SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences / 2026 / Sayı: 60

A Qualitative Study On The Communicative Needs, Expectations And Experiences During Covid-19 Pandemic: 65 Years And Over Ankara Sample

Covid-19 Pandemisinde İletişimsel İhtiyaçlar, Beklentiler ve Deneyimler Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma: 65 Yaş ve Üzeri Ankara Örneklemi

Nilüfer Pınar Kılıç(Ankara University, Faculty of Communication, Public Relations and Advertising Department, Ankara, Turkey)0000-0001-7133-7442
Besime Pınar Özdemir(Ankara University, Faculty of Communication, Public Relations and Advertising Department, Ankara, Turkey)0000-0002-5801-2878
Senem Gençtürk Hızal(Başkent University, Faculty of Communication, Public Relations and Publicity Department, Ankara, Turkey)0000-0001-5388-2682
Melike Aktaş(Ankara University, Faculty of Communication, Public Relations and Advertising Department, Ankara, Turkey)0000-0003-1503-4302
Pages
127–155
Publication Date
2021-07-16
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Suggestions that consider public perspectives and risk perceptions while incorporating the relationship between risks and communication processes may contribute to structuring impactful risk communication activities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the high-risk group of individuals age 65 and over who most frequently experience the negative consequences of Covid-19.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 47 people aged 65 and over residing in Ankara.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Suggestions that consider public perspectives and risk perceptions while incorporating the relationship between risks and communication processes may contribute to structuring impactful risk communication activities.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Risk iletişimi · Covid-19 · risk mesajı

Abstract

This study examines the high-risk group of individuals age 65 and over who most frequently experience the negative consequences of Covid-19. We review their communicative needs and expectations, knowledge and information sources, and risk information and knowledge patterns. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 47 people aged 65 and over residing in Ankara. We evaluated our results in the context of The Social Amplification of Risk Framework, considering the major communication stations disseminating risk information. We found that during the Covid-19 pandemic, individuals aged 65 and over accessed risk information through new media and traditional media, and interpersonal communication, especially with close family and children, served as a primary information source during the pandemic. The trust factor, particularly regarding medical expertise, was an essential criterion in evaluating information. The communicative needs and expectations changed for this high-risk group. The need for improved digital communication capabilities become apparent during the pandemic crisis. Suggestions that consider public perspectives and risk perceptions while incorporating the relationship between risks and communication processes may contribute to structuring impactful risk communication activities.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Covid-19 pandemisinde hastalığın olumsuz sonuçlarını ağır derecede yaşama ihtimallerinin yüksekliği nedeniyle öncelikli risk gruplarından biri olarak tanımlanan 65 yaş ve üzeri kişilerin iletişimsel ihtiyaçları, beklentileri, bilgi ve enformasyon kaynakları ve risk enformasyonunu ve bilgilerini değerlendirme biçimleri ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında Ankara’da ikamet eden 65 yaş ve üzeri toplam 47 kişiyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Riskin Sosyal Artırımı Kuramsal Çerçevesi bağlamında, risk enformasyonunun iletimindeki temel iletişim uğrakları dikkate alınarak değerlendirilmiştir. 65 yaş ve üzeri bireylerin Covid-19 pandemisi sürecinde risklere ilişkin enformasyona geleneksel medyanın yanı sıra yeni medya aracılığı ile de ulaştıkları; kişilerarası iletişimin bu süreçte temel bilgi kaynaklarından biri olarak işlev gördüğü; yakın aile ve özellikle çocukların Covid-19 pandemisiyle ilgili bilgilenme süreçlerinde ayrıcalıklı bir yeri olduğunu belirlenmiştir. Enformasyonun değerlendirilmesinde güven unsurunun temel kriter olarak dikkate alındığı ve tıp alanındaki uzmanlıklara daha yüksek güven atfedildiği ortaya konmuştur. Ayrıca iletişimsel ihtiyaçların ve beklentilerin pandemi süreci içerisinde değişime uğradığı anlaşılmıştır. Pandemi döneminde, dijital iletişim yetkinliklerin geliştirilmesi ihtiyacı belirginlik kazanmıştır. Görüşmelerden elde edilen bulgulardan hareketle, kamuların perspektifini ve risk algısını gözeten; risklerin iletişimsel süreçlerle bağlantısını dikkate alan etkili risk iletişimi çalışmalarının yapılandırılabilmesine katkıda bulunabilecek öneriler sunulmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılıç, N. P., Özdemir, B. P., Hızal, S. G., Aktaş, M. (2021). A Qualitative Study On The Communicative Needs, Expectations And Experiences During Covid-19 Pandemic: 65 Years And Over Ankara Sample. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, Sayı: 60, 127–155. https://ajindex.com/articles/1470975

