Moving Toward More Inclusive Government Communication in an Era of Superdiversity

Abstract

Going beyond the practical obstacles of and facilitators for inclusive government communication, this study stresses the underlying tension between democratic and bureaucratic values in administrative structures and its implication for inclusive communication. The clash between on the one hand efficiency, market-driven patterns, and impartiality and on the other hand individual rights, advocating equal rights and social justice shows that in coming to terms with the reality of superdiverse societies governments need to reconcile these values on the level of actual decision-making and behavior by public communication practitioners.

Introduction

As practices of living with migration-related diversity have become the norm in everyday life (Meissner, 2015), governments face the challenge of developing policies that address the issues of integration and social cohesion. Consequently, numerous studies have explored the question of how to deliver public services to migrants, particularly in policy areas such as health services, education, and social services (e.g., Dryden-Peterson, 2010; Edward & Hines-Martin, 2015; Seeleman et al., 2015). Other studies have examined the necessity of adapting representative democracy to the multiple and complex identities in diverse societies (Guidikova, 2015). Yet another part of public administration research has focused on the impact of diversity on organizational outcomes, including performance, turnover, and the management of diversity within employee-employer relationships (e.g., Compton & Meier, 2016; Pitts & Jarry, 2009).

However, the diversification of society also has implications for how governments communicate with their citizens. Given that many cities now host a great diversity of minority communities, it is crucial to understand and identify their specific information and communication needs in order to develop community-centered and culturally sensitive communication strategies to respond to those needs, and at the same time, “to prevent and mitigate the effects of stigmatization” (Vanhamel et al., 2021, p. 2). Communication is an essential task for governments in modern representative democracies. It is necessary to create an information environment that allows citizens to learn about the issues in society that affect them, to understand the actions of government officials, and to express their views to these officials (Carpini, 2004). Only a limited number of studies, however, have explicitly focused on public communications by governments in the context of societies that are increasingly affected by migration. This is remarkable, considering that public communication is one of the most important government functions (Liu, Horsley & Yang, 2012). As the population becomes ever more diverse and fragmented, an important question emerges: How can governments ensure that they communicate with these diverse publics in ways that are both inclusive and effective? This question becomes even more relevant when we consider the issues of representative participation and the inclusion of citizens from a variety of social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds in all kinds of democratic renewal programs and projects (Bleich et al., 2015; Waylen, 2015). This is particularly important in these times of increasing polarization among citizens and between citizens and governmental and political institutions (Dixit & Weibull, 2007). This topic is central to the concept of the democratic ethos, which refers to the fundamental capacity of governments to encourage knowledge and participation among different groups and to foster what Nabatchi (2010) calls “the increase of citizen comprehension of and appreciation for the humanistic imperatives of democracy” (p. 381). In order to facilitate intelligent and effective citizen participation and inclusion (Wildavsky, 1979), I argue that governments must reevaluate their communication practices in this era of superdiversity. As the following sections show, this will require fundamental changes in how administrations organize their communication policies. This is a challenging task due to the inherent tension between the democratic ethos and the bureaucratic ethos, each of which favors different values (Goss, 1996; Nabatchi et al., 2011).

The challenge for public sector organizations lies in comprehending and considering a range of factors that are significant in superdiverse social contexts, such as the framing of messages in an appropriate and culturally sensitive manner. This is made challenging since knowledge on how public organizations can build sustainable relationships with diversified publics seems to be fragmented across different disciplines and contexts. To maintain sustainable relationships with diverse groups of citizens, it is necessary to pay attention to the long-term dynamic nature of these relationships rather than focusing on short-term, ad hoc citizen participation (Vandenbussche et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is a scarcity of empirical research on multicultural and cross-cultural communications, which is now more sorely-needed than ever (Macnamara, 2004). Although the study of government public relations has been an important field of research in general, there is relatively little research on government communication/public relations (Liu & Levenshus, 2013; also Luoma-aho & Canel, 2020). Lee (2008) outlines four objectives of government public relations: (1) working with the media, (2) public reporting, (3) engaging in outreach, which involves using public services, encouraging public compliance with laws/policies and conducting public campaigns, and (4) boosting public support. Research has focused exclusively on media relations, specifically on media effects such as the subfields of framing, priming, and agenda-setting theories, while other aspects of government communication remain understudied (Lee, 2008).

