Carlo PICCININI
Public Humanitarian Advocacy in Conflict-Induced Crises: A comparative study of dilemmas and dependencies in three operational agencies.
This study sets out to explore comparatively the communication of three operational humanitarian agencies intervening in conflict-induced crises, and to investigate the dilemmas and relations of dependency that impact their communication practices and outputs.
The topic can be located at the intersection of three main interconnected bodies of knowledge that have paid little attention to agencies’ communication. The first is the result of the convergence between war studies and international communication. Within this field, the literature explores mainly the communication practices of the three other institutional players that operate in conflict environments. These are the ‘political entities’ exercising political power, the ‘warring bodies’ waging the conflict and having military power, and the media. The focus of this literature is respectively on propaganda, perception management and war reporting. The expansion of the communication technology has offered humanitarians the opportunity to play a proactive communication role and to convey their own perspectives, interpretations and understandings of conflicts, crises and suffering. Within this field, however, humanitarians and their communication practices remain the “often neglected element of the equation” (Carruthers 2000 p.210). This study looks at humanitarian agencies as proactive communicators within the communication space of conflict, and explores the contextual influence on their communication practices and outputs.
The second body of knowledge is the humanitarian studies. This is a multi-disciplinary field focusing on the historical, legal, social, political and moral context of both the causes and responses to complex humanitarian emergencies, exploring the policies, practices, principles and standards of humanitarian action, investigating the evolution of the humanitarian community and humanitarian aid, and evaluating the humanitarian assistance. Within this field, however, often researchers tend to dismiss the duality between relief and development and to overlook the impact that their respective internal mechanisms, logic and operational perspectives have on agencies’ thinking, attitude and modus operandi. Moreover, it is common to read about studies dealing with humanitarian crises in a seemingly undifferentiated fashion and ignoring the different impact that natural disasters and conflict-induced crises have on agencies’ actions. Finally, much of the available literature frequently looks at the humanitarian community as a whole putting in the same basket humanitarian agencies, charity organisations and philanthropic associations, and comparing operational and non-operational agencies. As for humanitarian agencies’ communication, research within the humanitarian studies looking at this nowadays core institutional function with allocated resources and human assets is scant. The comparative analysis of this work focuses on three operational humanitarian relief agencies intervening in conflict-induced crises, and investigates their communication practices and outputs.
The last body of knowledge is the international communication studies. Within this field, vast literature looks at the representation of conflict, its induced crises and the consequent suffering. However, much of this research often explores conflict-induced crises mainly as an extension of the war coverage. Moreover, it mainly uses a media-oriented lens of analysis and a television-centric approach that with its generalised orientation tends to merge different disasters and crises referred to as ‘international crises’, ‘humanitarian crises’ and ‘global humanitarian disasters’ in an interchangeable way. Finally, it looks at the crucial role played by the media in mediating these ‘distant crises’ and representing these ‘distant sufferings’. There are few notable exceptions exploring the role of humanitarian agencies as agent of mediation of distant crises and representation of distant suffering (Chouliaraki 2006, 2013 and Vestergaard 2011), but they tend to overlook the agencies’ perspective. This study looks at the role of agencies in representing conflict-induced crises and the suffering they seek to alleviate, and analyses their communication practices and output from the organisations’ point of view.
In order to address the identified issues, the research poses and seeks to answer the following three research questions:
1. What are the wider dilemmas and external relations of dependency and how do they impact the communication practices of operational agencies?
2. What are the internal ideological, institutional, and professional factors that influence different agencies’ communication practices?
3. How do the above shape and condition different agencies’ representations of crises and the suffering they seek to alleviate?
Supervisors: Prof. Simon Cottle and Prof. Paul Bowman
This study sets out to explore comparatively the communication of three operational humanitarian agencies intervening in conflict-induced crises, and to investigate the dilemmas and relations of dependency that impact their communication practices and outputs.
The topic can be located at the intersection of three main interconnected bodies of knowledge that have paid little attention to agencies’ communication. The first is the result of the convergence between war studies and international communication. Within this field, the literature explores mainly the communication practices of the three other institutional players that operate in conflict environments. These are the ‘political entities’ exercising political power, the ‘warring bodies’ waging the conflict and having military power, and the media. The focus of this literature is respectively on propaganda, perception management and war reporting. The expansion of the communication technology has offered humanitarians the opportunity to play a proactive communication role and to convey their own perspectives, interpretations and understandings of conflicts, crises and suffering. Within this field, however, humanitarians and their communication practices remain the “often neglected element of the equation” (Carruthers 2000 p.210). This study looks at humanitarian agencies as proactive communicators within the communication space of conflict, and explores the contextual influence on their communication practices and outputs.
The second body of knowledge is the humanitarian studies. This is a multi-disciplinary field focusing on the historical, legal, social, political and moral context of both the causes and responses to complex humanitarian emergencies, exploring the policies, practices, principles and standards of humanitarian action, investigating the evolution of the humanitarian community and humanitarian aid, and evaluating the humanitarian assistance. Within this field, however, often researchers tend to dismiss the duality between relief and development and to overlook the impact that their respective internal mechanisms, logic and operational perspectives have on agencies’ thinking, attitude and modus operandi. Moreover, it is common to read about studies dealing with humanitarian crises in a seemingly undifferentiated fashion and ignoring the different impact that natural disasters and conflict-induced crises have on agencies’ actions. Finally, much of the available literature frequently looks at the humanitarian community as a whole putting in the same basket humanitarian agencies, charity organisations and philanthropic associations, and comparing operational and non-operational agencies. As for humanitarian agencies’ communication, research within the humanitarian studies looking at this nowadays core institutional function with allocated resources and human assets is scant. The comparative analysis of this work focuses on three operational humanitarian relief agencies intervening in conflict-induced crises, and investigates their communication practices and outputs.
The last body of knowledge is the international communication studies. Within this field, vast literature looks at the representation of conflict, its induced crises and the consequent suffering. However, much of this research often explores conflict-induced crises mainly as an extension of the war coverage. Moreover, it mainly uses a media-oriented lens of analysis and a television-centric approach that with its generalised orientation tends to merge different disasters and crises referred to as ‘international crises’, ‘humanitarian crises’ and ‘global humanitarian disasters’ in an interchangeable way. Finally, it looks at the crucial role played by the media in mediating these ‘distant crises’ and representing these ‘distant sufferings’. There are few notable exceptions exploring the role of humanitarian agencies as agent of mediation of distant crises and representation of distant suffering (Chouliaraki 2006, 2013 and Vestergaard 2011), but they tend to overlook the agencies’ perspective. This study looks at the role of agencies in representing conflict-induced crises and the suffering they seek to alleviate, and analyses their communication practices and output from the organisations’ point of view.
In order to address the identified issues, the research poses and seeks to answer the following three research questions:
1. What are the wider dilemmas and external relations of dependency and how do they impact the communication practices of operational agencies?
2. What are the internal ideological, institutional, and professional factors that influence different agencies’ communication practices?
3. How do the above shape and condition different agencies’ representations of crises and the suffering they seek to alleviate?
Supervisors: Prof. Simon Cottle and Prof. Paul Bowman
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (25)
Uploads
Books by Carlo PICCININI
Papers by Carlo PICCININI
Book Reviews by Carlo PICCININI