Assignment3 Campaign Critique for Youtube
ack
PRcultureandanthropology.pdf
Public Relations, Culture and Anthropology—Towards an Ethnographic Research Agenda
Jacquie L’Etang
Film, Media & Journalism, University of Stirling, Scotland
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: [email protected]
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.
APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGIES: BUSINESS AND MEDIA CONTEXTS
It is instructive to consult the literatures in fields adjacent to public relations. Business, manage-
ment, marketing, and organization studies provide much of the context for the public relations
discipline; media=journalism studies is a clear complement to public relations studies. The application of anthropology to business has been controversial within anthropology, and
when Israel Sieff, co-founder of Marks and Spencer, led a group of British industrialists to
request British anthropologists to engage with issues of employee relations and productivity,
he was rebuffed (Baba, 2006). However, American anthropologists became involved with indus-
trial issues and organizational culture through involvement in the Hawthorne studies in the late
1920s, following which a number of American anthropologists developed a strong interest in
modern institutions, especially corporations and industrial relationships (Baba, 2006). Shifts
in social science toward quantitative work and the popularity of contingency theory led to a
decline in industrial anthropology; and political and ideological critiques of the 1960s and
1970s resulted into its fragmentation into Marxist-inspired critiques; ethnographies of work
and the professions; studies of industrialization in non-Western contexts (Baba, 2006). Cur-
rently, anthropology has linked to interdisciplinary domains including organizational behavior
and management; ethnographic design of products and services; consumer behavior and
marketing (Baba, 2006).
Clearly, anthropological ideas in organizational behavior and management and in consumer
behavior and marketing are relevant to a consideration of public relations in relation to those
contexts, as an agent, a service, a participant, and a consumer within organizational cultures,
as well as in its contribution in various societal contexts: local, national and international.
Anthropologists have contributed nuanced understanding of organizational cultures and their
‘‘systems of meanings, values, and actions that characterise whole societies’’ (Ashkanasay,
Wilderon, & Peterson, 2000, p. 8).
Within organization studies, culture has been studied from both the instrumental
corporate-culture perspectives and also from interpretive approaches. Organizational cultural
theorists have recognized the significance of anthropology for their field. The ethnographic
method has come to be recognized as a crucial tool in understanding organizational life
(Schwartzman, 1993). Some cultural approaches are linked to the more quantitative climate stu-
dies. Others have explored organizational symbolism (e.g., Ashkanasay et al., 2000; Peterson &
Smith, 2001; Rafaeli & Worline, 2000; Schein, 2001; Standing Conference of Organizational
Symbolism).
170 L’ETANG
The rise of marketing anthropology has connected the marketing discipline more strongly
with the mechanisms and cultural features of consumption including its sacralization (Baba,
2006, p. 113). Nevertheless, marketing anthropology, which emerged in the 1980s, tends to
be applied in nature, bringing, ‘‘marketers, designers, and planners as close to the consumer
as possible in order to solve important business problems’’ (Mariampolski, 2006, p. 3).
Ethnography offers marketers insights that could contribute to new product development,
brand innovation, and consumer behavior. Ethnographic methods also offered a creative and
catalytic engagement with consumers that developed into critical interventions, problem-solving,
as well as insights into various ethnic and microcultures. Marketing anthropological techniques
include the observation of domestic environments, useability studies, use of time-lapse photogra-
phy in retail environments, partnering shoppers as they shop, and, more controversially (from an
ethical point of view), ‘‘guerrilla ethnography’’ based on spontaneous observation such, as
‘‘secret shoppers’’ (Mariampolski, 2006, p. 36). Overall, marketing ethnography focuses on
issues that impact brand and business development ‘‘whose purposes are confined to advancing
client-driven interests rather than those of a disciplinary, societal, or industry focus’’ (Mariam-
polski, 2006, p. 51). In particular, marketing ethnography contributed to the idea that ethno-
graphic research was invaluable for marketing strategy (Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994).
