Climate communication through dialogic communication: How non-governmental organizations and ministries foster public engagement

Öz

This study examines how climate communication is conducted through the lens of public relations by analyzing the dialogic communication practices of climate actors—non-governmental organizations and ministries—in Türkiye. Using a rule-based classification approach, the research analyzes 17.381 tweets shared between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022, to assess how dialogic principles influence public engagement. The results show that the most prominent dialogic principle employed by both non-govermental organizations and ministries is the ‘Generation of Return Visits,’ highlighting a strong emphasis on sharing additional information through external links. Although video content is the least shared format, it yields the highest user engagement in terms of likes, retweets, and comments. Hashtag usage and user tagging also significantly boost interaction, whereas direct responses to tweets remain minimal. Ministries favor visual content—especially videos —while non-govermental organizations tend to rely more on textual formats. The findings reveal that the strategic use of dialogic communication principles enhances user engagement and relationship-building. This study contributes to both public relations and climate communication literature by offering a comparative, empirical assessment of how dialogic strategies foster public engagement on social media. It also proposes a methodological framework that integrates public relations theory with digital media analytics for future climate communication research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dialogic communication
• climate communication
• user engagement
• non-governmental organizations
• ministries

Diyalojik iletişim yoluyla iklim iletişimi: Sivil toplum kuruluşları ve bakanlıklar kamu katılımını nasıl teşvik ediyorlar?

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki iklim aktörleri olan sivil toplum kuruluşları ve bakanlıkların diyalojik iletişim uygulamaları üzerinden iklim iletişiminin halkla ilişkiler perspektifiyle nasıl yürütüldüğünü incelemektedir. Kural tabanlı sınıflandırma yaklaşımıyla gerçekleştirilen araştırmada, 1 Ocak 2020 ile 1 Ocak 2022 tarihleri arasında paylaşılan 17.381 tweet analiz edilerek diyalojik ilkelerin kamu etkileşimine etkisi değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, hem sivil toplum kuruluşları hem de bakanlıklar tarafından en sık kullanılan ilkenin ‘Tekrar Ziyaretlerin Oluşturulması’ olduğunu ortaya koymakta; bu da dış bağlantılar aracılığıyla ek bilgi paylaşımına verilen önemi vurgulamaktadır. Video içerikleri en az paylaşılan format olmasına rağmen, beğeni, retweet ve yorum açısından en yüksek kullanıcı etkileşimini sağlamaktadır. Hashtag kullanımı ve kullanıcı etiketleme de etkileşimi önemli ölçüde artırırken, tweetlere doğrudan yanıt verme oranı oldukça düşüktür. Bakanlıklar özellikle görsel içeriklere—özellikle videolara—ağırlık verirken, sivil toplum kuruluşları daha çok metin temelli içerikler paylaşmaktadır. Bulgular, diyalojik iletişim ilkelerinin stratejik kullanımının sosyal medyada kullanıcı etkileşimini ve ilişki kurma süreçlerini güçlendirdiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, sosyal medyada kamu katılımını teşvik eden diyalojik stratejileri karşılaştırmalı ve ampirik bir çerçevede inceleyerek halkla ilişkiler ve iklim iletişimi literatürüne katkı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca, dijital medya analitiği ile halkla ilişkiler kuramını birleştiren bir metodolojik çerçeve önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diyalojik iletişim
• iklim iletişimi
• kullanıcı katılımı
• sivil toplum kuruluşları
• bakanlıklar

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, K. H. (2023). An analysis of publications on climate change communication using a bibliometric lens. Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science, 12, 354–371. https://doi.org/10.21664/2238-8869.2023v12i3.p354-371 google scholar
2. Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Séguin, B. (2019). Social media in relationship marketing: The perspective of professional sport managers in the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL. Communication and Sport, 7(1), 80–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479517740343 google scholar
3. Almiron, N., & Xifra, J. (2020). Climate change denial and public relations: Strategic communication and interest groups in climate inac^ tion. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Climate-Change-Denial-and-Public-Relations/Almiron-Xifra/p/book/9781138319893 google scholar
4. Aydoğan, H. (2021). Dialogic communication during Covid-19 pandemic: An analysis on technoparks’ social media usage in Turkey. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 60, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2021-000126 google scholar
5. Benites-Lazaro, L. L., Giatti, L., & Giarolla, A. (2018). Topic modeling method for analyzing social actor discourses on climate change, energy and food security. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.031 google scholar
6. Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. Routledge. google scholar
7. Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018). The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 google scholar
8. Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. https://bit.ly/3wSgM1E (Not a formal journal; consider providing more source info.) google scholar Brunner, B. R. (Ed.). (2019). Public relations theory: Application and understanding. Wiley Blackwell. google scholar

