Public Relations, Culture and Anthropology

Public Relations, Culture and Anthropology

Public Relations, Culture and Anthropology

Permalink: ‎

This article presents an argument for anthropologically and ethnographically grounded work in

public relations. It suggests that more can be done to understand the public relations occupation both

as a culture (or cultures) as well as in its roles in promotional culture and in enacting ethnic cultures.

It is argued that research of this nature, which has already taken place in adjacent disciplines (media,

marketing, management, organization studies) can deliver deeper understanding of the public

relations occupation and generate new concepts and theories. Furthermore, it is suggested that

ethnographic research could also aid public relations practitioners. The article adds to existing

scholarship through its critique of existing literature that has explored culture in public relations

and its proposal that research based on ethnographic field-work and employing anthropological

participant observation could reconceptualize the field and change its theoretical scope.

This article discusses how the application of anthropological concepts and ethnographic meth-

odology to public relations could open up a new research trajectory for the field comparable

to those that have already taken place in the fields of business, management, marketing, organi-

zation, and media studies. I argue that anthropology and ethnography can bring theoretical

insights and development, generate new forms of empirical data and data presentation within

the public relations field, stimulate a shift in research culture as demonstrated through the nature

of research outputs, and highlight potential applications of the approach to practice. I demon-

strate the current limitations in the field in relation to anthropological and ethnographic thinking

through a critique of existing literature on culture and public relations. My approach has its lim-

itations, in that, as an initial tour d’horizon, it merely sketches out a number of themes and does not review the vast literature on anthropology and culture. Instead, I focus on some basic defini-

tions and concepts to point out the potential of their approaches for the public relations disci-

pline. Because very little empirical work of this nature has been conducted in public

relations, it is not possible to be very specific about the outcomes of an anthropological research

agenda. However, it is certain that it would reveal new and different data about the occupation

that might take theorization in different directions.

There is also the potential to go beyond the application of anthropological constructs to public

relations practice to tackle broader themes, such as social theory, modernism, the politics of pub-

lic relations scholarship and its research culture, and the implications of public relations

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Jacquie L’Etang, Ph.D., Stirling Media Research Institute, University of

Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA Scotland. E-mail: jyl1@stir.ac.uk

Journal of Public Relations Research, 24: 165–183, 2012

Copyright # 2012 Crown copyright ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2012.626134

anthropology for theory and education. Here, however, I largely concentrate on the value of

thinking about the public relations occupation and its work anthropologically; and researching

public relations practices ethnographically. I highlight the methodological requirements of eth-

nography as used in anthropology and suggest that this method could be usefully employed in

public relations. I argue that although the term ethnography has become more common in public relations literature, it has generally been employed rather loosely, to describe qualitative research

in different ethnic cultures, rather than in the strict methodological sense. Overall, an argument is

developed to suggest the potential for the specialist field of public relations anthropology. The term public relations anthropology has not been much used before, although culture—

the concept central to anthropologists—is also a priority for those in public relations. Occasions

on which anthropology has been the focus of attention include a bibliography compiled for use

by practitioners (Watson, 2005); a brief mention by McKie and Munshi (2009); and a plea by

Vujinovic and Kruckeberg (2010) for an anthropological approach to public rela-

tions . . . [because] . . . the ritual of everyday practices can be best understood using [such] meth- ods.’’ Even earlier, Pieczka (1997, p. 677) argued, ‘‘The study of public relations would benefit

from a systematic attempt at understanding its everyday-life, mundane practices, together with

the kind of knowledge that underpins them’’ (p.77).

Ethnography is the distinguishing research method of anthropology, characterized by immer-

sion in the studied culture, written up as reflexive transparent analysis. As Bryman explained in

his introduction to Sage’s benchmark multivolume collection,

Ethnographers immerse themselves in a society to collect descriptive data via fieldwork concerning

the culture of its member from the perspective of the meanings members of that society attach to

their social world, and render the collected data intelligible and significant to fellow academics

and other readers. (Bryman, 2001, p. 1)

In this article, I seek to analyze the way in which public relations academics have sought to

research culture, and to develop and argument for a more anthropologically based approach to

the practice. My argument is built through a basic description of the way in which the public rela-

tions occupation engages with cultures and also comprises cultures, definitions of anthropology

and ethnography, a review of the scope of the literature that engages with culture, an analysis of

the way in which the term ethnographic has been used, critique of the dominant methodological approaches chosen by those researching national culture, and some basic proposals to illustrate

the potential application of anthropological concepts to public relations occupational cultures.

It is worth noting that culture is often referred to in the plural in recognition of the multiple over-

lapping cultures of which we are all members. More is said about this later.

I begin with a short explanation of the connection between public relations and culture to jus-

tify my focus on anthropology and ethnography. I proceed to an introductory commentary on

anthropology and ethnography and also present evidence from other business and communica-

tions disciplines that have employed these concepts to generate new concepts and knowledge in

their fields. My purpose in so doing is to demonstrate that mining other disciplines such as

anthropology can generate creativity, which I believe could contribute to the further

development of the public relations discipline.