Marketing anthropology has also appropriated territory that public relations practitioners and
academics might see as their domain: that of corporate culture and corporate social responsibility
(Mariampolski, 2006, p. 30).
MEDIA ANTHROPOLOGY AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Developments in media studies are relevant to public relations because media sociologists
explore source-media relations, lobbying and the public sphere—all important to a consideration
of public relations. Public relations and the media interrelate and produce public discourses and
rhetoric. Media anthropology developed in the early 1990s alongside linked developments in
cultural studies (Coman & Rothenbuhler, 2005). The media are of interest to anthropologists
because,
The media create and impose symbolic systems of thought and enunciation of reality, operating like
the cultural forms traditionally studied by anthropologists using such concepts as ritual, ceremony,
myth, the sacred, magic and liminality. In other words, media are cultural systems of the social
construction of reality. (Coman and Rothenbuhler, 2005, p. 9)
Media anthropology differs from marketing ethnography in that it encompasses interpretivist
research to understand media processes, its role in society, and more instrumental approaches,
which seek to offer opportunities to intervene in practice. Media anthropology not only employs
anthropological terminology, but has adapted terms or invented new terms such as media event, media ritual, media panic, ceremonial television, which can shed deeper understanding of parti- cular practices and their wider meaning. Complementary research employing these concepts in
ethnographic studies of media relations might help to triangulate studies of media processes and
dynamics. Media anthropology encompasses diverse trajectories, including: indigenous groups’
use of media to affirm and promote their culture; anthropological interpretations of media
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 171
culture, including its processes, production, and consumption; use of media by anthropologists;
and use of anthropology to improve journalistic practices (Coman & Rothenbuhler, 2005, p. 14).
Media anthropology encompasses ritual (and its implications for power; Couldry, 2005, p. 59),
celebrity and symbolic power=cultism (Lardellier, 2005; Rothenbuhler, 2005), religious and spiritual forms (Thomas, 2005), myth (Lule, 2005), story-telling (Schudson, 2005), performance
(Petersen, 2005), audiences (La Pastina, 2005), and events (Dayan, 2005; Rothenbuhler, 2005;
Zelizer, 2005).
Some work in media anthropology touches directly on public relations, for example, Rao’s
exploration of citizen involvement in local news making in Lucknow showed that
Hindi newspapers discard press releases only if they show some kind of extreme bias. . . . The desire of newspapers to increase sales by appealing to local citizens has given resource-poor people an
official instrument that can help them lobby their causes, advertise their engagement, and spread their
ideas and ideologies. (Rao, 2010, p. 103, 113)
The source and rationale for the emergence of media anthropology is instructive,
Scholars of indigenous media took up the perspectives and projects of peoples engaged in struggles
against power, making it possible to break an ethnographic path into the territory of media studies.
Without indigenous media, the study of media [from an anthropological perspective] might never
have gained disciplinary legitimation, and media anthropology as a subfield might never have
emerged. (Hasty, 2010, p. 137)
Increasing interest on the topic of power in public relations (Edwards, 2006) could potentially
have similar benefits in public relations. A focus on rhetorical, dialectical, and relational dynam-
ics within local specific microcultures and their issues may generate more grounded work than
ambitious global projects that seek unified principles.
Media studies offers a useful exemplar for public relations, in that it demonstrates a depth and
breadth of research that presently does not exist in public relations. In particular, the role that
public relations plays in the social construction of reality, and, in this context, its relationship
to traditional and digital media, and its role in culture more widely, remain to be explored in
any depth.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND CULTURE: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is already a substantial body of work on global and multicultural perspectives in public
relations. Here, I consider various contributions and collections and present an analysis that con-
siders apparent assumptions, intentions, methodologies, and paradigms, particularly in the major
collections available. I argue that although anthropology may be referred to as a source in exist-
ing literature, its concepts and approaches are not really taken on board, and ethnographic work
is almost entirely absent from the genre of international=global=cultural public relations litera- ture.