The aim of this paper is to gather and synthesize knowledge on how governments communicate with citizens in societies in which there is no longer a majority group (Crul, 2016). This article identifies the factors that facilitate or hinder intercultural communication practices in the public sector. It argues that although there is limited research evidence on communication practices in the public sector, such research is much-needed. Understanding how communication resonates with different publics is crucial in democratic states that claim to serve and inform citizens equally, regardless of their background. This is related to the decreasing levels of trust in government institutions and media, which are leading citizens—especially youth—to increasingly rely on alternative sources of information (Vardavas et al., 2021). The recent COVID-19 pandemic, for example, highlighted how many national and local governments were unable to effectively resonate with multi-cultural publics, which led to resentment and distrust from different communities. This difficulty in resonating with diverse audiences made it more difficult to combat the virus through policy measures (Reddy & Gupta, 2020). I argue that this situation emphasizes the need for governments to carefully study the increasingly diverse and fragmented audiences that are becoming the norm in many societies. It highlights how communication practices influence the democratic ideal of (political) equality. It also underscores that governments need to adopt a more diversified communication strategy if they are to reach a diverse range of citizen groups. I argue that more research is required to envision how public administrators can help shape and develop public communication content that genuinely resonates with a wide range of audiences. This, in turn, could foster “the equal capacity of all citizens in the demos to exercise control over policy decisions” (Dryzek, 2007, p. 262). In this study, I apply a substantive view of democracy rather than an instrumental one. From this perspective, democracy is seen as a social ideal in which public involvement is integral to government policy, making it more than just a decision-making procedure (Meier & O’Toole, 2006). Nonetheless, this democratic exercise may clash with values such as efficiency, effectiveness, and impartiality, which are highly valued in the bureaucratic ethos (Goss, 1996; Nabatchi et al., 2011).

This paper begins with a more detailed explanation of its central argument, namely that intercultural communication by governments differs from that by the private sector and should be understood within the framework of democratic theory. The second section contains an overview of our current understanding of the main obstacles to and facilitators of intercultural communication by governments. This section incorporates examples from the literature, although it is worth noting that existing studies are rarely empirical in nature and often draw on experiences from both public and private organizations. These practical facilitators and obstacles give rise to more profound considerations of their implications for administration, society, and modern democracies in multicultural societies. The last section presents my conclusions and reflects on both the theoretical implications of this study and possible avenues for future research.

Intercultural Communication by Governments: Democratic Aims and Fragmented Audiences

As the success of public policies and programs depend on effective internal and external communication (Liu, Levenshus & Horsley, 2012), communication in the public sector is critical. Yet, according to a number of authors, the field of government communication is understudied and fragmented (Gelders et al., 2007; Lee, 2008). Canel and Sanders (2008), for example, speak of a fragmented field in which there has been “little cross-fertilization of ideas between areas such as political communication, public relations, political marketing, public affairs and management theory” (p. 254). As a result, there is no common definition of what government communication actually entails (Canel & Sanders, 2008). Based on an examination of major communication journals and books, Sanders (2011) concludes that no prominent studies have explicitly discussed government communication as a distinct area of research in almost 50 years. Whereas Public Affairs studies show some interest in communication between the corporate or voluntary sector and governments, very few studies explicitly focus on government communication (Fairbanks et al., 2007; Sanders, 2011). The same holds true for Public Relations studies, where a corporate perspective is the most prevalent (Fairbanks et al., 2007; Sanders, 2011).

Nevertheless, several authors have argued that public sector communication is ‘unique and needs its own theories and best practices’ (Levenshus, 2016, referring to Avery & Lariscy, 2010; Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011). Luoma-aho and Canel (2020), for example, stress that an important characteristic of public sector communication is that public organizations “must balance the democratic communication aims of engaging citizens with organization and institutional goals, as well as with survival in the midst of budget restrictions” (p. 17). Theories of deliberative democracy claim that richer communication environments lead to citizens having greater motivation, more ability, and increased opportunities to participate in various phases of policy decision-making processes (Carpini, 2004). Limitations regarding the ways in which governments communicate with their citizens, on the other hand, have a negative impact on democratic practices. Government communication is crucial for democratic processes because effective and inclusive communication opens the doors for citizens, providing knowledge, information, and other forms of input “that would otherwise be difficult for ‘deskbound’ policy makers and administrators to have at their disposal” (Meier & O’Toole, 2006, p. 5). It empowers citizens to become involved and influence public policies (Meier & O’Toole, 2006). Yet in answering the question of how administrators can adapt their communications toward multiple publics, one needs to take into account the distinct traits of the public sector, including political environments, public pressures for transparency, the highly complex structures of public organizations, and their dependency upon citizen approval for legitimacy (Luoma-aho et al., 2019). Furthermore, there is less competition in the public sector, which limits governments’ scope to tailor messages to specific publics (Luoma-aho et al., 2019). The challenge of effective and inclusive communication in such an environment is even more significant, particularly given the crucial role that government bureaucracies play in interacting with citizens and enhancing their capacity to participate effectively in democratic decision-making (Meier, 2010, referring to Cook, 1996).

