| 1. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Determinants of Organizational Mediatization : An Analysis of the Adaption of Swedish Government Agencies to News Media
- 2015
-
In: Public Administration. - New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons. - 0033-3298 .- 1467-9299. ; 93:4, s. 1049-1067
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article seeks to explain why the media affect some governmental agencies more than others. We develop a measuring instrument for the mediatization of agencies; gauging how they adapt to the media. We analyse the effects of six potential explanations of mediatization: media pressure, organizational size and task, salience, geographic location, and management structure. The analysis is based on a comprehensive quantitative contents analysis of policy documents from all governmental agencies in Sweden. The results show that agencies' propensity to adapt to the media is mainly determined by their management structure rather than, as could have been expected, by media pressure. Organizations managed by career managers invest more in media management than those led by field-professionals. Our results suggest that agencies have substantial agency in terms of how they cope with the media and that mediatization refers to much more than passive adaptation by organizations.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ustad Figenschou, Tine, et al.
(author)
-
Under the influence of politics : Mediatization and political-administrative systems in Scandinavia
- 2019
-
In: Nordic Journal of Media Studies. - Gothenburg : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 2003-184X. ; 2:1, s. 85-96
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This conceptual article extends three ongoing scholarly debates on the mediatisation of politics – the risk of media centrism, the tendency to see mediatisation as a linear process, and the preoccupation with elected officials. We argue for the need to identify, foreground, and systematise non-media dimensions of mediatisation processes. We also argue that actors encounter mediatisation as a set of dynamic ideas rather than a fixed logic. With a focus on government agencies and a comparison of the politico-administrative systems in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, this article gives certain attention to politicisation, autonomy, and accountability and suggests that the degree of freedom granted to agencies in Denmark and Norway is relatively limited compared with agencies in Sweden. Consequently, we present two propositions: 1) agencies in Denmark and Norway are less inclined to mediatise, whereas 2) Swedish government agencies will more likely mediatise and show conformity with widely accepted norms regarding media.
|
|
| 3. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Diverging Principles for Strategic Communication in Government Agencies
- 2016
-
In: International Journal of Strategic Communication. - 1553-1198. ; 10:3, s. 153-164
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this article is to analyze how public agencies deal with strategic communication and how it gets redefined and reformulated in relation to rules, norms, and ideas permeating different contexts. Research on strategic communication tends to oversee such differences and what consequences they have for what it is that mobilizes the use of communication in various settings. Informed by an increasing literature on organizational institutionalism we seek to overcome these limitations. With a textual analysis of policies and strategy documents from 179 Swedish government agencies, we examine what multiple and contradictory institutional conditions mean for how strategic communication is conceptualized. The results show that there are four frequent principles for strategic communication mobilized by the agencies. The results also show that a vast majority of the agencies are trying to handle conflicting principles when they form frameworks and strategies for their communication activities. We use the results as a point of departure for a discussion whether complex and pluralistic conditions are to be defined as problematic and necessary to be resolved (as mainstream literature would suggest) or as unavoidable and something authorities must be able to handle. © 2016 Taylor & Francis.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Creativity caged in translation: a neo-institutional perspective on crisis communication : La creatividad enjaulada en la traducción: una perspectiva neoinstitucional
- 2014
-
In: Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas. - 2174-3681. ; 4:8, s. 43-64
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Crisis communication research has primarily focused on universal models guiding managers of various organisations in times of crisis. Even though this is about to change, a tendency remains for research in the field to overlook the impact of structural conditions on organisation’s crisis communication. In order to add to the emergent discussion on new theoretical and empirical venues within the field of crisis communication, this paper proposes a framework based on new institutional theory for analysing crisis communication practices as a societal phenomenon. New institutionalism is advocated due to its ability to shift the focus from agency to structure and in doing so emphasise the social preconditions for organisational activities. In line with this, this conceptual paper discusses crisis communication as an institution, i.e., as a set of more or less conscious ideas about formats (the organisational structures developed for crisis communication work), contents (the content of organisations’ communication in times of crisis) and contexts (the situations during which organisations are expected to perform crisis communication). Moreover, we discuss how these ideas become translated (i.e., modified) as they travel (i.e., become legitimate, popular and get widely spread) across organisational and institutional contexts. In order to illustrate the framework described above, the Swedish authorities’communication in connection to the A/H1N1 outbreak is used as a case study.
