• No results found

Competing frames and tone in corporate communication versus media coverage during a crisis

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Competing frames and tone in corporate communication versus media coverage during a crisis"

Copied!
9
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Public

Relations

Review

Competing

frames

and

tone

in

corporate

communication

versus

media

coverage

during

a

crisis

Jos

Nijkrake

a

,

Jordy

F.

Gosselt

a,∗

,

Jan

M.

Gutteling

b

aUniversityofTwente,DepartmentofCommunicationStudies,TheNetherlands bUniversityofTwente,DepartmentofConflict,RiskandSafety,TheNetherlands

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received29April2014

Receivedinrevisedform13October2014 Accepted30October2014

Keywords: Competingframes Crisiscommunication Crisisresponsestrategy Framing

Tone Mediacoverage

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Managingcorporatecommunicationthroughacrisisresponsestrategymaylimitnegative mediacoverage,therebyaffectingpublicperceptionsduringcrisissituations.However, becausedifferentstakeholdersarebeinginformedviamultiplechannels,different mes-sagesmay reach thepublic,creatingcompeting frames.Thisstudyexamines howan organization’scrisisresponseaffectsmediacoverage.Usingcontentanalysis,media cover-agemessages(N=128)andcorporatecommunicationmessages(N=24)werecompared regardinganorganizationincrisis. Allmessageswereanalyzedconsideringfivenews framesandtone(rangingfromverynegativetoverypositive)towardinternalandexternal stakeholders.Findingsindicatethatthemediareframedcorporatecommunication mes-sages,usingmoreanddifferentnewsframesthantheorganizationincrisis.Furthermore, mediacoveragemessagesandcorporatecommunicationmessagesdifferedinthe men-tionedaspectswithinvariousnewsframes.Allstakeholdersarecoveredsignificantlymore negativelyinmediacoverage.

©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.

InApril2011,a midsizedhospitalinamajorcityintheNetherlandswasconfrontedwithabacteriaoutbreak.The

outbreakwasleadingtohundredsofpatientsbeinginfectedbytheKlebsiellapneumoniaebacteriaandforatleastthree

peoplethebacteriawasthedirectcauseofdeath.Consequently,thehospitalwasputunderstrictersurveillancebythe

DutchHealthCareInspectorate,thehospitalmanagerresigned,andthebacteriaoutbreakwasbeinginvestigatedbyseveral

independentcommissions.Further,forthehospital–thatwasinvolvedina large-scalerelocationtoanewbuilding–

thiswasnotthefirstbacteriaoutbreak.Asaresultofalargebacteriaoutbreakin2002andatemporaryclosingduetoa

bacteriaoutbreakin2010,thehospitalalreadyhadacrisishistory.FromlateMay2011,thehospital’sstakeholderswere

proactivelyinformedaboutthecrisissituationbymeansofpressreleases.However,especiallyintimesofcrisis,stakeholders

tendtorelyonmediacoveragebecauseinformationthroughthemediaisbeingperceivedasmorecrediblethandirect

communication(Bond&Kirshenbaum,1998).Althoughexistingliteratureunderlinestheimportanceofa(ny)crisisresponse

(e.g.,reputationaldamagecontrol),therelationbetweenanorganization’scrisisresponseandthecontentsofmediacoverage

isstillunderstudied.Thus,inthisstudy,corporatecommunicationaboutacrisis–intheformofpressreleases–iscompared

tomediacoverageregardingthesamecrisis.

∗ Correspondingauthorat:UniversityofTwente,FacultyofBehavioralSciences,DepartmentofCommunicationStudies,P.O.Box217,7500AEEnschede, TheNetherlands.Tel.:+310534896130;fax:+310534894259.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](J.F.Gosselt). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.010 0363-8111/©2014ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.

(2)

1. Theoreticalframework

1.1. Crisiscommunicationfromanorganizationalperspective

Coombs(2007)definesacrisisas“asuddenandunexpectedeventthatthreatenstodisruptanorganization’soperations

andposesbothafinancialandareputationalthreat.”Becausecrisesarecharacterizedbyhighlevelsofuncertainty,without

timelyinformationdissemination,chancesarethatrumorswilldominatethecrisisdiscourse,increasinguncertaintyand

exacerbatingthesituation(Veil&Ojeda,2010).Therefore,organizationsneedtodeterminehowtocommunicatewiththeir

variousstakeholderstopreservetherelationship(Stephens&Malone,2009),especiallybecauseitisassumedcorporate

communicationduringandafteracrisisisoneofthemostimportantfactorsindeterminingthelong-termeffectsofacrisis

(Coombs,1999).Corporatecommunicationcanlimitnegativemediacoverageandmanageperceptionsbothduringacrisis

andattherecovery/resolutionstage(Ritchie,Dorell,Miller,&Miller,2004).

Crisiscommunicationmanagersmaytrytoframethecrisisissuchawaythatreputationaldamagetotheorganization

shouldbeminimized.Framingreferstohighlightingbitsofinformationaboutanitemthatisthesubjectofacommunication,

therebyelevatingtheminsalience(Entman,1993).Thewayamessageisframedshapeshowpeopledefineproblems,causes

ofproblems,attributionsofresponsibility,andsolutionstoproblems(Cooper,2002),ultimatelyinfluencingpublicperception

(Bullock,Wyche,&Williams,2001).Therefore,creatingframesforunderstandingandofferingexplanatorydefinitionsare

bothcrucialforeffectivecommunicationduringacrisis(Coombs,1999),astheyindicatehowstakeholdersshouldinterpret

acrisis(Coombs&Holladay,2002).Bymeansofpressreleasesornewsreleases,producedbyorganizationswishingto

highlightcertaincircumstancesortoprovideagiveninterpretationofevents,theseframesarethendistributedtovarious

mediachannelsinthehopethatthelatterwillrepublishtheinformationtoreachawideaudience(Gilpin,2008).However,

thequestioniswhethertheseframeswillbesupportedornotbyotherstakeholderswithawideaccesstothepublic,namely

thenewsmedia.

