A public relations identity for the 2010s

Abstract New voices are being heard and new questions are being asked within the field of public relations. However, in its present multifaceted state, public relations research is still struggling with recurring questions regarding academic and practical contributions. This position article presents some common starting points for a public relations identity for the 2010s aiming to preserve both consistency and multiplicity. We argue that public relations should be studied as a social activity in its own right and that it must be understood in relation to its societal context. Furthermore, we point to some concepts (trust, legitimacy, understanding and reflection) that are crucial to understanding public relations practice. We also argue that issues of power, behavior, and language have to be dealt with if public relations is to be taken seriously as an academic field. Building on these ideas we make some suggestions for empirical research. Finally, we propose, on a philosophical level, to develop a critical realist framework in order to study public relations scientifically.

Keywords field identity, theoretical approaches

Almost since its inception in 1984, symmetrical theory/excellence theory has been the dominant paradigm in public relations (e.g. Grunig and Hunt, 1984; Grunig et al., 1992). The field has not, however, been without competing perspectives. This is something that

Corresponding author: Øyvind Ihlen, Department of Media and Communication, University of Oslo,P.O. Box 1093 Blindern N-0317 OSLO, Norway. Email: oyvind.ihlen@media.uio.no

435083 PRI

Article

at UNSW Library on July 21, 2015pri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

160 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

can be attested to by the publication of several research volumes (e.g. Botan and Hazelton Jr., 1989; L’Etang and Pieczka, 1996; Toth and Heath, 1992). However, these theoretical approaches have long been characterized as peripheral visions (see the special issue of Public Relations Review (31(4), 2005)) or as perspectives from the margins (see the special issue of Journal of Public Relations Research (17(1), 2005))

In the 2000s, more than ever, the field opened up to a wealth of different perspectives on the practice of public relations (e.g. Bardhan and Weaver, 2011; Edwards and Hodges, 2011; Heath et al., 2009; Ihlen et al., 2009; L’Etang and Pieczka, 2006; McKie and Munshi, 2007). The latter publications address, among other things, traditions and litera- ture from sociology, postmodernism, cultural theory, anthropology, rhetoric, critical theory, communication science and communication studies. Alongside the established Public Relations Review (first volume in 1975), and Journal of Public Relations Research (first volume in 1989), and the ‘old’ contenders, Journal of Communication Management (first volume in 1996) and Corporate Communications: An International Journal (first volume in 1996), the field now has relatively new journals such as PRism Online PR Journal (first volume in 2003), the International Journal of Strategic Communication (first volume in 2006), Public Relations Journal (first volume in 2006) and Public Relations Inquiry (first volume in 2012). In principle, at least, this promises a richer and wider approach to the study and practice of public relations. With the number of perspec- tives, different venues and outlets, it is not likely, or even desirable, that another line of thought will inherit the position that the symmetrical theory/excellence theory held dur- ing the 1990s and into the 2000s.

The key question that will be pursued here is: How do we make sense of the discipline as it has branched out? Identity literature typically points out that some basic questions, such as ‘who or what are we?’ or ‘who or what do we say we are?’, need to be answered (Jackson, 2010). Our main argument is that there is a need for public relations to come to terms with itself as a multi-paradigmatic discipline that can demonstrate its academic value, alongside the traditional emphasis on making recommendations for practitioners. In this connection, we maintain that public relations research should answer how public relations work and what it does ‘in, to, and for organizations, publics, or the public arena, in other words, society as a whole’ (Ihlen and Van Ruler, 2009: 2). We hasten to add that this does not mean that we advocate a narrow approach to this task. The litera- ture on corporate identity reminds us that it is important to recognize the value of hav- ing multiple identities (Leitch and Motion, 1999; Meijs, 2002). People often hold multiple and contradictory views of an organization, without being uncomfortable with this. Organizations need ‘to embrace diversity and variety and to balance the wisdom of its many voices with the effort to secure clarity and consistency in its overall expression’ (Christensen et al., 2008: 423). When discussing public relations identity, we are con- fronted with the same challenge of reconciling consistency with multiplicity. With this in mind we draw on what Van Riel (1992) has called the theory of common starting points. The theory denotes the central values that an organization uses, but does not necessarily attempt to make all communication from the organization uniform. Similarly, in this article we are not looking to argue for one general theory of public relations. Instead we celebrate diversity in theories and methodologies, but we also propose what could be some common starting points for an academic public relations identity in the 2010s.

at UNSW Library on July 21, 2015pri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ihlen and Verhoeven 161

Expanding on previous work (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2009) we will (1) present views on what the domain of public relations as an academic field should be; (2) argue for the importance of seeing public relations in its societal context; (3) point to some central concepts for public relations; (4) call attention to some social issues that are brought to the fore by applying academic theory to public relations activity; and, finally, (5) dis- cuss some possible empirical research avenues that spring from this discussion. These aspects are derived from each other, starting with the most general aspect of public rela- tions theorizing, and unpacking the ideas in a step-by-step approach that becomes increasingly specific.

