Assignment3 Campaign Critique for Youtube

Public Relations Inquiry 1(2) 159 –176

© The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2046147X11435083

pri.sagepub.com

A public relations identity for the 2010s

Øyvind Ihlen University of Oslo, Norway

Piet Verhoeven University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

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: [email protected]

435083PRI

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.

Concepts: Trust, legitimacy, understanding, reflection

As pointed out above, some of the most profound social changes are related to the down- fall of social authorities. Decisions have to be legitimized on a continuous basis. From this, we argue, stems the idea that trust, legitimacy, understanding, and reflection are crucial concepts for public relations (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2009). We use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition of concepts; namely, ‘the constituents of thoughts’ (Stanford University, 2011). We see a concept as an abstract idea that structures knowl- edge and is structured by knowledge. For us, then, concepts are helpful when attempting to understand the most fundamental parts of public relations activity.

As posited by Ivy Lee, you have to take into account what the public thinks of you in order to secure your continued existence (as cited in Hiebert, 1966). Scholars working with symmetrical theory, as well as rhetorical theory, have continued to argue along simi- lar lines (Grunig, 2006; Heath, 2001). Social theory offers several definitions of legiti- macy, spanning from the classic Weberian take of ‘the justified right to exist’ to Luhmann’s ‘generalized preparedness to accept decisions within certain boundaries of tolerance; decisions which are still undecided as regards contents’ (Luhmann, 1993: 28). There are, of course, differences among the different conceptions: Habermas, for

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 165

instance, tied legitimacy to truth. Weber, for his part, focused on the beliefs of the audi- ence. Translated into public relations: organizations are bound by what the environment finds acceptable (Wæraas, 2009). Using Habermas, Burkart (2009) suggests a model that practitioners can apply in order to help further understanding between organizations and their publics, which in turn might form the basis of legitimacy. Using Giddens, Falkheimer (2009) argues that public relations is a reflexive social expert system and one of the main strategies organizations use in their attempt to manage in a fast-changing society. Expanding on the work of Luhmann, Holmström (2009) has argued that public relations is a functional system that has turned into a reflective practice on behalf of organizations. This change is, in part, necessitated by increased demand for legitimacy. Incidentally, Holmström (2010) has a chapter in the SAGE Handbook presenting the so-called reflec- tive approach to public relations.

Bentele (e.g. 1994) has proposed a theory of trust. However, others, such as Moloney (2005), have argued against a close relationship between public relations and trust. Instead, it is proposed that public relations is ‘redefined as the communicative expression of competing organizations and groups in pluralist states’ (Moloney, 2005: 554). A simi- lar view is found in work building on Bourdieu. Ihlen (2009) maintains that public rela- tions is a practice that assists organizational actors in pursuing their interests. The main goal of organizations is to position themselves in what Bourdieu calls fields.

The purpose of public relations can therefore be viewed in different ways. Some views single out trust building and legitimacy, either as an end in itself or as a means to realizing organizational goals. By adopting a social theory perspective, however, it becomes clear that it is not necessarily possible to manage communication, legitimacy and trust. Legitimacy, for instance, is conferred upon an organization by different pub- lics, and hence it cannot be managed (Wehmeier, 2006). This leads to the conclusion that public relations has to do with the negotiation of knowledge, meaning and behavior. Similar thoughts are also presented in the SAGE Handbook, not least through a discus- sion of what is called the ‘cocreational approach’ (Botan and Taylor, 2004; Taylor, 2010). Here, publics and groups are considered as cocreators of meaning. Other chapters in the SAGE Handbook discuss the relationship between publics and public relations (and point to the challenges of multiplicity, resistance, and engagement) within a discourse frame- work of public relations (Leitch and Motion, 2010).

Taken together, then, we argue that trust, legitimacy, understanding and reflection are concepts that are tightly intertwined with the above description of society as dominated by change and the disruption of the social order. These concepts also articulate ideas about what public relations practice is or could be about, ideas that largely spur on or are spurred on by certain issues.

