Making risk communication in practice: dimensions of professional logics in risk and vulnerability assessments

Abstract Using the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA) as a lens, this study examines the making of risk communication in Swedish municipalities by comparing two central professions in this work, safety and communication. Sweden’s decentralised responsibility for risk preparedness means that municipalities are given a central role in promoting increased preparedness among residents and local actors. However, there is little guidance on how to organise the work and how to coordinate between the different professions involved. Municipal officials are tasked with developing strategies to implement national policies, including conducting and communicating RVA. The study is comparing two central professions in Swedish municipalities’ risk communication, safety, and communication, to analyse their views on central tasks and perceptions of their practice. The theoretical approach is based on risk communication and institutional theory, and the empirical material consists of an interview study with both safety and communication officers (N = 36). The findings reveal that while both professional logics are active in municipal risk communication, interactions, and negotiations between them are somewhat limited. The organisational structure of the RVA favours the logic of safety officers, which has implications for how risk communication is made in practice. The article concludes by discussing what effect this may have on preparedness.


Introduction
Risk communication is commonly defined as the 'exchange of information, advice, and opinions between experts or officials and individuals who are confronted with a threat to their survival, health, or economic and social well-being' (WHO 2024).This comprehensive understanding of risk communication encompasses both internal communication within the risk management organisation or preparedness system, focusing on risks and safety issues, as well as external communication between the organisation and its external stakeholders, including citizens, about risks and threats.The public sector, including government agencies and municipalities, has a special responsibility to communicate risks to the relevant stakeholders, including the public so that other organisations and individuals have valid and relevant information when undertaking the challenging task of assessing risks, reducing vulnerability, and increasing preparedness.At the local level of government, municipalities have an important role to play in supporting this process through risk communication.
Practical risk communication efforts at the municipal level involve collaboration and interaction between various types of experts and public officials, such as preparedness and safety coordinators and communication officers.These officials possess distinct forms of professional knowledge and organisational affiliations, which may lead to them having differing perceptions of safety, risk, and the nature of communication.With a few exceptions (e.g.Boholm 2019aBoholm , 2019b;;Lemon and VanDyke 2021;Sataøen et al. 2024), the current understanding of these internal dynamics and the organisational aspects of risk communication within public sector organisations, particularly municipalities, remains limited.This study is motivated by the substantial gap between academic theories and the actual implementation of risk communication in government settings (see Boholm 2019b).Despite extensive efforts by scholars to enhance risk communication practices, the link between academic understanding and practical application remains weak.Exploring the internal dynamics of risk communication can provide further insights into why this is the case.As different professionals are involved in municipal risk communication (Boholm 2019a(Boholm , 2019b;;Sataøen et al. 2024), it is also important to know more about how the professional logics together contribute to the making of risk communication.
Using a comparative study design, this study aims to develop knowledge about how dimensions of professional logics affect the making of risk communication in practice.
Central questions for the study are: What different aspects of risk communication do different professions consider important?How do the professions, with their different roles, negotiate their tasks and legitimise their work in relation to risk communication?How do different professional perspectives affect how the different aspects of risk are communicated?Thereby it explores how risk communication evolves in complex organisations involving different kinds of professional knowledge and logics, with likely implications for how risks are communicated and managed in a broad sense.Specifically, the study focuses on comparing the professional logics of safety officers and communication officers in Swedish municipalities regarding risk communication.
Swedish municipalities share many regulatory similarities with other European countries, making them an informative case for studying municipal risk communication in the European context.In accordance with national legislation, all Swedish municipalities and public authorities are required to carry out a risk and vulnerability analysis (RVA) as part of their efforts to reduce risks and vulnerabilities, and to improve their ability to prevent and manage crises and extraordinary events (MSB 2020).The responsibility for leading and coordinating the RVA process in Swedish municipalities often lies with the preparedness and safety officers in their safety departments (Boholm 2019b;Hassel 2012).This organisational setup is also common in many other countries, where safety and preparedness departments at the local level bear the main responsibility for conducting the RVA (Fuchs, Birkmann, and Glade 2012).
A crucial element in Swedish municipalities' RVA processes is the dissemination and sharing of information among all stakeholders, including citizens (Cedergren et al. 2019).Therefore, the RVA can be viewed as an integral part of municipalities' public risk communication, which also includes communication expertise.To gain insights into the similarities and differences in these two professional groups' ways of understanding risk communication, we use the RVA as an empirical case that allows us to identify the professional logics at play.There are reasons to believe that RVA may function as a means to overcome some of the context specific characters of communication practices.Thereby the study's results also have more general relevance, providing knowledge about internal dynamics at play in practical risk communication, and ways to overcome it.
This paper is divided into six sections, including this introduction.The second section presents the context of RVA and risk communication.The third section develops the theoretical approach, using risk communication and organisational theory.The fourth section presents the comparative study design, case selection, materials, and methods.The fifth section presents the empirical results and analysis.The sixth and concluding section places these results in a broader context and discusses possible implications for risk communication.