Of course, it is important to acknowledge the existing diverse (emic and etic) research into

public relations and culture (Bardhan, 2003). However, it is my view that much of this work

166 L’ETANG

has tackled the topic of public relations and culture from the particular perspective of public rela-

tions practice in national cultures. In this article, I suggest that there is considerable potential in

the analysis of smaller practice cultures and microcultures in diverse settings using the focus of

occupational culture. Furthermore, I suggest that anthropologically inspired ethnographic studies

could generate significant new meanings about public relations practice in microcultures (spe-

cific organizational contexts, regional local contexts, operational contexts involving other work

cultures). Consequently, I present a short overview and critique of existing literature to lay out

the main themes and approaches that have been taken to date. I conclude with a consideration of

how anthropological concepts and ethnographic practice could contribute to public relations

scholarship and practice, and highlight some issues that could form the basis of a research

agenda.

PUBLIC RELATIONS CULTURES, PRACTITIONERS AS CULTURE-WORKERS

The connection between public relations work and culture is fundamental, as public relations is

involved in border crossings, continually crossing cultures within and between organizations and communities (on and off-line). Public relations practitioners are culture-workers—and not only when they are involved in culture-change programs. According to Curtin and Gaither

(2005), public relations plays a crucial role in the cultural processes in which meaning is created,

modified, and reinvented during processes of symbolisation, representation, consumption, and

identity formation. The potential complexity of this task is formidable, for there are so many

cultures available, for example: government cultures, financial cultures, leisure cultures, techno-

logized cultures, class cultures, occupational cultures, organizational cultures and cultures based

on aspects of fluctuating identities such as race and sexuality.

Public relations is also involved in intercultural communications between different organiza-

tions, media and international stakeholder, and publics located in various countries. In a globa-

lized world, the public relations industry services many diverse international organizations

including multinational corporations, for example, the World Health Organization, International

Olympic Committee, World Tourism Organization, Fédération Interationale de Football Associ-

ation (FIFA)—all of which require international diplomacy and the skills of intercultural com-

munication. Such work used to be referred to as international public relations, although this term has now been partly supplanted by the terms cross-cultural or global public relations. Inter- national public relations is necessarily intercultural and, of course, includes diplomacy, public

diplomacy, and international political communication within political cultures (L’Etang, 1996,

2006, 2009, 2010a, 2010b; Signitzer & Coombs, 1992; Signitzer & Wamser, 2006).

Public relations practice can be seen to comprise one or more occupational cultures, for

example consultancy culture or in-house culture or even more specified as in Hill & Knowlton culture or German regional government public relations culture or Scottish consultancy culture. Public relations consultants can be regarded as a particular speech community, which possesses

its own ‘‘communicative repertoire, speech event, speech act, shared language attitudes etc.’’

(Keating, 2001, p. 288) and therefore an appropriate object of study. The study of the public

relations occupation as a culture, has not, to date, been the subject of much research (but see

Daymon & Hodges, 2009; Hodges 2005, 2006; Pieczka, 1997, 2002, 2006a, 2006b; Terry,

2005; whose contributions I discuss later). There have been some analyses of public relations

PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 167

drawing on anthropological or ethnographic concepts such as Sussman’s mixed method study on

the personnel and ideology of public relations in the United States (Sussman, 1948–49); British

scholar Pimlott’s study of US public relations and democracy (Pimlott, 1951); and the partici-

pant observation of the British media sociologist, Jeremy Tunstall (1964). From an organiza-

tional perspective, Filby and Willmott’s (1988) study concentrated on a public relations

department of a state bureaucracy focusing on the concepts of ideology and myth to explore

‘‘the symbolic mediations between these specialists and (their enactment of) the host organisa-

tion’s definition of their work’’ (p. 335). Their analysis developed the argument that differing

ideologies of public relations work that were present in the organization were a consequence

of labour markets and production relations; an outgrowth of the political economy.

The notion of cultural context goes beyond national or ethnic cultures to reflect globalized

realities of multiple overlapping cultures and multiple culture memberships for individuals. Pub-

lic relations is a feature of the development of a specialized ‘‘promotional culture’’ (Wernick,

1991), a consequence of late 20th-century consumerism and commodification, which has pro-

duced a particular form of discourse, values, and expectations. Promotional culture is a global

phenomenon, part of the standardization processes of globalization (Ritzer, 2000; 2002). Promo-

tional values and discourse have infiltrated rituals of birth, kinship, sexual initiation, marriage,

leisure and play, death, religious beliefs and practices, as well as more prosaic practices such as

those relating to health, education, values of exchange (barter, money systems), and other

knowledge systems (science and technology; L’Etang, 2008a). Nevertheless, promotional cul-

ture remains subject to broader cultural contexts and there is dynamic interplay between host

cultures and their component parts (multicultural contexts) and the economic and political class

cultures and ideologies, the power of which has driven the expansion of promotional culture.

