Ethos in COVID-19 crisis communication: evidence from Oman

Abstract

There is little research on the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategies adopted by governments in COVID-19 crisis communication. This study aimed to answer the following two questions: (1) What are the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in the official Arabic discourse of COVID-19 crisis communication in Oman? (2) Aligned with Seeger’s model of best practice in crisis communication, to what extent are these ethos-related rhetorical strategies effective in delivering a successful crisis response communication? The data came from Oman’s COVID-19 Supreme Committee press conference. The data included the first six press conferences covering the period from April 2, 2020 to May 7, 2020. The study showed that Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication exhibits a variety of ethos-related rhetorical strategies, mainly to establish, reinforce and restore speaker’s credibility. The study also showed that Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication was effective from a rhetorical perspective because it made use of rhetorical strategies that aligned well with Seeger’s best practice of honesty, candor and openness. One of the key recommendations of this paper is to call for Seeger’s model to be expanded to cover areas that this model does not currently address, namely speaker’s competence and message believability.

Keywords:

• COVID-19
• crisis communication
• crisis discourse
• ethos-rhetorical strategies

Introduction

Unlike other global crises in human history, the scale and speed of contagion of COVID-19 is probably unprecedented. One of the major concerns of governments across the world has been how to communicate this pandemic to the public in such a way that enhances the efforts of curbing the spread of this virus locally and internationally. Governments around the world have attempted to reduce COVID-19 harm by informing their stakeholders about this new pandemic, its severity and its impact on health, social life and economy. In addition, governments endeavored to inform the public about the measures adopted to manage the urgent situation that resulted from this pandemic. Governments have also provided messages of self-efficacy such as face-mask wearing, hands washing, and social distancing to stop the spread of the virus (Dryhurst et al. 2020).

COVID-19 crisis communication, however, is not only informative but more importantly it is persuasive. At times, governments’ values and actions in response to COVID-19 are challenged, questioned and sometimes even rejected by stakeholders. For example, governments had to justify lockdowns and promote vaccination (Bayram and Shields 2021; Becher et al. 2021; Davis, Golding, and McKay 2022; Dryhurst et al. 2020; Plümper, Neumayer, and Pfaff 2021; Robinson et al. 2021). Heath (2010) explains that a crisis ‘alerts’ the stakeholders to have concerns about the organization’s ability to reduce harm and be accountable. This tendency explains government spokespersons’ focus on affirming their credibility and persuading the public to adopt protective health measures to reduce the harm and damage emanating from this pandemic (Offerdal, Just, and Ihlen 2021). To achieve these communicative goals, various rhetorical strategies are used.

In the field of crisis communication, rhetorical approaches are adopted to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of rhetorical strategies used in crisis response communication (Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer 1998). Different taxonomies of rhetorical strategies have been developed especially in relation to persuasive goals of crisis communication (Benoit 1995; Coombs 1995; Hearit 1994, 1995). These strategies while very useful, they are based on past crises of different magnitude and duration, mainly organizational crises, compared to the global health crisis of COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, there is little research about the rhetorical strategies adopted by governments in response to COVID-19 (Bui, Moses, and Dumay 2022).

In response to this shortage of research, this paper aims to identify the rhetorical strategies used in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis response communication and evaluate their effectiveness by aligning them with the system of best practices proposed by Seeger (2006). The paper adopts Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos and pathos as a rhetorical framework. Logos is the appeal to reason, ethos the appeal to credibility and trustworthiness of the speaker, and pathos the appeal to the audience’ emotions (Amos, Spears, and Pentina 2016; Higgins and Walker 2012; Kallendorf and Kallendorf 1985). This paper is particularly addressing the ethos dimension of the rhetorical appeal because it aims to examine issues of credibility, trust and confidence that risk communicators strive to create in their communication with different stakeholders.

We endeavor, in this paper, to make an alignment between the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse and the relevant aspects of Seeger’s (2006) best practices in crisis communication. The aim of this alignment is to assess the effectiveness of using such rhetorical strategies in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication. To the best of our knowledge, this kind of alignment has not been attempted before. This alignment will not only help us evaluate the effectiveness of Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication in terms of meeting best practices but will also help us draw conclusions about Seeger’s model in terms of its contextual adaptability.

Using data from the official Arabic discourse of COVID-19 in Oman, this paper tries to answer these two questions: (1) What are the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in the official Arabic discourse of COVID-19 response communication in Oman? (2) Aligned with Seeger’s (2006) model of best practice in crisis communication, to what extent are these ethos-related rhetorical strategies effective in delivering a successful crisis response communication?

Literature review

Rhetoric in crisis communication

Rhetoric according to Campbell (1996, 8) is ‘the study of what is persuasive. The issues it examines are social truths, addressed to others, justified by reasons that reflect cultural values. It is a humanistic study that examines all the symbolic means by which influence occurs.’ A rhetorical approach to crisis ‘stresses the message development and presentation part of the crisis response’ (Heath and Millar 2013, 5) and ‘features the communication processes and efforts to co-define meanings that assist persons who are affected—or think they are affected—to prepare for, accommodate to, and recover from the disruptive events’ (ibid. p. 6). The focus on the notion of ‘co-defining’ a crisis suggests a negotiation between a communicator and an audience on a joint definition of the crisis. This negotiation requires persuasion and persuasion in turn requires using persuasive rhetorical strategies.