Risk communication and RVA processes in Sweden
Like numerous other countries, Swedish municipalities are required by national legislation (SFS 2006:544) to conduct an RVA with the aim of reducing local risks and bolstering local crisis management capabilities.In line with the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency's policy, the RVA process serves a crucial purpose within the Swedish crisis preparedness system, and has the overarching goal of 'reducing risks, reducing vulnerabilities, and increasing the capacity to prevent, withstand, and manage crises and exceptional events' (MSB 2020).The municipal RVA should not only include risks facing the activities for which the municipality is responsible but should also include an assessment of the risks for the whole geographical area.This assessment supports both local risk management coordination and regional/national risk assessments.
Municipalities can choose their own work structure and methods for executing and performing the RVA (Cedergren et al. 2019).For good and bad, this causes a big variation in how municipalities communicate risks and uncertainties (Månsson, Abrahamsson, and Tehler 2019).nevertheless, research suggests that fulfilling legislative intentions for comprehensive RVAs remains challenging for many municipalities, primarily due to social, political, and organisational issues (e.g.Cedergren et al. 2019;Eriksson 2016;Hassel 2012;Månsson et al. 2015).It seems particularly challenging when dealing with so called systematic risks characterised by complexity and interdependency, transboundary, non-linearity, tipping points, and lag in regulation and perception, such as climate change (Renn 2020;Schweizer 2019).
According to the policy guidelines, the RVA is intended to be a proactive undertaking aimed at establishing and nurturing a culture of safety and involving all relevant stakeholders in the process.The policy emphasises the importance of having local process leaders who can cross administrative or operational boundaries and allocate adequate time for the process (MSB 2011, 38).At the municipal level, the responsibility for coordinating the RVA process usually falls to the safety officers in the municipal safety departments, who are assigned the role of process leaders.
In a report produced by Boholm, Boholm, and Prutzer (2017), interviews were conducted with municipal safety coordinators to explore the municipalities' approach to risk communication in the context of their work with RVA.The study highlights significant variations in the internal practices and external communication strategies used by municipalities to inform and engage residents regarding potential risks.While some municipalities were actively engaged in reaching out to residents and involving them in the RVA process, others opted to simply publish the completed risk and vulnerability analysis on the municipality's official website.Interestingly, some municipalities decided not to make the analysis publicly available, citing potential security concerns.
An established handbook for municipalities emphasises the importance of risk communication throughout the entire RVA process (Albinsson et al. 2018).The document recognises the crucial role of communication officers in facilitating engagement with both internal stakeholders (such as municipal departments, businesses, and schools) and external stakeholders (such as residents).According to the handbook, communication officers within the municipality should ideally be actively involved in the overall process of the safety department's work.This will ensure alignment with the municipality's overarching communication policy and facilitate tailored communication about risk and safety issues for all relevant target groups.Moreover, national policy documents (MSB 2020) pertaining to municipal RVA processes state that the final RVA should serve as a basis for the municipality's external communication on risks and crisis preparedness to the public and other interested parties.
numerous studies (Cedergren et al. 2019;Ericson 2017;Eriksson 2016Eriksson , 2023) ) have shown that the practical implementation of the RVA process is strongly influenced by the tension between varying expectations and interests rooted in different institutional frameworks and norms.Moreover, variations in implementation can be observed across different municipalities, indicating the influence of local traditions and institutional cultures (Boholm, Boholm, and Prutzer 2017).However, no study to date has explicitly delved into the influence of institutional logics on the framework of risk communication at the municipal level.

