Reading due

• “We’ve Done Drugs Keith Richards Never Heard Of: A Qualitative Study of Young Adult Cancer Narratives Online,” by Katie Pontius (Stansberry), at least pages 5-6, 13-16, 19-23, 37-38, 52-57, 62-67, 75-76, 83-87, 96-97

• Excerpt about humor from “Debunking Stereotypes and Promoting Helpful Portrayals in Popular Culture,” by Tiffany Derville

• “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” by Walter Fisher

• “The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications,” by Joel Davis

• Excerpt from “Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step-By-Step Guide,” by Kim Witte, Gary Meter, and Dennis Martell

• “Can Fear Arousal in Public Health Campaigns Contribute to the Decline of HIV Prevalence?” by Edward Green and Kim Witte

• “Message Design Theory in Anti-Methamphetamine PSAs: A Case Study of the Montana Meth Project,” by Stacey Malstrom, at least pages 9-42

• Excerpt from “Diffusion of Innovations,” by Everett Rogers

• “A 10-Year Retrospective of Research in Health Mass Media Campaigns: Where Do We Go From Here?” by Seth Noar

Assignment due

• Research paper option: two copies of a completed and signed IRB application

• Book review option: printed copy of an e-mail from a book review editor or journal editor expressing interest in having you review a particular book (the book needs to involve risk communication)

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

• Bring an example of risk communication to class and lead the class in analyzing it based on the readings for today; if you’d like to use a video clip or other electronic communication, e-mail it to me by Thursday

Friday, April 24 (Week Four): Risk Communication Fundamentals and Public Involvement

Reading due

• “Strategic Risk Communication: Adding Value to Society,” by Michael Palenchar and Robert Heath

• “Another Part of the Risk Communication Model: Analysis of Communication Processes and Message Content,” by Michael Palenchar and Robert Heath

• “Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach,” by Timothy Sellnow, Robert Ulmer, Matthew Seeger, and Robert Littlefield, pages 3-30

• “Public Meetings About Suspected Cancer Clusters: The Impact of Voice, Interactional Justice, and Risk Perception on Attendees’ Attitudes in Six Communities,” by Katherine McComas et al.

• “Community Relationship Building: Local Leadership in the Risk Communication Infrastructure,” by Robert Heath et al.

• “Risk Communication and Community Right to Know: A Public Relations Obligation to Inform,” by Michael Palenchar

• “Involving the Public in Risk Communication,” by Katherine McComas

• “Psychological Factors Influencing People’s Reactions to Risk Information,” by Katherine McComas

• “Perception of Risk,” by Paul Slovic

• “Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996-2005,” by Katherine McComas

• “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 289-315

Assignment due

• Research paper option: introduction (one to two pages)

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, May 1 (Week Five): Issues Management, Crisis Management and Media Relations

(Research paper option: start working on literature review this week)
(Book review option: read first quarter of book this week)

Reading due

• Excerpt from “Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach,” by Kathleen Fearn-Banks

• “Six Areas for Crisis Communication,” by Peter Sandman

• “Four Kinds of Risk Communication,” by Peter Sandman

• “Risk Communication in Action: The Tools of Message Mapping,” by Ivy Lin and Dan Petersen on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency

• “Communication During Crisis: Use of Blogs as a Relationship Management Tool,” by Kaye Sweetser and Emily Metzgar

• “An Empirical Analysis of Image Restoration: Texaco’s Racism Crisis,” by Timothy Coombs and Lainen Schmidt

• “Comparing Apology to Equivalent Crisis Response Strategies: Clarifying Apology’s Role and Value in Crisis Communication,” by Timothy Coombs and Sherry Holladay

• “Crisis Communication: Guidelines for Action,” by Peter Sandman and Jody Lanard (download five pdf documents from Blackboard)

• “Communicating in a Crisis: Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials,” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• “Avian Flu, a Pandemic & the Role of Journalists,” excerpts from a conference

• “McDonald’s Corporation and the Issue of Health and Nutrition: An Arthur Page Society Case Study in Issues Management,” by Terri Ann Bailey

Assignment due

• Research paper option: literature review (three to five pages), research questions, and references in a recognized style (also submit revised introduction with edited draft)

• Book review option: evaluation of the first quarter of the book

• Alternative project: Submit progress report or other agreed upon component

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, May 8 (Week Six): Environmental Communication from Activist and Industry Perspectives

Special guests: Harsha Gangadharbatla, Ph.D. (at 9 a.m.) and
Jon Palfreman, Ph.D. (at 10 a.m.)