A rhetorical approach to crisis communication emphasizes that a crisis as a whole is a rhetorical problem (Bitzer 1968), i.e. a problem of communication, regardless of the cause of the crisis. Whether it is natural or man-made, a crisis ultimately needs to be responded to in terms of behavioral actions and communicative outreach. Crisis communication frames the response to a crisis and prepares the audience to deal with the crisis by defining the nature of the crisis and by persuading the audience about the different aspects of the response to the crisis. Hence, a rhetorical approach to crisis communication is both informative and persuasive and considers the crisis an event that is ‘subject to interpretations’ (Heath and Millar 2013, 11), in fact, to ‘competing interpretations’ (ibid.), hence, the persuasive nature of crisis communication.

In this paper, the rhetorical approach to crisis communication is taken to cover two main dimensions: the informative dimension and the persuasive dimension. COVID-19 crisis communication aims to inform the public about the nature, scope and severity of the pandemic, and at the same time it aims to persuade the public to embrace and adopt preventive health measures to keep themselves and their society safe.

Best practices in crisis communication

Crisis communication as a field of study is not only academic but also applied in nature. It is ‘a nexus of praxis where theory and application must intersect’ (Coombs 2010, 22). This view is motivated by the perception that crisis communication is contributing to solutions of real world problems (Seeger 2006). Rhetorical approaches to crisis communication, hence, contribute to the development of best practices in crisis communication (Covello 2003; Heath 2006; Seeger 2006; Sandman 2006). Reynolds and Seeger (2005), for example, propose an integrative model of crisis and emergency risk communication. Their 5-stage model of Pre-crisis, Initial Event, Maintenance, Resolution and Evaluation (PIMRE) model covers both the managerial/administrative dimension of crisis communication as well as the discourse dimension of this communication. Heath (2006) reiterates the ten best practices proposed by Seeger (2006) and adds two more best practices, the narrative characterization of crisis communication and the importance of being the first and best source of information.

The discourse dimension of crisis communication best practices, which is the focus of this paper, is more clearly developed in Seeger (2006), who, based on expert panel recommendations, proposes ten best practices for a large publically- managed crisis similar to the current crisis of COVID-19 pandemic. This is the model that will be adopted in this paper to assess the effectiveness of the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication. Seeger’s best practices can be divided into practices pertaining to the process of communication and practices pertaining to the actual discourse used to communicate the crisis to various stakeholders which is commonly known as ‘crisis response communication’ (Coombs 2010, 103). This discourse-oriented crisis response communication is said to ‘create a rational understanding’ of crisis and persuade the public to ‘take some action to avoid a possible threat or harmful effect’ (Spence et al. 2007, 541).

Given the focus of this paper, there are four discourse-oriented best practices discussed by Seeger (2006): (1) Honesty, candor, and openness, (2) Accept uncertainty and ambiguity, (3) Communicate with compassion, concern and empathy (4) Messages of self-efficacy. However, best practices 3 and 4 are focused on the audience emotions and behavior; therefore, we believe they are pathos-oriented rather than ethos-oriented. As a result, only the following two best practices seem to be relevant to the ethos-related rhetorical strategies because they focus on the character of the speaker. These are summarized below:

1. Honesty, candor, and openness—This best practice in crisis communication is deemed crucial for building credibility and trust throughout the crisis. It pertains to the transparency and openness of the message in crisis communication. The importance of honesty, candor and openness in crisis communication stems from the fact that if official crisis communication is not honest, open or candid, the public will quickly find or even create other sources or platforms of information which might or might not be accurate, reliable or credible. Seeger (2006, 240) contends that ‘maintaining honesty, candor and openness in spite of the impediments is a fundamental exigency of most crisis communication.’

2. Accept uncertainty and ambiguity—Crises, especially global health crises, are usually rife with uncertainties due to their unexpected nature. Good crisis communicators take this crucial issue on board and act accordingly. They are themselves uncertain about how the crisis is going to unfold and they are aware about the public concern regarding this uncertainty. Good communicators are open about this uncertainty and address people’s relevant concerns with confident and consistent messages that help in reducing public panic and concern.

Ethos-related rhetorical strategies

Burke (1969, 172) argues that ‘whenever there is persuasion, there is rhetoric. And wherever there is meaning, there is persuasion.’ Rhetoric is so pervasive in our daily lives and it has been an area of study since Aristotle more than 2000 years ago. Aristotle proposed three types of rhetorical foci or strategies which were later called rhetorical appeals (Killingsworth 2005). Each of these appeals has a general focus on one major element of communication. Logos focuses on the message element of the communication, ethos focuses on communication addresser and pathos focuses on the addressee. Some scholars have linked ‘logos’ with logic or reason which is associated with the message or the discourse, ‘ethos’ with addresser’s credibility and ‘pathos’ with addressee’s emotions (Higgins and Walker 2012; Hill 2020). As mentioned earlier, this paper focuses on the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in Oman’s COVID-19 risk communication. Therefore, the analysis and discussion will target only those strategies within this rhetorical appeal.