1.2. Crisiscommunicationfromamediacoverageperspective

Mostoftheinformationtostakeholdersisprovidedbythenewsmedia,notbycorporatecommunication(Coombs,

2007),makingthemediathefinalarbiterofcrisisframesinmostcases.Whereorganizationswanttoreduceuncertainty

andrepairtheirreputationintimesofcrisis(e.g.,Coombs,2007),overtgoalsofmassmediaareprimarilytoinformand

entertain(McCombs,1977).Althoughthemediadonotcreateacrisis,theycanmovethemtocenterstageorkeepthem

outofpublicview(Nelkin,1988),andthroughdeliberatecoverageofeventsandissues,themediahavetheabilitytoset

theagendaforpublicdiscussion(Barnes,Hanson,Novilla,Meacham,&McIntyre,2008).Thus,journalists’dailydecisionsdo

significantlyinfluencetheiraudience’spicturesoftheworld(Carroll&McCombs,2003).Giventhedifferentgoalsandstakes

foranorganizationincrisisandjournalists,itislikelytoassumethatmediacoverageandcorporatecommunicationdifferin

thewaytheycommunicateaboutacrisis(i.e.,intermsofthetonetowardstakeholders,andfactsincludedoremphasized;

McCombs&Ghanem,2001).

Ingeneral,tonecanbepositive,neutralornegativeandinfluencesaudiencememberstothinkinacertainwayabouta

particularissue(Brunken,2006).Similarly,Deephouse(2000)statesthatanorganizationcanbesubjecttomediacoverage

thatisfavorable(i.e.,anorganizationispraisedforitsactions),unfavorable(i.e.,anorganizationiscriticizedforitsactions),

orneutral (i.e.,noevaluativemodifierisincludedinthemediacoverage).Severalstudieshavefoundthatthetonein

mediacoveragehasasignificanteffectonpublicopinion(seeforexample:Gunther,1998;Kim,Carvalho,&Cooksey,2007).

Furthermore,andnotsurprisingly,toneinmediacoverageconcerningpartiesinvolvedinacrisis(e.g.,employees,investors,

management,governments)tendstobemainlynegativeorneutral.However,becausethesepartiesmaydifferintheir

levelsofresponsibility,blame,and/orinvolvement,tonetowardthesepartiesmayvary(Valentini&Romenti,2011).For

example,althoughtoneinmediacoverageofHurricaneKatrinavarieddependingonthedifferentlevelsofgovernmentin

thecoverage,thegeneraltonewasrelativelyneutral(Brunken,2006).Regardingtheexplosionsatafireworksfacilityinthe

Netherlandsin2000,thetonewasmildlynegativetowardlocalandnationalgovernments(Kuttschreuter,Gutteling,&de

Hond,2011).Insum:veryfewnewsstoriesinvolvingacrisisarepositivelycovered.However,intermsoftone,differences

doexistconcerningthevariouspartiesinvolvedinacrisis.

Inadditiontotone,thecontentofmediacoverageisalsocharacterizedbythepresenceofcertainnewsframes.News

framescanaffectperceptionsofissuesandofpeopleinthenews(Price,Tewksbury,&Powers,1997).Bypromptingthe

activationofcertainconstructsattheexpenseofothers, newsframescandirectlyinfluencewhatentersthemindsof

audiencemembers.ConcerningNeuman,Just, andCrigler’s(1992)fourdominantnewsframes(i.e.,conflict,economic

consequences,morality,andhumanimpact),SemetkoandValkenburg(2000)addedtheresponsibilityframeandrenamed

thehuman-impactframeintohuman-interestframe.Thehuman-interestframebringsanemotional,personalangletothe

presentationofanevent,andtheresponsibilityframeispresentwhensomeactor(e.g.,anindividualororganization)isheld

responsibleforthecausesofanevent.Boththesenewsframesmightstimulatetheformationofmorenegativeattitudes

towardthecrisisandperhapsalsotheorganizationthatisblamedforthecrisis(An&Gower,2009).Newsstorieswith

aconflictframeemphasizeconflictsbetweenindividuals,groupsororganizations.Theconflictframeisverycommonin

newspapersandothernewsmedia(Semetko&Valkenburg,2000;Neumanetal.,1992)anditistobeexpectedthatitmight

(3)

termsofconsequencesitwillfinanciallyhaveonanindividual,group,organization,orregion.Whencrisesinvolvelarger

economicconsequences,thisframewillbemorepresentinthenews.Newsstoriesputinthecontextofmoralprescriptions

areframedintermsofmorality.Ratherthanbecauseofthejournalisticnormofobjectivity,themoralityframeiscommonly

usedbyjournalistindirectlythroughquotationsorinference(Neumanetal.,1992).

Thepresenceofthesefivedominantnewsframesactivatesexplicitthoughtsandresponsesamongthepublic(Cappella

&Jamieson,1997;Cho&Gower,2006;deVreese,2004;Iyengar,1987;Valkenburg,Semetko,&deVreese,1999).Choand Gower(2006)suggestthatahuman-interestframecanstimulatetheemotionalresponsesbyexaggeratingtheevaluationor

perceptionofcrises.Bypresentingwinnersandlosers,astoryframedintermsofconflictcanactivatethecynicalreactions

amongmembersofthepublic(Cappella&Jamieson,1997),oftenincludingmoreandopposingpointsofviewintheir

thoughts(deVreese,2004).Anewsstoryframedintermsofeconomicconsequenceswillactivatethoughtsandresponses

concerningthecosts,benefitsandfinancialimplicationsofinvolvedparties(Valkenburgetal.,1999;deVreese,2004).Finally,

Iyengar(1987)suggeststhatanewsstoryframedintermsofattributionofresponsibilityprovidesthepublicwithmore

understandingregardingwhichpartyisresponsibleforcausingproblems.