Professions and institutional logics in risk communication
Given the observed descriptions of Swedish municipalities' risk communication in the context of RVA, as well as the presence of conflicting expectations and interests, it is important to gain an understanding of the different institutional logics involved.In the most basic sense, institutional logics have to do with the content and meaning of institutions and consists of 'the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organise time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality' (Thornton and Ocasio 1999, 804).Institutional logics are 'cultural rules' that emerge in sectors as a result of how knowledge is distributed and differentiated in the modern societies (Jones et al. 2017).
Many scholars of institutional organisation theory believe that experts operate under different logics that provide the professional communities with a shared perception of how their work should be carried out (Friedland and Alford 1991;Sutter and kieser 2019;Thornton and Ocasio 1999).These logics do not exist in isolation but can interact, and contradictions between them can therefore arise (Jones et al. 2017).Municipalities are characterised by institutional complexity, where various competing institutional logics offer diverse interpretations of reality.The inter-organisational dynamics between these professional groups are likely to influence the making of risk communication in important ways.
Several professional and expert groups are involved in the domain of (municipal) risk communication, professional groups, such as safety experts, risk engineers, and communication professionals, as well as functions related to emergency management, physical planning, and infrastructure (nohrstedt and Bodin 2014; Palenchar and Heath 2007;Sataøen and Eriksson 2023).These professionals are needed to make sense of risks and uncertainties, as they are involved in 'transforming uncertainties into governable risks' as well as helping organisations to 'navigate in the shadow of uncertainty' (Lidskog and Sjödin 2016).
Professions are often seen as the most important institutional actors of our time and the most influential crafters of institutions (Scott 2008).They can play a pivotal role in challenging existing norms and creating (new) spaces within their fields (Suddaby and Viale 2011).Professionals can also use their social capital and skills to bring new actors and identities into the field.Additionally, they oversee the use and reproduction of social capital within the field, establishing new hierarchies or social orders.In essence, professions play a major role in setting standards, defining categories, and shaping the logics within their fields.Their expertise and influence enable them to conquer new spaces and assert the importance of their professional knowledge (Suddaby and Viale 2011).
The RVA process can serve as an epistemological prism for understanding different professional logics in the domain of municipal risk communication.In terms of organising risk communication, the RVA provides a structured framework to guide municipalities in determining: (i) the appropriate roles and distribution of responsibilities, (ii) the structure of internal collaborations, (iii) tasks and duties, and (iv) the orientation of the actors involved toward the use of different communication styles and/or risk communication perspectives.In the analysis, we will use these four dimensions to compare the different logics at play.
Role differentiation and involvement centre around examining the institutionalised routines, working methods, and the distribution of responsibilities within the two professions (Ericson 2017).This to identify the different aspects and phases of RVA that the different professions consider important and how the two groups legitimise their work and RVA-involvement.The inter-organisational collaboration highlights the importance of partnerships and collaborations within the municipality for the successful implementation of an RVA.Specifically, it allows us to examine how systems of relationships impact the roles of different professionals and how these roles are perceived by others.In terms of tasks and duties we look further into the roles the professions see they have in relation to risk communication.It may be that different professional groups have contrasting interpretations and priorities regarding the core goals and purposes of risk communication (Covello, Slovic, and Von Winterfeldt 1986).These include different perspectives on informing and educating the public, promoting behaviour change, encouraging preparedness activities, disseminating disaster warnings and emergency information, and addressing and resolving problems and conflicts that may arise.Thus, this acknowledges the specific activities associated with risk communication while also recognising potential trade-offs that may arise.Furthermore, communication style recognises the influence of tone, language, and approach on risk communication.These dimensions will guide the study's comparison of communication and safety officers.

Study design and method
A comparative design allows us to compare the perceptions and experiences of different groups of professionals, thereby providing valuable insights into the internal dynamics, organisational structures, and policy aspects of public sector organisations, with a particular focus on municipalities (Esser and Vliegenthart 2017;Fischer and Maggetti 2017;Ragin and Rubinson 2009).By this approach it is possible to capture both the explicit and implicit aspects of risk communication to contribute to a more holistic understanding of the issue.
This comparative study consists of two sub-interview studies with two different groups of professionals.