Finally, citizen diversity and multiplicity have grown enormously, especially in superdiverse or hyperdiverse societies where singular identities have become the exception rather than the rule (Belabas et al., 2020). Inclusive communication is crucial in such a globalized context in which diverse audiences exist and all individuals, from a legal and democratic standpoint, have the right to access the same information and public services on an equal basis. As Luoma-aho and Canel (2020) argue, it is more difficult to disregard these rights and views in the governmental sector than it would be in the corporate sector, since governments “serve as distributors of democracy in practice” (p. 3).

Literature Review: The Existing Body of Knowledge on Inclusive Communication

The literature on intercultural communication with a specific focus on the public sector is relatively limited. Even though some studies examine the public sector context or collect data on public organizations, the main bulk of the literature does not specifically explore the differences in communication between governments and the corporate sector. Public organizations are often merely the context of the research, with data collected either entirely or partially from governmental organizations. Furthermore, in the existing literature, intercultural communication is often associated with public relations and strategic communication, particularly concerning the ways in which communication practitioners navigate the challenges of globalization, such as international assignments at a country level. In such contexts, the concept of publics is often framed more in terms of “potential markets” rather than as citizens with diverse information interests and needs. Nevertheless, in recent years, several interesting studies have been published on the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became clear how crucial it is to effectively reach multicultural communities during times of crisis. Moreover, even though the existing literature has produced some empirical information on the subject, much of this literature is based on more of a conceptual and theoretical understanding of intercultural communication in public relations. Some of these conceptual approaches to the topic also contain a normative element that mainly stresses the desirability of intercultural communication.

Demographic Transformation: Representing Voices or Neo-Liberal Opportunism?

The literature shows that scholars largely agree on the importance of studying public communication in societies that are becoming increasingly globalized and multicultural. Sison (2020) argues that it is no longer sufficient to focus on “local constituents within national borders” (p. 346), as more and more governments are dealing with global issues, which require the involvement of diverse stakeholders and communities. Like Sison (2020), many authors have also sketched a demographic outline in which migrant flows have transformed societies all around the world. These demographic changes mean that governmental services and programs need to provide equitable services to citizens from all kinds of backgrounds (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Gorfinkel et al., 2021; Macnamara & Camit, 2017). In the context of public health policies, Golding et al. (2011) refer to the heterogeneous population of the United States to highlight the importance of public health information and risk communication in reducing health disparities. To accomplish this, governments must maintain a high level of culture awareness, “to ensure that ‘other voices’ are considered, represented and heard” (Sison, 2020, p. 346; but also Gould et al., 2014). Here, the argument for inclusive or intercultural communication is made mainly from a democratic citizen perspective, in which all voices are treated equally. Intercultural communication is regarded as being particularly crucial in crisis situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, as we currently lack insight both into local communities’ experiences in dealing with the pandemic and on how to develop culturally sensitive health interventions to respond to their needs (Ahmad & Hillman, 2021). Furthermore, as few scholars have specifically focused on stereotypical and discriminatory representations in public campaigns that lead to inflammatory outcomes, we know very little about this (Vorster et al., 2020; also Vardeman-Winter, 2011).