Giventherelianceonmediaduringacrisis(Brunken,2006),aframeanalysisconcerningmediacoverageintimesof

crisisisdeemedimportant.Consequently,morerecentframingresearchfocusedonnewsframesduringcrisissituations

(e.g.,An&Gower,2009;Brunken,2006;Kuttschreuteretal.,2011;Valentini&Romenti,2011).Brunken(2006)foundthat

thehuman-interestframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageaboutHurricaneKatrina,followedbytheconflict

frame,theresponsibilityframe,theeconomic-consequencesframe,andthemoralityframe.Furthermore,thepresence

ofthehuman-interestframedroppedconsiderablyafterthefirstthreeweeksofcoverage.ValentiniandRomenti(2011)

foundthattheeconomic-consequencesframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageaboutAlitalia’scrisisbeforeits

privatization,followedbytheconflictframe,theresponsibilityframe,thehuman-interestframe,andthemoralityframe.In

mediacoverageconcerningexplosionsatafireworksfacilityintheNetherlandskilling23people,Kuttschreuteretal.(2011)

foundthattheresponsibilityframewastheonemostused,followedbytheconflictframe,thehuman-interestframe,and

theeconomic-consequencesframe.Themoralityframewasnotpresentinthemediacoverageoftheexplosions.Anand

Gower(2009)foundthattheresponsibilityframewastheonemostusedinmediacoverageconcerning25organizationsthat

facedcrisesin2006,followedbytheeconomic-consequencesframe,thehuman-interestframe,theconflictframe,andthe

moralityframe.IntheAnandGower’sstudy,however,thelevelofresponsibilitywasalsotakenintoaccount,showingthat

ifacrisiswasseenaspreventable,newsstoriesweremorelikelytousetheresponsibilityframe,conflictframeandmorality

frame.Further,accidentalcriseswerepredominantlyframedintermsofeconomic-consequencesandthehuman-interest

framewasusedmoreoftenwhenthecrisistypewasinthevictimcluster.

Toconclude,thesestudiesonmediacoverageofcrisessituationsrevealthatthemoralityframeislesslikelytobeused

asanewsframe,whereastheconflictframeandtheresponsibilityframeappeartobeusedmoreoften,followedbythe

human-interestframeandtheeconomic-consequencesframe.Anotherconclusionthatcanbedrawnisthatframeuseis

dependentonthelevelofresponsibilityattributedtotheorganization.

1.3. Competingframes

By presenting their own interpretation of an issue, organizations frame their communications while news

media participate in the process by accepting and modifying the frames presented to them (Miller & Riechert,

2000).

Inordertokeepastoryaliveandfresh,mediaoftenreframeaneventbyemphasizingdifferentattributes(McCombs,

2004).Forexample,becauseofinsufficientknowledgeaboutthematter,intheirinitialcoverage,ajournalistmayheavily

relyonthesourcesthatprovideinformation,includingtheorganizationathand.However,intheirsubsequentsearchfor

facts,journalistsmaypreferspeakingtoeyewitnesses,orexperts,whilestatementsfromspokespersonsmaybetreatedwith

skepticism(Miller&Riechert,2000).Consequently,asnotedabove,theaudiencecanbeexposedtomultiplenewsframes

foroneparticularissue(Edy&Meirick,2007),leadingtoasituationinwhichpeoplearecontinuouslyexposedtovarious

competingarguments(Hansen,2007).Coombs(2007)definesthisprocessascompetingframes.Confrontedwithcompeting

frames,theaudiencewillcombinethesetobuildstoriesoftheirown(Edy&Meirick,2007).Inpresentingtheirsideofthe

story,crisismanagersmaytakeadvantagefromthisbyestablishingaframeorreinforcinganexistingone.Ontheother

hand,newsmediamayrejectthecrisismanager’sframeandcontinuewithadifferentframe(Coombs,2007).Whereearly

studies(e.g.,Iyengar,1987)haveexploredtheimpactofonesingleframeonaudienceopinion,counter-framing(i.e.,where

analternativeframeisoffered)andheterogeneousdiscussionslimitframingeffectsbypromptingdeliberateprocessingand

offeringreformulationsoftheproblems(Druckman,2004).Inanexperimentalstudy,Druckman(2004)foundthatwhen

presentingdifferentframestoaudiences(i.e.,aframewiththeoriginalproblem,butalsoareframingoftheproblemthat

usestheoppositeframe),framingeffectsappeartobeneitherrobustnotparticularlypervasive.

Inthisstudy,basedonthetheoreticalconceptofcompetingframes,wewillexaminethepresenceofcompetingframes

incorporatecommunication(i.e.,pressreleases)versusmediacoverageregardingonespecificcrisissituation.Furthermore,

wewillexplorewhetherdifferencesexistconcerningrelevantstakeholderswithregardtoframeuseandtone.Weexpect

thatthehospitalincrisiswillfocusonarebuildstrategyinordertogeneratenewreputationalassets.Adoptingthisstrategy

maybeanattempttochangeperceptionsoftheorganizationincrisisbypresentingnew,positiveinformationaboutthe

(4)

adjustinformationbyexpressingconcernforthevictimsandthatsolutionstothecrisiswillbeoffered.Regardingframe

use,weexpectthatthehospitalframesitscorporatecommunicationmainlyintermsofhuman-interestandresponsibility.

Takingthemediacoverageperspective,incaseofapreventablecrisis,weexpectthatnewsstoriesarelikelytobeframed

intermsofresponsibility,conflictandmorality.Tosummarizethepreviousdiscussions,thesearetheresearchquestions

thatwillbeanalyzed:RQ1:Towhatextenddoesanorganization’scrisisresponseaffectmediacoverageintermsofnews

frames?RQ2:Towhatextentdoesanorganization’scrisisresponseaffectmediacoverageintermsoftonetowardconcerned

parties?

2. Method

Bymeansofacontentanalysis,thecorporatecommunicationofanorganizationincrisis(i.e.,thehospitalwherethe

bacteriaoutbreaktookplace)iscomparedwithmediacoverageonthissubject,focusingontoneaswellasthenewsframes

thatwereused.

2.1. Corpusofpressreleasesandnewsarticles

Fromthehospital’swebsite,allpressreleasesrelatedtothebacteriaoutbreak(N=24)wereretrievedandanalyzed.

