 million), the Dutch exceed the average world number (We Are Social, 2016). In addition, the Netherlands had in 2015 approximately one million daily users on Twitter in the Netherlands (Jong & Duckers, 2016). Hence, social media has increasingly become a part of our everyday lives. Especially in situations where conditions quickly change, individuals increasingly turn to social media to find out what is happening (Liu, Austin & Jin, 2011; Wukich & Mergel, 2014). This creates challenges, but also bring opportunities to those who are responsible for dealing with a crisis: the government actors. For instance, on 3 June, 2014, the municipality of Moerdijk experienced explosions at Shell, followed by a fire (Van Duin & Wijkhuijs, 2015). Chemical substances that could possibly harm the public were released in the fire. Due to the large amount of smoke caused by the explosion, two safety regions were involved in managing this crisis. Crisis communication from government actors to the public occurred primarily via social media (Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid, 2015). This is surprising, considering the study of Helsloot and Groenendaal (2013) who argued that the use of social media by the Dutch government in crises is still in its infancy. Another example of the importance of social media within crisis communication took place in the Netherlands on the evening of January 29, 2015. A man with a fake gun entered the studio of the Dutch broadcasting station NOS, which resulted in disrupting the public news program (Jong & Duckers, 2016). The TV channel eventually cancelled the news to deal with the situation properly. This situation, where traditional media was ‘out of the air’, led people to discussing the event on Twitter in order to figure out what was happening.

Both events show that the public uses social media, and in particular Twitter, in situations where conditions quickly change. Especially during crises, the public seeks information and

(6)

increasingly turn to social media to search this (Westerman, Spence & Van der Heide, 2014). Those who are responsible for dealing with the crisis should play a role on social media to, for instance, spread information, monitor the public, and influence the perception of the crisis (Helsloot & Groenendaal, 2013; Olsson, 2014; Eriksson & Olsson, 2016).

1.1 Research question

The objective of this research is to explore to what extent the Dutch government makes use of social media as part of their crisis communication, and what the overall strategy is in communicating to the public in crisis situations. Effective crisis communication is paramount for decreasing the damage caused by a crisis (Houston et al., 2015). However, since social media has become a vital part of crisis communication (Eriksson & Olsson, 2016), it is crucial to know the ways in which social media can be used. Helsloot and Groenendaal (2013) argue that the use of social media by the Dutch government is in it’s infancy. Understanding to what extent the Dutch government makes use of the functions of social media will provide insights into which functions are used, and which functions could be used more extensively to use social media more effectively in crisis situations.

The main research question of this thesis is:

“To what extent and how did Dutch government actors use social media as part of their crisis communication strategy during all crises in the Netherlands in 2014?”

This research question was answered via a deductive analysis of social media messages disseminated by government actors. Two theories were used that provide insight into the functions of social media that government actors in crisis situations can use (Houston et al, 2015), and what kind of strategy public organisations can use in communicating with the public in crises (Olsson, 2014). Houston et al. (2015) provide a functional framework of fifteen functions of social media that can be used in crisis communication. Olsson (2014) discusses the ways in which governments can communicate with the public in crisis situations, and argues that there are four dimensions or strategies that governments can use.

(7)

A qualitative desk-top research was conducted by analysing pre-established content messages disseminated by Dutch government actors. The data was gathered on Twitter, and was collected via the program ‘Chorusanalytics’ into a database. The data was analysed by a coding scheme derived from the framework of Houston et al. (2015) in the program Atlas.ti.

This thesis studies all crises that occurred in the Netherlands in 2014 to get a complete overview of the overall strategy used by the Dutch government to communicate with the public. The crises were selected based on the definition of crisis by Boin et al. (2005). Three components that are prerequisites for an event to be called a crisis are ‘threat, uncertainty and urgency’ (Boin et al, 2005). The Dutch crises that occurred in 2014 are: the bird flu, MH17, explosions at Shell in Moerdijk and the multiple collision at A58.

1.2 Academic relevance

Since the late 1990s, media has changed the perception of crises, and with it, the expectations of the public regarding crisis response (Wendling, Radisch & Jacobzone, 2013). Moreover, social media is relatively new, and so is research on social media (Alexander, 2014). Most recent research is focusing on social media, and how this is used by the public (Jong & Duckers, 2016). However, there is limited knowledge on how organisations use various social media during a crisis (Eriksson & Olsson, 2016). Eriksson and Olsson (2016) call for more research on this subject. In addition, Hughes, Palen, Sutton, Liu and Vieweg (2008) concluded in their research that public organisations are still unsure about how to use social media as part of crisis communication. Empirical research on how social media, nowadays, is used by public organisations can contribute to a better understanding, and use of social media as part of effective crisis management. This research aims at contributing to this growing knowledge on how public organisations use social media, in particular Twitter.

A research conducted by Helsloot and Groenendaal (2013) focused on the extent of, and the way in which government actors were active on social media during crises. The scholars concluded that the use of Twitter by professionals of crisis communication in the Netherlands is still in the early stages (Helsloot & Groenendaal, 2013). Helsloot and Groenendaal (2013) argued that the main reason for this is that messages sent by government actors got “buried

(8)

under an avalanche of citizen tweets” (p. 182). Following Helsloot and Groenendaal (2013) – that the Netherlands is still in the early stages of using social media as part of crisis communication – it will, therefore, be beneficial to analyse to what extent the Dutch government uses Twitter in order to get a better understanding of the current situation, and to examine how the Dutch government can use Twitter more effectively in crisis communication. This research will try to contribute to fill this gap.