Two different professional roles involved in municipal risk communication
Interviews were conducted with municipal officials working at (1) safety and risk management departments and (2) communication departments.Both professions are involved in municipal risk management and communication.The interviews focused on each group's professional practices in relation to the municipal risk management process.
The study designed for variation in the sample (cf.Patton 1990), by including informants representing a variety of Swedish municipalities in terms of number of inhabitants, degree of urbanisation, and size.The Swedish municipalities are classified as (1) cities and municipalities near cities; (2) larger towns and municipalities near larger towns; and (3) smaller towns and rural municipalities (SkL 2017).All three categories are represented in the material.In total, the sample included 23 municipalities with between 3700 and 960,000 inhabitants and between 300 and 55,000 employees.A selection criterion was that the municipalities should have a local risk and/or threat that is identified and highlighted in the national risk analysis, such as a high risk of flooding, or the presence of several industrial facilities under the European Union's Seveso Directive.The reason for this was to ensure that risk communication was an issue for the municipalities studied.

Semi-structured interviews
The interviews were conducted between April 2021 and September 2022 (N = 36).They were semi-structured (Silverman 2001) to allow for asking follow-up questions and expanding on topics that emerged during the interview (kvale and Brinkmann 2009).This method was chosen for its proven suitability for developing interviewees' arguments and gaining an inside perspective on their views and experiences.The interviews sought both to gain information about the informants' professional practices and to understand their opinions, their perceptions, and 'the life world of the subject with respect to interpretation of their meaning' (kvale 1996, 124).
Due to COVID restrictions, all interviews were carried out using video-conferencing technology.The interviews lasted between 35 and 90 min.All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.The interviews were conducted in Swedish, and the quotations in the results section have been translated by the authors.All subjects gave their informed consent before participating in the study.The oral consent was recorded.As the informants were interviewed in their capacity as professional civil servants, no ethical approval was required according to Swedish legislation and requirements.

Sub-study 1: safety officers
Seventeen officials involved with safety-related duties from five municipalities were interviewed.Most of the informants held senior positions (e.g.strategists and managers) in central administrations, but some worked in municipal districts or departments.The officials in the districts and local departments are subordinate to the central safety department and have been delegated responsibility for safety analysis within their area of activity.Task allocation is more prominent for municipalities with a larger number of employees.The interviews were carried out by one of the authors of this article.The semi-structured interviews had a sequence of five main themes to be covered: perception and assessment, the role of citizens in risk management, the division of responsibilities for internal and external preparedness, risk and vulnerability assessment, and effects/outcomes of risk management.

Sub-study 2: communication officers
nineteen communication officers from nineteen municipalities were interviewed.Most of the interviewees were communication officers in senior positions (e.g.communication strategists, managers, or department heads).All informants had relevant experience in risk/crisis communication or had been delegated explicit responsibility for risk and preparedness communication.The interviews were carried out by two of the authors of this article.The semi-structured interviews had a sequence of three main themes to be covered: professional background; the communication department's functions, relationships, development, and portfolio; and risk communication ideals and practices.

Data analysis and presentation
The analysis used a bricolage methodology to interpret the interview material, as outlined by kvale and Brinkmann (2009) and Miles and Huberman (1994).After reading the interview material, the first step in the analysis involved tentatively sorting the material from each sub-study.In the second and main step of the analysis, the identified similarities and differences were examined and interpreted in the context of the institutional theory outlined in the theoretical framework.Throughout the analysis, the method of meaning condensation (kvale and Brinkmann 2009) has played a central role.This involves condensing lengthy statements into concise summaries that effectively convey the core message of the original content.Furthermore, the presentation of findings includes interview quotations, which are strategically used as illustrative examples to enhance clarity and promote a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

The influence of professional logics on municipal risk communication through RVA
By using the RVA as a lens, this section will analyse how municipal professionals understand risk communication, to shed light on the dimensions of professional logics of risk communication.We will focus on the four dimensions of how RVAs influence risk communication practices as outlined in the theory-section: role differentiation and involvement; interorganisational collaboration; tasks and duty; and communication style.