Regardingthecorporatecommunicationcoverage,theunitofanalysiswasonepressrelease.Forthemediacoverage,the

unitofanalysiswasonenewspaperarticle.Priortodeterminingafinalsample,nationalandregionalnewspaperswiththe

largestcirculationintheNetherlandswereselected(DePersgroepAdvertising,2013;HOI,InstituutvoorMediaAuditing,

2011).Nationalnewspaperswereselectedbasedsolelyonthefocusandonthecirculationinthecrisisarea.Regarding

theregionalnewspapers,themostimportantinclusioncriterionwasthegeographicalcirculationinthecrisisarea.We

selectedtworegionalnewspapers:thenewspaperwiththelargestcirculationinthecrisisregionandanewspaperwithout

circulationinthecrisisareatoportraymediacoverageinDutchnewspapersascompletelyaspossible(Cebuco,2012;

DePersgroepAdvertising,2013).Regardingbothnationalandregionalpapers,inordertorevealthepresenceofframes,

newspaperscoveringbackgroundnewswereselectedovernewspaperscoveringshallownews.Asexpected,thesequality

newspaperscovernewsstoriesmoreextensivelyandassuch,returnedthelargestnumbersofhitsintheelectronicdatabases.

AllnewsarticleswereretrievedfromtheLexis-Nexisdatabaseandofallrelevantarticles,duplicateswereexcluded.The

finalsample(N=128)consistedoftwonationalnewspapers(NRCHandelsblad,N=27;Trouw,N=25)andtworegional

newspapers(RotterdamsDagblad,N=57;BrabantsDagblad,N=19)withcirculationinthecrisisareaandoutsidethecrisis

area,respectively.

2.2. Codingprocedureandreliability

Thecodingprocedureconsistedoftwoparts.Thefirstpartconcernedtonetowardinternalstakeholders(i.e.,the

organi-zationingeneral,employees[e.g.,microbiologists,hygienists,nurses],andmanagement[e.g.,theboard,themanagement,

the(interim)director]),and externalstakeholders(includinglocalgovernment[e.g.,themayor,thecitycouncillor,the

municipality] andnationalgovernment). Athird stakeholdergroupthatwasincorporatedconcerned–independent–

researchcouncils(includingorganizationssuchasTheNationalInstituteforPublicHealth,CommunityHealthServices,

TheHealthCareInspectorateandotherspeciallyequippedcommissionsofinquiry).Tonewascodedseparatelyforthese

subgroups,onfive-pointscales(rangingfromverynegativetoverypositive).BasedonMeijerandKleinnijenhuis(2006),

tonecouldtakeoneofthefollowingvalues:−2,−1,0,+1and+2.Thevalues“−1”and“+1”wereusedwhena

refine-mentwasmadetothetext(suchas“maybe,”“slightly,”and“perhaps”).Thecontextunitconsistedofthearticleasa

whole.

Thesecondpartofthecodingprocedureassessedthepresenceofframesinboththecorporatecommunicationandthe

newscoverage.ThiswascodedaccordingtoSemetkoandValkenburg’s(2000)framework.Thisframeworkinvolvesthe

followingframes:thehuman-interestframe(i.e.,thisframebringsanemotional,personalangletothepresentationofan

event),theresponsibilityframe(i.e.,thisframeholdssomeactorresponsibleforthecausesofanevent),theconflictframe

(i.e.,thisframeemphasizesconflictsbetweenindividuals,groups,ororganizations),theeconomic-consequencesframe(i.e.,

thisframereportsanissueintermsofeconomicconsequencesonanindividual,group,organization,orregion),andthe

moralityframe(i.e.,thisframeputsstoriesinthecontextofmoralprescriptions).Foreacharticle,thepresenceandcontents

oftheprecedingframeswereanalyzedbyansweringthreeormorestatements,whichcharacterizeaparticularnewsframe

(yes,no),somultipleframescouldbepresentwithinonearticle.

Priortocodingthefinalcorpus,severalsamplesweredrawntoachieveaminimumCohen’skappascoreof

approxi-mately.7.Topreventeventualbiases,thesamplesvaried.Fortheintercoderreliabilitytest,twocodersweresubjectedto

a codinginstructionandcoded48randomlyselectednewspaperarticles.Theserepresentedapproximately10%ofthe

total publicationspernewspaper.Afterthreecompletedsamples,allvariablesshoweda sufficientCohen’skappa(see

(5)

Table1

Cohen’skappaandinterrateragreementscores.

Variable Cohen’skappa Interrateragreement

Tone Organizationingeneral .865 93% Employees .871 92% Management .682 79% Localgovernment .707 83% Nationalgovernment .716 90% Researchcouncil .755 85% Newsframes Humaninterest 1.00 100% Conflict .837 100% Responsibility 1.00 100% Economicconsequences .705 85% Morality 1.00 79% 3. Results 3.1. Newsframes

Thenewsframes usedwithinthecorpusareshown inTable2.In mediacoverage, thetotal number ofdistinctive

newsframesperarticle(M=2.02,SD=.887)ishigherthanincorporatecommunicationcoverage(M=1.13,SD=.448);t

(63.01)=7.39,p<01.Corporatecommunicationwasframedmostfrequentlyintermsofhumaninterest(96%;ofwhich65%

providedahumanexampleontheissueand61%toldhowindividualsandgroupsareaffected),followedbytheconflictframe

(13%;ofwhich67%reflectedondisagreementsbetweenpartiesand33%emphasizedonepartythatreproachesanother),

andtheeconomicconsequencesframe(4%;inallthesecasesthecostswerementioned).Noneofthepressreleaseswere

framedintermsofresponsibilityormorality.Alsomediacoveragewasframedmostfrequentlyintermsofhumaninterest

Table2

Useofnewsframesinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication.

I.Media coverage II.Corporate communication Ivs.II Human-interestframe 96% 96% n.s.

Thestoryprovidesahumanexampleor‘humanface’ontheissue 75% 65% n.s. Thestoryemploysadjectivesorpersonalvignettesthatgeneratefeelingsofoutrage 2% 0% n.s. Thestoryemphasizeshowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissue/problem 84% 61% 5.10* Thestorygoesintotheprivateorpersonallivesoftheactors 11% 0% n.s.

Thestoryreferstonon-directvictimsoftheissue 3% 0% n.s.

