Transparency played a central role in the communication strategies of the Norwegian public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly published book suggests. “We were lucky to be able to conduct observation from within the Norwegian Institute of Public Health as the pandemic unfolded”, says one of the authors.
Recently, we met with Øyvind Ihlen, Truls Strand Offerdal, and Jens E. Kjeldsen, three of the seven authors of Navigating Pandemic Phases: Public Health Authority Communication during COVID-19 in Norway. The book explores how two Norwegian public health agencies communicated during the pandemic. Ihlen and colleagues gathered a wide range of empirical data, including observational notes from within the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Norwegian Directorate of Health, as well as social media posts, news reports, survey data, and focus group interviews.
“We started this project back in 2019. So, when the pandemic hit in the beginning of 2020, we had already established a connection with both the Norwegian Institute of Health and the Norwegian Directorate of Health. For this reason, we were able to ask the people working in these agencies right away if we could be allowed to observe their work in their communication departments”, says Ihlen.
“We were very lucky to get the data we did, thanks to both our pre-established connections and the unique nature of these organisations, which are quite supportive of and committed to academic research. As the pandemic increased in intensity in Norway, we realised that the people we wanted to interview were so busy and working under so much pressure. This led to the idea of conducting observations as the pandemic unfolded, and we managed to receive swift approval before the first round of shutdowns. I quickly familiarised myself with ethnographic methods, and luckily, they’re friendly people that allowed for this fast approach and entry into the organisation. It ended up being very useful and interesting”, Offerdal adds.
Transparency as a central strategy
Drawing from the rich and varied empirical material, the main finding was that transparency played a central role in the communication strategies of the Norwegian public health authorities during the pandemic. However, the authors caution that establishing clear causality remains challenging.
“The strength of this project lies in the fact that we had a wide range of materials all pointing in a similar direction. What’s particularly interesting is that the individuals we studied were experts whose role was to know – but repeatedly they admitted, ‘We don’t know’, because at the time, no one did. While we can’t definitively say that this rhetoric created trust, we can say it didn’t undermine it. The trust measurements throughout the period from the health authorities, along with other surveys and interviews, consistently indicated that the authorities remained trusted”, says Kjeldsen.
The authors also highlight that the Norwegian transparency comes from what the informants called a traumatic experience dating back to the swine flu pandemic.
“During the swine flu pandemic, the bureaucrats were forced to toe the line and gloss over uncertainties, and that pandemic turned out to be, well, overblown. Norwegian authorities instigated the mass vaccination anyway and the vaccine had some terrible negative side effects – causing narcolepsy among children. This caused the trauma within the corridors of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. They did not want to be in the same situation again; hence, they would insist on this transparency”, says Ihlen.
Comparing Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
The book concludes that all of the Scandinavian countries were open and transparent to a certain degree, but that Norway was even more transparent. When comparing the Scandinavian countries, the differences lie not so much in transparency or the handling of uncertainty, but rather in the interactions among professional organisations.
“In Norway, for example, there seemed to be more openness to differing opinions among organisations, whereas in other places, one might have had more dominance. That said, Norway is my primary focus, and my colleagues might have different views on this. It also depends on how responsibilities are distributed within different systems, but the acceptance of diverse perspectives was a key part of how knowledge was produced during the pandemic”, says Offerdal.
Connected to this is also the style of communication, which is sometimes referred to as an ‘invitational rhetoric’, the authors point out. In Norway, the public health campaigns – like those for handwashing – were more about suggestions than direct orders. Unlike other countries, Norwegian messaging emphasised advice, rather than strict commands, for staying healthy.
“Although there were directives, the overall rhetoric was less about experts telling people what to do and more about everyday individuals, like a young gamer telling his friends to take care or get vaccinated. This approach aligned with the openness of the strategy”, explains Kjeldsen.
Preparedness for future pandemics
When it comes to the Scandinavian countries’ preparedness for future pandemics, the authors highlight that communication with the minority groups was what was most criticised concerning communication and, in the future, the public health authorities will have to be much better prepared for that situation.
“We did not examine Sweden and Denmark as much as Norway – but there was a pattern that emerged. Sweden’s rhetoric focused on expertise: ‘this is what we do, and then we do it’. Denmark leaned toward political rhetoric, with the prime minister stating, ‘this is what we do, no debate’. Norway, however, was more open, using what we call constitutive rhetoric, where both experts and politicians spoke to the nation as if everyone was in it together. While many countries did something similar, Norway emphasised this more, invoking a sense of collective duty. But for some minorities, this concept didn’t make sense, as they weren’t as connected to this national identity of shared responsibility. One thing that we were told in the interviews was that simply inviting people to follow the rules wasn’t enough, sometimes direct instructions were also necessary”, says Kjeldsen.
“The book is very rhetorical in its findings. One key takeaway from this situational perspective is the need to interpret, adapt, and respond to situations as they unfold. This highlights the importance of investing resources in communication to ensure it’s done well, a topic discussed in Norway and elsewhere regarding public spending on such functions. Our findings suggest that how communication is handled in previous crises impacts its effectiveness in future emergencies. To serve the public well during crises, organisations must be equipped with the resources and capacity to handle unpredictability”, Offerdal concludes.
Image: NTB
Read the book
Navigating Pandemic Phases: Public Health Authority Communication during COVID-19 in Norway