9. Chapman, C., & Stolee, K. T. (2016). Exploring regular expression usage and context in Python. In Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (pp. 282–293). https://doi.org/10.1145/2931037.2931073 google scholar
10. Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber–Rogers position and postmodern themes. Commu^ nication Theory, 8(1), 63–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00211.x google scholar
11. Deren van het Hof, S. (2014). The media publicity of NGOs in Turkey. [Yayınevi bilgisi eksik – tamamlanmalı] google scholar
12. Drake, J. L., Kontar, Y. Y., Eichelberger, J. C., Rupp, T. S., & Taylor, K. M. (2016). Communicating climate-change and natural hazard risk and cultivating resilience: Case studies for a multi-disciplinary approach. In Communicating climate^change and natural hazard risk and cultivating resilience (Vol. 45). Springer. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-20161-0 google scholar
13. Evans Henri, C., Dyll, L., & Teer-Tomaselli, R. (2018). Communicating climate change: Theories and perspectives. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), Handbook of climate change communication: Vol. 1 (pp. 107–122). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69838-0_7 (DOI eklendi) google scholar
14. Grudin, R. (1997). On dialogue: An essay in free thought. Houghton Mifflin. google scholar
15. Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism Journal, 6(2), 1–19. http://www.prismjournal. org/fileadmin/Praxis/Files/Journal_Files/Grunig.pdf google scholar
16. Güçdemir, Y. (2020). An investigation of candidate leaders’ tweet campaigns prior to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipal elections using big data text mining. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.26650/connectist 2020-0079 google scholar
17. Güçdemir, Y. (2024). Public relations in digital transformation. Der Yayınları. google scholar
18. Günay, K., & Güçdemir, Y. (2022). Topic modeling analysis of NGO’s Twitter postings between 2020–2021 in Turkey within the context of climate change communication. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 12(4), 1026–1045. https://doi.org/ 10.7456/11204100/009 google scholar
19. Hansen, A., & Depoe, S. (2020). Ireland and the climate crisis. In D. Robbins, D. Torney, & P. Brereton (Eds.), Palgrave studies in media and environmental communication. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47587-1 google scholar
20. Harlow, S., Salaverría, R., Kilgo, D. K., & García-Perdomo, V. (2017). Protest paradigm in multimedia: Social media sharing of coverage about the crime of Ayotzinapa, Mexico. Journal of Communication, 67(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/JCOM.12296 google scholar
21. Hoiles, W., Aprem, A., & Krishnamurthy, V. (2017). Engagement and popularity dynamics of YouTube videos and sensitivity to meta-data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(7), 1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2017.2682858 google scholar
22. Jurin, R. R., Roush, D., & Danter, J. (2010). Environmental communication: Skills and principles for natural resource managers, scientists, and engineers. In Visual environmental communication. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753492 google scholar
23. Kalsnes, B. (2016). The social media paradox explained: Comparing political parties’ Facebook strategy versus practice. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 205630511664461. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116644616 google scholar
24. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X google scholar
25. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0363-8111(02)00108-X google scholar
26. Kim, K. (2023). A review of CLT-based empirical research on climate change communication from 2010 to 2021. Environmental Commu^ nication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2023.2259625 google scholar
27. Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R. G., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). In their own words: Political practitioner accounts of candidates, audiences, affordances, genres, and timing in strategic social media use. Political Communication, 35(1), 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609. 2017.1334727 google scholar
28. Leal Filho, W., Lackner, B., & McGhie, H. (Eds.). (2019). Addressing the challenges in communicating climate change across various audiences. Springer. google scholar
29. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004 google scholar
30. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer^Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x google scholar
31. Mahl, D., Guenther, L., Schäfer, M. S., Meyer, C., & Siegen, D. (2020). “We are a bit blind about it”: A qualitative analysis of climate change-related perceptions and communication across South African communities. Environmental Communication, 14(6), 802– 815. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1736116 google scholar
32. Mathieu, D., & Pavlíčková, T. (2017). Cross-media within the Facebook newsfeed: The role of the reader in cross-media uses. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 23(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517700383 google scholar