Issues: Power, behavior and language

Issues can be defined as matters of discussion or, as Latour (2005) has put it, matters of concern. Put differently, issues are facts in the making, discussed in often controversial public debates. For us, issues are not only something negative, but rather points where scholars have conflicting opinions. Issues can lead to creative and fruitful discussions. In that respect, issues may overlap with concepts, but we use the term issues to point to

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

166 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

crucial debates that appear in part as a result of involving the concepts above in public relations research.

Three overarching and intertwining issues arise from the literature about the theoreti- cal state of public relations. The first issue is power in the broadest sense of the word, ranging from the power of public relations practitioners in organizations to the power of corporations in society. The second issue, behavior, is closely related to power but also to responsibility, as expressed in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and attention to the ethics of public relations as a communication process (Pearson, 1989). The third important issue is related to language and communication, phenomena that cannot be separated from the technological and social development of the media envi- ronment on a global level since the 1990s. The rise of digital and social media and its use by organizations and individuals raises questions about their consequences for public relations. These overarching issues from the literature are also recognizable in the top five most important issues for the profession in 2013, according to European communi- cation professionals (Zerfass et al., 2010). Coping with the digital evolution and the social web is seen as the most important issue, followed by linking business strategy and communication and dealing with sustainable development and social responsibility (Zerfass et al., 2010). These issues show a remarkable fit with a civic role for public rela- tions as proposed by Heath (2010b) and Taylor (2010) in the SAGE Handbook.

Meaning creation is at the heart of public relations and closely related to the con- cepts of organizational sense-giving and sense-making (Morsing and Schultz, 2006; Weick et al., 2005). With sense-giving organizations try to impose their interpretation of a phenomenon on others, often by means of one-way communication such as propa- ganda or public information. Combining sense-giving and sense-making in two-way communication processes makes room for multiple interpretations of, and negotiation about, the meaning that is produced in the communication process.

Another resounding insight, originally presented by Berger and Luckmann (1966), is that reality is a social construction. Truth is seen as inseparable from discourse, that is, it is inseparable from the way in which we use language and communication to interact with one another. This view is seen as opposing that of realists who think that objective knowledge is obtainable. To gain a better understanding of public relations as an institu- tion in society, we have to look behind it and inquire into how public relations functions as the producer of certain dominating realities in society (Berger, 1999; Heide, 2009).

Processes of sense-giving, sense-making, meaning construction and reality construc- tion have enormous implications for issues of power. They make public relations politi- cal: it is seen as a discursive meaning creation process by which it establishes and/or reinforces particular truths, hence its link to power (Motion and Leitch, 2009).

The issue of power and public relations is also addressed in the SAGE Handbook. Smudde and Courtright (2010), for example, define power as having three dimensions: hierarchical, rhetorical and social. Hierarchical power is based on a person’s rank and posi- tion in an organization. Rhetorical power concerns the skills that are necessary to be effec- tive with language and symbols. Social power binds the other two forms of power together; people acting together through communication to produce organizations and societies.

All three forms of power are important in public relations. Hierarchical power in an organization is still an issue because results from research on the power of public

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 167

relations professionals in organizations and how well they are connected to the dominant coalition (Grunig et al., 1992) are mixed. European research shows that not all practition- ers are seated at the management table (Zerfass et al., 2010).

Public relations and rhetoric are widely discussed, often in the context of spin control about the reality of organizations (see e.g. Ewen, 1996). In the SAGE Handbook, Toth (2010) defines a rhetorical paradigm as one of the research paradigms for the future of the field. Others in the book also address rhetoric and public relations, for example, from an anthropological perspective (L’Etang, 2010) and with regard to crisis communication (Coombs, 2010). Ihlen writes about the ‘cursed sisters’ (2010: 59) of public relations and rhetoric. He argues that despite the curse, ‘public relations needs its big sister: the grand dame of communication studies’ (2010: 66). Researching questions about rhetorical power and public relations certainly belong to this research paradigm.

