Editorial Essay: A Reflection on Methodological Diversity in the Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research

Abstract

In our previous editorials, we have touched on different aspects of diversity and diversification in crisis and risk communication research. We have argued that while the field is starting to expand from its focus on Western corporate perspectives to include non-Western countries, non-corporate crises, and more broadly embracing different perspectives, we also suggest that diversification needs to continue to develop and be supported (Diers-Lawson & Meißner, 2021a). Furthermore, we have reviewed the multidisciplinary character of crisis and risk communication research, involving researchers from fields like public relations, political science, sociology, journalism, public health, and others suggesting this is not only healthy for the continued development of crisis and risk communication research but also necessary to more fully understand the phenomenon (Diers-Lawson & Meißner, 2021b). In this editorial, we would like to identify another aspect of diversity that we deem crucial: the importance of supporting methodological diversity in crisis and risk communication research. For both theory-building and theory-testing, it is fruitful, if not essential, to apply different methodological angles to increase the robustness of our findings and theories. In her analysis of the field’s development, Diers-Lawson (2020) points out that the methodological diversity of crisis communication journal articles has evolved with the field’s development with conceptual and best practices emerging first, followed by rhetorical, qualitative, quantitative, then experimental approaches.