Conflictframe 67% 13% 24.91**

Thestoryreflectsdisagreementsbetweenparties-individuals-groups-countries 16% 67% n.s. Oneparty-individual-group-countrydoesreproachanother 95% 33% 26.10** Thestoryreferstotwoormoresidesoftheproblemorissue 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstowinnersandlosers 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstopartieswhichdefendthemselvesagainstcriticism 7% 0% n.s.

Responsibilityframe 16% 0% 4.32*

Thestorysuggeststhatsomelevelofgovernmenthastheabilitytoalleviatetheproblem 0% 0%

Thestorysuggeststhatsomelevelofthegovernmentisresponsiblefortheissue/problem 5% 0% n.s.

Thestorysuggestssolution(s)totheproblem/issue 10% 0% n.s.

Thestorysuggeststhatanindividual(orgroupofpeopleinsociety)isresponsiblefortheissue/problem 95% 0% 4.07* Thestorysuggeststheproblemrequiresurgentaction 0% 0%

Thestoryreferstopotentialproblems 0% 0%

Economic-consequencesframe 22% 4% 4.12*

Thereisamentionoffinanciallossesorgainsnoworinthefuture 36% 0% n.s. Thereisamentionofcosts/degreeofexpensesinvolved 96% 100% 3.85* Thereisareferencetoeconomicconsequencesofpursuingornotpursuingacourseofaction 7% 0% n.s.

Moralityframe 1% 0% n.s.

Thestorydoescontainamoralmessage 0% 0%

Thestorydoesmakeareferencetomorality,Godandotherreligioustenets 0% 0%

Thestoryoffersspecificsocialprescriptionsabouthowtobehave 100% 0% n.s.

Thestoryreferstointentionalbadbehavior 0% 0%

Totalnumberofnewsframes 258 27 7.39**

Numberofnewsframesperarticle 2.0 1.1

* p<.05. ** p<01.

(6)

Table3

Averagetonetowardrelevantstakeholdersinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication.

I.Mediacoverage II.Corporatecommunication Ivs.II(t-tests)

M SD M SD Internalstakeholders −.43 .476 .04 .204 −7.94** Externalstakeholders .00 .000 Organizationingeneral −.44 .637 .00 .000 −7.77** Employees −.56 .585 .00 .000 −7.78** Management −.48 .623 .25 .707 −3.11** Localgovernment .00 .000 Nationalgovernment .00 .000 Researchcouncil −.06 .241 .00 .000 −2.29* Overalltone −.32 .372 .03 .136 −8.16** *p<.05. **p<01.

(96%;84%ofwhichfocusedonhowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissueand75%providedahumanexample

ontheissue),conflict(67%;ofwhich95%emphasizedonepartythatreproachesanother),andeconomicconsequences

(22%;ofwhich96%involvedmentioningcosts/degreeofexpenses).Furthermore,differentfromcorporate

communica-tion,inmediacoveragealsotheresponsibilityframe(16%;ofwhich95%becauseanindividualorgroupissuggestedtobe

responsiblefortheissue),andthemoralityframe(1%;allbecauseofspecificsocialprescriptionsabouthowtobehave)were

present.

Frameuseappearedtodifferbycommunicationtype.Forexample,theuseoftheconflictframedifferedsignificantly

bycommunicationtype(2(1,N=152)=24.91,p<.001),indicatingthatmediacoveragewasframedsignificantlymore

oftenintermsofconflict(67%)thanwascorporatecommunication(13%).Furthermore,Fisher’sexacttestsrevealedthat

theuseoftheresponsibilityframe(p=.044)andtheeconomic-consequencesframe(p=.048)significantlydifferedper

communicationtype,showingthatmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunicationwasframedsignificantlymore

oftenintermsofresponsibility(16%vs.0%)andeconomicconsequences(22%vs.4%).Nodifferenceswerefoundintheuse

ofthehuman-interestframeandthemoralityframe.

Additionally,Chi-squaredtestsandFisher’sexacttestswereperformedtogiveinsightintothedifferencesbetween

thecontents oftheframespercommunicationtype.First,althoughwefoundnodifferencesinthefrequencyofuseof

thehuman-interestframeingeneralwhencomparingcorporatecommunicationwithmediacoverage,thecontentsofthe

humaninterestframediddifferbycommunicationtype(2(1,N=152)=5.10,p<.05),indicatingthatmediacoveragewas

framedsignificantlymoreoftenintermsofhowindividualsandgroupsareaffectedbytheissue(84%)thanwascorporate

communication(61%).Second,regardingtheconflictframe,mediacoveragewasframedsignificantlymoreofteninterms

ofonepartyorgroupreproachinganother(95%)ascomparedtocorporatecommunication(33%;2(1,N=152)=26.10,

p<.001).Third,Fisher’sexacttestrevealedthattheresponsibilityframe(p=.04)significantlydifferedpercommunication

type,showingthatmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunicationwasframedsignificantlymoreoftenintermsof

suggestingthatanindividual(orgroupofpeopleinsociety)isresponsiblefortheissuecomparedcorporatecommunication

(95%vs.0%).Fourth,Fisher’sexacttestrevealedthattheeconomic-consequencesframe(p=.08)significantlydifferedper

communicationtype,showingthatcorporatecommunicationcomparedtomediacoveragewasframedsignificantlymore

oftenintermsofmentioningcosts/degreesofexpenses(100%vs.96%).Nodifferenceswerefoundregardingthecontentsof

themoralityframe.