1.3 Societal relevance

Crises have a direct influence on the lives of citizens and the wellbeing of society (Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2005). The public wants to know what is happening and what actions are taken by those responsible for dealing with the crisis. Public organisations, overall, have to deal with large-scale societal crises that need to be managed (Olsson, 2014). The relationship between government actors and the public comes to the forefront in crisis situations. When those who are responsible for the crisis are successful in dealing with it, there will be less damage than when government actors fail to address the crisis adequately (Boin et al., 2005). Hence, effective crisis management is crucial. Crisis communication plays an important role in effectively managing a crisis (Houston et al., 2015). The majority of communication professionals believe that the digital evolution – and with that, social media - is today’s most important strategic communication issue and will be for the next few years (Eriksson & Olsson, 2016). In this new age, where social media plays an important role, governments have to adjust the way they communicate with the public in crisis situations. (Sobaci, 2015). Governments are the main source of information for citizens when a crisis happens (Graham, Avery & Park, 2015). Since individuals increasingly turn to social media in crisis situations (Liu et al., 2011; Wukich & Mergel, 2014), it is important that governments successfully use social media. Therefore, research must be conducted on the extent of which government actors use social media to communicate with the public. Knowledge on this subject, and how government actors can improve the use of social media, can be beneficial for professionals who use social media in crisis communication. This thesis hopes to contribute to the growing knowledge of the use of social media by government actors and the ways it communicates with the public.

(9)

1.4 Structure of the thesis

The first chapter will discuss the existing literature on the concepts of crises, crisis management, crisis communication and social media. The two main theories – by Houston et al. (2015), and Olsson (2014) - will be addressed, after which the conceptual framework used in this research will be discussed. The second chapter will outline the research design of this thesis. It will address the research strategy, how the data is collected and how it is analysed. In addition, the quality of the research by discussing validity and reliability will be addressed. The third chapter ‘Analysis’ will discuss the findings of the research. It will go into detail on the extent to which the Dutch government uses the functions of social media as provided by Houston et al. (2015), and discuss the overall strategy used by the Dutch government in communicating with the public in crises as provided by Olsson (2014). In the last chapter, ‘Conclusion’, the research question will be answered, and reflecting on the research will be discussed.

(10)

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter will address current knowledge and theories about the role of social media in crisis communication. The frameworks central in this research are designed by Houston et al. (2015), and Olsson (2014). Houston et al. (2015) argue that social media has different functions that need to come to the forefront in various stages of a crisis (Houston et al., 2015). Olsson (2014) has identified four dimensions or strategies of crisis communication from the perspective of public organisations. In other words, public organisations can communicate with the public in crisis situations in different ways. For instance, public organisations can focus on repairing the reputation, or put emphasis on making the public more resilient in crises. What overall strategy a public organisation uses tells us something about the priorities, processes, and practices that the public organisations holds (Olsson, 2014). In addition, it tells us something about how it wants to communicate with the public and how they want the public to deal with the crisis. In order to understand how the Dutch government uses social media as part of their crisis communication, some concepts need to be addressed first. How crises are perceived in society in the past and nowadays, and what the definition of a crisis is, need to be discussed in order to have a clear overview of what crises are, and how they are part of society. Second, academic knowledge on how crises should be managed by government actors needs to be addressed. Within the crisis management of government actors, crisis communication - and more specific that of social media - needs to be discussed to understand their role in crisis management. The current body of knowledge within the literature on crisis communication provided by Houston et al. (2015), and Olsson (2014) are combined in order to analyse the extent of which, and how the Dutch government uses social media as part of their crisis communication.

2.1 Crisis

Every society has to deal with events that are unwanted, unplanned, and that pose a threat to ‘normal’, everyday life (Rosenthal, Boin & Comfort, 2001). When such an event occurs, for instance an earthquake, a flood, or a terrorist attack, it poses a threat to society. The threat needs to be addressed and dealt with by everyone involved in order to minimize the damage of this threat (Houston et al., 2015).

(11)

How crises are perceived by society has changed over time. In the past, crises were perceived as ‘external features of everyday life’ that every now, and then occurred (Rosenthal et al., 2001). It was seen as an act of God that was “unwanted, unnecessary, and almost unmanageable” (Rosenthal et al., 2001: 5). A crisis brought destruction, and death with it, and was therefore perceived as a threat to the nation-state, creating widespread uncertainty within society (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Crises were perceived as events that were out there, were inevitable and were demarcated by space and time (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Thus, they were perceived as something that occasionally occurred. However, it is inevitable that societies change. The world today can be characterized by globalisation, and new technological advancements that changed the way we live and want to live (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Crises are no longer perceived as threatening events that are external features of life (Rosenthal et al., 2001). Hence, crises are no longer distinct events that are demarcated by time and space, but rather are an unfolding process where many forces interact in an unexpected manner (Rosenthal et al, 2001). They are characterized by “complexity, interdependence and politicization” (Rosenthal et al., 2001: 6). Modern crises are unique; they differ from crises that have occurred in the past, and from crises that will take place in the future.

Due to the large amount of different types of crises, there is no clear universal consensus on what the definition of a crisis is. While some scholars argue that a broad definition of crises is necessary, others prefer a narrow definition. Coombs (2007) defines a crisis as “the perception of an unpredictable event that threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organisation’s performance and generate negative outcomes” (p. 2-3). The public organisation definition of crises states that a crisis should be viewed as an event where core values and/or life-sustaining systems of the community are under threat (Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2005). Thus, the focus of crises by public scholars is on the effects that a crisis has on society, and its community. A crisis can be seen as a phase of disorder in between phases of stability. Boin et al. (2005) discuss crises from the perspective of those who govern, who see them as a subjective nature, and a threat to society. A crisis is an anomaly/disorder from the ‘normal’, everyday situation. An event becomes a crisis when government actors experience “a serious threat to the basic structures of the fundamental values and norms of a system, which under time pressure and highly uncertain circumstances necessitates making vital decisions” (Boin et al., 2005: 2). There are three key components necessary for an event to be defined as a crisis in public organisations: threat, uncertainty and urgency (Boin et al.,

(12)

2005). The first key component is that the event poses a serious ‘threat’ (Boin et al., 2005). When, during an event, the life-sustaining systems and values of a society are threatened, the event can be seen as a crisis (Boin et al., 2005). For instance, during an earthquake, houses and lives are not safe, and secure. The earthquake is in this case a threat to the public, and society. There does not necessarily have to be any damage, instead it is about the threat that it poses on the current situation; the possibility of damage needs to exist. The second key component is ‘uncertainty’ (Boin et al., 2005). A threat to the normal, everyday situation, is accompanied by uncertainty. A crisis brings high levels of uncertainty to the fore about what is occurring, and how the event could have happened. Making sense of the situation is an important part of a crisis, and thus, an important part of crisis management (which will be discussed below) (Boin et al, 2005). However, there is also uncertainty about the consequences of the event which plays an important role in the solution-process; what is the best way to deal with this event? The third key component is ‘urgency’ (Boin et al., 2005). Boin et al. (2005) describe urgency as ‘time compression’, which entails that there is a threat that, on the operational level, needs to be addressed immediately. Decisions need to be made in a short period of time, mostly with little information on the occurring event(s).