The social power of organizations and public relations is also widely discussed regarding, for example, gender and race. The practice of public relations has become a gendered profession and this connects to the amount of power public relations profes- sionals have in organizations. European research shows that female professionals in most of Europe perceive their influence to have less impact on the strategic decision making and planning of their organization than do male professionals (Verhoeven and Aarts, 2010). Also, despite the popular belief that there is no glass ceiling in public relations, research shows that issues such as salary inequity, a lack of women in higher manage- ment, and work–life balance questions have far from disappeared (Wrigley, 2010). The SAGE Handbook speaks about a feminist paradigm for public relations (Toth, 2010). Other questions about social power concerning race (Edwards, 2010; Waymer, 2010), class, and sexual orientation (Vardeman-Winter and Tindall, 2010) are also addressed in the book. Similarly, more general questions about social power and publics (Leitch and Motion, 2010) and activism (Bourland-Davis et al., 2010; Smith and Ferguson, 2010) are also addressed.

Responsibility is an important aspect of the power organizations have in society. From the perspective of distributive justice Donaldson and Preston (1995) describe a pluralistic theory of property where property rights are inextricably linked with respon- sibilities. Various groups have a moral stake in the corporation, which is the foundation of the stakeholder theory (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Property rights go together with responsibilities, as well as with responsibilities for stakeholders.

The connections among power, behavior and responsibility are in the background of De Bussey’s (2010) stakeholder orientation model (STAKOR), which is built on dia- logue. The notion of responsibility for others and/or society seems to gain ground in the profession of public relations, considering for example the rise of the acceptance of corporate social responsibility as a subdiscipline of public relations. The European Communication Monitor 2010 shows that public relations professionals consider CSR and sustainability communication to be a field of practice that will gain importance until 2013. CSR is expected to rank fourth behind corporate communication, market- ing communication and internal communication (Zerfass et al., 2010). CSR is not a very prominent topic in the SAGE Handbook and is only discussed in relation to cor- porate branding (Brønn, 2010), community relations (Heath and Ni, 2010), and race (Waymer, 2010).

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

168 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

Language and communication have always been key to all public relations issues and activities. Today it has become an issue in its own right as a result of the digitalization of communication, the changing media landscape and the rise of social media. Interpersonal and mass communication are becoming intertwined and the active public now has its own language and communication. A piece of interpersonal communication in society has become mediated. A former invisible part of interpersonal communication has become visible using new communication channels and platforms, resulting in all kinds of consequences for public relations. It is for good reason that practitioners think that coping with digitalization and the social web will be the most important issues the pro- fession has to deal with in the coming years (Zerfass et al., 2010). Nevertheless, only one chapter of the SAGE Handbook is devoted to social media. Kent concludes that public relations professionals and scholars should step past the idea that social media technolo- gies, such as Facebook and Twitter, are marketing and advertising tools, and ‘embrace them as tools capable of solving problems and engaging publics in real-world issues’ (2010: 655). Hallahan (2010) presents an integrated public relations media model, where social media are an integral part of the public relations media mix. Social media stand between the mass communication of the public and organizational media on the one hand and the personalized communication of events and one-on-one communication on the other. Media use, says Hallahan, ‘shapes the nature of the practice itself’ (2010: 639) This moves media and communication to the center of research on public relations, and is therefore providing ideas for empirical research avenues.

Empirical avenues: A research program for public relations

Our step-by-step discussion of the domain, context, concepts and issues of public relations lays the ground for a basic framework for empirical research on public relations. Seeing public relations from the perspective of social theory produces a range of analytical-level insights into public relations’ relationship to individuals, organizations, groups and society. Social theory is necessary to describe, understand and explain what happens to whom in the realm of public relations and with what consequences. This also opens up the possibil- ity of formulating empirical questions and hypotheses within the framework of social theo- ries (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2009).