3.2. Tone

Independent-samplest-testswereconductedtocomparetonetowardrelevantstakeholdersforeachcrisisresponse

type(seeTable3).Overall,tonewassignificantlymorenegativeinmediacoverage(M=−.32,SD=.372)whencompared

tocorporatecommunication(M=.03,SD=.136);t(97.84)=−8.16,p<.01.Theexternalstakeholderslocalgovernmentand

nationalgovernmentwerenotcoveredincorporatecommunication.Inmediacoverage,localgovernment(M=.00,SD=.000),

andnationalgovernment(M=.00,SD=.000)wereonaveragecoveredinaneutraltone.Theinternalstakeholderswere

coveredsignificantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage(M=−.43,SD=.476)thanincorporatecommunicationcoverage

(M=.04,SD=.204);t(79.03)=−7.94,p<.01.Whenconsideringtheinternalstakeholdersseparately,allinternalstakeholders

werecoveredsignificantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage,ascomparedtocorporatecommunication(organizationin

general:M=−.44,SD=.637versusM=.00,SD=000;t(127)=−7.77,p<.01);employees:M=−.56,SD=.585versusM=.00,

SD=.000;t(65)=−7.78,p<.01;management:M=−.48,SD=.623versusM=25, SD=.707;t(81)=−3.11,p<.01).Further,

theresearchcouncilwascoveredsignificantlymorenegativelyinmediacoverage(M=−.06,SD=.241)thanincorporate

(7)

Table4

Averagetonepernewsframeandcorrelationsbetweentoneandnewsframesinmediacoverageandcorporatecommunication. Organizationin

general

Employees Management Localgovernment National government Researchcouncil Mediacoverage Humaninterest −.44 −.57 −.48 .00 .00 −.06 Conflict −.65** −.69** −.56** .00 .00 −.07 Responsibility −.75* −.89** −.68 .00 .00 −.11 Economicconsequences −.25 −.50 −.60 .00 .00 −.07 Morality .00 −1.00 .00 .00

Totalnumberofarticles 128 66 75 2 12 82

Corporatecommunication Humaninterest .00 .00 .29 .00 Conflict .00 .00 .00 .00 Responsibility Economicconsequences .00 2.00** .00 Morality

Totalnumberofarticles 24 6 8 22

Note:Tonerangesfrom−2(verynegative)to+2(verypositive).

* p<05. ** p<01.

3.3. Correlationnewsframesandtone

Incorporatecommunication,theeconomicconsequencesframeissignificantlycorrelatedwithtonetoward

manage-ment(r(6)=1.00):tonetowardmanagementismorepositivewhenthepressreleasesareframedintermsofeconomic

consequences,seeTable4.

Inmediacoverage,toneissignificantlycorrelatedwiththeconflictframetowardinternalstakeholders:whenmedia

coverageisframedintermsofconflict,tonetowardinternalstakeholdersbecomesmorenegative.Theresponsibilityframe

issignificantlycorrelatedwiththeorganizationingeneralandwithemployees:whenmediacoverageisframedintermsof

responsibility,tonetowardthesestakeholdersbecomesmorenegative.Theeconomic-consequencesframewassignificantly

correlatedwithtonetowardmanagement:Whencorporatecommunicationisframedintermsofeconomicconsequences,

tonetowardmanagementbecomesmorepositive.

3.4. Timelines,newsframesandtone

Togatherinsightinthedevelopmentofnewsframesandaveragetonetowardrelevantstakeholders,chronological

timelineswerecreated.Onthesetimelines,keyeventsduringthecrisisweremarked.Inbothmediacoverageand

corpo-ratecommunication,messagesinthefirstmonthwerepredominantlyframedintermsofhumaninterest.Further,both

communicationtypesarecharacterizedbyseveralpeaksovertime.Thesepeaksoccurapproximatelyatthesametime.

Theusednewsframesinthesefluctuations,however,differ.Corporatecommunicationcoverageisonlyframedintermsof

humaninterest,conflictandeconomicconsequences,andafterthreemonths,theonlyframethatpersistsisthe

human-interestframe.Furthermore,theeconomic-consequencesframeisusedinmediacoveragebeforeitisusedincorporate

communication.

Regardingtoneinmediacoverage,despiteaslightpeakin August2011,which ischaracterizedbyapositivetone,

internalstakeholderswereonlycoveredneutrallyincorporatecommunicationcoverageandexternalstakeholderswere

notmentionedatall.Inmediacoverage,externalstakeholderswereonlycoveredneutrally.ExceptforthemonthsJune

2012andAugust2012,internalstakeholderswerecoverednegatively.Whencomparingtheaveragetonetowardrelevant

stakeholdersincorporatecommunicationcoverageandinmediacoverage,severalstatementscanbemade.Thefirstsix

monthsofthecrisis(i.e.,June2011–November2011),werecharacterizedbycorporatecommunication,whichwasmainly

neutraltowardinternalstakeholders.Afterthisperiod,pressreleaseswerepurelyneutralandpublishedinJanuary2012,

March2012andAugust2012.However,themediadidfocusonthecrisisforfivemonthsinarow.Furthermore,themedia

publishednewsstoriesinmoremonths(i.e.,12)thantheorganizationincrisis(i.e.,9)duringtheentirecrisis.

4. Discussion

Theprimarygoalofthisresearchwastoexamineinwhatwayacorporatecrisisresponsestrategyaffectsmediacoverage.

Usingcontentanalysis,mediacoveragemessagesandcorporatecommunicationmessageswerecompared.Theorganization

incrisiswasamidsizedhospitalinamajorcityintheNetherlandsthatwasconfrontedwithabacteriaoutbreakleadingto

hundredsofpatientsbeinginfectedbytheK.pneumoniaebacteria,resultinginthreefatalities.Althoughpreviousstudies

(8)

haveinfluenceonthosemedia,resultinginpro-organizationmediacoverage,wedidnotfindevidencesupportingthisclaim.

Instead,itappearedthatanorganization’scrisisresponseisconstantlybeingreframedbythenewsmedia.

