The outbreak of the COVID-19 late in 2019 and the resultant economic and social crisis that followed has shone light on the gap between science communication and the effectiveness of such communication in developing countries. Measures have been taken by governments to stem the growth and spread of the virus. However, the problem lies when such communications do not resonate well with the public . COVID-19 is one of the many identified forms of corona viruses. According to the World Health Organisation, "Coronaviruses are a large group of viruses that can cause illness in animals and humans". In late 2019, China announced the outbreak of a new strain of this virus, called COVID-19. It first broke out in Wuhan, China and quickly spread around the world, with Italy, Spain and the US recording the most cases of confirmed deaths. Presently, there is neither a vaccine nor a confirmed medication, so governments around the world rely mostly on communicating life saving measures to the general public- implementing social distancing guidelines, stay at home and work from home orders, lockdowns in some major cities around the world and a whole lot of other measures. This would be all but impossible if the people do not get the information properly. If communicating these measures is ineffective, then the threat of the virus to people and societies escalates. 

 

Dialogue in communication science is not considered a one-way method of disseminating information to the lay public - whilst scientists have facts at hand; the concerned public have the local knowledge, interest and the problem to be solved (Burns, O'Connor, & Stocklmayer, 2003). Jasinki (2010) explains that it is important to deploy dialogue as a communication strategy because the general public may have a poor understanding of science, which might lead them to misunderstand or misconstrue certain governmental pronouncements if they are not given a chance to seek clarification. Jasinki goes on to explain that the lack of consensus among politicians can also lead to further confusion in the minds of the general public and therefore a dialogue might help them have a clearer understanding of the issues being addressed. 

 

In the interview with the presidential spokesperson, he admitted that a very little attempt was made to consult with the public before making these pronouncements, he explained that, "My priority is to disseminate available information; I cannot interact with communities because the funds are really limited." In the president's address of 30th March 2020, when a ban on private vehicles and a 7pm to 6AM curfew was announced, he explained that he wanted to surprise the general public, so people will not make last minute attempts to travel to their villages and increase the risk of spreading the virus. While the motive might be commendable, the fact remains that little or no consultations or dialogues with the community took place before these decisions were made. This directly goes against the recommendations of key international organizations on health risk communication. The recommendations explicitly state that the community must participate in the decision making, if a successful mobilization and citizen participation in the fight against such pandemics is to be achieved. 

 

Communication is considered effective only when the intended message is what is received by the recipient. It must be complete, concise, concrete, clear and correct for it to be effective (Cutlip & Center, 1952). To examine the effectiveness of the message communicated to the public by Museveni led government of Uganda, the researchers asked the respondents what they understood by the following terms; 'COVID-19', 'preventive measures', 'the need for lock down', 'the need to social distancing', 'what social distancing meant' and 'the symptoms of COVID-19'. The findings of this study showed that only 50 (12.5%) respondents knew what COVID-19 was. 300 respondents (75%) however understood that COVID-19 is "bad" and can be transmitted from one person to another. While about 250 respondents (62.5%) understood the need for the lockdown. However, the majority of those that said they understood the lockdown and what the government hoped to achieve by restricting movement said they got the information from a third party and not directly from the president's address. The implication is that there is a strong possibility that the information was further broken down by the third party or journalists for proper understanding of the general public. The majority of respondents also said they understand the need to wash hands regularly, but only 35% said they think taking the temperature of everyone at major locations like markets and shopping malls was important. This also shows a failure in the communication process, as these measures were implemented, but not properly explained to the public. Finally, a surprising number of respondents, 45% felt the president was instituting a lockdown for political reasons. When asked about their primary source of information on the issue of COVID-19, the majority of the respondents explained that radio played a significant role in interpreting the information shared by the Ministry of Health of Uganda. This makes sense, because the majority of Ugandans do not have access to TV and rely mostly on Radio for their general information. 

 

Based on book written by Gisela Gonçalves, Ian Somerville & Ana Melo (2013).  Organisational and Strategic Communication Research: European Perspectives.  Conceptualise the book. (25 marks) Note: 

1. Background 
2. Purpose of the study 
3. Conceptual framework   
4. Study variables 
5. Objectives of the study 
6. Relationship between study variables 
7. Local case study (use throughput) 
8. Lessons learned 
9. Challenges 
10. Recommendations 
11. Central message 
12. Conclusion.