Social Media and Participatory Risk Communication during the H1N1 Flu Epidemic: A Comparative Study of the United States and China

Huiling Ding, Jingwen Zhang Clemson University Abstract: Despite the wide applaud about social media’s capacity to allow public participation in content creation and circulation, they do not automatically ensure open and transparent communication because of institutional and cultural constraints. Our study of the use of social media during the H1N1 flu epidemic in the U.S. and China demonstrates that governmental apparatuses may use social media tools for one-way dissemination of risk decisions and policies or limited two-way risk communication. In contrast, the general public may circumvent the institutional control of risk information through extra-institutional participatory risk communication to find out truths about the emerging risks. [China Media Research. 2010; 6(4): 80-91] Keywords: risk communication, participation, social media, H1N1 flu, extra-institutional At its beginning stage, the H1N1 flu pandemic caused tremendous fear all over the world both because of its incalculability and the potential paralyzing economic losses it might cause. With the development and production of vaccines, our fear of H1N1 flu has been greatly alleviated. However, the possible mutation of avian flu viruses still looms near. With avian flu posing a constant pandemic threat capable of breaking out in any part of the world, the study of risk communication practices in both Western and non-Western cultures becomes a necessity for us to collaborate with other cultures in global epidemics. Earlier risk communication studies highlight the need to move from linear one-way risk communication to participatory risk communication. Social media tools help to break down the linear one-way risk communication and make it multichannel and thus more participatory. However, the patterns of social media use can be drastically different across cultures. This comparative study of risk communication practices in the United States and China demonstrates that medical institutions in the U.S. utilized social media tools to communicate about the risks on a real-time basis. In comparison, the official health apparatuses in China made little use of social media even though the public resorted to all kinds of social media to obtain risk information. As a comparative research on risk communication via social media, our study not only helps to understand the creation and exchange of user-generated knowledge but also evaluates its impact on risk communication. It also pinpoints gaps and problems in existing risk communication theories as well as possible ways to expand such theories to better address new issues and novel situations. This article starts with a review of risk communication theories and calls attention to the little-explored larger issues of cultural differences, national interests, and media structures in various cultural contexts. What follows is an analysis of the different ways governmental institutions, commercial Internet portals, and communities employed social media to communicate risks about the H1N1 flu at the early stage of the epidemic. We discuss different approaches to using social media for participatory risk communication and their implications for those interested in promoting open two-way communication during health risks. Risk communication and social media Risk Communication and alternative media Grabill and Simmons (1998) called the predominant linear risk communication models “the technocratic approach,” which views risk communication as a one-way, linear process with scientists and experts functioning as knowledge producers offering risk analyses and the public as consumers of such knowledge. They consider the technocratic approach inadequate because it ignores power relations, audience participation, and democratic decision making. Leiss and Powell (2004) blamed the marked differences between the “the scientific and statistical language of experts vs. the intuitively grounded language of the public” as the cause of poor risk communication results. To achieve effective risk communication practices, we have to “break down the barrier between the two languages [of experts and layman]” to “facilitate the productive exchanges between the two spheres” (p. 29). One problem with existing risk communication theories is their focus on North America as the unit of analysis. They fail to address issues posed by cultural, political, and infrastructural differences between North America and other countries with vastly different political and communication structures as well as challenges to traditional risk communication practices