We argue that the basis of empirical research on public relations is the communica- tive, linguistic or discursive turn that has dominated social theory and the philosophy of science for some decades. For public relations it means a fundamental constructivist starting point ranging from micro studies of individual action to macro perspectives of system theory. This constructivist starting point fits empirical research within a reflec- tive paradigm of public relations research (Holmström, 2010; Van Ruler and Verčič, 2005). Public relations research based on social theory will be useful as a counterpart to the research from managerial or behavioral paradigms that have dominated the field for the past few decades. It can fill the gap between the mainly descriptive and norma- tive studies in the managerial paradigms and the individualistic psychological studies in the behavioral paradigm. A social theoretical reflective paradigm that informs public

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 169

relations research is also very much in line with the civic function of public relations suggested by Heath (2010) and Taylor (2010) in the SAGE Handbook.

A reflective paradigm is also moving communication theory to the center of public relations research. First, communication can be seen as an abstraction of the interaction that takes place among individual participants, among groups and among discourses or social systems. Public relations can then be conceptualized as different forms of com- munication, ranging from symbolic interpersonal and social communication to the non- personal communication function in system theory. Second, in such a paradigm it is possible to distinguish between mediated and non-mediated communication on the micro, meso, and macro levels. It also creates space for the increasing importance of mediated communication, for example via social media, for public relations in societies that are connected by a global media system. Third, it makes it possible to feed public relations theory and research into communication studies and communication science, acknowledging the roots of the discipline in mass communication theory. After all, in many countries today communication science is one of the most important social sci- ences, if not the most important. Communication studies and communication science can provide an umbrella for the different paradigms of study presented in the SAGE Handbook: crisis communication, critical theory, feminist, rhetorical, strategic manage- ment and tactical paradigm (Toth, 2010).

In the empirical avenue of social theory/communication and public relations, questions can be raised about the domain of public relations as an academic and professional field, the societal context of public relations, the central concepts of the field and the social issues that surround public relations activities. We especially think of raising questions about the effects of public relations; what are the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral effects of public relations activities on different publics. These questions can be studied with the instrumentation of communication science, for example from the theoretical perspectives of framing (Entman, 1993; Hallahan, 1999), agenda setting and priming (Scheufele, 2000), uses and gratifications (Ketelaar and van der Laan, 2009; Ruggiero, 2000), public opinion dynamics and formation (Van Ginneken, 2003), cultural indicators (Gerbner et al., 1994), spiral of cynicism (Cappella and Jamieson, 1997), the reception gap (Zaller, 1996) or new media theories about computer mediated communication (Neuman and Guggenheim, 2011) to name a few. We suggest an analytical-empirical focus on the effects and consequences of public relations. A first step could be to conduct meta-studies about the effects of the numerous studies that have been conducted on this in the last 25 years. The SAGE Handbook includes a chapter on research methodology (DiStaso and Stacks, 2010); methodologies that can be used in a communication science perspective to answer empirical questions in the field of public relations; research that can provide answers about the identity of public relations in today’s society.

Conclusion

Reflecting on chapters in the SAGE Handbook, Heath concluded that the public relations discipline: ‘Is still derivative. It is still searching for its center. But it is searching’ (Heath, 2010a: 709). This dovetails with the basic questions we raised at the outset of this essay,

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

170 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

‘who or what are we?’ or ‘who or what do we say we are?’ The answers to these questions form the basis of a public relations identity for the 2010s. By building, critiquing and expanding on previous research, we have argued for a public relations identity based on five particular notions or five common starting points:

(1) Public relations research should not be limited by an insistence on its applied nature, but acknowledge that the practice should be studied like any other social activity, good or bad.

(2) We maintain that society is characterized by increased complexity and large- scale social change against which the practice of public relations must be understood.