|
|
| 6. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970
(author)
-
Crisis Communication as Institutional Maintenance
- 2014
-
In: Public Relations Inquiry. - 2046-147X. ; 3:3, s. 319-340
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of the article is to extend our understandings of crisis communication by examining the dynamics of its practice and how it is performed by organizations when mobilized by institutional disruptions. In the article, I analyze how three governmental agencies in Sweden – responsible for the governance of the financial markets – responded to the global financial crisis and how they communicate to maintain the financial markets as institutions. The study takes its point of departure in neo-institutional theory and the framework of institutional work and shows how the financial crisis calls forth activities of skillful and intentional use of communication for the maintenance of rules, norms and practices governing the financial markets by the use of three strategies, providing, policing and routinizing. Thus, crisis communication, I argue, can be understood as a form of institutional work aiming for the maintenance of an institution at the same time as it has to be adapted to the very same conditions where the interests of individual organizations are subordinated to collective interests and social structures.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Media at the center : Public relations in public administrations in the wake of managerialism. Mediatization of bureaucracy
- 2016
-
In: 23rd International Public Relations Research Symposium BLEDCOM 2016. Bled, Slovenia: 1-2 juli 2016. - Oslo : University of Oslo.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper rests on an assumption that media is much more than a channel or type of organization and that we have to take media under consideration if we want to understandthe conditions for public administrations and their public relations activities. This is very much due to the processes of mediatization; that is to say, the double-sided process through which media a) emerge as an autonomous institution with its own set of rationalities that other institutions adapt to; and b) become an integrated part of other institutions’.A second assumption is that the extent to which public administrations adapt to media varies between different types of organizations, mostly as a consequence of an organization’s management structure. Public administrations governed by career managers are more eager to get media attention and control the media image of their organizations compared to administrations governed by field professionals. Circumstances that position public relations at the center of these organizations’ activities but with limited freedom of action.This raises a number of questions concerning circumstances, motives and consequences for public relations and in this paper we suggest three propositions for how wecan understand the interplay between media in its institutional form, public administrations and public relations 1) public administrations are mediatized beyond discretion and influence of public relations; 2) media activities of public administrations are formalized and standardized beyond the scope of public relations and 3) media activities of public administrations are more autonomous than public relations.
|
|
| 9. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Media at the center: Public relations in public administrations in the wake of managerialism
- 2015
-
In: First annual International Journal of Press/Politics conference, Oxford, 16-18 September, 2015. - Oxford.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper rests on an assumption that media is much more than a channel or type of organization and that we have to take media under consideration if we want to understand the conditions for public administrations and their public relations activities. This is very much due to the processes of mediatization; that is to say, the double-sided process through which media a) emerge as an autonomous institution with its own set of rationalities that other institutions adapt to; and b) become an integrated part of other institutions’. A second assumption is that the extent to which public administrations adapt to media varies between different types of organizations, mostly as a consequence of an organization’s management structure. Public administrations governed by career managers are more eager to get media attention and control the media image of their organizations compared to administrations governed by field professionals. Circumstances that position public relations at the center of these organizations’ activities but with limited freedom of action.This raises a number of questions concerning circumstances, motives and consequences for public relations and in this paper we suggest three propositions for how we can understand the interplay between media in its institutional form, public administrations and public relations 1) public administrations are mediatized beyond discretion and influence of public relations; 2) media activities of public administrations are formalized and standardized beyond the scope of public relations and 3) media activities of public administrations are more autonomous than public relations.
|
|
| 10. |
- Fredriksson, Magnus, 1970, et al.
(author)
-
Much ado about media: Public relations in public agencies in the wake of managerialism
- 2016
-
In: Public Relations Review. - : Elsevier BV. - 0363-8111. ; 42:4, s. 600-606
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper rests on an assumption that media is much more than a communication channel or type of organization and that we have to take media under consideration if we want to understand the conditions for public agencies and their public relations activities. This is very much due to the processes of mediatization; that is to say, the double-sided process through which media (a) emerge as an autonomous institution with its own set of rationalities that other institutions adapt to; and (b) become an integrated part of other institutions'. A second assumption is that the extent to which public agencies adapt to media varies between different types of organizations, mostly as a consequence of an organization's management structure. Public agencies governed by career managers are more eager to get media attention and control the media image of their organizations compared to agencies governed by field professionals. Circumstances that position public relations at the centre within agencies governed by career managers, but with limited freedom of action. This raises a number of questions concerning circumstances, motives and consequences for public relations and in this paper we suggest three propositions for how we can understand the interplay between media in its institutional form, public agencies and public relations (1) public relations professionals have limited control to what degree public agencies adapt to the media logic (2) public relations professionals have limited control over public agencies media activities due to their high level of formalization and standardization (3) public relations in public agencies is to an extensive degree limited to media activities. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