Role differentiation and involvement
The interviewed safety officers in charge of RVAs argue that the process is the backbone of their organisation's risk management, especially when it comes to identifying possible risks and threats.As illustrated by this quote: It's very important.I mean, it's actually the most important [process] you have moving forward.[…] You conduct a risk and vulnerability analysis together with the various organisations and companies you are working with.And then, in my view, you also create an action plan.Based on the risk and vulnerability analysis there should be a consequence analysis, a continuity plan, and then, an action plan.These are the things you need to work on.(Security officer, smaller towns and rural municipalities).
The communication officers also recognise the RVA as crucial for describing local risks and describe it as an important tool for dealing with risks at the municipal level.
For our municipalities, the RVA is organised in a way consistent with the scholarly literature.The central safety departments are responsible for overseeing and planning the RVA, ensuring that legal requirements are met, and effectively managing the results of the analysis.Their starting point is to manage safety and resilience in the municipal context, identifying possible risks and threats, and to prepare the contents of risk communication.Safety and resilience, and the legal requirements related to these domains, are therefore the main sources of legitimacy for the safety officers.For the communication officers, this way of using legal requirements to generate legitimacy is not available, and they rely instead on the municipal inhabitants as a source of legitimacy.Their legitimacy is tied to their ability to communicate and engage with the local population.
The different sources of legitimacy point to a significant difference between the two professional groups in the RVA process.While the safety officers oversee the process, most communication officers are loosely linked to the municipality's work with RVAs; seven of the 19 communication officers interviewed reported that they were not involved in the RVA process at all, and nine that they were only involved to a limited extent.For example, they could describe risks related to the communication function itself, such as how to respond to power outages, hacking of digital platforms, and disinformation attacks.The communication officers thus argue that they are not involved in the production of risk content, but usually become involved in the process after the RVA has been completed, and thus play a reactive role.The external communication is seen as a later step or an outcome of the RVA, rather than an integral part of the process itself.The responsibility for internal communication and for communication with government agencies appears to lie with the safety officers.
The material indicates that a strong, centralised organisation directs the central safety department's risk perception, which is further emphasised by the claim that 'others' rarely see the final analysis of the RVA and the strategic plan that results from the assessment.Even so, in the interviews, the communication officers never characterise their role as managerial, but instead describe their work in terms of 'coordinating' , 'developing' , and 'chipping in' .In practice, therefore, the communication officers' main tasks are to implement, adapt, and coordinate communication strategies and measures in relation to risks identified in the RVA.
Interestingly, some heads of safety departments used their well-informed position to argue that the RVA is too influential because it tends to construct a rather narrow, traditional, and technical discussion of risk.To counter this tendency, they recommend involving professionals with other forms of expertise and focusing more on the consequences of a risk, rather than the nature of the risk.This can be seen as an example of how Suddaby and Viale (2011) argue that professionals can play a key role in challenging existing norms and creating (new) spaces within their fields, using their social capital and skills to bring in new actors.
Still, the hierarchy is not challenged.The central safety departments are responsible for supervising and planning the RVAs and therefore control the content of the municipal risk communication.The communication officers' role is rather to disseminate information once the assessment has been completed.