(3) Among the most crucial concepts of public relations, are trust, legitimacy, and reflection given the centrality and description of the social context.

(4) Issues of power, behavior and language become important. (5) Public relations should be investigated using macro-level empirical research

questions building on a constructivist perspective that involves theories of com- munication and an interest in agency and structure.

We see these aspects as interlinked and as being derived from each other, more or less in the fashion of a Russian doll. While several of these points can already be found in the literature, we think that there is a need to pull them together in order to form an identity for the field. As with every other academic field, public relations needs to be able to say why it can actually be called a field. Our suggestion is a combination of the elements presented. We state that present scholarship has rarely taken such a wide view while simultaneously attempting to address the identity question utilizing the theory of com- mon starting points. Present scholarship has, as Heath (2010a) argues, not really answered the identity question satisfactorily. A case in point is the call for papers that was issued for the international public relations conference Barcelona Meeting Com#1:

The old center has not held and a diversity of opinion that is less insular, and more socially concerned, continues to emerge. These newer voices differ on perceptions of present, past, and future – not only are there disagreements on what public relations is now, but on what public relations has been, and on what public relations might be. (University Oberta de Catalunya, 2011)

In this article we have tried to sift through what public relations is, has been, and might be. To bring coherence a step closer we suggest the development, on a philosophical level, of a critical realist framework for studying the multiple identities of public rela- tions. This has already been done in other fields, for example with the so-called ‘Realist Turn’ in organization and management studies (Contu and Willmott, 2005; Reed, 2005). A critical realist framework seems very suitable for public relations because it is considered a perspective that can offer a solution for moving beyond the deadlock between positivists (or realists) and social constructionists in the social sciences. It is a realistic alternative for modern and postmodern analyses because it acknowledges the social construction of reality on the one hand and the existence of a reality inde- pendent of our interpretations on the other hand. Critical realism proposes to explain

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 171

social phenomena at the real/deep level of the structures and mechanisms that underlie them (see e.g. Bhaskar, 1978, 1979, 1986). In a critical realist framework all the ele- ments proposed in this article can be combined in an effort to explain public relations as a social phenomenon.

A research agenda for public relations in a critical realist framework does not impose a particular methodology or a compulsory engaging of all scholars with all the mentioned issues or concepts. It also does not aim to produce one general theory of public relations, it opens up questions on different levels of analyses: from impres- sions, perceptions and sensations, events and states of affairs to the real/deep structures and mechanisms in the field. It can also account for one glaring omission in this article: the role of culture, which deserves more attention and could fruitfully be integrated in a critical realist framework. This aspect has been discussed in other recent volumes (e.g. Bardhan and Weaver, 2011; Edwards and Hodges, 2011), as well as in the SAGE Handbook (i.e. Wakefield, 2010). The development of a critical realist framework for public relations is a task for future studies.

In our critique of the state of public relations, we have relied mainly on the snapshot provided by the SAGE Handbook. This obviously has the weakness that we rely on the vision of one particular editor. We do acknowledge that several other volumes, for instance the two mentioned above, have been published where other voices are heard and other perspectives are forwarded. Still, we maintain that the notions described above are sufficiently wide, but also specific enough, to function as common starting points for an academic public relations identity in the 2010s. Our belief is that public relations as a whole needs to demonstrate its academic worth through a pursuit of the matters dis- cussed above. Several chapters in the SAGE Handbook touch upon this, but we argue that more is needed.

References

Bardhan N and Weaver C K (eds) (2011) Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi- paradigmatic Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Bentele G (1994) Öffentliches Vertrauen: Normative und soziale Grundlage für Public Relations. In: Armbrecht W and Zabel U (eds) Normative Aspekte der Public Relations. Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Opladen, Germany: Westdeustscher Verlag, pp.131–58.

Bentele G (2010) Correspondence(s) to reality: A reconstructive approach to public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.111–26.