According to Boin et al. (2005), these three key components are essential for an event to be defined as a crisis. This broader definition of crises will be used in this thesis because this definition is the most authoritative in the field of crisis management when it comes to defining public crises.

2.2 Crisis management by government

When a crisis occurs, order needs to be restored. In crises situations, the spotlight is on those who govern society (Boin ‘t Hart, Stern and Sundelius, 2005). Nowadays, citizens look at their government, and expect them to deal with the crisis (Boin et al., 2005). Crisis management has a direct influence on the lives of citizens, and the wellbeing of society (Boin et al., 2005). When leaders are successful in addressing a crisis, there will be less damage than when they fail to address it adequately (Boin et al., 2005). However, managing a crisis is not an easy task. Generally, it is a big and complex operation in which many actors are involved (Boin et al., 2005). Even though government actors can carefully prepare, and plan a crisis response

(13)

strategy, when a crisis occurs, improvisation is unavoidable because every crisis is unique, causes chaos and has unclear boundaries (Hillyard, 2000; Boin & Bynander, 2015). For the response of a crisis, capacities to deal with “nonlinear, chaotic, multi-dimensional realities through intense collaboration and coordination with reasonable potential to draw on all available resources” are necessary to respond effectively (Hillyard, 2000: 6).

A crisis creates two time periods: the time before the event occurs, and the time after the event (Houston, 2012). This ‘phased approach’ of crisis allows to conceptualize what could be done to prevent the crisis, to respond to the crisis, and to rebuild and repair what has been damaged by the crisis (Houston, 2012). Thus, each crisis has different phases in which each phase asks for a different way of crisis management where different issues, challenges, and actions need to be addressed (Houston, 2012). Preparing for a crisis can be done effectively by informing the public what to do in certain circumstances, and by increasing individual, and community resilience (Houston, 2012). In addition, establishing relationships with the community before a crisis occurs creates trust and credibility (Houston, 2012). When a crisis occurs, one of the first tasks for those who have to address the crisis is to make sense of what is happening (Boin et al., 2005). Leaders are expected to respond effectively, protect citizens, reduce uncertainty, and minimize damage in crisis situations (Boin & Renaud, 2013). In addition, there are expected to be transparent. Transparency relates to providing the public with information on what is occurring, how the response to the crisis will take place and what can be expected (Houston, 2012). The recovery phase is focused on going back to ‘normalcy’ and is achieved by government actors via resolving and rebuilding the damage done by the crisis (Houston, 2012). Furthermore, this phase focuses on supporting the public with the trauma narrative, re-establishing and developing relationships with the community, and providing services, and programs (Houston, 2012). Therefore, while government actors have to deal with the immediate damages caused by the crisis, it also has to communicate with the public regarding what is happening, and how the crisis is dealt with. Crisis management asks for all sorts of tools that will help restore order to normalcy. One of these tools is crisis communication towards the public, and more specifically, the use of social media to address the public (Houston et al., 2015). This will be discussed in the next paragraph.

(14)

2.3 Crisis communication

Crisis communication of public organisations is primarily concerned with the publics needs, improve citizens’ resilience, and sense making (Olsson, 2014). It can be defined as “the collection, processing, and dissemination of information required to address a crisis situation” (Coombs, 2010: 17, 20). Crisis communication is about managing, and framing the perceptions of the public on the crisis (Palttala, Boano, Lund & Vos, 2012), reducing public, and political uncertainty caused by the crisis (Boin et al., 2005), and is not merely about facts on what is happening, but is additionally, about values, and emotions (Wendling, Radisch & Jacobzone, 2013). There are several approaches of crisis communication that government actors can use (Olsson, 2014).

2.3.1 Approaches of crisis communication by government

Olsson (2014) defines four dimensions of communication that focuses on how governments can communicate with the public in crises:

Figure 1. The four dimensions of crisis communication by public organisations.

1. Operational resilience-oriented communication 2. Operational reputation-oriented communication 3. Strategic resilience-oriented communication 4. Strategic reputation-oriented communication Source: Olsson, 2014: 116.

These four dimensions are divided into two scales: strategic versus operational communication, and resilience-oriented versus reputation-oriented communication. Strategic communication refers to communication that has carefully been planned and considered, and is aimed at achieving long-term goals (Olsson, 2014). On the other end of that scale is operational communication, which is aimed at providing the public with practical information on how to cope, and providing them with information to ensure that informed decisions can be made regarding critical matters (Olsson, 2014). The second scale focuses on reputational-oriented communication, which is sender-oriented to manage the reputational aspect of the organisation or crisis area (Olsson, 2014). Communication focusing on resilience is aimed at the receiver to

(15)

15 make them self-sufficient, and able to ‘bounce back’ after crises (Olsson, 2014). Based on these two scales, Olsson (2014) distinguishes four dimensions of crisis communication. Figure 2 shows a schematic view of the dimensions.

Figure 2. Schematic view of dimensions of crisis communication.

Source: Olsson, 2014: 117.

