In backyards, on front lawns: examining informal risk communication and communicators

Abstract

Risk communicators are often envisioned as government officials, public relations practitioners, or health workers. Yet much of the public's risk information comes from informal messages and unofficial carriers. Referred to in this study as "informal risk communicators" (IRCs), these individuals are often service workers who relay risk information to public audiences, though often outside of their formal job descriptions. Literatures in the health communication, science and technology studies, and risk communication fields have considered ideas relevant to explaining these individuals, and the risk communication work they perform. To further explore this category of individuals, this study examines the communicative practices of commercial pesticide applicators, using both in-depth interviews and surveys. Through their interactions with clients, these individuals offer care, as well as project expertise and identity; however, the extent to which this work is recognized and validated is less clear. Both applied and theoretical implications of this research are considered.

The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners

“…This is to say, the majority of them expressed scepticism, reluctance and even resistance towards participating in formal channels of science communication, such as responding to public queries through online or paper media. Rather, many scientists were more keen to act as ‘informal risk communicators’ ( Richard, 2011 ) on private occasions or grassroots events. This is because they believed speaking as an ‘institutional scientist’ would invite additional public scepticism and contention.…”

Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus

“…Scholars can improve their understanding of location effects on risk perceptions and risk communication by looking at their effects jointly for the same hazard. Use of the CDC‐derived information also allows examination of effects of information from a little‐explored middle ground between formal risk communications (e.g., radon testing brochures; Bostrom, Atman, Fischhoff, & Morgan, ; Smith, Desvousges, Johnson, & Fisher, ) and informal messaging by unofficial communicators (Rickard, ), where the intended outcome of exposure to the information is less clear than in formal cases but still part of the messaging of an official risk communicator, the CDC.…”

Headlice eradication as everyday engagement with science: An analysis of online parenting discussions

“…Parents in the Mumsnet forum largely acted as informal risk communicators (Rickard 2011) for one another in their role as parents with experience of headlice, without reliance on professionals in any capacity.…”