The originality of this article does not lie in proposing these points individually, as some of them are relatively well rehearsed in certain parts of the literature. We maintain, however, that a different picture, indeed, a potential identity for the field, emerges when we put the different elements together. Furthermore, while many studies have addressed the concepts and issues we will discuss, they have not necessarily been geared toward a meta-discussion of a public relations identity. In addition, we discuss and elaborate on these themes in light of how the public relations field is demarcated in the state-of-the-art publication The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (hereafter referred to as the SAGE Handbook) (Heath, 2010b). As stated above, there has been a wealth of valuable publica- tions about public relations in the 2000s. However, we maintain that the SAGE Handbook (with its 773 pages, 50 chapters, and 64 contributors) is the best single place to get an overview of what goes on within the academic field of public relations. There is currently no other volume that comes close to it in terms of breadth and length.

Domain: Warts and all

What shall we study? Public relations textbooks typically portray the history of public relations as moving from dubious unethical origins in publicity seeking to a practice that recognizes the value of ethical behavior (Duffy, 2000). One historical account, for instance, points to five consecutive phases based on the way the public is treated: the public is damned or ignored (1865–1900), the public is informed or served (1900–18), the public is educated or respected (1918–45), the public is known (1945–68) and, finally, the public is involved (1968–today) (Van der Meiden and Fauconnier, 1994). In the eagerness to legitimize public relations, there is a tendency for some writers to con- flate normative ideals with current practice. However, unethical public relations prac- tices still thrive. Public relations agencies still set up front groups. Public relations agencies still work for dubious clients just like the pioneers Edward L. Bernays and Ivy Lee did in their day (Ewen, 1996; Tye, 1998). The historical client list of public relations agencies includes dictators such as Rumanian Nicolae Ceausescu, Haiti’s Jean-Claude ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier, and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. Agencies have worked to put a better face on the military regime in Nigeria, as well as the Chinese government after the Tiananmen Square massacre and the crack-down on Tibetan protests before the 2008 Olympics (Pickard and McGregor, 2008; Stauber and Rampton, 1995).

Going back to the history of the profession, it becomes evident that it established itself as a business response to criticism, either from the media or from public interest groups. Public relations companies have also been engaged in the promotion of political ideas,

at UNSW Library on July 21, 2015pri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

162 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

primarily the sort that benefit corporations. During the 1970s the work for capitalism and free-enterprise democracy took on a more systematic character (Crable and Vibbert, 1995; Ewen, 1996). This type of work is continued to the present day. In the USA and elsewhere, public relations have been used to protect the interests of major corporations (Miller and Dinan, 2008).

While some of the public relations literature has been known to gloss over such practices or portray them as irrelevant fringe activities that do not represent the ‘true’ practice, many critics have a tendency to go in the opposite direction: all public relations is painted as sinister activity that works against the public interest (e.g. Stauber and Rampton, 1995). This criticism ignores the fact that public relations can be put to use for public causes as well. Indeed, clever use of public relations has helped several public interest groups in their work. In terms of media relations, two conflicting tendencies can be noted: powerful sources have been able to consolidate their access to the media, but alternative sources have also been able to gain access (Davis, 2000). The paradox is that public relations critics use public relations to gain publicity for their views. In fact, nei- ther the critics nor the organizations can avoid communicating; they cannot avoid using public relations.

We have argued that public relations should be studied like any other social activity (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2009). Public relations in itself is not good or bad, but can be used for good or bad purposes. From this, we argue, it follows that the administrative approaches to public relations should ‘be supplemented with societal approaches that expose what public relations is in society today, rather than only what it should be at the organizational level’ (Ihlen and Van Ruler, 2009: 5). It is necessary to focus on the con- sequences of public relations as well as its effectiveness (Rakow and Nastasia, 2009). We maintain that deliberation and research from different social theory perspectives will lead to a better understanding of public relations practices and the consequences those practices have for society.

In the preface of the SAGE Handbook, Robert L. Heath declares that the big differ- ence between this edition and the first edition is that ‘the literature shift[s], from making organizations effective to making society effective’ (2010: xiii). Public relations should be ‘goaded by the incentive to make society a better place in which to live and work’ (2010: xiv). Heath has previously used the phrase ‘the fully functioning society’:

To help society to become more fully functioning, managements of organizations (for profit, nonprofit, and governmental) must demonstrate the characteristics that foster legitimacy, such as being reflective; being willing to consider and instrumentally advance others’ interests; being collaborative in decision making; being proactive and responsive to others’ communication and opinion needs; and working to meet or exceed the requirements of relationship management, including being a good corporate citizen. (Heath, 2006: 100)