The first dimension, operational resilience-oriented communication (1) entails information that is focusing on the operational perspective, to increase the self-sufficiency of citizens, to affirm a collective identity, and to provide emotional support to those who are suffering (Olsson, 2014). Not only are government actors responsible for the safety of citizens, but citizens themselves share this responsibility by following advice given to them by government actors. The second dimension is, operational reputation-oriented communication (2). This dimension focuses on the reputation of the organisation, and the planning of when and what to communicate to the public. When crisis communicators provide the public with operational information, they can use this as an opportunity to show “presence, competence and compassion”, which will benefit the reputation (Olsson, 2014: 119). The third dimension is

strategic reputation-oriented communication (3), which Olsson (2014) addresses as ‘the

classical crisis communication’. This dimension entails repairing the reputation that is damaged by the crisis, which is planned, and serves long-term goals. Repairing the reputation is, for instance, achieved via marketing campaigns that a certain area is safe. Finally, the fourth dimension is strategic resilience-oriented communication (4) and is focused on increasing

The second dimension relates to two aims of

com-munication: maintaining reputation and instilling

resil-ience. The first aim is reputation-oriented and

organisation-centred, with the purpose of explaining

and promoting an organisation’s own framing and

pref-erences, and in doing so strengthen its credibility and

legitimacy. Organisational reputation can roughly be

divided into two aspects. The first aspect relates to

stakeholders’ perception of an organisation in terms of

its ability to produce goods and services, and is

con-cerned with perceived quality.The second aspect relates

to an organisation’s prominence in the minds of the

stakeholders, and is connected to aspects concerned

with collective awareness and recognition (Rindova,

Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005). In the crisis

com-munication literature, there has been a tendency to

separate the two dimensions of reputation: stakeholder

perception and information quality. For example,

Coombs and Holladay (2002) argue that ‘providing

instructing information, that is, what publics need to

know and do to protect themselves from the crisis, is

necessary before addressing reputational concerns’

(p. 167). The crisis communication literature has

fore-most focused on maintaining and repairing

organisa-tional image among stakeholders rather than with

aspects related to informational quality.Yet, this divide is

somewhat artificial as an organisation’s reputation will

not only be affected by its deliberate efforts to repair its

image in connection with a crisis, but will also be

formed by stakeholders’ judgments of its actions and by

the quality of its instructive communication.

The second aim is resilience-oriented and focuses on

providing information that is critical for communities

and individuals to survive and revive in the event of a

crisis. A short caveat on the concept of resilience is in

order here. There is a vast amount of literature on

resilience and, consequently, numerous definitions. On a

general level, the concept of resilience captures

commu-nities’ capacity to ‘bounce back’ after crises, that is, the

ability to adapt and change to new situations, and in

doing so creating long-term stability (Gunderson, 2000;

Hanson & Roberts, 2005; Longstaff & Yang, 2008; Smith

& Fischbacher, 2009; Wildavsky, 1988). According to

Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, and Pfefferbaum

(2008), resilience is most often understood as a capacity

for adaption when faced with adversity. Moreover,

resil-ience should be understood as a process of adaptability

rather than as an outcome. Resilience can be defined as

‘a process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive

trajectory of functioning and adaption after a

distur-bance’ (p. 130). Moreover, community resilience is

closely related to trust as it is an essential component in

creating effective crisis management collaboration,

network building and public engagement (Dekker, Jonse,

Bergstrom, & Dahlstrom, 2008; Hutton, 2012; Murphy,

2007; Peterson & Besserman, 2010). In this paper,

resil-ience is used in order to describe communication that

aimed to support people and communities in the crisis

management process (e.g., by facilitating coordination,

information sharing and collective sense making) as well

as in the rebuilding and recovery process (e.g., via the

affirmation of collective identities, shared norms, and

positive emotions, and the crafting of normalcy and

future orientations) (Buzzanell, 2010; Chamlee-Wright

& Storr, 2011; Ulmer, Seeger, & Sellnow, 2006).

Together, the two dimensions create four ideal types

of crisis communication, which will be illustrated below

with empirical examples of communication

manage-ment during the Queensland flood (Figure 2).

4.1. Operational resilience-oriented

communication

The ‘operational resilience-oriented’ category is used to

denote information that is provided with an operational

perspective and aimed at increasing self-sufficiency,

affirming collective identity and providing emotional

support. In the case of Australia, resilience is stated as

the main goal in emergency management operations

with a strong focus on shared responsibility. According

to the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG,

2011), the notion of ‘shared responsibility’ means that

state agencies and municipal councils, as well as

com-munities and individuals, have to take greater

responsi-bility for their own safety including independently acting

on advice and various informational cues.

During the floods, the dissemination of adequate

operational information was a key concern for actors at

all levels, from central to local, engaged in the acute

flood response. The lead agency for the response was

the QPS (Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry

Final Report, 2012). The police received exceptional

attention and praise for its extensive use of social media

during the flooding. According to the QPS, the heavily

reliance on social media was not pre-planned but grew

with the realisation that traditional informational

prac-tices, such as press releases, were to slow to capture

the rapidly changing conditions. By publishing their own

Operational reputation-oriented Operational resilience-oriented Strategic reputation-oriented Strategic resilience-oriented Operational Strategic Reputation-oriented Resilience-oriented

Figure 2. The figure illustrates four ideal types of crisis

communi-cation based on the dimensions operational vs. strategic and

reputation- vs. resilience-oriented communication.

(16)

citizens’ resilience in crises via planned stories, and programs (Olsson, 2014). For instance, by informing the public in advance on how to prepare for certain events.

2.4 Social media & crisis communication

Nowadays, social media is shaping crisis communication (Graham, Avery & Park, 2015). It is, as part of crisis communication, a relatively new field of research with many knowledge-gaps. Social media has changed the perception of crises, and with it, the expectations of the public regarding crisis response (Wendling et al., 2013). Social media can be defined as “digital platforms that enable users to distribute and discuss information, often within the structure of a user-articulated social network” (Starbird et al., 2012: 44). Thus, social media consists of a broad range of platforms, of which each has different characteristics. Overall, social media can be characterised by interactive communication, which allows message content to be shared and exchanged between individuals and organisations (Alexander, 2014).

Social media enables organisations to communicate information regarding a crisis due to the elimination of many of the barriers that organisations have experienced before social media existed (Graham, Avery & Park, 2014). Due to the openness of social media, information can be disseminated more quickly, more frequent and certain groups of citizens can be targeted on social media (Graham et al., 2014). It is these characteristics that create benefits for government actors to communicate with citizens during crises. For government actors to use social media effectively as a communication channel during crises, it is important to know why social media is used by the public, who the users of social media are, and the different types of social media.

