All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Legitimacy Disputes and Social Amplification of Perceived Risk
Unformatted Document Text:  Legitimacy & Social Amplification of Risk Perceptions     4   on collaborative communication practices for symbiotic outcomes (Chess, Saville, et al., 1992; Chess, Tamuz, et al., 1992; Sutcliffe, 2001). Legitimacy Disputes for Government Risk Communication Organizational legitimacy is generally defined as “a perceived congruence between social values associated with organizational activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the larger system” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 159). Organizations attempt to maintain legitimacy in a wide variety of non-crisis public relations situations from trademark protection to altering product packaging or log to changing its policy (Boyd, 2000). Organizational legitimacy becomes more crucial in managing issues during the crisis situation. An organization, especially during the crisis, makes its best effort to portray itself as having enough legitimacy in a good alignment with widely held and representative beliefs, ideas, and practices (Kernisky, 1997). Organizational legitimacy affects not only how publics understand the situation but also how they react to an organization during the crisis situations (Suchman, 1995). To be perceived legitimate, thus, an organization during the crisis situation should not only consider key stakeholders’ interests and needs, but they also implement responsible and ethically acceptable public relations practices. Previous literature discerns three types of legitimacy: pragmatic, normative, and cognitive legitimacy (Brinkerhoff, 2005; Humphreys, 2010; Ju & Tang, in press; Suchman, 1995; Zeitz, Mittal, & McAulay, 1999; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). While these different types of legitimacy can be distinctive conceptually and analytically, they are often perceived in a mixed and multi-faceted way in practice (Brinkerhoff, 2005).

Authors: Lim, Joon Soo., Mun, Kwansik. and Yang, Sung-Un.
first   previous   Page 5 of 38   next   last

background image
Legitimacy & Social Amplification of Risk Perceptions   
on collaborative communication practices for symbiotic outcomes (Chess, Saville, et al., 
1992; Chess, Tamuz, et al., 1992; Sutcliffe, 2001).  
Legitimacy Disputes for Government Risk Communication  
Organizational legitimacy is generally defined as “a perceived congruence 
between social values associated with organizational activities and the norms of 
acceptable behavior in the larger system” (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978, 159). Organizations 
attempt to maintain legitimacy in a wide variety of non-crisis public relations situations 
from trademark protection to altering product packaging or log to changing its policy 
(Boyd, 2000).  
Organizational legitimacy becomes more crucial in managing issues during the 
crisis situation. An organization, especially during the crisis, makes its best effort to 
portray itself as having enough legitimacy in a good alignment with widely held and 
representative beliefs, ideas, and practices (Kernisky, 1997).  
Organizational legitimacy affects not only how publics understand the situation 
but also how they react to an organization during the crisis situations (Suchman, 1995). 
To be perceived legitimate, thus, an organization during the crisis situation should not 
only consider key stakeholders’ interests and needs, but they also implement responsible 
and ethically acceptable public relations practices. Previous literature discerns three types 
of legitimacy: pragmatic, normative, and cognitive legitimacy (Brinkerhoff, 2005; 
Humphreys, 2010; Ju & Tang, in press; Suchman, 1995; Zeitz, Mittal, & McAulay, 1999; 
Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). While these different types of legitimacy can be distinctive 
conceptually and analytically, they are often perceived in a mixed and multi-faceted way 
in practice (Brinkerhoff, 2005).  

All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 5 of 38   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.