In addition to the government-citizens perspective, other authors emphasize the impact of the internationalizing economy, underscoring the importance of comprehending how to communicate effectively with culturally diverse publics in both intra and inter country contexts. (Yeo & Pang, 2017). These authors focus mainly on the benefits of intercultural communication in the field of public relations, particularly in terms of establishing and maintaining relationships with “global publics that live and work across many real and perceived boundaries”(Fitch, 2012; Hashim & Mahpuz, 2011). In these cases, intercultural communication is interpreted as a competence that is important for building relationships between public organizations across borders and within the context of the globalization of public relations (Fitch, 2012). This is in line with the study of Bardhan (2013), in which the author shows how all articles on globalization that appeared in the journal, “the PR Strategist,” in the first decade of this century were “limited to a neoliberal economistic perspective, rather than geared toward genuine critique and creative alternatives” (p. 391). These studies acknowledge the importance of intercultural competences among communication professionals in public relations, but mainly from an economic perspective.

Finally, the literature underlines the emergence of digital technology, such as social media, as a major contributing factor to “greater audience participation in communication” (Dutta & Elers, 2020). Tombleson and Wolf (2016) argue that social media has changed the speed at which we communicate, leading to the removal of traditional geographical boundaries in cross-cultural campaigns. Not only should public and public relations communicators possess the skills to create culturally meaningful messages for their audiences, but they also should understand how to engage and interact with these audiences, who have now become content creators “in their own rights” (Tombleson & Wolf, 2016, p. 14). The absence of these skills may lead to audiences seeking alternative sources of information, such as digital platforms where culturally diverse voices can be heard (Gorfinkel et al., 2021).

Conflicting Values: Budget Constraints, Bias, and One-Flow Communication Practices

Inclusive communication means that administrators need to develop administration systems that are sensitive to the needs and preferences of multiple publics in order to play a pivotal role in educating citizens (Raadschelders, 2002). However, this can lead to an inherent tension between the democratic and the bureaucratic ethos, as the former is characterized by values such as individual rights, social equity, and political principles (Goss, 1996), whereas the latter is guided by values like efficiency, efficacy, expertise, loyalty, and accountability (Nabatchi, 2010). This coincides with the literature in which scholars argue that communication practitioners are very limited in their resources and therefore rely upon existing sources that are easy to access. Investing financial resources to gain insight into the needs of multiple audiences is perceived as being too expensive. Moreover, becoming acquainted with these diverse audiences necessitates taking action, yet administrators and politicians are not always receptive to the various voices and may be hesitant to relinquish decision-making powers to citizens, either partially or entirely (Nederhand & Edelenbos, 2023). Sison (2020) argues that the implication is that marginalized members of the community are neglected, while “influencers,” namely people with a certain degree of market advantage, are prioritized. Golding and Rubin (2011) come to the same conclusion, contending that the lack of budget and time often results in PR departments not investing in diverse audiences and instead focusing on “marketable” groups that they are already familiar with. Within this context, the bureaucratic ethos, which is rooted in instrumental rationality and influenced by market-oriented thinking, takes precedence over a democratic understanding of public administration’s role in society, which involves creating opportunities for effective citizenship and ensuring equal individual rights (Nabatchi, 2010). To effectively reach and educate multiple publics, administrators need to recognize, and embrace the inefficient processes of democracy (Meier, 2010).

A second obstacle lies in what Hashim and Mahpuz (2011) call a traditional top-down approach to public relations and communication. Here, the authors stress that it is necessary to move away from a top-down view of publics and communication and instead institutionalize a co-creational perspective. Grunig and Grunig (2002) argue that excellence in government communication is maintained when public administrators build relationships with relevant publics “and bring perspectives of those publics into strategic management” (p. 64). This requires administrators to go beyond objective facts and information and connect with citizens in a way that facilitates communication, resonates with diverse perspectives, and acknowledges the judgment, understanding, and worldviews of a wide range of individuals. This challenges traditional bureaucratic practices as it requires open cooperation between public professionals, citizens, and other groups in civil society (Bartels, 2014), once more revealing the tension between the bureaucratic and the democratic ethos. The bureaucratic ethos often upholds a narrow view of knowledge production, while the democratic ethos advocates a broader perspective that explicitly values addressing social inequities and providing equal access to marginalized groups (Woller, 1998). Moreover, the participative vision also clashes with the ideal of indirect democracy, in which administrators and politicians represent the electorate that delegate their power to them, thereby limiting participatory options (Nederhand & Edelenbos, 2023).