2.4.1 Users and types of social media

When a crisis occurs, the use of social media among the public increases (Liu et al., 2011). This creates an opportunity for government actors to use this to communicate with the public (Wukich & Mergel, 2014). The social-mediated crisis communication model (SMCC) argues that social media during crises is used by the public for three reasons: issue relevance, seeking and sharing information, and for emotional venting or support (Jin & Liu, 2010; Liu, et al., 2011). Government actors should incorporate this into their crisis communication strategy regarding social media to effectively communicate with the public. In addition, three types of publics that use social media can be distinguished (Liu et al., 2011). The first type is ‘influential

(17)

social media creators’ (1), and are those individuals who use social media to produce crisis

information for others to consume (Liu et al., 2011). The second type is the ‘social media

followers’ (2) who consume the information provided by the first type of users (Liu et al., 2011).

The third type of social media users is the ‘social media inactives’ (3). This group receives the information from the influential social media creators offline, via word-of-mouth or via traditional media, such as news papers (Liu et al., 2011). Thus, when a crisis occurs, the organisation who is involved in the crisis can use social media to reach different types of social media users.

Five types of social media used in crisis management can be identified (Wendling et al., 2013) The first type is ‘social network’ (1), for example Facebook, and can be used for crisis communication in that it allows information to be shared, swift updating of situations and enhance coordination (Wendling et al., 2013). The second type is ‘content sharing’ (2), for instance via YouTube, and can be used to enhance situational awareness by sharing pictures and videos which provide emergency services with real time information regarding the crisis (Wendling et al., 2013). The third type of social media use is ‘collaborating knowledge sharing’ (3), for instance message boards or forums, and enhances dialogues between emergency services and victims of the crisis. The fourth type is ‘blogging’ (4) via, for instance, Twitter which allows information to be spread rapidly and where feedback can be provided (Wendling et al., 2013). Twitter is a microblogging system that allows its users to create short messages with a maximum of 140 characters (Denef, Bayerl & Kaptein, 2013). These messages are called tweets and can be linked to a certain subject via de use of a ‘hashtag’. Members can follow each other in order to view each others messages on their own page. Via Twitter, facts can be checked and shared, values and emotions regarding the crisis can be shared, and warnings and recommendations can be given (Denef et al., 2013). Finally, the fifth type of social media use in crisis communication is ‘Volunteer Technology Communities’ (VTCs) (5) (Wendling et al., 2013). This type consists of mapping collaboration, online and onsite contribution, and public-private-people partnership (Wendling et al., 2013).

Social media can be beneficial in a crisis when communicating to the public. The benefits of using social media as part of the crisis communication strategy are “efficiency, convenience, accountability, transparency, citizen involvement, and improved trust and democracy” (Graham et al., 2014: 387). In addition, government actors can not only disseminate messages but also seek input, and opinions from citizens in real-time (Graham et al., 2014). Real-time information

(18)

is especially important due to the fact that crises need to be dealt with as quickly as possible (Graham et al., 2014). However, there is also a negative side to social media: rumours, misleading, and false information (Alexander, 2014). This can have a negative impact on the public perception of the crisis (Alexander, 2014). Government actors should be aware of these negative side of social media, and address the rumours, misleading of information, and false information as quickly as possible.

2.4.2 Social media versus traditional media

Social media has great advantages for government actors to use during crises compared to traditional media. Traditional media, for example newspapers, television and radio, provide information unidirectional: from the server to the citizen (Keim & Noji, 2011). In traditional media, government actors, and corporations are the sources and producers of news. The public depends on what information is disseminated via these traditional media (Keim & Noji, 2011). However, the technological developments regarding the internet, and mobile phones have changed the landscape of communication during crises fundamentally (Boin et al., 2005). Nowadays, news coverage occurs 24/7, and the media market and organisations have to deal with more competition (Boin et al., 2005). This competition is social media, that allows interaction and dialogue between the server – in this case the government actor- and the citizen. The public is not only a consumer of news, but can - now - also produce news (Keim & Noji, 2011). Thus, social media allows for two-way communication. Keim and Noji (2011) defined this as a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, where “participants who make some of their resources directly available to other network participants without the need for central coordination” (p. 3). Social media allows everyone to send information into the world about an event. This is beneficial in crisis situations because much more information is available now ‘eyes are everywhere’ and there is a place to share this information: social media.

(19)

Figure 3. Traditional media versus social media.

Another difference of social media, compared to traditional media, is that information can be disseminated rapidly (Keim & Noji, 2011). Services responsible for responding to a crisis can use this real-time information provided by the public to react accordingly, and in a timelier fashion than before (Wendling et al., 2013). Moreover, social media can also be used as a tool to communicate towards the population (Wendling et al., 2013). Government actors can spread warnings and practical information on how to handle in a faster way than before. Thus, social media entails “dynamic content, scalability, even openness, freedom, and collective intelligence” (Keim & Noji, 2011:5). Hence, social media creates more ways for government actors to reach, and to communicate with the public (Keim & Noji, 2011).

2.4.3 Social media by government actors

Graham, Avery and Park (2014) argue that governments do not use social media in crises as much as they should. Due to social media, there are two changes in the field of crisis management: speed and loss of control (Husain et al., 2014). Not only does social media facilitate the spreading of information to occur rapidly, it also creates a loss of control in the sense that government actors cannot influence what citizens say on social media (Husain et al., 2014). Hence, the emergence of social media does not only bring advantages, but also brings challenges with it. The challenges that governments face are redefining government boundaries,

(20)

incorporating participation into governing, need for new policy structures, processes, frameworks and structures, and risks of polarization (Bertot, Jaeger, Munson & Glaisyer, 2010). Thus, in this new age where social media plays an important role, governments have to adjust the way they communicate with the public in order for them to be up to date (Sobaci, 2015). As Sobaci (2015) argues,

“Social media provide public institutions with new channels for rapidly spreading information, transparency in public administration, self-promotion to improve their image in the public eye, methods for designing and delivering public services with citizens” (p. 4).