Berger BK (1999) The Halicon affair: Public relations and the construction of ideological world view. Journal of Public Relations Research 11(3): 187–203.

Berger P and Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

Bhaskar R (1978) A Realist Theory of Science. London: Verso. Bhaskar R (1979) The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary

Human Sciences. New York: Routledge. Bhaskar R (1986) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Verso. Botan CH and Hazelton V Jr (eds) (1989) Public Relations Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Associates. Botan CH and Taylor M (2004) Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication

54(4): 645–61.

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

172 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

Bourdieu P (1990) The Logic of Practice (trans. Nice R). Cambridge: Polity. Bourland-Davis PG Thompson W and Brooks FE (2010) Activism in the 20th and 21st centuries.

In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.409–20.

Brønn PS (2010) Reputation, communication, and the corporate brand. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.307–20.

Burkart R (2009) On Habermas: Understanding and public relations In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.141–65.

Cappella JN and Jamieson KH (1997) Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cheney G and Christensen L T (2001) Public relations as contested terrain: A critical response. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.167–82.

Christensen LT, Fuat Firat A and Torp S (2008) The organisation of integrated communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing 42(3/4): 423–52.

Contu A and Willmott H (2005) You spin me round: The realist turn in organization and manage- ment studies. Journal of Management Studies 42(8): 1645–62.

Coombs WT (2010) Crisis communication: A developing field. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.477–88.

Crable RE and Vibbert SL (1995) Mobil’s epideictic advocacy: ‘Observations’ of Prometheus bound. In: Elwood WN (ed.) Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism: Case Studies of Corporate Discourse and Social Influence. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp.27–46.

Davis A (2000) Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media, Culture and Society 22(1): 39–59.

De Bussey N (2010) Dialogue as a basis for stakeholder engagement: Defining and measuring the core competencies. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.127–44.

DiStaso MW and Stacks DW (2010) The use of research in public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.325–38.

Donaldson T and Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evi- dence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65–91.

Duffy ME (2000) There’s no two-way symmetrical about it: A postmodern examination of public relations textbooks. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 17(3): 294–315.

Dutta MJ (2009) On Spivak: Theorizing resistance: Applying Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in pub- lic relations. In. Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.278–300.

Edwards L (2010) ‘Race’ in public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.205–22.

Edwards L and Hodges CEM (eds) (2011) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. London: Routledge.

Entman RM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–8.

Ewen S (1996) PR! A Social History of Spin. New York: Basic Books. Falkheimer J (2009) On Giddens: Interpreting public relations through Anthony Giddens’

Structuration and Late Modernity Theory. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.103–18.

Foucault M (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 173

Fredriksson M (2009) On Beck: Risk and Sub-politics in reflexive modernity. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.21–42.

Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M and Signorelli, M. (1994) Growing up with television: The cul- tivation process. In: Bryant J and Zilmann D (eds) Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.17–41.

Gilpin DR and Murphy PJ (2010) Implications of complexity theory for public relations: Beyond crisis. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.71–84.

Golding P (2006) Mass communication theory: Do we need it? Paper presented at the The 56th annual ICA conference, June, Dresden, Germany.

Grunig JE (2006) Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic man- agement function. Journal of Public Relations Research 18: 151–76.

Grunig JE and Hunt T (1984) Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig JE, Dozier DM, Ehling WP, Grunig LA, Repper FC and White J (eds) (1992) Excellence in

Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hallahan K (1999) Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public

Relations Research 11(3): 205–42. Hallahan K (2010) Being public: Publicity as public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE

Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.523–46. Hamelink C (2006) Communicating about Europe. Paper presented at BledCom, July, Lake Bled,

Slovenia. Heath RL (2001) A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization

communicating well. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.31–50.

Heath RL (2006) Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research 18(2): 93–114.

Heath RL (2010a) Reflections and concluding thoughts. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, p.709.

