Engaging and guiding the public to accept new, green fuels carries manifold challenges for communication. This article employs interview data to explore how communications professionals in the Australian energy sector speak about communicative aspects of their jobs. One key finding is that research participants initially describe work to be about making and sending telemediated messages. When prompted for further detail, however, professionals acknowledge the weakness of this approach and stress the need – and incommensurable value of – direct person-to-person engagement. Implications for both communication practice and communication theory are connected to this finding and are discussed via a reformed process model of communication. In so doing, potential opportunities for closing the gap between what communications professionals do and what they would prefer to do in the future are illuminated.
AxsenJKuraniKS (2011) Interpersonal influence in the early plug-in hybrid market: observing social interactions with an exploratory multi-method approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment16(2): 150–159.
3.
BirdwhistellRL (1970) Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
4.
CloutierC (2024) Strategies for generating deliberately emergent qualitative research designs. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science60(2): 358–380.
5.
CronenVE (1998) Communication theory for the twenty-first century: cleaning up the wreckage of the Psychology Project. In: TrentJS (ed) Communication: Views from the Helm for the 21st Century. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 18–38.
6.
FitchKL (2003) Cultural persuadables. Communication Theory13(1): 100–123.
7.
GivenLM (2008) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles: Sage.
InnisHA (1950) Empire and Communications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
10.
ItaokaKSaitoASasakiK (2016) Public acceptance. In: SasakiKLiH-WHayashiAYamabeJOguraTLythSM (eds) Hydrogen Energy Engineering: A Japanese Perspective. Toyko: Springer, 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56042-5
11.
JanssonJPetterssonTMannbergA, et al. (2017) Adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: influence from neighbors, family and coworkers. Transportation Research Part D54: 61–73.
12.
KatrielTPhilipsenG (1981) What we need is “communication”: “communication” as a cultural category in some American speech. Communication Monographs48(4): 301–317.
13.
KharechaPAHansenJE (2013) Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technology47: 4889–4895.
KuraniKS (2009) User Perceptions of Safety and Security: Towards a Framework for Transition to Electric, Shared, and Automated Vehicles. Davis, CA: National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Davis, Calif), & University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. http://bibpurl.oclc.org/web/95576
16.
LambertA (2018) The Australian public’s Perception of Hydrogen for Energy. Brisbane: Australian Renewable Energy.
17.
LangA (2013) Discipline in crisis? The shifting paradigm of mass communication research. Communication Theory23(1): 10–24.
18.
LelieveldJHainesABurnettR, et al. (2023) Air pollution deaths attributable to fossil fuels: observational and modelling study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)383: e077784.
19.
MarvinC (1988) When Old Technologies Were New. Oxford University Press.
20.
MeyrowitzJ (2018) Medium theory and cultural transformations. In Routledge Handbook of Cultural Sociology. 2nd ed.London: Routledge, 629–638. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315267784-67
21.
NichollsLArcariPGloverA, et al. (2019) Engaging Households Towards the Future Grid: Experiences, Expectations and Emerging Trends. Melbourne.: Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.
22.
NolanC (2023) Oppenheimer. Universal City, CA: Universal.
23.
NovakM (2024) Tweeting Hydrogen: An Exploratory Study of Australian Twitter Communications about Hydrogen Decarbonisation. PhD Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT Australia.
Paterno D (2021) Final Report: Public Communication and Hydrogen as a Fuel in Australia. Wollongong, NSW: Future Fuels CRC.
26.
PearceWB (1999/2004) Using CMM. Workbook. CMMinstitute.org.
27.
PenmanR (2012) On taking communication seriously. Australian Journal of Communication39(3): 41–64.
28.
RicciMBellabyPFlynnR (2008) What do we know about public perceptions and acceptance of hydrogen? A critical review and new case study evidence. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy33(21): 5868–5880.
29.
SandersRE (2021) The Work and Workings of Human Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
30.
SandersREFitchKL (2001) The actual practice of compliance seeking. Communication Theory11: 263–289.
31.
SchmidtADonsbachW (2016) Acceptance factors of hydrogen and their use by relevant stakeholders and the media. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy41(8): 4509–4520.
32.
ShawSMazzucchelliP (2010) Evaluating the perspectives for hydrogen energy uptake in communities: success criteria and their application. Energy Policy38(10): 5359–5371.
33.
StephensKKBarrettAK (2016) Communicating briefly: technically. International Journal of Business Communication53(4): 398–418.
34.
TaylorJRVan EveryEEJ (2011) The Situated Organization: Case Studies in the Pragmatics of Communication Research. New York: Routledge.
35.
TurkleS (2015) Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
36.
WeissCBonvillianW (2009) Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