Ethos, more specifically, is the appeal to the character of the speaker (Demirdöğen 2010), or ‘persona, or projected character of a speaker/communicator, including their credibility and trustworthiness’ (Higgins and Walker 2012, 197). Speaker’s credibility can be realized through the display of the speaker’s credentials, character, and values (Connors 1979). Using speaker’s credentials, professional knowledge, expertise and inclination to succeed reflect the credentials of the speaker and make him more trustworthy (Higgins and Walker 2012). Similitude or suggesting commonality and similarity with the audience (Higgins and Walker 2012) through shared social and cultural values is another source of speaker’s credibility. It can also be achieved via expressing deference because ‘it signals the authors’ respect for the rights and feelings of the audience (Higgins and Walker 2012, 198). In some cases, credibility of the speaker could be achieved through using self-criticism/self-deprecation and admission of mistakes/shortcomings because they suggest that the speaker is honest and hence credible and trustworthy (Higgins and Walker 2012). Sometimes, strategies of reverse accusation and denying the credibility of the target/opponent are also used to achieve the credibility of the speaker (Ting 2018).

Since ethos as a rhetorical appeal is commonly associated with credibility of the communication producer, and since this paper focuses on the discourse of Oman’s COVID-19 Supreme Committee’s spokesperson, the focus on ethos is thus justified. We believe that the focus on ethos in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse is going to reveal interesting findings related to the unique rhetorical features of this crisis communication discourse, i.e. highlighting its contextual dimension.

Methodology

Context

In order to coordinate the Omani government response to COVID-19, The Supreme Committee tasked with tackling developments resulting from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (henceforth, the Supreme Committee) was formed by the Sultan of Oman on March 10, 2020. The committee consisted of top officials in the government as members, and the Minister of Health as the spokesperson. This committee coordinated all efforts to tackle COVID-19 and it was the sole representative of the government in all issues pertaining to COVID-19 including communication.

Data collection and analysis

The data of this study are taken from the Supreme Committee’s first 6 press conferences which took place from April 2, 2020 to May 7, 2020. These 6 press conferences represent the first month of the Supreme Committee COVID-19 crisis response communication. The 6 press conferences are transcribed and saved as Microsoft Word documents. The total amount of transcribed data included in the analysis is 64059 words. The examples cited in this paper are translated from Arabic into English by one of the authors and verified by the other.

The press conferences are available on the official YouTube channel of Oman TV. The data analyzed for the purpose of this paper includes only the discourse of the Supreme Committee’s spokesperson because he communicated the key COVID-19 crisis communication to the public and the media. He also moderated the press conferences and called for contributions from guest speakers in the conference and from media journalists physically or remotely attending the conference. He also coordinated the response to questions from the public via official social media accounts of the Supreme Committee.

The decision to include only these 6 conferences is justified by the fact that this first month represents the Supreme Committee’s early response to COVID-19. Examining the early crisis response communication of COVID-19 is critical in uncovering and predicting the effectiveness of the Omani government COVID-19 crisis communication. Seeger (2006) argues that if communication issues are not prioritized during the planning phase of a crisis, its effectiveness will be reduced because ‘the meaning of the crisis has already been framed by others, and communication activities are forced into a catch-up role’ (p. 237). We argue that it is not only the planning of the communication issues in the pre-crisis phase that is important. In fact, the crisis response communication at the early stages of a crisis is equally important because it could play a vital role in defining the crisis and framing the response to this crisis.

At this early stage of COVID-19 crisis response communication, Omani government’s credibility is at stake because if the public lost trust in the Omani government’s response to COVID-19 crisis, it might not be recovered in later stages of the response. Therefore, examining the ethos-related rhetorical strategies in Oman’s crisis response communication in the early stages is critical and hence necessary to evaluate its effectiveness.

The researchers operationalized ethos as a targeted rhetorical appeal (Offerdal, Just, and Ihlen 2021) by identifying the various strategies used in the literature to fulfill this rhetorical appeal. These strategies are: speaker’s credentials, character, and values (Connors 1979), commonality and similarity with the audience, showing deference to the audience, self-criticism/self-deprecation and admission of mistakes/shortcomings (Higgins and Walker 2012), and accusation and denying the credibility of the target/opponent (Ting, 2018).

To identify these strategies in the data, we adopted the speech act as the unit of analysis. Therefore, we treated every strategy of building credibility as a speech act on its own. In speech act theory, speech acts such as thanking and promising are ‘the basic or minimal units of linguistics communication’ (Searle 1969, 16). Austin (1975) argued that we use language not only to make statements but also to perform speech action. Every speech action represents an illocutionary force which is the intentional meaning of the speaker because the ‘speakers can mean considerably more than their words say’ (Thomas 1995, 54). A speech act can be realized directly with explicit linguistic references to the intention of the speakers such as saying ‘I apologize’ in which the intention of apologizing is reflected in using a ‘self-referential’ verb ‘apologize’, i.e. the meaning of the verb refers to the speech action of apologizing (Thomas 1995, 33). However, Austin (1975), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) observed that speech acts are mostly realized indirectly using contextual and socio-cultural cues that could help the hearer infer the speaker’s intentional meaning. For example, the intentional meaning of saying ‘It is hot here’ could be intended as ‘I want some fresh air’ (Thomas 1995, 49).