Thus, governments should play an active role on social media when a crisis occurs. Moreover, for crisis management to be effective, government actors should use social media before a crisis occurs to build trust and credibility among the public (Boin et al., 2005; Husain et al., 2014) In other words, government actors should not only use social media when a crisis happens, but it should be a channel that exists and which is always used as a way to communicate to and with the public (Husain et al., 2014). This leads to the question how social media should be used as part of crisis management.

2.4.4 Functions of social media

Houston et al. (2015) provide a functional framework on how to use social media as part of crisis management. They argue that there is a literature-gap on social media participants in case of a disaster or crisis, and how social media has and can be employed in disaster and crisis communication (Houston et al., 2015). In an attempt to fill this gap, they designed a functional framework that addresses how entities could use social media in crises (Houston et al., 2015). Governments can use this framework to improve their crisis communication plan regarding social media for effective communication with the public before, during, and after a crisis. Thus, this framework provides an opportunity to standardise the way social media is used by government actors during a disaster or crisis, and how it can be integrated in the crisis communication strategy of organisations (Houston et al., 2015). The framework distinguishes fifteen different functions that social media can have when a crisis occurs (Houston et al., 2015). They distinguish three phases of social media use during a crisis: the pre-event phase, the event phase, and the post-event phase (Houston et al., 2015). Each phase is different and, therefore,

(21)

asks for a different way of use by social media. While some functions need to be elaborated on in each phase, others only need to be addressed in one phase of the crisis.

While the framework focuses on how social media can be used by all entities - from government actor to citizens - this research solely focuses on social media provided by government actors, and not on social media messages disseminated by citizens. Therefore, the fifteen functions of social media by Houston et al. (2015) have been reformulated to a government actors’ perspective. The functions stay the same, however, they are discussed from the perspective of the government. Figure 4 shows the functions of social media use.

Figure 4. Framework of social media use by Houston et al., 2015.

Social media use Phase of the

crisis

1. Provide and receive disaster preparedness information Pre-event 2. Provide and receive disaster warnings Pre-event

3. Signal and detect disasters Pre-event Event

4. Send and receive requests for help or assistance Event 5. Inform others about one’s own condition and location and learn about a

disaster-affected individual’s condition and location

Event

6. Document and learn what is happening in the disaster Event Post-event 7. Deliver and consume news coverage of the disaster Event

Post-event 8. Provide and receive disaster response information; identify and list ways to

assist in the disaster/crisis response Event Post-event 9. Raise and develop awareness of an event; donate and receive donations;

identify and list ways to help or volunteer

Event Post-event 10. Provide and receive disaster mental/behavioural health support Event

Post-event 11. Express emotions, concerns, well-wishes; memorialise victims Event

Post-event 12. Provide and receive information about (and discuss) disaster response,

recovery, and rebuilding; tell and hear stories about the disaster Event Post-event 13. Discuss socio-political and scientific causes and implications of and Post-event

(22)

responsibility for events

14. (Re)connect community members Post-event

15. Implement traditional crisis communication activities Pre-event Post-event

Source: Houston et al., 2015: 8.

Figure 5. Schematic view of function of social media.

Source: Houston et al., 2015.

Each function of social media will be addressed shortly.

1. Provide and receive disaster/crisis preparedness information

Disseminating information on disaster preparedness, and learning about how to prepare for a disaster can benefit citizens, and communities (Houston et al., 2015). Governments can provide the public with information on how to prepare for disasters or crises, to make them more resilient. Resilience can be defined as “a process linking a set of adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation after a disturbance” (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche & Pfefferbaum, 2008: 130). Thus, resilience is a process where adapting to the current situation is the focus. When a crisis occurs, it is paramount that citizens know what to do, and adapt to the current situation via the help of resources (Norris et al., 2008).

The role of social media for government actors in this function is to assist by connecting people, and organisations (Vieweg et al., 2010). One of the characteristics of social media is that

(23)

information is spread easily, for instance via sharing, reposting, and retweeting, not only to citizens who intentionally seek for information about disaster preparedness, but also to citizens who unintentionally find this information (Houston et al., 2015). In other words, social media can be beneficial as part of crisis communication for government actors because more people can be reached. While this asks for more flexibility for government actors to act upon the fast pace of social media, it can also be beneficial to provide information to many citizens in a very short time period (Norris et al., 2008).

2. Provide and receive disaster warnings

Social media can be used to provide, and receive warnings (Houston et al., 2015). Just as in the first function, the spreading of information via reposting, sharing, and retweeting will result in reaching more people. This way, warnings will be more valuable and effective, as they are shared broadly (Houston et al., 2015). Another beneficial characteristic of social media is that disaster warnings can be targeted at a specific group (Houston et al., 2015). For instance, warning messages can be distributed by government actors among citizens in a specific geographical area via mobile telephone towers (Samarajiva, 2005). Via these means, government actors can target specific groups.

3. Signal and detect disasters

Not only can social media be used as a means to warn citizens about a disaster, it can also be used as a means to detect disasters (Houston et al., 2015). Because of the speed of messages that can be disseminated on social media, citizens can be quickly informed about a disaster or crises by government actors. On the other hand, social media can also be used as a means to gather information on a disaster or crisis by government actors (Houston et al., 2015). For instance, by monitoring the content of social media messages sent by the public, possible disasters or crises can be detected. This can lead to a faster response by government actors.

4. Send and receive requests for help or assistance

Social media can be used by the public to request for help when a disaster or crises occurs (Houston et al., 2015). Government actors could monitor social media when a disaster or crises occurs, and can alarm emergency services to help those in need (Warner, 2012). For example, governments can provide the public with a certain hashtag to use when they need help. A survey

(24)

conducted by the Red Cross in 2010 showed that the public expect government actors to monitor social media (Warner, 2012). 69 percent of those surveyed stated that emergency services should use social media to monitor and respond within four hours to requests made by citizens for help (Warner, 2012).

