212
communication the issue of credibility is of key importance and so too the ability to
catch those who are potentially interested (Renn 2008 ).
9.2.3 Risk Communication and the Public Sphere
To acknowledge the role of the public in risk governance and communication is at
least a twofold endeavour. On the one hand, it is about including the public as citizens (organised and individually) in governance processes via, for example, hearings. On the other hand, it is about raising awareness and making these issues a
prominent part of the public discourse putting them on the public agenda. Political
decisions are widely affected by the relationship between the agendas and frames of
policy-makers, the public and the media (cf. Asp 1986 ). The news media and public
debate are essential for communication between policy-makers and the public and
for creating common agendas and framing risks. Over the last decade, so-called
social media like Twitter and Facebook have also been a tool for policy-makers to
communicate with and inform the general public.
The media is also an arena for public representation and for different forms of
participation (such as submitting letters to editors or writing opinion pieces), not
least when it comes to environmental risk issues (cf. Egan Sjölander and Jönsson
2012 ). Media and journalism studies have highlighted that the news media generally articulates an elitist discourse (see, e.g. Shoemaker and Reese 1996 ), something
that is the case with regard to environmental news as well. Spokespersons from
government and industry dictate the discourse of environmental news, while the
views of ‘ordinary’ citizens or ‘side effects’ (cf. Beck 1992 ) are much more rare (cf.
Cox 2010 ). Research also shows that those who appear in the news are able to infl uence on how a problem is framed in terms of causes and solutions (see, e.g. Entman
1993 ).
The concept of framing has roots in both psychology and sociology and in the
work of sociologist Erving Goffman. Goffman discusses framing as an interpretive
framework that helps individuals to process information (Goffman 1974 ; Pan and
Kosicki 1993 ). In the fi eld of policy-making theory and political sociology, the
concept of framing is often used to analyse how actors are actively involved in
debating, defi ning and setting a particular agenda and furthering its implementation
(Rein and Schön 1993 ).
The concept of framing can be used in different kinds of analyses and has been
applied in studies of stakeholder participation and communication within governance processes (see, e.g. De Marchi 2003 ; Dreyer et al. 2014 ; Jönsson 2011 ). Risks
are inherently diffi cult to communicate as different interpretations and implications
are bound to emerge. Framing is the work of defi ning and answering questions like:
What is at stake? What is the risk? What is the cause and effect (Entman 1993 ;
Schön and Rein 1994 )?
Framing is an essential component in all phases of risk management (while perhaps particularly important in the pre- assessment stage; see Linke et al. 2011 ).
A.M. Jönsson et al.
communication the issue of credibility is of key importance and so too the ability to
catch those who are potentially interested (Renn 2008 ).
9.2.3 Risk Communication and the Public Sphere
To acknowledge the role of the public in risk governance and communication is at
least a twofold endeavour. On the one hand, it is about including the public as citizens (organised and individually) in governance processes via, for example, hearings. On the other hand, it is about raising awareness and making these issues a
prominent part of the public discourse putting them on the public agenda. Political
decisions are widely affected by the relationship between the agendas and frames of
policy-makers, the public and the media (cf. Asp 1986 ). The news media and public
debate are essential for communication between policy-makers and the public and
for creating common agendas and framing risks. Over the last decade, so-called
social media like Twitter and Facebook have also been a tool for policy-makers to
communicate with and inform the general public.
The media is also an arena for public representation and for different forms of
participation (such as submitting letters to editors or writing opinion pieces), not
least when it comes to environmental risk issues (cf. Egan Sjölander and Jönsson
2012 ). Media and journalism studies have highlighted that the news media generally articulates an elitist discourse (see, e.g. Shoemaker and Reese 1996 ), something
that is the case with regard to environmental news as well. Spokespersons from
government and industry dictate the discourse of environmental news, while the
views of ‘ordinary’ citizens or ‘side effects’ (cf. Beck 1992 ) are much more rare (cf.
Cox 2010 ). Research also shows that those who appear in the news are able to infl uence on how a problem is framed in terms of causes and solutions (see, e.g. Entman
1993 ).
The concept of framing has roots in both psychology and sociology and in the
work of sociologist Erving Goffman. Goffman discusses framing as an interpretive
framework that helps individuals to process information (Goffman 1974 ; Pan and
Kosicki 1993 ). In the fi eld of policy-making theory and political sociology, the
concept of framing is often used to analyse how actors are actively involved in
debating, defi ning and setting a particular agenda and furthering its implementation
(Rein and Schön 1993 ).
The concept of framing can be used in different kinds of analyses and has been
applied in studies of stakeholder participation and communication within governance processes (see, e.g. De Marchi 2003 ; Dreyer et al. 2014 ; Jönsson 2011 ). Risks
are inherently diffi cult to communicate as different interpretations and implications
are bound to emerge. Framing is the work of defi ning and answering questions like:
What is at stake? What is the risk? What is the cause and effect (Entman 1993 ;
Schön and Rein 1994 )?
Framing is an essential component in all phases of risk management (while perhaps particularly important in the pre- assessment stage; see Linke et al. 2011 ).
A.M. Jönsson et al.