Existing work in public relations has tended to take a cross-cultural approach to the subject,
that is, making comparisons between cultures, although Banks (1995) used the term multicultural,
172 L’ETANG
and Falkheimer and Heide (2008) used the term intercultural. Sriramesh and Verçiç’s recent new edition aims to,
Help integrate wisdom from many . . . regions of the world . . . [to build] . . . holistic scholarship . . . by integrating understanding of public relations practices from as many regions of the world as possi-
ble . . . enrichment can also come from cross-cultural comparisons of public relations practices based on multinational studies that describe public relations practices in different countries. Cross-national
theorising should also explore how contextual variables external to the organization influence public
relations activities in various parts of the world. (Sriramesh, 2009a, p. xxxiii)
Their project uses a common conceptual framework to describe public relations practice in
various countries to enhance ‘‘the predictive capabilities of the body of knowledge’’ (Sriramesh,
2009a, p. xxxiii). Their framework included use of classification of political arrangements, econ-
omic development, activism, legal system, culture, and media. Culture, however, is seen as a
variable and explored through an anthropological framework of cultural determinants (Kaplan
& Manners, 1972) and dimensions of societal culture (Hofstede, 1984, 1991) to link these to
‘‘public relations variables’’ (Sriramesh & Verçiç, 2009b, p. 11). The application of select fra-
meworks enables the editors to make cross-cultural comparisons and to pursue their project ‘‘to
improve the efficacy of international public relations practice’’ (Sriramesh & Verçiç, 2009,
p. 19). However, although Sriramesh (2009b) pointed out in his useful review of literature con-
necting public relations and culture, that ‘‘culture’s time has not yet come after all to our field’’
(p. 47), it does seem as though his interest in this topic, which began nearly 2 decades earlier
when he was a member of the Excellence research team has influenced the largely instrumental
approach to culture taken in this volume. This becomes clear when Sriramesh explained that, in
the Excellence study,
Like scores of anthropologists and Hofstede, we recognized that culture is a malleable concept that is
hard to define and harder to measure. Therefore, we thought it would be best to design individual
studies that break down societal culture into manageable parts and study its impact on public
relations in some depth. (Sriramesh, 2009b, p. 50)
Subsequent studies cited in Sriramesh’s review appear to have used Hofstede’s framework to
structure their empirical work, rather than working inductively, from ethnographic observation,
as an anthropologist would. Yet as Sriramesh’s work in this field has developed, he has empha-
sized also the importance of taking into account ‘‘the native’s point of view’’ (Sriramesh, 2009b,
p. 51). One frequently cited study is that of Verçiç, Grunig, and Grunig (1996) who explored the
impact of Slovenian culture on public relations through the limited data of ‘‘lengthy personal
interviews’’ with three interviewees, one of whom was a co-author (Verçiç), two of whom were
executives from Verçiç’s own public relations consultancy. They were asked to assign numerical
values to Hofstede’s indices from which generalizations about Slovenian culture were made.
Other contributions to cross-cultural public relations have been quantitative, often employing
either Hofstede or US models as frameworks (Chen, 1996; Ekachai & Komolsevin, 1996). Other
major collections have also begun the process of collating qualitative and quantitative infor-
mation about public relations in different cultures (Tilson & Alozie, 2004; van Ruler & Verçiç,
2004). Nevertheless, it seems as though classic anthropological investigation has rarely been
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 173
conducted in public relations, perhaps through lack of resources in an underfunded discipline (at
least in the United Kingdom). For example, Sriramesh’s ‘‘ethnographic study of Southern Indian
organizations’’ (1996, p. 171) consisted of qualitative research in 18 organizations, however, he
was only able to spend between 4 and 8 days at each site, something that an anthropologist might
regard as ‘‘blitzkrieg’’ or ‘‘hit and run ethnography’’ (Rist, 1980, p. 199). Nevertheless, Srira-
mesh’s research has entered the public relations lexicon as ‘‘ethnographic,’’ its status reinforced
through citation.