Heath RL (ed.) (2010b) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath RL and Ni L (2010) Community relations and corporate social responsibility. In: Heath RL

(ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.557–68. Heath RL, Toth EL and Waymer D (eds) (2009) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public

Relations II. New York: Routledge. Heide M (2009) On Berger: A social constructionist perspective on public relations and crisis com-

munication. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.43–61.

Hiebert RE (1966) Courtier to the Crowd: The Story of Ivy Lee and the Development of Public Relations. Ames, IO: Iowa State University Press.

Holmström S (2009) On Luhmann: Contingency, risk, trust and reflection. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.187–211.

Holmström S (2010) Reflective management: Seeing the organization as if from outside. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.261–76.

Ihlen Ø (2009) On Pierre Bourdieu: Public relations in field struggles. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.71–91.

Ihlen Ø (2010) The cursed sisters: Public relations and rhetoric. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.59–70.

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

174 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

Ihlen Ø and Van Ruler B (2009) Introduction: Applying social theory to public relations. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.1–20.

Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) (2009) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge.

Ihlen Ø and Verhoeven P (2009) Conclusions on the domain, context, concepts, issues and empiri- cal avenues of public relations. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.332–49.

Jackson RL (ed.) (2010) The Encyclopedia of Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kent M L (2010) Directions in social media for professionals and scholars. In: Heath RL (ed.) The

SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.643–56. Ketelaar PE and van der Laan M P (2009) A uses and gratifications approach to marketing commu-

nications: How to serve the interests of all stakeholder groups. In: Konig RP, Nelissen PWM and Huismans FJM (eds) Meaningful Media: On the Social Construction of Reality. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Tandem Felix, pp.145–63.

Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leitch S and Motion J (1999) Multiplicity in corporate identity strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4(4): 193–9.

Leitch S and Motion J (2010) Publics and public relations: Effective change. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.99–110.

L’Etang J (2010) ‘Keeping it real’: Anthropological reflections on public relations, diplomacy, and rhetoric. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.145–62.

L’Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) (1996) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations. London: International Thomson Business Press.

L’Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) (2006) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Luhmann N (1993) Legitimation durch Verfahren [Legitimation through procedure]. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Lyotard J F (1979) La condition postmoderne [The postmodern condition]. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

McKie D (2010) Signs of the times: Economic sciences, futures, and public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.85–98.

McKie D and Munshi D (2007) Reconfiguring Public Relations: Ecology, Equity and Enterprise. New York: Routledge.

Meijs M (2002) The myth of manageability of corporate identity. Corporate Reputation Review 5(1): 20.

Miller D and Dinan W (2008) A Century of Spin: How Public Relations became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power. London: Pluto Press.

Moloney K (2005) Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review 31(4): 550–5.

Morsing M and Schultz M (2006) Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4): 323–38.

Motion J and Leitch S (2009) On Foucault: A toolbox for public relations. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.83–102.

Neuman WR and Guggenheim L (2011) The evolution of media effects theory: A six-stage model of cumulative research. Communication Theory 21(2): 169–96.

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

Ihlen and Verhoeven 175

Pearson R (1989) Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. In: Grunig JE and Grunig LA (eds) Public Relations Research Annual, Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.67–86.

Pickard J and McGregor R (2008) Beijing seeks PR advisers on Tibet. Financial Times, 3 April. Available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/78ca2216-01d1-11dd-a323-000077b07658.html# axzz1ifrMZc00 (accessed 10 April 2008).

Rakow LF and Nastasia D (2009) On feminist theory of public relations: An example from Dorothy E. Smith. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.252–77.

Reed M (2005) Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies 42(8): 1621–44.

Ruggiero TE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication and Society 3(1): 3–37.

Scheufele DA (2000) Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society 3(2): 297–316.

Smith M and Ferguson D (2010) Activism 2.0. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.395–408.

Smudde P and Courtright J (2010) Public relations and power. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.177–90.