Reading due

• “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 267-288

• “Myth and Multiple Readings in Environmental Rhetoric: The Case of ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’” by Thomas Rosteck and Thomas Frentz

• “Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” by David Budescu, Stephen Broomell, and Han-Hui Por

• “Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet),” by Elke Weber

• “Radical Activist Tactics: Overturning Public Relations Conceptualizations,” by Tiffany Derville

• “Weathercocks & Signposts: The Environment at a Crossroads,” by Tom Crompton for the WWF

• Greenwashing Index: Promoted by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon: http://www.greenwashingindex.com/

• Case study of greenwashing accusations of organic dairy farming (additional details will be discussed in class):

The Organic Consumer’s Association’s encouragement to boycott certain organic milk labels/manufacturers: http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=4756
The Cornucopia Institute’s encouragement of reforming the USDA organic program standards in light of organic factory farming:
http://www.cornucopia.org/horizon-factory-farm-photo-gallery/aurora-factory-farm-photo-gallery/

• Excerpt from “Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America,” edited by Carl Herndl and Stuart Brown

Assignment due

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, May 15 (Week Seven): Affect and Numeracy in Risk Communication

(Research paper option: start working on method section this week)
(Book review option: read second quarter of book this week)

Special guests: Ellen Peters, Ph.D., and Paul Slovic, Ph.D.

Reading due

• “Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception,” by Dan Kahan, Donald Braman, John Gastil, Paul Slovic, and C.K. Mertz

• “The Affect Heuristic,” by Paul Slovic, Melissa Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald MacGregor

• “When Compassion Fails; Stalin Knew That People Respond Less Strongly to Mass Murder Than to Individual Tragedy. That’s Why Emotion Alone Won’t Prevent Genocide,” by Paul Slovic

• “‘If I Look at the Mass I Will Never Act’: Psychic Numbing and Genocide,” by Paul Slovic

• “Affect, Risk Perception and Future Optimism After the Tsunami Disaster,” by Daniel Vastfjall, Ellen Peters, and Paul Slovic

• “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality,” by Paul Slovic, Melissa Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald MacGregor

• “The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits,” by Melissa Finucane, Ali Alhakami, Paul Slovic, and Stephen Johnson

• “Numeracy and Decision Making,” by Ellen Peters, Daniel Vastfjall, Paul Slovic, C.K. Mertz, Ketti Mazzocco, and Stephan Dickert

• “Numeracy Skill and the Communication, Comprehension, and Use of Risk-Benefit Information,” by Ellen Peters, Judith Hibbard, Paul Slovic, and Nathan Dieckmann

Assignment due

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, May 22 (Week Eight): Risk Communication and Ethics

Special guest: Tom Bivins, Ph.D.

Reading due

• “Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach,” by Timothy Sellnow, Robert Ulmer, Matthew Seeger, and Robert Littlefield, pages 147-177

• “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 7-52, 75-98

• Excerpt from “Gaining Influence in Public Relations: The Role of Resistance in Practice,” by Bruce Berger and Bryan Reber

• “Code of Ethics,” by the Public Relations Society of America

• Other readings to be selected by Dr. Bivins

Assignment due

• Research paper option: method (three pages) and references in a recognized style (also submit revised introduction, literature review, and research questions with edited drafts)

• Book review option: evaluation of the second quarter of the book

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, May 29 (Week Nine): Risk Case Studies

(Book review option: read third quarter of book this week)

(I expect to have IRB applications approved by today.)

Reading due

• “Risk Communication, the West Nile Virus Epidemic, and Bioterrorism: Responding to the Communication Challenges Posed by the Intentional or Unintentional Release of a Pathogen in an Urban Setting,” by Vincent Covello et al.

• “Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach,” by Timothy Sellnow, Robert Ulmer, Matthew Seeger, and Robert Littlefield, pages 53-63, 77-103

• “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 53-70, 195-266

Assignment due

• Research paper option for interviews and focus groups: show evidence of having conducted two interviews or one focus group

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, June 5 (Week Ten): Risk Case Studies
Be prepared to discuss your paper, project, or book review.

Reading due

• “Effective Risk Communication: A Message-Centered Approach,” by Timothy Sellnow, Robert Ulmer, Matthew Seeger, and Robert Littlefield, pages 65-74, 105-145

• “Trust Us, We’re Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,” by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, pages 99-189

Assignment due

• Research paper option for interviews and focus groups: show evidence of having conducted your third and fourth interviews or your second focus group

• Book review option: evaluation of the third quarter of the book

• E-mail at least three questions you would like to discuss in class by Thursday

Friday, June 12 (Final Papers Due)

Final paper, book review, or alternative project due by 5 p.m. to the box on my office door (Allen 215C). Feel free to submit your paper early.

Edit this page (if you have permission) |

Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.