Finnish and South Korean Practices as a Basis for Finding Universal Approaches to Crisis Communications During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This article represents the analysis of crisis communications during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Finland and the Republic of Korea. Having considered the practices of crisis communications in both countries belonging to different cultures and different continents, the author identifies general approaches, suggesting that they are not dictated solely by the peculiarities of the respective culture, but may well be considered universal and recommended for use in other countries. The article provides five universal recommendations for building crisis communications in the modern world, formulated on the basis of these approaches. A formula for effective crisis communications is also proposed, in which trust is represented as a coefficient that multiplies all communicative efforts of the authorities aimed at responding to a pandemic. This study is based on relevant scientific sources and the results of (1) in-depth interviews conducted in March – October 2021 with ordinary citizens, communication experts, journalists and government officials in Finland and South Korea, (2) analysis of the results of quantitative research conducted in 2020 by the University of Helsinki (Finland), (3) materials provided by the NHI Academy (South Korea), (4) official documents of Finland and South Korea.

1. Agapova S.G. (2004). Fundamentals of interpersonal and intercultural communication (in English) [manual for humanitarian. specialties]. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix.

2. Cohn S., Kutalek R. (2016). Historical Parallels, Ebola Virus Disease and Cholera: Understanding Community Distrust and Social Violence with Epidemics. NCBI [el. source]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739438/?fbclid=IwAR2I7_BcUvDnrelQq9jfTK4GUbKlSzc4ZhTTBUfMKCfXaMGLEuMPry64a2M.

3. Crayne M., Kelsey E. (2020). Medeiros Making Sense of Crisis: Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership in Response to COVID-19. American Psychologist (online first publication). DOI: 10.1037/amp0000715.

4. Graudina L.K., Shiryaev E.N. (1999). Culture of Russian speech / Ed. L.K. Graudina, E.N. Shiryaeva. M.: Publishing group NORMA–INFRA M (In Rus.).

5. Lewis R.D. (2014). Clash of Cultures: A Guide for Everyone Doing Business Abroad / Transl. M.: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber; Alpina Publisher (In Rus.).

6. Lohiniva A.L., Sane J., Sibenberg K., Puumalainen T., Salminen M. (2020). Understanding coronavirus disease (COVID-19) risk perceptions among the public to enhance risk communication efforts: a practical approach for outbreaks, Finland, February 2020. Euro Surveil. No. 25(13).

7. Molchanova N.V. (2009). The influence of emotions on the content of communicative interaction. Bulletin of KSU. No. 4. P. 354-357 (In Rus.).

8. Seung-Youn Oh (2020). From a ‘super spreader of MERS’ to a ‘super stopper’ of COVID-19: Explaining the Evolution of South Korea’s Effective Crisis Management System. Journal of Asian Public Policy. DOI: 10.1080/17516234.2020.1863540.

9. Shabanov S., Aleshina A. (2020). Emotional intelligence. Russian practice. M .: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber (In Rus.).

10. Taekyoon K. (2020). Enhancing mixed accountability for state-society synergy: South Korea’s responses to COVID-19 with ambidexterity governance. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. Vol. 21. Issue 4. P. 533-541. DOI: 10.1080/14649373.2020.1835094.

11. Zasursky I.I. (2010). The Bernays School and the Ivy Lee School, or the Laws of Modern Times // Moscow University Bulletin. Ser. 10, Journalism. No. 4. P. 40-46 (In Rus.).