While certainly laudable in one sense, this normative ambition on behalf of public rela- tions seems to shun some important questions: Functioning for whom and in who’s inter- ests? As Heath himself points out, relationships are not always ‘something that is good and enduring’ (2010b: xiii). Several of the chapters in the SAGE Handbook do, in fact, discuss problematic issues of the practice (e.g. Leitch and Motion, 2010; L’Etang, 2010). However, the opening chapter formulates the civic role of public relations in a distinctly

at UNSW Library on July 21, 2015pri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ihlen and Verhoeven 163

positive manner: ‘Public relations’ role in society is to create (and re-create) the condi- tions that enact civil society’ (Taylor, 2010: 7, italics in original). Again, this is a fine normative ambition, but we would argue that it is hardly a fitting description for what goes on in the world of public relations. The field still has issues to tackle. Leitch and Motion, for instance, state that: ‘a key aim of public relations is to achieve or resist change by persuasively advancing and potentially privileging particular meanings and actions’ (2010: 103). To us, this seems to be more in line with the warts and all view advocated above.

Context: Description of society

The call issued in the previous section is also a call to see public relations in its social context. That is, it is a call to use social theory to make sense of the practice by question- ing the value and meaning of what we see around us. A general feature of social theory is that it offers diagnoses of contemporary society and social change. Using the work of Weber, for instance, Wæraas points to how humans are now ‘dominated by goal-oriented rationality instead of acting on the basis of traditions, values, or emotions’ (2009: 302). The narrative of modernity points to how rationality has taken a central position in almost all spheres of modern societies. More recent social theorists have, however, pointed to how an emotional and value-oriented order exists alongside the order of rationality. What Lyotard (1979) called the postmodern condition is characterized by pluralism, polycon- textuality and situated knowledge. There are, at least, two views of conflict and dissen- sus. Either they are something that produces social crises and the status breakdown of knowledge and expertise, meaning or social cohesion. Or they are something that helps to overcome hegemony and dominance (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2009).

Social theory proposes different remedies for perceived social problems or crises, ranging from acceptance and communicative action in the use of social instruments such as public relations. The perspective of the fully functioning society or the enacting of civil society, mentioned in the previous section, is an example of this. Others argue that we should study the way in which our current non-modern condition is being constructed from scratch by all kinds of different actors and actants and draw lessons from this (Verhoeven, 2009).

Versions of a social constructivist perspective seem to dominate the way social theo- rists have described the process by which late modern society has come into being. This privileges a focus on language, communication and relations. Bourdieu (1990), for instance, focused on how the social world is structured, constituted and reproduced through individual and collective struggle. At the core of human existence conflicts and the relational production of difference remain. Similarly, Foucault (1972) thought that certain discourse coalitions produce modern knowledge and that these discourses express power at the individual and societal levels. Such power relations are expressed in the macro structure of gender and patriarchy as well as in risk distribution (Fredriksson, 2009; Rakow and Nastasia, 2009). From societal diagnoses like these, calls are made to address the issues regarding injustice that public relations help to perpetrate. For exam- ple, from her Marxist-feminist-deconstructivist perspective, Spivak points to fundamen- tal inequities that are bred by international divisions of labor and fed by the neoliberal

at UNSW Library on July 21, 2015pri.sagepub.comDownloaded from

164 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

projects of transnational capitalism (as cited in, Dutta, 2009). Inequities are found on the global scale, but also in the communication between organizations and their publics. Hamelink (2006) has pointed to the striking consistency between the results of a dia- logue process and the position of the most powerful party in that dialogue.

Questions like those above are necessarily related to the role of public relations in society. Four main social science themes, which are the same as those Golding (2006) proposed for mass communications scholars, can be discerned: questions of power and the distribution of power in society, questions of equality and inequality in relation to communication, questions of identity-building through communication, and questions about social change and the role of communication in it. The SAGE Handbook addresses these questions in varying degrees and proposes several different analyses of society. There are chapters based on social constructionism (Tsetsura, 2010), systems theory (Holmström, 2010), complexity theory (Gilpin and Murphy, 2010), and intersectionality theory (Vardeman-Winter and Tindall, 2010), to name a few. However, looking at the author index, it becomes evident that general social theory is not a central focus of the contributions in the book. References are made to, for instance, Bourdieu, Durkheim, Foucault, Giddens, Goffman, Habermas, Luhmann and Mead, but the numbers of times these authors are mentioned is strikingly low. There are, for instance, only four entries for Habermas, despite his being much discussed in public relations (e.g. Burkart, 2009). The broader role of public relations in society is addressed in some chapters (e.g. Bentele, 2010; Leitch and Motion, 2010; McKie, 2010; Taylor, 2010). Even so, we would still like to call for even broader engagement with social theory in this respect. The different understandings of society, social order and social change described above create a con- text for public relations and for research into it. Critics have criticized public relations theory for not having a developed ontology (e.g. Cheney and Christensen, 2001). We believe that this fault can be rectified using social theory.