The third and most frequently mentioned obstacle to intercultural communication is what Vardeman-Winter (2011) refers to as “reductionism,” whereby audiences are reduced to basic racial categories and language differences. In these cases, Vardeman-Winter (2011) argues that communication practitioners often lack significant awareness of the underlying decisions and experiences of their audiences, resulting in inaccurate and superficial depictions of cultures. The inappropriate or superficial use of categories of race is often the result of a certain level of ethnocentrism, whereby one’s own culture is perceived as superior to other cultures. Along the same lines, Yeo and Pang (2017) reaffirm this human tendency toward ethnocentrism, especially in high-pressure communication contexts where there is a strong emphasis on rapid communication and limited time to fully understand how social meanings are produced and reproduced in other communities.

To develop more inclusive communication practices, communication practitioners need to take the time to genuinely learn, stay away from intersectionality, and try to understand individuals in a more holistic and complex manner (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). Bardhan’s (2013) study, for example, shows the difficulty that US practitioners have with avoiding this ethnocentric attitude and advises them to be more “humble, respect cultural differences and strike a balance between the global and local with high respect for the local” (p. 407). This is the only way for practitioners to break free from stereotyped ways of working that result in cultural minorities feeling excluded and alienated (Vorster et al., 2020). The challenge is that practitioners must be prepared to fundamentally change the way they think about and interact with the world around them (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). This requires a genuine willingness to engage with diversity and a desire to facilitate a multiculturally-inclusive society (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). Once again, the tension between the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos comes to the surface as the bureaucratic perspective favors a neutral administrative system, which is ruled by statistical data rather than intersubjective understanding and emancipatory knowledge (Nabatchi, 2010; Raadschelders, 2002). The direct democratic perspective, on the other hand, advocates a participatory democratic vision that acknowledges the human tendency to create exclusion and values engagement with diversity. Nevertheless, the practice of administrative systems and the behavior of individual bureaucrats often demonstrate a strong preference for bureaucratic values over democratic values (Goss, 1996).

Individual Traits of Communication Practitioners: Openness, Cultural Empathy, and Reflexivity

The relatively small body of literature on intercultural communication by governments also identifies supportive conditions or facilitators for intercultural communication practices. Scholars have emphasized various individual traits or skills of communication practitioners, including having a “learning attitude,” cultural empathy, openness, flexibility, and a commitment to social justice and inclusion. Fitch (2012), for example, argues that personal traits like “openness” and “adaptability” are the most important conditions for intercultural competence. This is line with Ni et al. (2015) who stress the importance of cultural empathy, open-mindedness, and flexibility. Here, cultural empathy refers to “the ability to empathize with feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of members from different cultural groups” (p. 4), whereas “open-mindedness” is the open and unprejudiced attitude that is required in order to “understand and learn a new culture” (p. 4). Finally, Ni et al. (2015)—in line with Fitch (2012)—also single out flexibility as an important trait; in order to overcome cultural barriers and misunderstandings, practitioners must be able to adapt to different people and different situations. The greater the number of practitioners who possess these characteristics, the more likely it is that public relations communication will transform into a two-way practice, where the thoughts and feelings of culturally different publics are acknowledged as being important (Ni et al., 2015).

In addition, many studies acknowledge that in order to actually internalize personal traits such as cultural empathy, adaptivity, and open-mindedness, practitioners need “a considerable reflexivity, [. . .and must be] able to ‘lift up their eyes’ by being aware of the influence and impact of their own cultural heritage” (Fitch, 2012, p. 616). Sison (2020), Vardeman-Winter (2011), and Dutta-Elers all propose that it is this willingness to listen that eventually leads to cultural sensitivity. The ability to listen is related to a certain degree of self-reflexivity, in which practitioners acknowledge their limited knowledge and are willing to learn about their own bias (Vardeman-Winter, 2011). Fisher-Borne et al. (2015) speak of “cultural humility” as a way of stressing the attitude that professionals need in order to engage in self-reflection and self-critique. According to these authors, this is a life-long process. Furthermore, individuals must be willing to move beyond their own comfort zones (Dutta & Elers, 2020; Sison, 2016). Others have emphasized individual practitioners’ learning attitude, which is reflected in their willingness to ask questions about cultures and experiences if they are unsure. Hyland-Wood et al. (2021), for example, stress that in health services, it is extremely important to be sensitive to spiritual, religious, and cultural norms, as they affect how people respond to messages.