33. Mavimbela, M., Conradie, D., & Dondolo, H. (2018). Perceived benefits and challenges regarding the use of social media for public relations activities. Communitas, 23(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150525/comm.v23.3 google scholar
34. McCrimmon, M. (2005). Thought leadership: A radical departure from traditional, positional leadership. Management Decision, 43(7–8), 1064–1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510610062 google scholar
35. Men, L. R., Tsai, W. H. S., Chen, Z. F., & Ji, Y. G. (2018). Social presence and digital dialogic communication: Engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(3), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1498341 google scholar
36. Mersey, R. D., Malthouse, E. C., & Calder, B. J. (2010). Engagement with online media _ enhanced reader. Journal of Media Business Studies, 7(2), 39–56. (Cilt^sayı eklendi; orijinal yayındaki eksiklik tamamlandı) google scholar
37. Munaro, A. C., Barcelos, R. H., Maffezzolli, E. C. F., Rodrigues, J. P. S., & Paraiso, E. C. (2020). The drivers of video popularity on YouTube: An empirical investigation. In F. J. Martínez-López & S. D’Alessandro (Eds.), Advances in digital marketing and eCommerce (pp. 70– 79). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47595-6_10 google scholar
38. Munaro, A. C., Hübner Barcelos, R., Francisco Maffezzolli, E. C., Santos Rodrigues, J. P., & Cabrera Paraiso, E. (2021). To engage or not engage? The features of video content on YouTube affecting digital consumer engagement. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1336–1352. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1939 google scholar
39. Özer, Y. E. (2017). Analysis of actors in climate change governance and the situation of Turkey. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 13(4), 0–0. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2017433411 google scholar
40. Özmen, Ş. Y. (2011). Environmental communication: Structural analysis of environmental news and awareness of readers. In Diaria da República. google scholar
41. Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569 google scholar
42. Phillips, D. (2009). LeverWealth: A Grunigian view of modern PR. http://leverwealth.blogspot.com/2009/01/grunigian-view-of-modern-pr.html google scholar
43. Purath Mohankumar Sajeev, E., Mintz-Woo, K., Damert, M., Brunner, L., & Eise, J. (2019). Blogging climate change: A case study. In W. Leal Filho, B. Lackner, & H. McGhie (Eds.), Addressing the challenges in communicating climate change across various audiences (pp. 129–142). Springer. google scholar
44. Rogers, E. M., & Dearing, J. (1988). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (pp. 555–594). Sage. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263809220 google scholar
45. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004 google scholar
46. Şahin, Ü. (2014). The actor map of Turkey’s climate policies. 1–206. google scholar
47. Schäfer, M. S., & Schlichting, I. (2014). Media representations of climate change: A meta-analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.914050 google scholar
48. Shevchenko, O. (2023). Global climate change communication: The conceptual aspect. International and Political Studies, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.18524/2707-5206.2023.36.288722 google scholar
49. Shi, W., Fu, H., Wang, P., Chen, C., & Xiong, J. (2020). #Climatechange vs. #Globalwarming: Characterizing two competing climate discourses on Twitter with semantic network and temporal analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031062 google scholar
50. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384– 398. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.956106 google scholar
51. Thelen, P. D., Robinson, K. L., Yue, C. A., & Men, R. L. (2021). Dialogic communication and thought leadership: Twitter use by public relations agencies in the United States. Journal of Promotion Management, 27(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1809595 google scholar
52. Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media and Society, 19(11), 1848–1867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816643922 google scholar
53. Wang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2020). Dialogic communication on social media: How organizations use Twitter to build dialogic relationships with their publics. Computers in Human Behavior, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106183 google scholar
54. Wang, Y., & Zhou, S. (2015). How do sports organizations use social media to build relationships? A content analysis of NBA clubs’ Twitter use. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2014-0083 google scholar
55. Yağmurlu, A. (2019). Digital diplomacy: European Union member states and Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ internet usage from public diplomacy. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 7(2), 1267–1295. https://doi.org/10.19145/E-GIFDER.554946 google scholar
56. Zhou, A., & Xu, S. (2021). Digital public relations through the lens of affordances: A conceptual expansion of the dialogic principles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33(6), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2022.2046585 google scholar