Inter-organisational collaboration
A major reason why the RVA is highly valued as a method seems to be its perceived effectiveness in reducing uncertainty within the risk domain.While the informants assume that demarcating the distinction between risk and crisis is a purely academic exercise, both professional groups seem to be more comfortable dealing with crises in a practical context.It is when risks materialise into an actual crisis that the organisation really comes together, through a shared focus on the crisis and how to manage it.The following quote illustrates this: When we activate a crisis organisation, it operates differently.There is a clearer hierarchy, and a completely different decision-making process, for example.Then we give clear and firm instructions.(Communication practitioner, cities and municipalities near cities) In the midst of a crisis, the functions of both safety and communication officers are valued internally and externally, as they strive to address the pressing issue at hand.In contrast to risk management, which is often associated with insecurity, uncertainty, conflicting interests, and trade-offs, during a crisis the importance of their professional roles is clearly recognised.This seems to justify safety officers' commitment to use the RVA process to foster broad awareness of safety issues within the organisation.They believe that effective internal risk communication can facilitate behavioural change leading to long-term planning, proactive risk management, and the implementation of mechanisms to mitigate safety problems.
As part of the RVA process, risk information is distributed internally within the municipality.This provides an opportunity for the preparedness and safety officers to educate other sectors in their understanding of risk and their logic for managing it.In this internal communication process, the safety department/officer generally works alone.By utilising their social capital, however, some safety officers actively bring in new actors to broaden the predominantly technical understanding of risk (cf.Suddaby and Viale 2011).
Another example of how the preparedness and safety officers define the boundaries of risk communication can be found in the debate over whether to make the RVA public.A safety officer professional argues that the RVA should be public: We have had extensive discussions with various authorities who argue that it should remain classified.However, we have pointed out that the Law on Extraordinary Events stipulates that the municipality's RVA should serve as a foundation for stakeholders within the municipality.It cannot fulfil this role if it is not accessible.naturally, there are details we have chosen not to include.For instance, in the RVA, we may indicate that our drinking water supply has weaknesses, but not what they are.[…] The RVA loses 80-90% of its purpose if it is only a paper product for the County Administrative Board and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency.It must be available to those who need to plan.(Safety officer, larger towns and municipalities near larger towns).
Although there are good reasons for making the RVA public, the safety officers often argue for maintaining some level of confidentiality or restricting its dissemination, as this quote illustrates: This is a process where we compile our most significant vulnerabilities.[…] We aggregate the most critical aspects where we could be hit the hardest.We do not want that information disseminated.(Safety officer, cities and municipalities near cities) Some safety officers believe that publicising identified risks will increase the vulnerability of the municipality, and therefore they classify the RVA as confidential.Others argue that the results of the RVA need to be made available and communicated, so that other actors can increase their level of preparedness and thus contribute to a more robust municipality.Both positions invoke logics of safety but imply very different conditions for risk communication.
With a few exceptions, the communication officers advocate transparency and openness in risk communication.However, many communication officers describe factors that limit their ability to perform their role effectively.For example, many of them claim that other professionals can have unrealistic expectations about the achievable outcomes of communication efforts, especially given the challenging conditions under which the municipal communicators operate.They say they do not have the time, capacity, or internal backing to conduct large-scale campaigns.Instead, they carry out occasional interventions.According to them, this is the main reason why the risk communication initiatives have proved ineffective; their focus is on disseminating information rather than encouraging individuals to engage in critical reflection.This is because municipalities are often organised in such a way that their communication departments are reduced to being mainly disseminators of information, without the mandate or power to influence what should be communicated.As one communication practitioner bluntly puts it: '[the safety department] owns the information, and we can only help to spread the content' (Communication officer, smaller cities, towns, and rural municipalities).

Tasks and duty
Based on the four classical categories of risk communication, we organise this section of the analysis around key tasks of risk communication being to inform and educate, promote behavioural change and preparedness activities, disseminate disaster warnings and emergency information, or address problems and conflicts (Covello, Slovic, and Von Winterfeldt 1986;Balog-Way, McComas, and Besley 2020).In this respect, we observed similarities and differences between communication officers and safety officers.

Informing and educating
Both professional groups argue that a key task of risk communication is to support other actors in making well-informed decisions and that the RVA is central to risk identification.However, while the safety officers argue that there is intrinsic value in publishing risk information, the communication officers stress the need to balance risk communication with other communication tasks and to manage trade-offs.

Promoting behavioural change
For the safety officers, information and education are closely linked to the key task of encouraging behavioural change.The safety officers seem to assume that information provides the audience with a rationale for changing their behaviour and that the dissemination of robust expert knowledge is, therefore, the most important task of risk communication.Herein lies the most striking difference between the professionals' logics: the communication officers do not think that merely spreading information can change behaviour.In their view, provocative and meaningful communication campaigns have the potential to guide audiences in the right direction.However, this is not the way that risk communication is organised when the safety officers get their way, they claim.

Disaster warnings and emergency information
When it comes to emergency information, both professional groups state that the task is clear and that they have the organisational mandate and support to do what is needed.Both professions also stress that to be seen as a valid and legitimate source of information in a crisis, they need to be seen as such in 'normal' circumstances.This is described as an area of difficulty and concern for many municipalities in the contemporary media landscape.