Finally, the literature frequently mentions the importance of personal commitment to inclusive communication, whereby individuals’ behavior is informed by a social justice perspective. Fisher-Borne et al. (2015) refer to this as the ability of professionals to “address and challenge barriers, inequalities and injustices that exist in society” (p. 168). Here, Sison (2020) speaks of “the communication practitioner as a global citizen” who embraces cultural diversity as a means to promote social justice and accepts their responsibility for formulating positive communication regarding diversity. Sison (2020) ascribes a special responsibility to public sector communicators, as they “can play a part in engendering global citizenship by promoting stories of multicultural success, and highlighting the positive contributions to the nation of their citizens regardless of their cultural identities” (p. 348). In line with this perspective, Vorster et al. (2020) highlight the crucial role of sincere engagement with diversity for campaigners who want to be successful. Other authors have emphasized the significance of individual leaders in public organizations who can make a difference through their inspiring, long-term vision. Such leaders have the ability to foster a commitment to inclusive communication among other stakeholders in the field (Golding et al., 2011; Kean, 2016).

This type of facilitation highlights the importance of certain qualities and traits of individual communication practitioners. It emphasizes the need in modern societies for practitioners who go beyond mere competence, efficiency, and impartiality (the bureaucratic ethos). Instead, there is a demand for engaged practitioners who feel a sense of responsibility toward individual rights and social equity. These practitioners are compassionate and care about encouraging diverse groups in society to participate (Goss, 1996). Hence, inclusive communication scholarship stresses democratic values such as fairness, justice, and support for individual rights expressed in the attitude and behavior of individual public professionals (Goss, 1996).

Organization/Institutional Level: Stimulating Dialogue and Participative Communication

In addition to emphasizing the individual attributes, qualities, and attitudes of communication practitioners, some scholars argue that intercultural communication must extend beyond individual commitment.

On an organizational and institutional level, it is important to embed listening and dialogue practices in both the organization and external voices. Gorfinkel et al. (2021) speak of a dialogue space where governments create an environment in which different stakeholders feel comfortable asking questions and sharing information. In their study, Gorfinkel et al. (2021), stress the importance of creating an environment in which different voices are heard and valued. In this regard, it is crucial to adopt a critical stance and reflect on which voices are acknowledged and which are not acknowledged (Dutta & Elers, 2020). During such dialogue sessions, it is important for governments to be aware of cultural differences, not only to ensure that different voices are represented but also to guarantee that all of these voices are actually heard (Dutta & Elers, 2020). Al-Araki (2015) speaks of creating a space where people believe that their identity is respected and they feel safe to communicate. In order to achieve inclusive communication, one must be “aware and attentive to the steaming of ideas” (Al-Araki, 2015, p. 8), so that these views can be taken into account in communication materials designed by governments.

Organizing inclusive dialogues between different stakeholders entails challenges for administrative structures because bureaucratic values such as hierarchy and efficiency continue to dominate the practices of public officials (Nabatchi et al., 2011). Here, a hierarchical approach to stakeholder involvement may conflict with more open and participatory governance structures that aim to embrace opportunities for citizenship. It sometimes also clashes with the logic of politicians and political institutions that tend to favor structures in which they retain power and the ability to deviate from consensus and outcomes achieved through participative processes. (Nederhand & Edelenbos, 2023). For administrators, this implies that in order to engage in meaningful dialogue with diverse groups, a shift away from traditional command-and-control governance arrangements is necessary. Instead, there should be an investment in participatory government structures that promote deliberation among government, private entities, and “everyday” citizens. (Nabatchi, 2010).

How do such deliberation practices take shape on a more concrete level? The main answer in the literature seems to lie in some form of participative communication. Sison (2020) stresses consciously involving “the voiceless and the marginals” in conversations about their view of reality as a means of learning about a diversity of perspectives that can then be used in communications. This means that participative communication does not end with listening but is in essence action-orientated (Sison, 2020). The fundamental question is whether organizations are willing to acknowledge the role of power in dialogue and recognize the role of the non-dominant communities in these dialoguic spaces. Once again, the tension between bureaucratic values such as hierarchy and efficiency clash with the democratic values of deliberation, advocacy, and equal access for everyone, which are highly valued in participative and deliberative views on democracy. The question is how to increase the willingness and capacity of administrative systems to make room for different voices, as these kinds of democratic processes can be relatively inefficient and chaotic.