Culbertson and Chen (1996) took a cross-cultural approach in their edited collection in
which they invited contributors to describe how political, economic, and cultural climates
shaped public relations; what public relations practitioners do and what roles they perform;
limits on communication freedom; emphases on interpersonal respect and trust-building in
relationships; how far practice has progressed in the industry’s evolution; educators’ back-
grounds; and, significantly, ‘‘dependency on the West for practitioner and educational expert-
ise’’ (Culbertson & Chen, 1996, p. 3). They highlighted two key frameworks, which ‘‘seem
relevant, with some modification, to defining the field’s growth and character around the
world’’ (Culbertson & Chen, 1996, p. 3)—the four roles and ‘‘four stages of evolution of pub-
lic relations in the United States. . . . Research suggests that all four types of public relations are alive and well in various places’’ (Culbertson & Chen, 1996, p. 5). Thus, this volume was
shaped not just by the values of symmetrical communication, but the assumption that these
US-generated frameworks were suitable for proliferation, and for analysing non-US cultures.
The opening chapter in the collection also highlights Hofstede (1984, 1991) and proposed that
the Excellence study was ‘a foundation . . . for the same type of theory building to guide inter- national practice’ (Wakefield, 1996, p. 27).
Van Ruler and Verçiç’s (2004, p. 8) collection brought together contributions written ‘‘by
noted national experts in public relations research or . . . professionals . . . written from an insi- der’s perspective’’ focused on a national profile; the emergence of public relations; role and
scope of the practice; public relations education. In Tilson and Alozie (2004), the Excellence
framework was used unquestioningly in accounts on Ecuador (Tilson, 2004) using sources that
paraphrased Hofstede (Sriramesh & White, 1992); Peru (Freitag, 2004); Romania (Doksoz,
2004); Russia (Tsetsura & Kruckeberg; 2004); Nigeria (Alozie, 2004); South Africa (de Beer
& Mersham, 2004); Asia (Haque, 2004a); and Malaysia (Venkateswaren, 2004). A number of
contributing authors also made direct reference to Hofestede (Culbertson, 2004; Haque, 2004b).
The use of specified frameworks, while facilitating the provision of comparative descriptive
data regarding recent history and politics, political economy, and media systems, has led to the
imposition of US-dominated concepts and compromises over the handling of culture. Methodo-
logical approaches were apparently driven by the intention to generalize quantitatively, rather
than to understand different cultural settings in their own terms. And, as Pal and Dutta
pointed out,
The global–local tension [of globalization] has disrupted the traditional notion of geographically
situated audiences contained within isolated national boundaries and identified by a set of permanent
characteristics. Concepts such as individualism–collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance,
and masculinity– femininity that defined the parameters for cross-cultural comparisons in public
relations research need to be scrutinized in the face of these increasingly complex understandings
of global identities enacted in contextually-embedded interactions. . . . How meaningful are dominant categorization schemes that seek to extract cultural characteristics for the purposes of constructing
174 L’ETANG
large-scale comparisons in the face of emerging concepts such as fragmented and contested identities
that are dynamic? (Pal & Dutta, 2008, p. 164)
There are problems with the application of typologies: First, globalization has complicated
notions of national identity; second, cultural categories are considerably more diverse than eth-
nic=national levels; third, the devil is in the detail and the use of such crude tools sacrifices necessary, culturally grounded evidence; fourth, typologies tend to write out the researcher. I
suggest that small-scale long-term ethnographic work could begin to elicit dynamics in particular
settings, which could provide useful data for critical and cultural insights and generate reflexive
qualitative analysis that was open to scrutiny.