5. Inform others about one’s own condition and location and learn about a disaster-affected individual’s condition and location

When a crisis or disaster occurs, people want to know if their family, and friends are safe (Houston et al., 2015). Social media can provide this (Hughes et al., 2008). For example, when the shootings in Paris took place in 2015, Facebook created a button that would tell those who are friends with them on Facebook that they were safe (Facebook.com). Not only could government actors provide a broader framework where citizens can report the condition they are in, but it can also use the information to know the amount of people who are affected by the disaster or crisis. This is valuable information for the government, who is responsible for providing security and safety to its citizens.

6. Document and learn what is happening in the disaster

Social media can be used as a medium to help citizens understand what has happened, and is happening during a disaster or crisis. Especially due to the nature of a disaster or crisis, as a situation that brings uncertainties and threats with it, understanding what is happening is paramount (Boin et al., 2005). Getting a picture of the situation is not only important to those involved, but also for government actors who need to respond to a crisis in a fast manner (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Getting a picture of the situation, and understanding the crisis is what Boin and Renaud (2013) define as ‘sense making’. Making sense of the situation is paramount for decision making and, therefore, effective crisis management (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Social media can be used as a means by government actors to understand the crisis via monitoring what is posted on social media by the public. In addition to this monitoring, social media can also be used to make sure that false rumours are rapidly discarded as being false. Research by Jong and Duckers (2016) showed that Twitter was used during the ‘gunman in the newsroom crisis’ in the Netherlands to fact-check information that was spread on Twitter. Incorrect information was very rapidly discarded as being false, which resulted in a very quick understanding of what was happening.

(25)

7. Deliver and consume news coverage of the disaster

This function of social media is very similar to the previous function in the sense that both focus on understanding what has happened in the aftermath of a crisis. However, this function solely focuses on the journalism perspective of the crisis (Houston et al., 2015). Social media can “both inform and broaden the reach of traditional news coverage of a disaster or crisis” (Houston et al., 2015: 12). Therefore, it is a core component. In addition, social media can play a role in covering the disaster or crisis by acting as a means to refer the public to official sources of information (Taylor, Wells, Howell & Raphael, 2012). Thus, government actors can use social media as a means to deliver news coverage, as well as refer the public to official sources of information (other than social media).

8. Provide and receive disaster response information; identify and list ways to assist in the disaster response

When a crisis has happened, the public wants to receive information on what is happening with the crisis response, and how they might be able to help with it (Houston et al., 2015). Social media can be used by government actors to provide information to the public on the response, and reach those who want to help with the disaster or crisis response. Cooperation, and the dissemination of information can rapidly take place via social media. This way, government actors can provide large groups of citizens with information to help diminish the damage caused by a crisis.

9. Raise and develop awareness of an event; donate and receive donations; identify and

list ways to help or volunteer

Social media can be used as a means to raise awareness of the damage a crisis has caused. It can be a place where people can donate, and can be a medium where people can identify and list ways to help or volunteer with the response, and recovery (Houston et al., 2015). Exposure and attention to social media content may influence the public to donate or volunteer (Zook, Graham, Shelton & Gorman, 2010). A benefit of social media is that people do not necessarily have to be close to the affected area to offer help (Zook et al., 2010). Government actors can facilitate this by playing a key role in disseminating the information regarding where to donate, raise awareness of an event, and provide lists of ways to volunteer or help.

(26)

10. Provide and receive disaster mental/behavioural health support

Another function of social media is to provide and receive mental or behavioural health support (Jain, 2013). Using social media for this purpose is growing (Jain, 2013). Moreover, social media can connect people who experienced the event, it can be a means to show social support, and it can be a means through which the public can cope with grief caused by the crisis. Thus, social media “may facilitate attitudes and feelings that may be associated with improved mental/behavioural health” (Houston et al., 2015: 14). Government actors can play a facilitating role in this via disseminating information regarding health services (Houston, 2012), or create

groups where citizens can cope with their grief (Vicary & Fraley, 2012).

11. Express emotions, concerns, well-wishes; memorialise victims

Related to the previous function is that social media can be used as a way to express emotions, concerns, well-wishes, and memorialise victims (Houston et al., 2015). Government actors can play a role in facilitating this function. For instance, it can create an online place where citizens can memorialise victims. Another example is the #prayforparis and #prayforbrussels and changing the Facebook profile picture with a French or Belgium flag (Facebook.com; Twitter.com). It is important to note that the ethical question here is whether government actors should play a role in this.

12. Provide and receive information about (and discuss) disaster response, recovery, and rebuilding; tell and hear stories about the disaster

While traditional media coverage of a crisis is, overall, of a relative short period, it can last longer on social media (Lobb, Mock & Hutchinson, 2012). Social media can be a place where citizens can continue to participate in discussion and problem-solving in the aftermath of a crisis (Makinen & Kuira, 2008). Government actors can facilitate and monitor what people discuss to see what the opinions of citizens regarding the crisis are. The government can play a part in the discussion or can influence the government approach regarding the public in the future.

13. Discuss the socio-political and scientific causes and implications of and responsibility for events

(27)

After a crisis has occurred, people want to determine why it has occurred, who is responsible, and prevent it from reoccurring (Houston et al., 2015). Social media can be a place where this ‘deliberative post-disaster process’ can occur, especially since it can be characterised by two-way communication where citizens can have discussions with each other (Houston et al., 2015). Government actors can facilitate this by creating a place where these discussions can occur. However, as Houston et al. (2015) argue, more research is needed in order to understand how this specifically can be facilitated. In addition, government actors can provide the public with information on what they are undertaking regarding investigations to the causes of the crisis, and those who are responsible for the crisis (Houston et al., 2015).

14. (Re)connect community members

Social media can be a way for people to reconnect with community members after an event, and connect with new community members (Houston et al., 2015). This is especially evident when crises are extremely destructive, and cause people to move (temporarily) to another area or community. People can share information about their neighbourhood, discuss plans to return home and share stories (Houston et al., 2015). Thus, “social media has the potential to enhance social capital and connections, fostering community resilience” (Houston et al., 2015: 15). Government actors can play a role in facilitating this by, for instance, create social media groups for every neighbourhood.