The challenge is to reflect upon the potential multiplicity of public relations practice cultures,

as well as the roles that public relations may play between the hyphens in culture or enacting

culture.

ANTHROPOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY

Anthropology has been defined as ‘‘the study of other cultures’’ (Rapport & Overing, 2007,

p.109) and is an holistic discipline that incorporates science, social science, and the humanities

incorporating, for example, zoology, archaeology, and history. Anthropology draws on social

theory for its conceptualizations, but adds multicultural and symbolic dimensions. Culture is

generally seen as a largely, though not exclusively, human production, which has ‘‘spiritual,

organizational, and material items’’ involving ‘‘human knowledge, opinions, convictions, values

and beliefs’’ (Smajs, 2006, p. 636). Anthropological interests are diverse, encompassing, for

example,

Ethnicity, identity, local and global politics, development, social inequality, gender, material culture,

globalization, diaspora, lived experience, discourse, representation and the objectification and com-

modification of culture. (Leite & Graburn, 2009, p. 34)

Public relations work is implicated in such issues and associated cultural formations in its

communicative and rhetorical scope, and an anthropological take on public relations broadens

168 L’ETANG

interests in these functions well beyond the organizational or the national. Viewed through the

kaleidoscopic lens of anthropology, public relations activities can be viewed within and between

multiple concurrent and overlapping cultures.

Anthropologists have often cited ethnography as the distinguishing feature and method of

anthropology, some not even recognizing fieldwork that takes place outside anthropology as eth-

nography (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland, 2001, p. 2). One way of under-

standing the relationship between anthropology and ethnography is as a hierarchical relation

between strategic purpose and tactics, or between praxis and technic. Ethnography is character- ized by anthropologists as long-stay immersion in another culture in which the researcher per-

forms the function of participant observer, recording field notes and scratch notes, supplemented with empathetic interviewing and informal conversations (Atkinson et al., 2001). Atkinson et al.

define parameters within which research techniques can be defined as ethnography, as follows:

A commitment to the first-hand experience and exploration of a particular social or cultural setting,

on the basis of (though not exclusively by) participant observation. Observation and participation

(according to circumstance and the analytic purpose at hand) remain the characteristic features

of the ethnographic approach. . . . Fieldwork entails the use of other research methods. . . . Conversations and interviews are often indistinguishable from other forms of interaction and

dialogue. (Atkinson et al., 2001, p. 5)

The researcher seeks to understand the studied culture from the point of view of

culture-members, and writes up their findings as a rich and ‘‘thick description,’’ to which they

may add reflexive analysis and conceptualization with contextualized findings in relation to

social theory (Geertz, 1973). As Boyer suggested, ‘‘The core of the craft of social-cultural

anthropology is the polylogue between the analytical work of social theory and the representa-

tional work of ethnography’’ (Boyer, 2010, p. 241).

Tedlock emphasised the reflexive nature of such work that acknowledges the presence and

the influence of the researcher in a style of research that is rare in public relations:

Ethnography involves an ongoing attempt to place specific encounters, events, and understandings

into a fuller, more meaningful context. It is not simply the production of new information or research

data, but rather the way in which such information or data are transformed into a written or visual

form. . . . It combines research design, fieldwork, and various methods of enquiry to produce histori- cally, politically, and personally situated accounts, descriptions, interpretations, and representations

of human lives. As an inscription practice, ethnography is a continuation of fieldwork rather than a

transparent record of past experiences in the field. The ongoing nature of fieldwork connects impor-

tant personal experiences with an area of knowledge; as a result, it is located between the interiority

of autobiography and the exteriority of cultural analysis. (Tedlock, 2000, p. 455)

Such holistic work and reflection remains a gap in the public relations literature.

Research into public relations occupational cultures would fall under the rubric of the tra-

dition of ethnography of work. Such research has analysed how people do their jobs, how

and why they take decisions, stresses and tensions experienced in a great variety of workplaces

and in relation to the gamut of jobs, with high and low status in the wider culture. Smith pointed

out that,

PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 169

The study of the unacknowledged, the hidden, the insider knowledge, the unwritten but pervasive

rules governing jobs . . . [there exist] ‘‘understudied occupations’’ often considered unskilled and sometimes considered to be marginal or trivial. . . .Conversely, ethnographic researchers have taken the work of professionals and semi-professional and rendered them ordinary, accessible and routi-

nized. (Smith, 2001, p. 222)

Given public relations ‘‘professional project’’ (Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001), which sits at odds

with its public reputation, it would be invaluable, indeed, to follow up the work of Hodges

(2005, 2006) and Pieczka, (2002, 2006a, 2006b) to examine public relations work in various

cultural settings from an anthropological stance employing the ethnographic method.