A TURN IN PUBLIC RELATIONS: CULTURAL STUDIES, SOCIAL THEORY, AND THE EMERGENCE OF ETHNOGRAPHIC WORK
Pieczka (1997) was perhaps the first to signal the importance of ethnography and phenomeno-
logical approaches in her interest in the everyday life of practitioners, and her subsequent eth-
nographic work based on classic participant observation focused on public relations expertise
and ‘‘personal chemistry’’ (Pieczka, 2002, 2006a, 2006b). Around the same time, a remarkable
but small change in the architecture of international public relations literature took place. Several
pieces of work were published that drew on the British cultural studies tradition, and, specifi-
cally, the ‘‘circuit of culture’’ (Curtin & Gaither, 2005, 2007; Hodges, 2005, 2006; Terry,
2005). Hodges (2005, 2006), Terry (2005), and Daymon and Hodges (2009) took ethnographic
approaches; other work took a more general qualitative approach (Bardhan, 2003). Because of
the closeness of publication dates, it seems that, in some cases, the authors were unaware of each
other’s work, as was made apparent in their respective bibliographies.
The circuit of culture highlights key moments at which culture and power intersect within the
cultural economy, drawing on Marx and Bourdieu to cast the role of public relations practi-
tioners as cultural intermediaries. Curtin and Gaither (2005) explained the cultural turn in public relations as a move from transmission models of mass communication to concerns around dis-
course and the cultural and political economies. They explained that the circuit of culture is help-
ful in viewing critically communication processes linked to power processes, knowledge use and
exchange, and the production of socially constructed knowledge. Such an approach assumes
contested meanings, alternative readings, and dialectical processes involved in the production
of social meanings that inform the nature of the culture.
Hodges (2005, 2006) studied public relations occupational culture in Mexico City through par-
ticipant observation, conducted while employed as a full-time public relations consultant in that
city. Terry was a Fulbright scholar who spent 10 months undertaking participant observation in
Kazakhstan, 2001–2002. She used the circuit as a way of interpreting the identity of public rela-
tions, how public relations was represented, produced, consumed, and regulated. In her pessi-
mistic analysis, she argued that public relations was associated with the elite, ‘‘a tool of
power’’ (Terry, 2005, p. 33) and operated as commercial exchange—‘‘gate-keeping is a monetary
proposition; agenda-setting is for-profit’’ (Terry, 2005, p. 34). Terry explained that conditions in
Kazakhstan ‘‘inhibits its development in the Western tradition of ‘excellent’ or symmetrical pub-
lic relations’’ (Terry, 2005, p.34) and questioned the globalization of such concepts,
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 175
Is there really an ‘‘excellent’’ way to do public relations in emerging nations, where independent and
transparent media systems do not exist, or are limited at best, and authoritarian governments still
reign? How so? Have public relations scholars and practitioners lost sight of the fundamental inter-
dependency of symmetrical public relations, a free press, publicity and culture and the devastating
effects when one link of the chain is broken? Evidence from Kazakhstan verified that there are
no ‘‘generic’’ givens where these crucial and highly complex concepts are concerned. (Terry,
2005, p. 34)
Terry recounted that the ‘‘inevitable response’’ to ‘‘just the concept’’ of symmetrical public
relations ‘‘was scepticism and pessimism’’ (Terry, 2005, p. 35).
One of the most notable features of some of these ethnographically inspired pieces of writing
is their relative brevity. This is in no way intended as a criticism of the authors, more so of edi-
tors and reviewers, who perhaps did not accept full-length articles that were able to show data; or
the intellectual environment of public relations that deterred those authors from submitting their
ethnographic accounts in fuller form. Qualitative research reports remain relatively unusual; a
rare, useful exception is Braun’s account on public relations in Bulgaria (Braun, 2007). Either
way, the absence tells a story about untold stories and unheard voices, including the reflexive
auto-ethnography of authors’ intercultural experiences.