15. Implement traditional crisis communication activities

Social media can be used to implement traditional crisis communication activities, such as “restore organizational normalcy, influence public perceptions, and regain and repair image and reputation” (Houston et al., 2015: 16). This function of social media is primarily focusing on protecting the organisation (Houston et al., 2015). This is the only function of social media that is a one-way communication activity (from the government to the public) (Houston et al., 2015). This function is especially important for private organisations, who have a need to protect the reputation of the organisation for which they can use social media. However, government actors can use social media to implement traditional crisis communication activities. The credibility and trustworthiness of government actors during crises are, as Boin et al. (2005) argue, paramount to effectively manage a crisis. When government actors are credible and trustworthy, the public will be more likely to act upon the official announcements, and follow instructions (Boin et al., 2005). Social media can be a means to influence the public’s

(28)

perceptions, and to repair the image and reputation of the organisation or the area damaged by the event (Houston et al., 2015).

These fifteen functions show how social media can be used to help avoid a crisis, to reduce the damage of the crisis, to make sense of what has happened, help to grief, and to give meaning to the crisis (Houston et al., 2015). While some functions are essential for government actors to elaborate on, for example providing response information, they can serve as a facilitator for others. Concerning the latter, government actors can facilitate places on social media where citizens can communicate with each other about the crisis. They would not necessarily have to be actively participating on the social media platform. However, facilitating a place where the public can share their ideas, feelings, and plans can be a means to bring citizens together in order to help each other.

2.4.5 Conceptual model: How governments communicate through social media during crises

Houston et al. (2015) argue that their framework can be used as a means to standardise, and organise disaster and crisis social media use by government actors. Moreover, it can be used as a way to guide crisis communication plans. The extent to which governments use the functions of social media provided by Houston et al. (2015) has not yet been researched in the Netherlands. That is what this research will study. However, while the framework provided by Houston et al. (2015) tells something about whether a government uses the fifteen functions of social media, it will also be interesting to research what the underlying strategy of the Dutch government is in communicating with the public. Olsson (2014) provides these strategies of how governments can communicate with the public to manage a crisis. By combining the functions of social media use by governments, and the strategies that are underlying how governments can communicate, allows two things to be researched. First, the data can be used to research to what extent the Dutch government uses the functions of social media. Which functions are used by the Dutch government, and which functions are not. Second, the underlying strategy of how the Dutch government communicates with the public can be researched. Is the Dutch government primarily focusing on the operational side, or is it more focused on the strategic side of managing crises? Therefore, the four dimensions of Olsson (2014) are combined with the fifteen functions of social media as provided by Houston et al. (2015) in an innovative framework, shown in the figure below.

(29)

Figure 6. Scheme of theoretical framework for government actors.

How

governments communicate with the public in case of a crisis (Olsson, 2014)

Functions of social media for government actors (Houston et al., 2015) Indicators Operational resilience-oriented communication

4. Send and receive requests for help or assistance.

5. Monitor and learn about what others inform about one’s conditions and their location.

8. Raise and develop awareness of an event. Donate and receive donations. Identify and list ways to help or volunteer.

9. Provide and receive crisis response information. Identify and list ways to assist in the crisis response.

14. Facilitate a place to (re)connect community members.

• Monitor those who ask for help • Make official hashtags that

individuals can use when help is needed

• Make and provide list of who is safe

• Monitor social media regarding ‘I am safe’

• Monitor what people say about one’s condition

• Identify lists of how individuals can help/volunteer (for event)

• Make place where individuals can donate: tel. and account number

• Provide information where individuals can donate

• Provide list of what people can do to assist in response • Provide specific information

regarding response

• Create ways to talk to certain groups

• Create online groups for neighbourhoods

• Provide specific information for groups based on geography with intention to reconnect them

Operation reputation-oriented communication

6. Document and learn what is happening in the crisis.

7. Deliver and consume news coverage of the crisis.

10. Provide and receive crisis mental/behavioural health support.

• Explicitly mention that monitoring the crisis • Give updates about the event

phase of the crisis

• Mention contact with other organisations

• Refer to traditional media • Transparency about crisis • Online talking with groups/

psychologist

• Spread information regarding meetings for after care

(30)

11. (Facilitate a place where people can) Express emotions, concerns, well-wishes; memorialise victims.

• Express emotions regarding the event

• Make and spread profiles of the victims

• Make official hashtags that people can use to express emotions/well-wishes • Online place for condolences

• Spread information regarding meetings to memorialise victims etc. Strategic resilience-oriented communication

1. Provide and receive crisis preparedness information.

2. Provide and receive crisis warnings.

3. Signal and detect crises.

• Encourage public to prepare • Instructions for preparedness • Preparedness drills

• Spread information what to do in case of…

• Monitor warnings from other organisations

• Provide hashtags before crisis occurs

• Warn the public

• Monitor reports of citizens regarding a possible crisis

• Facilitate web app about the crisis (for instance where people can tell that they felt an earthquake.

Strategic reputation-oriented

communication

12. Provide information about (and discuss) crisis response, recovery, and rebuilding. Facilitate a place where people can discuss and monitor this. Tell and hear stories about the crisis.

13. Discuss socio-political and scientific causes and implications of and

responsibility for events. 15. Implement traditional crisis communication strategies.

• Ask feedback to start discussion

• Facilitate a place where people can discuss

• Tell and spread stories about crisis

• Responsibility and blame • Investigations

• Updates regarding what is done to restore the normal situation • Press conferences

• Image and reputation of organisation

• Meetings for individuals with practical information

• Restoring roads etc.

In the figure shown above, the functions of social media are divided among the strategies on how to communicate with the public. To determine which function belongs to which strategy, the functions were applied to the two dimensions of Olsson (2014). The first dimension is operational versus strategic; the second reputational versus resilience. First, for every function,

Dutch government use of Twitter in crisis communication. An exploratory research to the extent of which, and how the Dutch government used Twitter in crises in 2014