Stanford University. (2011 ) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: plato.stanford. edu/entries/concepts/#ConAbi (accessed 23 August 2011).

Stauber J and Rampton S (1995) Toxic Sludge is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.

Taylor M (2010) Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.5–16.

Toth EL (2010) Reflections on the field. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.711–22.

Toth EL and Heath RL (eds) (1992) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tsetsura K (2010) Social construction and public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.163–75.

Tye L (1998) The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

University Oberta de Catalunya. (2011) Competing identities: The state of play of PR in the 2010s (call for papers for Barcelona Meeting Com#1)). Available at: www.uoc.edu/symposia/ meetingcom2011/presentacio_eng.html (accessed 23 August 2011).

Van der Meiden A and Fauconnier G (1994) Profiel en professie, inleiding in de theorievorming van public relations [Profile and profession, introduction in the formulation of public relations theory]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Van Ginneken J (2003) Collective Behavior and Public Opinion: Rapid Shifts in Opinion and Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Riel CBM (1992) Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice Hall. Van Ruler B and Verčič D (2005) Reflective communication management: Future ways for public

relations research. In: Kalbefleisch PJ (ed.) Communication Yearbook , Vol. 29. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.239–74.

Vardeman-Winter J and Tindall NTJ (2010) Toward an intersectionality theory of public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.223–36.

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

176 Public Relations Inquiry 1(2)

Verhoeven P (2009) On Latour: Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) and public relations. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge,166–86.

Verhoeven P and Aarts N (2010) How European public relations men and women perceive the impact of their professional activities. PRism 7(4). Available at: so www.prismjournal.org (accessed 9 January 2012).

Wakefield R (2010) Why culture is still essential in discussions about global public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.659–70.

Waymer D (2010) Does public relations scholarship have a place in race? In Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.237–46.

Wehmeier S (2006) Dancers in the dark: The myth of rationality in public relations. Public Relations Review 32(3): 213–20.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sense making. Organizational Science 16: 409–21.

Wrigley BJ (2010) Feminist scholarship and its contributions to public relations. In: Heath RL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.247–60.

Wæraas A (2009) On Weber: Legitimacy and legitimation in public relations. In: Ihlen Ø, Van Ruler B and Fredriksson M (eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp.301–22.

Zaller J (1996) The myth of massive media impact revived: new support for a discredited idea. In: Mutz DC, Sniderman PM and Brody RM (eds) Political Persuasion and Attitude Change. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press, pp.17–60.

Zerfass A, Tench R, Verhoeven P, Verčič D and Angeles M (2010) European Communication Monitor 2009: Status Quo and Challenges for Communication Management in Europe: Results of an Empirical Survey in 46 Countries. Brussels, Belgium: EACD, EUPRERA.

Author biographies

Øyvind Ihlen, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Media and Communication, the University of Oslo, Norway. He was previously Professor of Communication and Management at the Norwegian School of Management and at Hedmark University College. Ihlen has edited, written and co-written seven books, among them Public Relations and Social Theory (Routledge, 2009) and Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility (Wiley Blackwell, 2011). His award-winning research has appeared in numerous anthologies and in journals such as the Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, the Journal of Public Affairs, International Journal of Strategic Communication, the Journal of Communication Management, Corporate Communications, Management Communication Quarterly, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Environmental Communication, Sustainable Development, and Business Strategy and the Environment. He is on the editorial board of nine journals and has been a reviewer for an additional journals and publishing houses. Ihlen has also been Vice-chair of the Public Relations Division of the International Communication Association (ICA).

Piet Verhoeven, PhD, is researcher at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) and lectures at the Graduate School of Communication, both at the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands. He is also managing director of SWOCC – Foundation for Fundamental Research on Brands and Brand Communication. His research involves studies in corporate communication and public relations, especially regarding organizations and the news in traditional and new social media. Since 2008 he has participated in the European Communication Monitor (ECM), an inter- national research project involving 11 European universities.

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