A rather different form of engagement with culture and anthropological issues is the work
done by authors inspired by postcolonialism (Bardhan, 2003; Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Munshi,
1999, 2005; Pal & Dutta, 2008). These authors combined postcolonialism with discursive
approaches and postmodernism (Holtzhausen, 2000, 2002a, 200b) to propose critical approaches
(critical modernism) to cultural analysis in the context of globalization and to challenge the idea
of universal practices (Pal & Dutta, 2008). For example,
Cultures exist in continuous flux, continuously interpreted and reinterpreted through human interac-
tions, and embedded within the context of the lives of the members of the cultures. Culture is both a
carrier of traditions and a site of transformation. It is within this dialectical tension between tradition
and transformation that identities and relationships become meaningful, suggesting the necessity of
conceptualizing public relations within an organic framework of evolving relationships rather than
within a simplistic modernist frame that seeks to develop the best strategy for a national culture
based on predefined markers. (Pal & Dutta, 2008, pp. 167–168)
However, although sympathetic to the thrust of this argument, I think that it is important to
engage ethnogaphically with fluctuating microcultures and specific local sites where said ten-
sions appear likely to be experienced. The specialist field of environmental anthropology offers
some interesting examples of policy debates and decision-taking in the context of culturally
diverse community settings that include studies of stakeholder engagement and relationships,
issue formation, and activism in relation to ecology, that are of direct interest to public relations
academics (Dove & Carpenter, 2008).
Within the public relations canon, a further significant step has been the publication of the
edited text Public Relations and Social Theory (Ihlen, van Ruler, & Fredriksson, 2009), which focused on public relations as a social activity showcasing a range of sociologists and social the-
orists, some of whom had anthropological backgrounds, such as Bourdieu, Goffman, and Latour.
Situating public relations more closely in relation to anthropological concerns and sources might
highlight scholarly choices and their implications. At this point, it will be useful to consider
176 L’ETANG
anthropology and ethnography in more detail, and to reflect on reasons for their low impact on
public relations to date.
APPLYING ANTHROPOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY TO PUBLIC RELATIONS—TOWARDS A RESEARCH AGENDA
There are various levels as which anthropology and ethnography can be applied to public rela-
tions. At the theoretical level, the influences, concepts, and debates of social theory can be
applied to produce an historiography of the history of ideas in public relations in relation to cul-
tures. Although Ihlen et al. (2009) presented a range of social theorists, cross-sliced analysis of
social theories in relation to public relations theories, concepts, and practice would produce a
genealogical history and politics of ideas in the field that could be instructive. In other words,
public relations could be mapped on to social theories to contextualize underlying epistemologi-
cal, ontological, and methodological underpinnings in handling culture.
Anthropology and the ethnographic tradition offers public relations alternative lines of
enquiry. As described at the outset of this article, cultural concepts are central to an understand-
ing of public relations as an occupational culture, as well as a form of culture-worker. Classic
anthropological concerns such as ritual, rites, rules and norms, symbolism, exchange and recip-
rocity, taboo, magic, sorcery, liminality, material cultures, power, and authority might all be
applied to public relations occupational cultures or to the cultures within which public relations
practitioners participate.
Anthropological cultural concepts can also be used to interpret the role of public relations in a
rather different way to the established dichotomy of manager–technician. For example, within
organization studies, management consultants have already been described as witch doctors, Although this term has fallen into disrepute within anthropology because it ‘‘combines implica-
tions of ignorance and backwardness’’ (Stevens, 2006, p. 2318), it is employed in organizational
literature (Clark & Salaman, 1996; Kieser, 1997; Whittle, 2008), so it may be a useful, if rather
hostile metaphor. A deeper understanding of these terms, and their role in cultures, may help us
to understand the antipathy and fear of spin doctors. The scientization of public relations miti- gates against the exploration of its mythical and spiritual practices; its meaning-making in orga-
nizational cults and its apparently interstitial position between beliefs, values, and cultural
mythologies.