Problem-solving
none of the informants argue engagement in dialogue with the public to facilitate collective problem-solving as a key task of risk communication ('It has never been on the table.' Department security officer, city or municipality near city).Given the safety officers' perspective on the dissemination of robust expert knowledge (e.g.Boholm 2019a), this is hardly surprising.They do talk about collaborations with key stakeholders, such as large industries, but not the public or civil society.To further confirm this expert-layperson relationship, the safety officers provided some examples of how the public engaged in crowdsourcing, such as by lodging complaints.What is more surprising is that, despite their ideals of openness and their belief that legitimacy comes from the community, communication officers do not acknowledge this possibility.They gave no examples of public involvement in problem-solving at all.This may be because their professional role is to distribute information.However, it leads us to believe that risk communication is disconnected from the problem-solving of risk management.
This argument can be illustrated by two contrasting quotes from a safety official and a communication officer: The RVA is a focus of mine.[…] It's a lot about strategic thinking, how we handle [risks and vulnerabilities] strategically, but also how we fine-tune the organisation.We have a lot of internal documents with policies and such.So, I'm one of those involved in charting the direction the municipality should take and how we should navigate this work, so to speak.It's very city-wide, not on the nuts-and-bolts level, but more like "where should we be heading".(Communication officer, cities and municipalities near cities) and [The risk analysis] belongs very much to the safety department; it's their job.We can come in afterwards and help compile the information and communicate it on the web, and make sure that it is easily accessible.(Communication officer, cities and municipalities near cities) By examining the perceptions of key tasks, we can identify a divergence in thinking about how information can facilitate behavioural change.Additionally, it becomes clear that the organisational structure hinders negotiation between the two professional logics regarding this issue.This suggests that what might appear to be substantial similarities could be the result of the dominance of one logic.

Communicative style
Building on the previously identified differences in the groups' approaches to risk communication, it is important to highlight additional disparities between the safety officers and communication officers when it comes to communicative style and language.Despite their shared goal of fostering trust and engagement among the municipality's inhabitants, their approaches diverge considerably.
The safety officers prioritise achieving reliability through a clear division of responsibilities, emphasising the implementation of defined roles to build trust and legitimacy.Conversely, the communication officers advocate for a more inclusive and participatory approach, emphasising extensive involvement of stakeholders and citizens in risk-related discussions and decision-making processes.
Both professional groups agree that risk issues are difficult for laypeople to understand.One reason for this, they say, is that risk information is highly technical and complex, and therefore is often inaccessible to non-experts.However, the groups see different ways of resolving this issue; while the safety officers want more information about risks, the communication officers want a different kind of risk communication.
The safety officers tend to prefer top-down transmission of national risk messages ('To tag along and to get momentum on a nationwide, cohesive message' .Department safety officer, larger town or municipality near larger town), whereas the communication officers emphasise on the need to embed these messages in the local context.The communication officers argue that their mission is to translate and package the message so that it aligns with overall and specific municipal objectives.The communication officers highlight that the language needs to be accessible, general, and transparent, in contrast to the more technical and specific language about risk associated with safety officers.
When the communication officers speak more freely about risk communication, they emphasise concepts, such as community inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation when reflecting on the role of communication in risk management.Hence, the communication officers' perspective on the importance of communication lies in how it can facilitate a shared and mutual understanding of risks, more than how it most efficiently can convey information about specific safety issues: […] a municipality, can only exist if people trust it and want to continue paying taxes.So, it's important to build trust, and you do that with openness and transparency, and that's becoming more and more important, so the demand for communicative competence is increasing greatly.(Communication officer, smaller towns and rural municipalities) The communication officers see communication as not merely an exchange or transmission of information.Instead, they uphold the ideal of active involvement, creation, and interpretation of meaning by different actors, both internally, within the municipal organisation, and externally, towards citizens.Again, based on this reasoning, the fact that the communication officers made no mention of stakeholder involvement in problem-solving is noteworthy.
An examination of the communication styles and language used by the two professional groups reveals contrasting logics.While safety officers prioritise transmitting technical information about risks, communication officers advocate a more accessible and transparent approach.Both groups aim to cultivate trust and engagement among the municipality's inhabitants, yet their limited perspectives on public involvement in RVA and other risk management processes highlight the inherent contradictions between them.Thus, the RVA process shapes risk communication within municipalities, revealing divergent logics between officials working with safety and with communication, but offering limited opportunities for reconciliation.

