Features
On overcoming misunderstandings about an academic institution Dzenana Ceman turns the spotlight on crisis communication in international education
Even if it’s a minority who are voicing controversial and opposing views, it’s essential not to dismiss those voices. 26
In The Power of Communication, Dr Garcia (2012) says that ‘the rule that I’ve always used in coaching clients in a crisis is that you can’t meet emotion with logic. You have to meet it with emotion; once that emotional connection is made you can move the audience to a conclusion with logic’. In his book, the lesson for leaders and communicators is to ‘resist saying what merely sounds good in the moment’. This is essential, as many leaders when approached with a crisis, may be tempted to do just that – say whatever is going to please the audience. An IB community blog titled ‘International education in a world of fake news and filter bubbles’, written by educator Louise Badham, explains that ‘prejudices and beliefs are reinforced to such an extent that it has even been questioned whether our capacity to distinguish fact from fiction has been jeopardized’. She further states that ‘In this post-truth world, incendiary rhetoric is perpetuated via social media, creating divisions and enhancing existing tensions across states, cultures and peoples, all of which undermine basic principles of tolerance and unity which are the heart of international education.’ We live in a society where misinformation has the potential to create a frame for one’s institution that might not necessarily be the frame the institution desires in order to tell its story. It is the duty of an academic institution to provide a context and frame that speaks to its intended audience before introducing any facts. Over a decade ago, when the International Baccalaureate’s programs were being part-funded in individual public schools and districts in the United States, rather provocative news headlines gained much attention. An article published in The Guardian, titled ‘All American Trouble’ (Walters, 2006) referred to a US school district that had banned the International Baccalaureate and labeled it as ‘‘un-American’ and Marxist, sparking outrage among pupils who are studying the increasingly popular diploma’ and noted that during further election debates, some of the board of governors ‘hurled accusations at the IB’s content, claiming that its teaching is anti-Christian, un-American and Marxist’. While this might not be an ‘acute crisis’ situation, we need to ask ourselves:
Autumn |
Spring
At times, academic institutions face challenges that can dangerously impact the reputation of an institution or program. I am not talking about a parent who is upset with the way things are at an individual school and who is fixated on writing a negative Google review. Rather, I am talking about an aspect of Public Relations, known as crisis communication. How can something as small as a misunderstanding about a school’s program be considered a crisis? Recently, I interviewed a New York University professor and an expert in crisis communication management, Dr Helio Fred Garcia. My goal was to inquire whether certain misunderstandings about a school’s program, goals or mission fall into the category of crisis communication. According to Dr Garcia, there is a difference between ‘acute crisis’ and ‘chronic crisis’. Acute crisis calls for something that has occurred ‘suddenly’ and is rather ‘urgent’. Chronic crisis, on the other hand, ‘builds slowly, exists over time, it can be worse over time and has a potential to alienate people along the way’. How does one measure severity of a crisis? Trust. For schools that find themselves in the situation where the lack of trust among its constituents is at stake, it becomes crucial to ‘name the problem clearly in order to prevent reality of risks’. Of course, it can happen that some misunderstandings are inadvertent and therefore produce critics. And Dr Garcia emphasizes that focusing on the solution is as important as focusing on the problem itself.
| 2019