In the context of health services, Golding and Rubin (2011) prioritize the investment of governments in relationships with minority communities as a way of gaining access to cultural knowledge. This is also in line with the study by Van De Mosselaer and Mortelmans (2015), which shows that maintaining and investing primarily in relationships with key actors in communities is crucial for successful communication. In the context of multicultural youth centers in Antwerp, Van De Mosselaer and Mortelmans (2015) argue that in order to communicate more inclusively, public organizations need to increase trust within networks and communities involving migrant youngsters. These networks can help with informing diverse audiences, providing social support for policy messages, and motivating youth to comply with policy norms or instructions. Such local bottom-up approaches facilitated by these networks have the ability to shape the dialogue by highlighting real stories that need to be heard in order to culturally tailor government messages (Gould et al., 2014). This demonstrates the deliberative functions of civil society in promoting effective communication strategies for governments, in contrast to more rational modes of communication that are based on the “achievement of efficiency and other administrative competencies” (Nabatchi et al., 2011). Rather, more inclusive strategies reaffirm the importance of communication practitioners in the public sector by applying an approach that prioritizes helping citizens to pursue their own needs and focuses on nurturing a civic infrastructure, rather than focusing solely on control. (Denhardt, 1991).

Key actors or community leaders are central for such a civic infrastructure because governments can reach these audiences through them, especially in times of crises, as the study of Hyland-Wood et al. (2021) shows. These authors argue that government officials “are likely to be in a better position to understand the life circumstances, needs, strengths, and capabilities of multicultural and vulnerable communities if they work with trusted community leaders” (p. 2). Moreover, community leaders are trusted and seen as an important source of information by their communities (VanHamel et al., 2021). This knowledge may involve finding the appropriate communication channels and learning how to frame information and communicate it in the right tone of voice. VanHamel’s study of the Jewish community in Antwerp during the COVID-19 pandemic shows how religious community leaders can play a vital role in explaining government information to their communities. In line with this, Macnamara and Camit (2017) suggest how crucial it is for governments to work together with communities in countries like India and Sri Lanka, where “people I know” are seen as the most important source of information. In such environments, instead of investing in expensive top-down information campaigns, it is crucial for government officials to establish connections with these communities through key influencers, such as their leaders, who hold significant influence.

According to the existing literature, a critical aspect of intercultural communication is the active participation of cultural communities themselves, in a bottom-up manner that enables social networks and dialogue to influence communication strategies. This means that administrative systems need to reassess the balance between democratic principles and bureaucratic values, as it is necessary to reconcile the values of control and efficiency with the deliberative and collective aspects of democratic governance.

Diversity within Public Organizations: From the Inside Out?

Yeo and Pang (2017) argue that to ensure that cultural values are treated sensitively in communication, it is important that organizations employ public communication practitioners with a multicultural background, as these practitioners have the implicit knowledge of other cultures that is needed to convey messages that resonate with diverse audiences. Others, such as Fitch (2012), propose “cultural reflexivity,” which means that organizations should include individuals who contribute a real inside-out understanding of particular cultural issues that are important for communication strategies. In situations whereby communication practitioners bring their one (“White”) set of norms and assumptions to communication programs (Vardeman-Winter, 2011), it is important to enrich these programs with other perspectives. In line with this, Van De Mosselaer and Mortelmans (2015) contend that public organizations need a diversity of government officials who can cater to the many different needs, interests, and understandings of the various groups in society The boundaries of the discourse and decision-making are determined by those whom we place outside the boundaries of public organizations. Kelly (1998) argues that by “limiting who has standing, we also limit “the range and scope of the societal problems that will become policy issues and get on the agenda” (p. 203). The focus on efficiency as a key value in delivering goods, services and information hence restricts “other concerns that are viewed as legitimate for debate and collective action” (Kelly, 1998). Moreover, the lack of a representative workforce has even more implications for administration due to the increase in bureaucratic power through administrative discretion and law (Elias, 2013). In such a context it is important to break through the bureaucratic dynamic of what is called the “iron law of oligarchy” (Meier & O’Toole, 2006) and give space to other groups and interests.