Discussion
By analysing the professional logics of safety officers and communication officers within the RVA process, the study provides insights into the challenges and opportunities that arise when different logics interact and intersect.To illustrate the differences between the safety and communication officers, we have developed an ideal-type framework (Table 1) that summarises each profession's key characteristics.This framework is based on our empirical material, but we have selected and accentuated certain elements (Aspelter 2020; Weber 2011).
The ideal-type framework shows the professions' different approaches to risk communication and indicates challenges to combine and reconcile their professional logics.The framework offers a starting point for both theoretical and practical work on risk governance and risk communication in interprofessional settings.
The way in which the RVA process is organised creates a hierarchical structure that gives safety officers significant control and ownership of the risk communication in practice.This arrangement reflects a centralised and hierarchical approach, in which safety officers have authority over the content and decision-making, while communication officers are primarily reactive in their involvement.This institutional dynamic reduces the influence of communication officers in shaping risk communication strategies that they believe have greater potential to promote behavioural change.The organisational structure of the RVA does not recognise the tension between the logics of the two professional groups and provides little support for negotiation between the top-down approach favoured by safety officers and the participatory approach sought by communication officers.As a result, the safety officers do not appear to be aware of the impact they have on the external risk communication and may overlook the role they play in the making of risk communication.
not only does the professional logics have an impact on the ways risk and uncertainty is communicated, but it also seems to restrain the opportunities to use the RVA process as an interactive platform for risk governance (e.g.Renn 2020) and thereby fulfilling the legislative intention.It likely affects how the RVA process is designed and how the result is used.
Consequently, the challenge to combine and/or reconcile the professional logics of risk communication in practice possibly acts as a hinder to most effective municipal preparedness.For example, Renn (2020) states that a central question for dealing with systematic risks is to find suitable approaches and adequate risk assessment practices.From our results, the imaginable approaches seem restrained by the professional logics, for one thing, making it unlikely that officials will be motivated to engage affected publics in the process with possible negative effects on the quality and legitimacy of the RVA (Renn 2020;Schweizer 2019).Given the increasing use of risk and vulnerability analysis as a decision support tool by authorities at different administrative levels (Vastveit, Eriksson, and njå 2014) and its increasing prevalence in European countries (OECD 2003), the findings of this study may hold relevance beyond the specific Swedish context investigated here.Moreover, it is likely that this dynamic will also emerge in other contexts and settings where different professional logics interact.
By addressing dimensions of professional logics, the municipalities can create better opportunities for fruitful exchange of information, advice, and opinions with citizens facing risks.Improving participation and strengthening trust is important as responses developed by citizens and organisations depend not only on how they perceive the situation confronting them but also on how they perceive the responsible authorities' trustworthiness and competence to handle it (cf.Löfstedt 2005;Wynne 1992).This argumentation does not, however, imply a desire to dissolve the boundaries between the professional logics, only that there is a need to recognise, consider and manage these professional logics.It is possible that one professional logic is more appropriate or effective in some contexts, while the other logic may be that in other contexts.By addressing how professional logics affect risk communication and promote an approach that combines risk assessment expertise with communication skills, municipalities can develop a more comprehensive risk communication that better supports local preparedness, particularly for systematic risks.

Conclusion
This study contributes with knowledge on how dimensions of professional logics affect the making of risk communication in practice.Hence, it adds to the literature on collaboration and interaction between different experts and public officials involved in practical risk communication, such as Boholm (2019a), Lemon andVanDyke (2021), andSataøen et al. (2024).The study shows that a hierarchical structure favours safety officers and limits the influence of communication officers.The differing professional logics not only impact how risks are communicated but the use of the RVA process, possibly limiting its potential to serve as an effective platform for risk governance.The study does not argue for consensus between these approaches but encourage municipalities to find ways to leverage their strengths to develop more comprehensive risk communication strategies.This can ultimately enhance local preparedness and engagement with affected communities.Future research should prioritize efforts to reduce the gap between academic knowledge and practical implementation, where professional logics and the interactions are likely to play a role in improving crisis preparedness.

Disclosure statement
no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Table 1 .
ideal-type framework of different approaches to risk communication.