In the analysis, we adopted deductive and inductive coding. First, both researchers individually identified any utterance or group of utterances that could be used to realize every strategy as a speech act directly or indirectly. Second, using a deductive coding, the names of credibility-building strategies identified in the literature are used as codes for the identified speech acts. Third, the inductive coding is adopted to code data that could not fit under the pre-determined codes, yet it was seen relevant to credibility building. Fourth, both researchers compared their notes on the number of identified speech acts and their coding. The total number of identified speech acts is 165. The codes used to name the speech acts are: demonstrating speaker’s credentials and values, appealing to credible sources, defending self and blaming others, maintaining a consistent message, sharing information, and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity.

To ensure inter-coder reliability, the following formula (Miles and Huberman 1994, 64) was used. The number of agreements between the two coders, the two researchers in this case, is divided by the number of agreements plus the number of disagreements. The inter-coder reliability is (92%) as shown in the formula below: $$\frac{\text{number of agreements }\left(92\right)}{\begin{array}{c}\text{number agreements }\mathrm{(}\text{92}\mathrm{)}\text{ + number disagreements }\mathrm{(}\text{8}\mathrm{)}\\ =\left[92/\left(92+\text{ 8}\right)\right]\text{ x1}00=\left(92/100\right)\text{ x1}00=\text{ 92}\%\end{array}}\mathrm{x}100$$

Results

This section discusses the results of the study and addresses the various ethos-related rhetorical strategies used by Oman’s COVID-19 Supreme Committee spokesperson. We identify six of these strategies with examples for each extracted from the data.

Demonstrate speaker’s credentials and values

In the data, there are statements in which the spokesperson informs the public about his professional background as a doctor of medicine to establish his own credibility and that of the Supreme Committee he is representing. For instance, at the start of each conference, the audience are informed about the title of the spokesperson of the Supreme Committee as the Minister of Health. This gives credibility to the discourse of the committee since the minister of health is supposedly the most informed person about issues pertaining to public health in Oman. To add to his credibility, he informed the audience with his professional background as a doctor/physician by saying ‘I am still a doctor.’ On several occasions, he also used medical and scientific terminologies such as ‘PCR’ test and ‘serology’ test, test ‘sensitivity,’ (Example 1) and ‘gene expert’ test solution to show his expert knowledge and to explain to the public the different testing options and protocols in dealing with COVID-19. The use of these English terms is particularly significant because the audience is aware that many medical terms especially those relating to COVID-19 virus come from English, so this frequent use of English terms aims to add to the spokesperson’s credibility despite the fact that comprehensibility is significantly reduced. Referring to statistics, facts and research findings are another way to demonstrate the knowledge and competence of the speaker (see Examples 11, 12 & 13 below).

Example 1:

‘There is the test that we do in the Sultanate, which is called PCR … This is a highly accurate test with a high degree of sensitivity. There is something called serology test which we might resort to later if we need. This is something like a survey of cases but it is not accurate for diagnosis.’

In addition, the speaker attempted to establish credibility by explaining the Supreme Committee’s efforts and the gradual and collaborative nature of the decision-making process in this committee that takes into consideration all concerns raised (Example 2). The media and the public might perceive this decision-making process as an act of professional practice that is well calculated, which would in turn add to the credibility and trustworthiness of the Supreme Committee. Moreover, the spokesperson establishes credibility by using reputational assets. For instance, the spokesperson uses the internationally recognized lab facility in Oman (Example 3) as a reputational asset to encourage the public to trust that the Supreme Committee is qualified and is able to successfully manage COVID-19 crisis because it has ‘a cumulative experience’ in dealing with infectious diseases (Example 4).

Example 2:

‘Every country takes decisions according to various provisions, and as you have noticed in the Sultanate, the Supreme Committee is adopting a gradual strategy in taking decisions… It carefully considers all the issues raised’

Example 3:

‘I need to emphasize here that the laboratory [used in Oman] is accredited by the World Health Organization, and the World Health Organization uses this laboratory for examinations of several infectious diseases from all countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region.’

Example 4:

‘I would like to inform you that the Sultanate has gone through several pandemics during this century, 2003-2009: SARS, 2009 H1N1 swine flu, and 2013 MERS, which is the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. So we have a cumulative experience.’

Another way to establish the credibility of the spokesperson is by sharing with the public the three core values of the Supreme Committee and by association of the spokesperson. These are: information access, information transparency, and protection from harm. In Example 5, the spokesperson states that the public has the right to access timely and accurate information about COVID-19 and the right to access transparent information about the number of COVID-19 cases (Example 6), and the right to be protected from harm (Example 7).

