Risk Communication: A Symbolic Interactionism Study of Yolanda Victims' Narratives

Abstract

Risk and risk communication are preventive mechanisms to protect the lives of individuals and their health and minimize the harm they are facing. These are important in disaster risk. However, the current disaster research landscape focuses on quantitative measures, and there is a sparse understanding between risk and disaster victims. In this light, this study was conducted to explore risk from those who experienced the 2013 Super Typhoon Yolanda in Tacloban.

This research is a narrative inquiry lensed by Symbolic Interactionism, which states that it is the meaning that defines the action. Thus, the view of risk is what shapes communicative acts. The study collected five narratives and used narrative analysis to derive the meaning.

The analysis revealed that a situation becomes a risk when there is an advisory. Thus, a risk situation cannot be considered a risk if it is not communicated. When risk comes in a form of an advisory, people think about what should be done to prepare for the disaster. The next meaning that surfaced is that there is a risk when there is an absence or loss of contact. People need to be connected, otherwise, they lose their refuge from the difficult situation. When the risk is in this form of social disconnection, people talk about safety with their loved ones to prepare them for what might come or assure them of safety. Finally, there is a risk when there is no access to basic needs. This includes the essentials such as food, medicine, a safe shelter, and a safe environment. When the risk is experienced as such, safety is treated as a communal responsibility. This entails that people help each other to ensure the safety of the neighborhood or provide information on where they can get their needs.

Overcoming risk is a collective effort by the individual, the family, and the community. The narratives have shown that social connections play a vital role in the meaning of risk and risk-communicative acts. Thus, it is recommended to include and account for social relationships in communication plans, such as encouraging relatives and loved ones to reach out to their families facing the risk situation. In conclusion, the use of Symbolic Interactionism helps us understand the meaning of risk and the communicative acts shaped by such meaning.

Overall, this narrative inquiry highlights distinct nuances of risk and provides a deeper understanding of the social context in risk preparedness and risk action. Thus, future qualitative studies are recommended to deepen the understanding of the meaning and acts in risk through the lens of those who experienced it and utilize this knowledge to shape disaster policies, management, and praxis.