Finally, communication practitioners need to effectively communicate messages and stories that align with the perspectives of the target groups while addressing topics that are relevant to them. Vardeman-Winter (2011) argues that it is important for organizations to provide diversity training for their members to help them to become aware of their own unconscious assumptions and biases as well as those held by different segments of the population. In the same line of thought, Fitch (2012) argues that in order to be effective, communication practitioners need a sound knowledge of the cultural attributes of the public. For Fitch (2012) this means that they must have at least some “procedural knowledge,” which refers to “an awareness of rules, protocols and processes in relation to specific cultures.” (p. 616). These studies emphasize the role of implicit knowledge about target groups, as this is required in order to anticipate cross-cultural conflicts, prevent misinterpretations, and ensure meaningful messaging (Yeo & Pang, 2017). It is therefore necessary to study cultural elements and symbols from an inside-out perspective. Other scholars downplay the importance of knowledge, arguing that mere knowledge is not enough to ensure inclusive communication, as this is not a straightforward or linear process. To ensure inclusive communication, it is necessary to actively address and challenge existing inequalities and injustices on a systematic basis (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). Ultimately, inclusive communication comes down to walking the walk. This means that organizations must engage in a genuine commitment to and cultivation of the individual, organizational and institutional skills and knowledge required to reach diverse audiences in society.

Conclusions

Migration has impacted societies over the whole world. This has implications for governments, as they now have to communicate and engage with a diverse range of citizens. Communication has become a core task for governments, leading to the increased allocation of resources to it by governments all over the world (Luoma-Aho & Canel, 2020). Governments must facilitate the information needs of all citizens as this is a crucial component of a democracy. In the context of superdiversity, there is a pressing need for a shift toward more inclusive and intercultural communication in order to align with the democratic ethos. This presents a challenge for administrative structures, which are often characterized by a bureaucratic ethos that prioritizes values such as efficiency, effectiveness, and impartiality. Despite its crucial importance, hardly any research has focused on government communication/public relations (Gelders et al., 2007; Lee, 2008). This study highlights the notable gap in the existing literature concerning government communication in the context of migration-related diversity. Over the past 20 years, societies have undergone significant changes that have resulted in fragmented and diversified audiences. However, there is a dearth of studies addressing communication strategies in these diversified societies. Furthermore, the few existing studies on inclusive communication rarely pay much attention to public sector contexts as a factor that impacts the communication choices and strategies of public organizations. Moreover, there is a scarcity of evidence in the form of bottom-up stories from communication practitioners themselves. A significant portion of the literature takes on a normative tone, emphasizing the importance and desirability of inclusive communication. Yet, data are lacking on actual communication processes and what we can learn from them. Future research should therefore focus more on the dilemmas of communication practitioners, the ways in which they encounter such dilemmas, and what we can learn from actual practices. The existing body of knowledge implies not only that governments should empower individual communication practitioners in order to enhance skills such as cultural empathy, flexibility, and adaptability, but also that they need to focus on the organizational and institutional levels. Inclusive communication works from the inside out, which means that it is crucial to have a diversity of perspectives within organizations—or, in other words − a diverse workforce. In order to reach out to and involve a diversity of voices, governments need to invest in creating networks and relationships with minority communities and their leaders. A diverse workforce could facilitate the establishment of such networks and relations as communication practitioners bring not only their knowledge on multicultural and global issues to the job, but also their social capital in terms of contacts, relationships and insider know-how. These individuals are hence crucial in order for governments to “provide knowledge and skills for successful interaction between governments and stakeholders and that provide other activities such as reputation and relationship building” (Luoma-aho & Canel, 2020, p. 15). Governments need to demonstrate sincere commitment and to invest in a broad coalition of stakeholders who see benefits in inclusive communication strategies. This suggests that effective inclusive communication strategies should both rely on individual efforts in public organizations and be embedded in institutional governmental arrangements.

This exploration looks beyond practical obstacles and facilitators to highlight the underlying tension between democratic and bureaucratic values in administrative structures and its implications for inclusive communication. The clash between efficiency, market-driven patterns, and impartiality, on the one hand, and individual rights, equal rights, and social justice, on the other, shows that it is necessary for governments to reconcile these values at the level of actual decision-making and behavior in public communication practices in order to come to terms with the reality of superdiverse societies. Administrators, including communication practitioners, play crucial roles in fostering inclusive communication. However, it is equally important to have politicians who support and champion this fundamental shift in societal thinking. A first step toward reconciliation would mean raising awareness about how the neglect of inclusion and diversity in communication impacts the core principles and functioning of democracy. Creating awareness in turn will lead to a broader acknowledgment of the vital role played by communication practitioners in government offices and their direct impact on the ability of governments to include and effectively engage with diverse groups of citizens in a democratic society.