Example 5:

‘I stress that for us in the Ministry of Health or as a government access to information is the right of the citizen and the resident. They have the right to get it and get it accurately and credibly.’

Example 6:

‘Our transparent approach to announcing all COVID-19 cases has been acknowledged by several bodies.’

Example 7:

‘I said whether we look at the issue from a humanitarian obligation, a religious, a moral, a social or a national commitment, of course, protection from harm is a duty that we cannot compromise.’

Additionally, the value system of the spokesperson is similar or aligned with that of the public’s best interest and wellbeing, which is the right to know what is going on and protection from harm. Sharing common values and goals with the public suggests commonality between the spokesperson and the public. This commonality is further intensified by the use of the collective pronoun ‘We’ as in Example 8, in which the spokesperson is expressing shared religious, cultural and social background about the holy month of Ramadan with the public, which, in turn, contributes to building the credibility of the spokesperson and the Supreme Committee, making them trustworthy in the eyes of the public.

Example 8:

We understand that the holy month of Ramadan is approaching, and we are aware of the traditions and rituals associated with it, whether these are religious or social rituals; but health always comes first. Protecting society means protecting all the citizens and residents.

Defend self and blame others

Sometimes the spokesperson resorted to restoring credibility strategies when the Supreme Committee was questioned or challenged by the media and the public about unfulfilled promises regarding COVID-19 tests and the lockdown decisions. In Example 9, the spokesperson had to justify lack of COVID-19 tests by, first, affirming the country’s readiness to conduct these tests and, then, blaming some countries for monopolizing test solutions to justify the country’s inability to conduct these tests. In Example 10, he also defended the Committee’s decision to favor lockdown procedures over herd immunity by reiterating the autonomy of each country as far as COVID-19 pandemic decision- making, explaining that countries adopting the herd immunity practice are prioritizing economy over health, and that eventually these countries realized that economy cannot be prioritized over health, which resulted in those countries finally resorting to the same lockdown procedures followed in Oman.

Example 9:

‘I promised the people in some governorates three weeks ago that we will strive to provide tests … the equipment is available, medical staff are available, the company promised us three weeks ago that the solution called gene expert will be available for the tests, unfortunately until today we did not get the solution and it was monopolized by some countries which I will not name.’

Example 10:

‘Each country has its own strategy based on several variables related to social issues, cumulative experiences… That strategy has been retracted…. And, of course, they began to take the same precautionary measures adopted in the Sultanate….but some countries thought, as I said, that they had to choose either economy or health. Both of these are, no doubt, interrelated; if health disappeared, there would not be any productivity [in the economy]’

Sharing information

A variety of facts, statistics, and research findings are used to present the speaker not only as competent and knowledgeable of the subject matter but also as open communicator. For example, in all six conferences the spokesperson gives a statistical update about the global and local situation of COVID-19. He gives the total number of COVID-19 cases, the new registered cases of COVID-19 and deaths (Example 11). He also refers to tentative research findings about the use of plasma in treating COVID-19 cases, and the relationship between smoking and COVID-19 (Examples 12 and 13). Continuously sharing with the public what is known about COVID-19 projects the speaker as open in the sense of not withholding any information from the public, which enhances his credibility.

Example 11:

‘Yesterday, 21 cases were recorded in the Sultanate of Oman, bringing the total number of cases to 231. There is one death case … 41 recovered cases. At the international level until a short while ago, the number of registered cases exceeded 940 thousand cases; that is, by the end of today, the cases may exceed one million. There are more than 47,500 deaths.

Example 12:

‘But at the global level, including the United States of America, there is evidence that plasma has shown some effectiveness in treating some patients.’

Example 13:

‘Statistics coming from China confirmed that smokers are more susceptible to the virus.’

In addition, he frankly shares with the public that COVID-19 situation is going to get worse and that he is not very hopeful about the development of a vaccine in the near future (Examples 14 & 15). In some situations, he did not shy away from warning businesses that do not comply with the health protective measures (Example 16).

Sharing worst case scenarios about COVID-19, avoiding overly reassuring messages, and using warnings show the speaker as honest and candid in the sense of the speaker is saying the entire truth, making him honest and candid, hence credible.

Example 14:

‘We have not reached the peak yet; we are still going up in the epidemic curve.’

Example 15:

‘Even the major companies will not be able to find a vaccine [very soon]… a new drug or a new vaccine takes years to develop.’

Example 16:

‘We are all aware in the Supreme Committee of the importance of the financial and economic situation but we assert that any business that does not comply with the instructions, it will be closed again.’

Accept uncertainty

The data contained segments showing the use of accepting uncertainty as a way to qualify the messages about the nature, duration, waves, treatment and vaccination of COVID-19 because COVID-19 is a new virus and little is known about it. In Example 17, the spokesperson repeated ‘until now’ to emphasize that the Supreme Committee’s information about COVID-19 is limited and could change anytime because it is a new virus and little is known about it. Similarly, in Example 18, he emphasized the ambiguity surrounding this virus due to the fact that it is new.