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Ataguba, O. A., & Ataguba, J. E. (2020). Social determinants of health: the role of effective communication in the Covid-19 pandemic in developing countries. Global Health Action, 13(1), 1788263.
  2. Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188-207.
  3. Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (Eds.) (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough. Discussion Paper. NCRM. (Unpublished). Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf
  4. Balog-Way, D., McComas, K., & Besley, J. (2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis,40(1), 2240-2262.
  5. Becker, C. (2012). Howard S. Becker, author of tricks of the trade. In Baker & Edwards (Eds.), How many qualitative interviews is enough (pp. 15). Discussion Paper. NCRM. (Unpublished). Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf
  6. Binark, M., Arun, Ö., Özsoy, D., Kandemir, B., Şahinkaya, G. (2020). Covid-19 sürecinde yaşlıların enformasyon arayışı ve enformasyon değerlendirmesi: TÜBİTAK SOBAG 120k613 no’lu araştırma projesi. Yaşlanma Çalışmaları Derneği Yayınları.
  7. Bodemer, N., & Wolfgang, G. (2015). Risk perception. In H. Cho, T. Reimer & K. A. McComas (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication (pp. 10-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  8. Cho, H., Reimer, T., & McComas, K. A. (2015). Explicating communication in risk communication. In H. Cho, T. Reimer & K. A. McComas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 1-6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  9. Çınarlı, İ. (2014). Bir kriz iletişimi yönetimi vaka analizi: Kaybolan Malezya havayolları MH370 sefer sayılı uçağı. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, (38), 95-114.
  10. Çınarlı, İ. (2016). Kriz iletişimi. İstanbul, Turkey: Beta Yayınları.
  11. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO) (2016). Risk communication in the context of Zika virüs. Interim guidance. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/zika/risk-communication/en/
  12. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO) (2017). Communicating risk in public health emergencies: a WHO guideline for emergency risk communication (ERC) policy and practice. Geneva: World Health Organization Publication.
  13. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (WHO) (2020, 5 February). Munich Security Conference. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference
  14. Dworkin, S.L. (2012). Sample size policy for qualitative studies using in-depth interviews. Arch Sex Behav,41, 1319–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0016-6
  15. Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 28, 33–54.
  16. Heath, R. L., Palenchar, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (2009). Community building through risk communication infrastructures. In R. Heath & D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 471-487). New York, US: Routledge.
  17. Jin, Y., Austin, L., Viyajkumar, S., Jun, H., & Nowak, G. (2019). Communicating about infectious disease threats: Insights from public health information officers. Public Relations Review, 45, 167-177.
  18. Karasneh, R., Al-Azzam, S., Muflih, S., Soudah, O., Hawamdeh, S., & Khader, Y. (2020). Media’s effect on shaping knowledge, awareness risk perceptions and communication practices of pandemic Covid-19 among pharmacists. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.027
  19. Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, & S. Ratick. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.
  20. Kasperson, R. E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. X. Kasperson, & S. Ratick (2005). Social contours of risk: Publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In J. X. Kasperson & R. E. Kasperson (Eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework (pp. 99-114). London, UK: Earthscan.
  21. Kim, D. K. D., & Kreps, G. L. (2020). An analysis of government communication in the United States during the covid‐19 pandemic: Recommendations for effective government health risk communication. World Medical & Health Policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.363
  22. KONDA (2020). Konda Yaşlılık Raporu. Retrieved from https://konda.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/KondaYaslilikRaporuEkim2020.pdf
  23. Lee, S.T. (2014). Pandemics. In T. L Thompson (Ed.) Encyclopedia of health communication (pp. 1021-1023). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  24. Lightfoot, E., & Moone, R. P. (2020). Caregiving in times of uncertainty: Helping adult children of aging parents find support during the covid-19 outbreak. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 1-11.
  25. Lundgren, R. E. McMakin. A. H. (2013). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating enviromental. Safety, and health risks. New York, US: Wiley.
  26. Malecki, K., Keating, J. A., & Safdar, N. (2020). Crisis communication and public perception of covid-19 risk in the era of social media, Clinical Infectious Diseases. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa758
  27. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Murdock, G., Petts, J., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2003). After amplification: Rethinking the role of the media in risk communication. In, N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk a conceptual framework (pp. 156-178). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar (S. Özge, Trans.). I. Cilt. Ankara: Yayınodası.
  30. Paek, H.-J. (2014). Risk perceptions. In T.L. Thompson (Ed.), Encylopedia of Health Communication (pp. 1190-1191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Palenchar, M. (2013). Risk communication. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encylopedia of Public Relations (pp. 805-807). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  32. Palenchar, M. J. (2005). Risk communication. In R. Heath (Ed.), Encylopedia of Public Relations (pp. 752-755). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  33. Renn O. (1991). Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In R.E. Kasperson, P. J. M. Stallen. (Eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public. Technology, Risk, and Society (An International Series in Risk Analysis), 4, Dordrecht, NL: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_14
  34. Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 43-55.
  35. Taşdelen, B. (2020). Covid-19 salgın sürecinde yaşlılığa bakış: 280 karakter yaşlılar hakkında ne söylüyor? Electronic Turkish Studies, 15(6).
  36. Toppenberg-Pejcic, D., Noyes, J., Allen, T., Alexander, N., Vanderford, M., & Gamhewage, G. (2019). Emergency risk communication: Lessons learned from a rapid review of recent gray literature on Ebola, Zika, and Yellow Fever. Health communication, 34(4), 437-455.
  37. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) (2021). İstatistiklerle Yaşlılar, 2020. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Yaslilar-2020-37227
  38. Uysal, M. T., & Eren, G. T. (2020). Covid-19 salgın sürecinde sosyal medyada yaşlılara yönelik ayrımcılık: Twitter örneği. Electronic Turkish Studies, 15(4).
  39. Vijaykumar, S., Jin, Y., & Nowak, G. (2015). Social media and the virality of risk: The risk amplification through media spread (RAMS) model. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 12(3), 653-677.