Meaning-making i kriskommunikation : En kvalitativ jämförelse mellan Sveriges och Danmarks kriskommunikation under Covid 19 pandemin utifrån meaning - making

Sammanfattning: The ongoing Covid- 19 pandemic has globally affected aspects such as health, economy and welfare all around the world. The demand for effective communication is to a very high degree a priority from the leading actors in society, such as the media, government and authorities, in order to respond to the spread of infection. The purpose of this bachelor’s essay is therefore, to study how countries like Sweden and Denmark communicate the crisis of Covid- 19, based on Arjen Boins theoretical framework of meaning-making. The frame functions consist of the following: explaining what happened, offering guidance, instilling hope, showing empathy and state responsibility. Meaning making is an important function in crisis communication to reduce political and public uncertainty through crisis communication by the political leaders in crisis management. The political leaders seeks to convince the general public by formulating a convincing message.  The design of this essay is comparative, where the methods consist of a qualitative approach through the use of text analysis. Prime ministers and state epidemiologists will be analyzed on the basis of their participation in press releases. The time period was selected between march-may 2020. The reason for the selected time period is based on the first wave of the virus.  The conclusion of this essay was that there were many similarities and differences in the countries application of meaning making. The noticeable similarities was that both countries have similar characteristics in their communication by helping the nations make sense of the crisis situation. Both countries provide the nation with guidelines which includes, social distancing, good hand hygiene and participation restrictions. However, it differs in how they communicate it. Sweden communicates the providing of guidelines through the assessment of the public health authority, which relies on the responsibility of the individual. Denmark, on the other hand, communicates the guidelines by the Prime Minister deciding on mandatory restrictions, through a total shutdown on society. Furthermore, communication differs on state responsibility, where Sweden used a different strategy which was intended to slow down the spread of infection by not shutting down society. Denmark communicated state responsibility by saying that strict measures are necessary in such types of situations, which allowed for the restriction of civil liberties and rights. The use of empathy and instilling hope were less salient, but both countries did use the strategy by informing that they will beat the spread of the virus together.