Example 17:

‘Until now and I always stress so far our figures until now our information until now because it is a somewhat new disease, the virus is new and we are all still learning about this virus’

Example 18:

‘This virus is new, its behavior and its mutations are still under research. For the issue of re-infection, there is no definite answer that is confirmed by any scientific authority until now.’

Make reference to credible sources

The speaker appealed to the credentials of established political, cultural, social and scientific authority, first, by referring to an established health authority such as WHO. This organization is referred to in every press conference with emphasis that COVID-19 data, information and procedures shared and recommended for the public in Oman are aligned with those of WHO organization and Center for Disease Monitor and Control in America (Example 19). He also referred to local expert figures in the field of medicine (Example 20): Dr. Seif Al Abri (Director of Directorate General for Disease Surveillance and Control) and Dr. Muhammed Al Hosni (Undersecretary of Ministry of Health). He also described Dr. Seif as ‘one of our experts.’ The reference to a credible health organization like WHO in a way validates the messages of the Supreme Committee, and hence renders it believable and credible.

Example 19:

‘Regarding, the use of masks in the community, there is no recommendation from the World Health Organization to use masks. The Center for Disease Monitor and Control in America left it optional. We do not recommend it, but we will not prevent anyone if they use them when there is risk.’

Example 20:

‘My colleagues, Dr. Saif Al-Abri and of course His Excellency Dr. Muhammad Al-Hosani, have studies on predictions of the number of cases.’

Maintain a consistent message

Another rhetorical strategy used in the data is that of maintaining a consistent message achieved via reminding and re-emphasizing the same messages which resulted in sending a consistent message to the public, hence reinforcing his credibility. For example, the spokesperson reminded the audience about his value system and that of the Supreme Committee (i.e. speaker’s credentials, character and values) by stressing the value of protecting the health workers (Example 21).

Example 21:

‘And I repeat it, they [doctors and nurses] are the most precious thing we have in the Ministry of Health and protecting them is something sacred for me and for the entire team of this Ministry.’

The speaker also attempted to reinforce credibility by reminding the audience about the fact that he acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding this pandemic (i.e. accepting uncertainty) (Example 22). In Example 23, there is evidence of the spokesperson’s attempt to reinforce credibility by reminding the audience that the information provided is reliable because it comes from a credible international health organization, WHO (i.e. making reference to credible sources). In Example 24, the spokesperson reemphasized the fact that corona virus is the fastest spreading virus known (i.e. using evidence).

Example 22:

‘As I said last week, the virus has confused all scientists so far. Every day you hear about new treatments, about new procedures, but the way it spreads, the speed of its spread, I mean, is still not known to many.’

Example 23:

‘I repeat, what we mention here is based on data and information made available by the World Health Organization and accredited scientific institutions.’

Example 24:

‘This virus, I must repeat, is the most widespread virus we have known to date’

Discussion

Ethos-rhetorical strategies

In relation to the first research question on the ethos-related rhetorical strategies used in the official Arabic COVID-19 crisis response communication in Oman, the data reveal six rhetorical strategies used to achieve the credibility of the spokesperson: demonstrating speaker’s credentials and values, appealing to credible sources, defending self and blaming others, maintaining a consistent message, sharing information, and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity.

The strategy of demonstrating speaker’s credentials is achieved by informing the audience about the speaker’s professional background or expertise, using scientific terminologies in English and referring to statistics, facts and research findings. This speech behavior is a demonstration of the speaker’s practice-based professional experience or practical wisdom and hence competency (Ihlen 2009, Xu, Margolin, and Niederdeppe 2021) . Sharing the professional practices of the Supreme Committee and the reputational assets of having an internationally recognized lab, much needed in tackling COVID-19, gives the sense that this Committee has the inclination to succeed (Higgins and Walker 2012) in managing the crisis of COVID-19. This inclination of success enhances the image or reputation of the speaker (Demirdöğen 2010) and by association the organization he/she represents, which contributes to strengthening the ethos or the speaker’s credibility (Higgins and Walker 2012).

The demonstration of the speaker’s values through showing deference or respecting the public’s right to accessing accurate and timely information and making the fulfillment of these rights a duty and priority results in establishing credibility and cultivating trust (Al-Sharafi 2022; Higgins and Walker, 2012; Seeger et al. 2018). Because the value system of the spokesperson is similar or aligned with that of the public’s best interest and wellbeing, it suggests commonality and harmony or similitude (Higgins and Walker 2012) between the spokesperson and the audience which would result in making the speaker credible.

The strategies of sharing information and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity are not listed as ethos-building strategies in the literature. However, the data illustrate that both strategies are key for building the credibility of the speaker in crisis communication. Continuously updating the public about issues pertaining COVID-19 pandemic and its management gives the public a sense of immediate access to information, which in turn makes the speaker come across as open and accordingly credible. Both features are essential in building source credibility (Seeger et al. 2018). Equally, the spokesperson’s public admission of lack of information, uncertainty and ambiguity regarding what is known about COVID-19 and what the future holds in relation to this virus, makes the spokesperson honest and candid (Seeger 2006).