Toillustrate,ourresultsshowthatthemediaframeacrisissignificantlymoreoftenintermsofconflict,responsibility

andeconomicconsequencescomparedtocommunicationsissuedbytheorganization.Furthermore,significantdifferences

werefoundwithinthenewsframes used.In ordertogeneratenewreputationalassets,theorganizationincrisiswas

expectedtooffersolutions(i.e.,whichisanaspectoftheresponsibilityframe).Asthis newsframegotnoattentionin

thepressreleases,themediaintroducedtheirownstoriesaboutwhichpartycanbeheldresponsible.Furthermore,in

absenceofprovidedsolutionsand/ornew,positivenewsbytheorganizationincrisis,thenewsmediaalsofocusedonthe

partiesthatreproachedanotherandreflecteddisagreements(i.e.,conflictframe)significantlymorethantheorganization

incrisisdid.Also,concerningthehuman-interestframe,themediaemphasizedhowindividualsandgroupsareaffected

bythecrisissignificantlymorethancorporatecommunications.Theaveragenumberofnewsframesperarticleishigher

inmediacoverage(i.e.,2)thanincorporatecommunicationcoverage(i.e.,1.1).Further,achronologicaltimelineanalysis

showedthatcorporate communicationinapproximatelythefirst threemonthsisframedmostfrequentlyintermsof

humaninterest,conflict,andeconomicconsequences.Afterthisperiod,corporatecommunicationisonlycoveredinterms

ofhumaninterest.However,inmediacoverage,avarietyofnewsframesisusedduringtheentireperiodofcrisis.Also,the

economic-consequencesframeisusedinmediacoveragebeforeitisusedincorporatecommunication.

Thereframingcharacterofnewsmediaisalsoillustratedbysignificantdifferencesintermsoftone,comparedtocorporate

communication.Ritchieetal.(2004)suggestmanagingcorporatecommunicationthroughacrisisresponsestrategytolimit

negativemediacoverage.However,thepresentresultsshowthatallstakeholders(thatappearincorporatecommunication)

arecoveredsignificantlymorenegativelyinmediacoveragecomparedtocorporatecommunication.Furthermore,inthe

media,morestakeholdersarecoveredthanincorporatecommunication(e.g.,thelocalgovernmentandnationalgovernment

wereaddressedinmediacoverageandnotincorporatecommunication).Therefore,itcanbestatedthatnotcoveringcertain

stakeholdersincorporatecommunicationisnoguaranteethatthemediawillnotdosoeither.Insum,despiteproactively

framingacrisisthroughcorporatecommunicationcoverage,theorganizationincrisishasnotbeenabletopreventnegative

mediacoverageofinternalstakeholders.

Onemightwonderhowcrisismanagersshoulddealwiththereframingnatureofnewsmedia?Proactivelyrespondingto

acrisisisbynomeansaguaranteethatthemediawilladoptyourframe.Themostimportantpracticalimplicationforcrisis

managersisthatmainlyframingthecrisisintermsofhumaninterestisnotenoughtopositivelyaffectmediacoverage,

asresultsfromthisstudysuggestthatthemediawillreframetheorganization’scrisisresponsepredominantlyintermsof

conflict,responsibilityandeconomicconsequences.Doesthisimplythatcorporatecrisiscommunicationisbeingignored

bythemedia(andtherestoftheworld)becauseitapparentlyisignoringreality?Whenthisisavalidargument,whatwould

theutilityofcorporatecrisiscommunicationbe?

Somelimitationsofthisstudymustbenoted.Thefirstisthatthisstudy’sorganizationincrisisusedonlyonenews

frametoaddressalimitedsetofstakeholdersneutrally.So,itremainsunclearwhathappenstomediareframingwhenthe

organizationincrisisframesthecrisisinmorethanonenewsframeandwhenitwilladdressrelevantstakeholdersmore

negatively.Additionalresearchisneededtotestthis.Asecondlimitationconcernsthetypeofmediacoverage,whichisused

forthisstudy.Thisresearchonlyincludedmediacoveragefromnewspapers.Giventherisingpopularityofdigitalmedia

andsocialmedia,itisrecommendedtoincludenewswebsites,orweblogs,orsocialmediachannelsinfutureresearch.

References

An,S.-K.,&Gower,K.K.(2009).Howdothenewsmediaframecrises?Acontentanalysisofcrisisnewscoverage.PublicRelationsReview,35,107–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010

Barnes, M.D., Hanson,L.,Novilla, L.M., Meacham, A.T., &McIntyre, E.(2008). Analysisof mediaagendasetting during and after Hurricane Katrina: Implicationsfor emergencypreparedness,disaster response, anddisaster policy. AmericanJournalof PublicHealth, 98(4), 604–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.112235

Bond,J.,&Kirshenbaum,R.(1998).Undertheradar:Talkingtotoday’scynicalconsumer.NewYork:JohnWiley&SonsInc.

Brunken,B.L.(2006).HurricaneKatrina:Acontentanalysisofmediaframing,attributeagendasetting,andtoneofgovernmentresponse.LouisianaState University.Retrievedfromhttp://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07102006-130303/

Bullock, H. E., Wyche, K. F., & Williams, W. R. (2001). Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 229–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00210

Cappella,J.N.,&Jamieson,K.H.(1997).Spiralofcynicism:Thepressandthepublicgood.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Carroll,C.E.,&McCombs,M.(2003).Agenda-settingeffectsofbusinessnewsonthepublic’simagesandopinionsaboutmajorcorporations.Corporate ReputationReview,6(1),36–46.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540188

Cebuco.(2012).Verspreideoplagepertitelperprovincie2012.Amsterdam:NDPNieuwsmedia.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oplagen-dagbladen.nl/ Cho,H.S.,&Gower,K.K.(2006).Framingeffectonthepublic’sresponsetocrisis:Humaninterestframeandcrisistypeinfluencingresponsibilityand

blame.PublicRelationsReview,32,420–422.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.09.011 Coombs,W.T.(1999).Ongoingcrisiscommunication.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications.

Coombs,W.T.(2007).Protectingorganizationreputationsduringacrisis:Thedevelopmentandapplicationofsituationalcrisiscommunicationtheory. CorporateReputationReview,10,163–176.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Coombs,W.T.,&Holladay,S.J.(2002).Helpingcrisismanagersprotectreputationalassets:Initialtestsofthesituationalcrisiscommunicationtheory. ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,16(165),165–186.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233

Cooper,A.H.(2002).Mediaframingandsocialmovementmobilization:GermanpeaceprotestagainstINFmissiles,theGulfWar,andNATOpeace enforcementinBosnia.EuropeanJournalofPoliticalResearch,41,37–80.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00003

DePersgroepAdvertising.(2013).RegionaalVerspreidingsgebied.Retrievedfromhttp://www.persgroepadvertising.nl/regionaal

deVreese,C.H.(2004).Theeffectsofframesinpoliticaltelevisionnewsonissueinterpretationandframesalience.Journalism&MassCommunication Quarterly,81(1),36–52.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100104

(9)

Deephouse,D.L.(2000).Mediareputationasastrategicresource:Anintegrationofmasscommunicationandresource-basedtheories.Journalof Manage-ment,26(6),1091–1112.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602

Druckman,J.N.(2004).Politicalpreferenceformation:Competition,deliberation,andthe(ir)relevanceofframingeffects.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview, 98(4),671–686.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041413

Edy,J.A.,&Meirick,P.C.(2007).Wanted,deadoralive:Mediaframes,frameadoption,andsupportforthewarinAfghanistan.JournalofCommunication, 57,119–141.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00332.x

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Gilpin,D.R.(2008).Narratingtheorganizationalself:Reframingtheroleofthenewsrelease.PublicRelationsReview,34(1),9–18.

