Ways to optimize the risk communication between specialists on radiation safety and population: recommendations on communication language
https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-4-72-77
Abstract
The article discusses the features inherent in the language of communication of specialists in radiation safety among themselves and with the public. Despite the confidence expressed by the population to specialists, their communication is difficult not only for organizational reasons, but also for their languages of communication. The population best understands the language not of the source of information on radiation safety issues (specialists), but of the transmitter of this information – journalists. It is necessary to take into account the difference in the tasks of specialists and journalists in conveying information to the population on the urgent problems of radiation safety, in particular, projects of the nuclear industry. It is shown that taking into account the peculiarities of the language characteristic of the population (or any of its groups) helps in a large degree to optimize information support for risk communication of the population on radiation safety issues. This is necessary for the development of an adequate attitude to the work of the nuclear industry. The article also considers the stages of risk- communication and the factors contributing to its optimization.
About the Authors
Genrietta V. Arkhagelskaya
Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights and Human Well-Being
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Chief Researcher, Laboratory of Ecology
Mira str., 8, Saint-Petersburg, 197101
Svetlana A. Zelentsova
Saint-Petersburg Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights and Human Well-Being
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Junior Researcher, Laboratory of Ecology
Mira str., 8, Saint-Petersburg, 197101
References
1. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.A., Vishnyakova N.M. Population protection: social and psychological issues. Radiological and hygienic issues of the mitigation of the Chernobyl NPP accident consequences. Ed.: G.G. Onischenko, A.Yu. Popova. St. Petersburg., Research Institute of Radiation Hygiene after Professor P.V. Ramzaev, 2016, pp. 352-388. (in Russian).
2. Romanovich I.K. [et. al.] Accident at NPP Fukushima-1. Ed. G.G. Onishchenko, St. Petersburg, 2012, 335 p. (in Russian).
3. Biblin A.M. [et al.] Risk-communication issues in radiation safety: preferences of the public in the Leningrad and Murmansk regions on the sources of information. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2018, Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 60-73. (In Russian).
4. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zelentsova S.A., Zykova I.A., Ramzaev V.P., Khramtsov E.V. Problems of informing the public about the consequences of peaceful nuclear explosions. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2011, Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 20-26. (In Russian).
5. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Vainberg A.L., Gubernatorova V.V., Daricheva O.A., Zelentsova S.A., Zykova I.A., Repin V.S., Khramtsov E.V. Subjective radiation risk assessments in areas adjacent to the sites of peaceful nuclear explosions. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2009, Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 34-39. (In Russian).
6. Zelentsova S.A., Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.A. Public Opinion on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions in the Perm Territory. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2010, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5-9. (In Russian).
7. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Vasilyeva T.A., Zelentsova S.A., Medvedev A.Yu., Ramzaev V.P., Timofeeva M.A. Opinion of local residents on the consequences of peaceful nuclear explosions conducted on the territory of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2010, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 15-21. (In Russian).
8. Sokolov N.V. [et al.] Risk-communication issues in radiation safety: Mass consciousness about radiation and nuclear industry based on the results of a sociological research in St. Petersburg, the Leningrad region and the Murmansk region]. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2017, Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 45-56. (In Russian).
9. Biblin A.M., Khramtsov E.V., Repin L.V., Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zelentsova S.A., Sokolov N.V. Public opinion on radiation safety in the Arkhangelsk region. In the book: Actual issues of radiation hygiene Materials of the international scientific-practical conference, 2018, pp. 55-57. (In Russian).
10. Arkhangelskaya G.V., Zykova I.A., Zelentsova S.A. The difficulties of informing the population on the issues of radiation protection. Radiatsionnaya gygiena = Radiation Hygiene, 2014, Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 42-49. (In Russian).
11. Zelentsova S.A., Arkhangelskaya G.V., Khramtsov E.V. Ways to optimize communication activities on radiation safety issues, taking into account the information needs of the population. Sat Modern problems of radiation medicine: from science to practice (Gomel, April 26-27, 2018) Materials of the international scientific-practical conference. Ed. Dr. med. Sciences, Assoc. A.V. Rozhko. Gomel, State Institution “Republican Scientific and Practical Center of Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology”. Gomel: State Institution “RNPC RMEH”, 2018, pp. 57-58. (In Russian).
12. Vaganov P.A., Him M.-S. Environmental risks. Tutorial, 2nd edition, revised and enlarged, ed. St. Petersburg University, 2001, 151 p. (In Russian).
13. Perko T. Radiation risk perception: a discrepancy between the experts and the general population. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 2014, V. 133, pp. 86-91.
14. Perko T., Adam B., Stassen K.R. The differences in perception of radiological risks: lay people versus new and experienced employees in the nuclear sector. Journal of Risk Research, 2015, Vol. 18, №. 1, pp. 40-54.
15. Kasperson, R.E. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, 1988, V. 8, № 2, pp. 177–187.
16. Hyer R.N., Covello V.T. Breaking bad news in the high-concern, low trust setting: how to get your story heard. Health physics, 2017, V. 112, №. 2, pp. 111-115.
17. Tomkiv Y, Perko T, Oughton DH, Prezelj I, Cantone MC, Gallego E. 2How did media present the radiation risks after the Fukushima accident: a content analysis of newspapers in Europe. Journal of Radiological Protection, 2016, V. 36, №. 2, pp. 64-81.
18. Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E., Slovic P. (ed.). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, 2003, 448 p.
19. Scott, T.H. & Scott, J.C. Utilization of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by a freshman engineering advising center. In Lifelong Learning in Engineering Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education 1996 Southeastern Section Meeting: April 14-16, 1996, Knoxville, Tennessee. Washington, D.C.: ASEE.
20. Kráger O., Tewson J. Types of people: 16 personality types. Moscow. Perseus – Veche – AST, 2nd ed, 2005, 352 p. (in Russian).
21. Myers, I., Myers, P. MBTI. Type definition. Everyone has their own gift. Moscow, Publishing house “Business Psychologists”, 2010, 320 p. (in Russian).
22. Isabel Briggs Myers with Peter B. Myers. Gifts Differing: understanding personality type. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1995, 248 p.
23. Briggs Myers, I., Mack, Collie M. H., Hammer, A. L. Typology of Mayers-Briggs. Psychology of individual differences. Ed. by Yu.B. Gippenreiter and V.J. Romanov. Moscow, CheRo, 2000, pp. 754-775. (in Russian).
24. Goldberg, LR. Language and individual differences The search for universals personality lexicons In L Wheeler (Ed), Review of personality and social psychology, 1981, Vol 2, pp. 141-165.
25. Jung K.G. Psychological types. Saint-Petersburg. Azbuka publishing house, 1996, 736 p. (in Russian).
26. Robertson R. Introduction to Jungian psychology. Rostovon-Don, Phoenix, 1998, 320 p. (in Russian).
27. Vaganov P.S. Man, risk, security. Saint-Petersburg. St.- Petersburg State University publ., 2002, 160 p. (in Russian).
28. Hedges P. Character Analysis, or typology by Myers-Briggs. Moscow, Publishing house Eksmo, 2003, 320 p. (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Arkhagelskaya G.V., Zelentsova S.A. Ways to optimize the risk communication between specialists on radiation safety and population: recommendations on communication language. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2019;12(4):72-77. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2019-12-4-72-77
Views:
998
Email this article 