Even though people in such crises would prioritize ‘accurate, timely, and useful information’ (Seeger 2006, 235), it is not an easy task for the government during COVID-19 to make evidence-based decisions (Salajan et al. 2020) especially at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic. In the COVID-19 situation, there were many aspects of the pandemic that were uncertain at least in the early stages of the pandemic starting with the cause of the virus to the way it spread, the way it entered and attacked the body, the way the body can be protected, the viability of the PCR tests and finally to the effectiveness of the vaccines. All these issues had to be carefully considered by the pandemic risk communicators to show that human knowledge on these aspects was evolving as the pandemic was unfolding as an ongoing exploratory journey. This explains the spokesperson’s constant reminding of the little knowledge the world has about the virus and the pandemic in general. Giving overly assuring messages in such an unpredictable crisis situation can damage the credibility of the speaker (Seeger 2006). To accommodate the unique nature of crisis communication, the ethos-related rhetorical strategies should be expanded to accommodate the strategies of information sharing and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity when investigating crisis discourse.

The strategies of sharing information and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity are documented in research about COVID-19 crisis communication in some of the Gulf region countries. According to Radwan and Mousa (2020), one of the key values of COVID-19 pandemic communication in the UAE is to make the public ‘trust the official sources of information’ (p. 523) by providing ‘accurate, confident, transparent and trusted communication’ (p. 524). Similarly, Zaher et al. (2021) documented the use of a number of credibility-building strategies in the UAE context to ‘ensure transparency with its population on the COVID-19 situation by disseminating daily statistics, including total number of cases, number of deaths, number of tests performed, total number of recoveries, and up-to-date health regulations’ (p. 4).

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the issue of credibility and speaker’s ethos in COVID-19 crisis communication featured in the research conducted there. Hassounah, Raheel, and Alhefzi (2020) stated that, in response to WHO’s principle of accessibility to credible facts in a timely manner, the Saudi Ministry of Health launched awareness website in which key information and daily updates could be located and accessed by the public. In a study conducted by Alhassan and AlDossary (2021) which aimed to investigate risk communication practices of the Saudi Ministry of Health twitter account, it was shown that the twitter account in the initial phase of the pandemic focused on reducing uncertainty and enhancing reassurances, which demonstrated a keen interest in bolstering risk communicators’ credibility.

Ethos negative appeals such as strategies of self-criticism and admission of guilt, and denying the credibility of the target/opponent were not identified in the data. Interestingly though, self-defense strategies and blame of others are used but rarely. The rare use of these strategies could be explained by the observation that defending reputation in crisis communication during natural crisis is usually uncommon but ‘never absent’ (Seeger 2006, 235).

The strategy of making reference to credible local and international sources is a form of appealing to the credentials of established authority of figures (Brennan and Merkl-Davies 2014; Ihlen 2009; Offerdal, Just, and Ihlen 2021). It servers to enhance the believability of the message, which in return serves to enhance the credibility of the spokesperson and the Supreme Committee he is representing. This strategy is realized differently in the Qatari context. Ahmad and Hillman (2021) pointed out that in Qatar, for example, religious leaders of non-Arabic speaking communities in the country were recruited to communicate with their respective audiences on the validity and legitimacy of praying at home during pandemics to legitimize lockdown of mosques.

Maintaining a consistent message also contributes to the believability of the message. Seeger et al. (2018, 197) described consistent messaging as the practice of ensuring that ‘messages from various sources contain similar information and guidance’ (p. 197). This consistency increases the public trust in these messages. Our data reveal that message consistency could be also achieved by maintaining a consistent message over time by the same speaker. This is equally important for reinforcing the believability of the spokesperson’s message, and hence his credibility.

The findings indicate that there are two main types of strategies used to enhance credibility in the Arabic discourse of COVID-19 crisis communication: the credibility of speaker’s character and the credibility of the message. It seems that strategies demonstrating speaker’s credentials and values, accepting uncertainty and ambiguity, sharing information, and defending self and blaming others are directly used to establish the credibility of the character of the speaker. On the other hand, the strategies of referring to credible sources and maintaining a consistent message are used to establish the believability of the message, and hence indirectly establishing speaker’s character credibility.

Seeger (2006) identified a variety of communicative goals in crisis situations. From the standpoint of the spokesperson in a crisis situation, reputation management is a communication goal for organizations, while reestablishing public order is a goal for government agencies. Reducing and containing harm is a common goal for both. The findings of this study reveal that achieving credibility could be another important goal in crisis communication. For the government agencies to succeed in achieving their goals of containing and reducing harm and reestablishing public order, they need to persuade the public of their credibility because ‘credibility translates into believability and trust between the public and those seeking to manage the event’ (Seeger 2006, 239). The public are more likely to abide by health protective measures if they think that the government agencies are credible, hence trustworthy. If credibility is not achieved, its lack ‘may significantly enhance the probability of harm’ (ibid) which is counterproductive to crisis communication goals. Therefore, the findings of this study recommend ‘achieve credibility’ as a crucial communicative goal in crisis communication.