Gunther,A.C.(1998).Thepersuasivepressinference:Effectsofmassmediaonperceivedpublicopinion.CommunicationResearch,25(5),486–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365098025005002

Hansen,K. (2007).The sophisticated public: Theeffect of competingframes onpublic opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies,30(3), 377–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00185.x

HOI,InstituutvoorMediaAuditing.(2011).HOIRapportage2011.Retrievedfromhttp://hoi-offline.staging.modernmedia.nl/798/Opvraagmodule.html Iyengar,S.(1987).Televisionnewsandcitizens’explanationsofnationalaffairs.TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,81(3),815–832.Retrievedfrom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1962678

Kim,S.-H.,Carvalho,J.P.,&Cooksey,C.E.(2007).Exploringtheeffectsofnegativepublicity:Newscoverageandpublicperceptionsofauniversity.Public RelationsReview,33,233–235.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.018

Kuttschreuter,M.,Gutteling,J.M.,&deHond,M.(2011).Framingandtone-of-voiceofdisastermediacoverage:TheaftermathoftheEnschedefireworks disasterintheNetherlands.Health,Risk&Society,13(3),201–220.

McCombs,M.(1977).Agendasettingfunctionofmassmedia.PublicRelationsReview,3(4),89–95.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(77)80008-8 McCombs,M.(2004).Settingtheagenda:Themassmediaandpublicopinion.Cambridge:PolityPress.

McCombs,M.,&Ghanem,S.I.(2001).Theconvergenceofagendasettingandframing.InS.D.Reese,O.H.GandyJr.,&A.E.Grant(Eds.),Framingpubliclife: Perspectivesonmediaandourunderstandingofthesocialworld(pp.67–81).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.

Meijer,M.M.,&Kleinnijenhuis,J.(2006).Newsandcorporatereputation:EmpiricalfindingsfromtheNetherlands.PublicRelationsReview,32(4),341–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.08.002

Miller,M.M.,&Riechert,B.P.(2000).Interestgroupstrategiesandjournalisticnorms:newsmediaframingofenvironmentalissues.InS.Allan,B.Adam, &C.Carter(Eds.),Environmentalrisksandthemedia.London:Routledge.

Nelkin, D. (1988). Risk reporting and the management of industrial crises. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 341–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.192960

Neuman,W.R.,Just,M.R.,&Crigler,A.N.(1992).Commonknowledge:Newsandtheconstructionofpoliticalmeaning.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicago Press.

Price,V.,Tewksbury,D.,&Powers,E.(1997).Switchingtrainsofthought:Theimpactofnewsframesonreaders’cognitiveresponses.Communication Research,24(5),481–506.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365097024005002

Ritchie,B.W.,Dorell,H.,Miller,D.,&Miller,G.A.(2004).Crisiscommunicationandrecoveryforthetourismindustry.JournalofTravel&TourismMarketing, 15(2–3),199–216.http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v15n0211

Semetko,H.A.,&Valkenburg,P.M.(2000).FramingEuropeanpolitics:Acontentanalysisofpressandtelevisionnews.JournalofCommunication,50(2), 93–109.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x

Stephens,K.K.,&Malone,P.C.(2009).Iftheorganizationswon’tgiveusinformation...:Theuseofmultiplenewmediaforcrisistechnicaltranslationand dialogue.JournalofPublicRelationsResearch,21(2),229–239.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260802557605

Ulmer,R.R.,Sellnow,T.L.,&Seeger,M.W.(2007).Effectivecrisiscommunication:Movingfromcrisistoopportunity.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications. Valentini,C., &Romenti, S. (2011).Thepress and Alitalia’s 2008 crisis: Issues,tones, and frames. PublicRelations Review,37(2011),360–365.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.07.002

Valkenburg,P.M.,Semetko,H.A.,&deVreese,C.H.(1999).Theeffectsofnewsframesonreaders’thoughtsandrecall.CommunicationResearch,26(5), 550–569.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365099026005002

Veil, S. R., & Ojeda, F. (2010). Establishing media partnerships in crisis response. Communication Studies, 61(4), 412–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2010.491336

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

BN-gebied Bussumer- en Westerheide Franse Kampheide Gooise noordflank Groeve Oostermeent Ham en Crommenije Heide achter Sportpark Heidebloem Hilversums Wasmeer Hoorneboegse

Een tweetal scenario's is onderzocht waarin maatregelen worden doorgerekend voor het landbouwgebied buiten de zogenaamde beleidsdeelgebieden (Fig. In scenario 6a wordt in dat

To answer whether the populism of mainstream political parties in the Netherlands increased in the period 2010-2017 and to analyse the nature of this change – stylistic or ideational

Speciale aandacht gaat hierbij uit naar hoe de verschillende betrokken organisaties zich gepositioneerd hebben binnen het gaswinningsconflict, de communicatie tussen bewegingen

uiteengezet worden welke invloed de eugenetica had op de relatie tussen de Duitse koloniale overheersers en de inheemse populatie van Duits-Zuidwest Afrika.. Welke invloed had

Accurate relative stopping power prediction from dual energy CT for proton therapy: Methodology and experimental validation1.

The most commonly employed fishing techniques were handlines (26.77%), traditional baskets (25.81%) and drag nets (22.26%), followed by gill nets (17.10%) and, to a much