In addition, the data reveal that the goal of achieving credibility can be realized through three sub-goals: establishing credibility, reinforcing credibility and restoring credibility. The strategies of demonstrating speaker’s credentials and values, sharing information, appealing to credible sources, and accepting uncertainty and ambiguity are used to establish or build the credibility of the speaker. The strategy of maintaining a consistent message serves to reinforce this credibility of the speaker by reminding and re-emphasizing the same crisis communication messages pertaining to the speaker’s credentials and values, reference to credible sources, sharing information, accepting uncertainty and ambiguity. The strategy of self-defense and blaming others albeit rare serves to restore the credibility of the speaker when it is threatened or questioned.

Effectiveness of Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse

Concerning the first part of the second question which is about the alignment between identified ethos-related rhetorical strategies and Seeger’s Model of best practices in crisis communication, the data show that sharing information and accepting uncertainty and are aligned with Seeger’s best practices of (1) Honesty, candor, and openness, and (2) Accept uncertainty and ambiguity. The strategy of sharing information is aligned with the best practice of honesty, candor and openness, because sharing information projects the speaker as an open and candid communicator, a speaker who conveys the entire truth. In our data, accepting uncertainty is an ethos-related strategy, while in Seeger’s model it is one of the best practices of crisis communication. One can simply argue that the strategy of accepting uncertainty is aligned with Seeger’s best practice of accepting uncertainty and ambiguity. However, the data of this study reveal that accepting uncertainty is a key rhetorical strategy used to project the speaker as honest and candid. Therefore, accepting uncertainty and ambiguity is not an autonomous practice rather a strategy that satisfies the best practice of honesty, candor and openness. This finding is aligned with the observation of Seeger et al. (2018) that acknowledging uncertainties in a crisis situation makes the speaker honest and candid, which in turn enhances the speaker’s credibility. Equally, in Covello’s (2003) checklist of best practices for health risk and crisis communication, accepting uncertainties and avoiding over-assurance are listed under the best practice of being truthful, honest, frank and open. Therefore, we recommend naming the best practice of accepting uncertainty and ambiguity as a strategy under the best practice of honesty, candor and openness.

The other two direct strategies of building speaker’s character credibility (i.e. demonstrating speaker’s credentials and values, and defending self and blaming others) are not aligned with the best practice of honesty, candor and openness. In fact, there is no best practice in Seeger’s model that can be realized by these strategies. This is could be due to the fact that Seeger’s model is focusing on crisis communication as a pre, during and after crisis process. The discourse dimension of crisis communication is not adequately addressed in Seeger’s model, even though the issue of speaker’s competence and expertise are viewed as crucial elements of credibility building in crisis communication in their own right (Peters et al. 1997; Reynolds 2011).

Similarly, strategies pertaining to the credibility of the messages such as referring to credible sources and maintaining a consistent message are not aligned with the best practice of honesty, candor and openness. These strategies are squarely focusing on establishing the believability of the message and by association the believability of the source of this message rendering the speaker credible. Therefore, the discourse dimension in Seeger’s model could be expanded by including two more best practices: speaker’s competence and message believability.

Concerning the second part of the second question, which is about the effectiveness of Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse, it can be argued that Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse is effective in delivering a successful crisis response because some identified ethos-related strategies align well with one of key the best crisis communication practices in Seeger’s model. In fact, the data reveal that the effectiveness of Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse actually goes beyond the limits of Seeger’s model to include other crucial elements such speaker’s competence and message believability.

Conclusion

This paper aimed at identify the ethos-rhetorical strategies used in Oman’s COVID-19 crisis response communication and evaluate their effectiveness by aligning them with the system of best practices proposed by Seeger (2006). The data reveal that a variety of ethos-rhetorical strategies are used in this discourse, some of which are not originally identified in previous ethos-rhetorical strategies research such as sharing information and accepting uncertainty. Both strategies directly realize the best practice of honesty, candor and openness in Seeger’s model, and indirectly contribute to speaker credibility and message credibility. When investigating crisis communication discourse, ethos-related rhetorical strategies should include the strategies of sharing information and accepting uncertainty as important credibility-building strategies which are deliberately used to achieve three communicative goals: establish, reinforce and restore credibility.

One of the key findings of this paper is that the effectiveness of Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse is evident in the use of a number of ethos-related rhetorical strategies, which align well with some of Seeger’s best practice model of crisis communication. However, Oman’s COVID-19 crisis communication discourse actually goes beyond the limits of Seeger’s model to include other crucial elements such as speaker’s competence and message believability. The findings show that Seeger’s (2006) model of best practices in crisis communication is developed based on past organizational crises and some local and regional health crises. However, COVID-19 pandemic has opened our eyes to aspects that are not adequately addressed in Seeger’s model. Therefore, one of the key recommendations of this paper is to call for Seeger’s model to be expanded to cover areas that are not currently addressed by the model, namely speaker’s competence and message believability. The findings also call for making a distinction between the best practices for crisis communication discourse such as honesty, candor and openness, and the rhetorical strategies for realizing these best practices such as accepting uncertainty.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in [Oman News Center] at [https://www.youtube.com/c/OmanTVNews].

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the [CASS Internal Funding Scheme, 2021] under Grant [IG/ART/ENGL/21/01] at Sultan Qaboos University.