There is a gap in relation to the role that public relations practitioners play within, and on
behalf of, organizational cultures, not least because one can see them as storytellers and
myth-makers, who help create and maintain organizational rituals employing symbols thought
to create unifying meaning. Their role is instrumental, but the stuff of their work is necessarily
cultural.
It is important to understand the cultural constraints (sanctions, taboos) of public relations
consultancy and in-house operations, for example in relations to what are considered to be
appropriate relations between public relations practitioners and journalists, or marketers, or
the organizational managerial class. There is so little flesh on the public relations academic skel-
eton, that we do not even have insight into public relations feasts and festivals, either at the orga-
nizational level, or at the occupational level (such as award ceremonies and annual dinners) or
interpretations of the symbolic significance of such events. Public relations academics may
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 177
attend such events and yet are from a different culture, which leaves open the way to reflexive
auto-ethnography, especially of those who have had careers that encompass both cultures. We
know nothing of the public relations consultant’s culture shock that they may experience moving
from organizational client to organizational client; or their experiences of inevitable organiza-
tional cultural change.
Ethnography of communication is a form of language research, which combines ideas from
linguistics, discourse ethics and ‘‘a conception of meaning dependent on shared beliefs and
values of a community and dependent on social and cultural context’’ (Keating, 2001, p. 285).
Insights within this strand of thought relevant to reinterpreting public relations include: per-
formativity, impression management, and communicative competence, all of which might be
usefully applied to analysis of public relations pitches and other aspects of client handling.
Descriptive research could identify, for example, what public relations consultants,
need to know to communicate appropriately in a particular speech community. Competence includes
rules pertaining to language structures and language use as well as cultural knowledge—for example,
which participants may or may not speak in certain settings, which contexts are appropriate for
speech and which for silence, what types of talk are appropriate to persons of different statuses
and roles, norms for requesting and giving information . . . for making other requests, offers, declina- tions, commands, the use of non-verbal behaviours in certain contexts, practices for alternating
between speakers, for constructing authority. (Keating, 2001, p. 287)
Finally, there is the potential to explore ethnographies and auto-ethnographies of scholarship
and education—public relations educational cultures. For example, one might reflect on mantras
of the dominant paradigm (those who based their work on Excellence and the four US models)
and hegemonic implications (L’Etang, 1996, p. 34; Roper, 2005). A classic dualism in public
relations education has been that of theory versus practice, and tensions could be usefully
explored through educational ethnographies to explore the initial encounters and subsequent
relations between students and academic staff and visiting practitioners. Such studies could pro-
vide real insight into the existence and origin of resistances and negotiation over the curriculum.
Ethnography, including critical ethnography, could also explore the culture of professional
bodies and those that are involved in education.
APPLYING ANTHROPOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY TO PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTICE
Ethnographic methods could well be employed by public relations practitioners as part of their
research into an organization, its culture(s), and its identities. Anthropological insight and eth-
nographic methods could have considerable benefits for public relations practice in understand-
ing organizational contexts and the cultural practice of particular communities. Within
organizations, public relations practitioners need to be able to read and understand cultural traits,
norms, and taboos. A more nuanced understanding could be advanced by analyzing organiza-
tional cultural folkways (customs that contribute to order and stability including social conven-
tions and manners), mores (morally inspired conventions to which society requires members to
conform), laws (political regulation), and belief systems (including scientific, philosophical,
religious, supernatural; Murty & Vyas, 2006).
178 L’ETANG
Marketing ethnography offers public relations an insight into alternative methodologies for
public relations practice that may not have been considered hitherto. Ethnography does not tend
to be mentioned in books and articles on applied public relations research for practice. The
anthropological approach and the ethnographic method could, however, offer practitioners
new ways of understanding stakeholders, publics, communities, and organizations in the context
of global change. Action anthropology and ethnography can open up areas of applied research
with the potential to build collaborative platforms among and between the many micro-cultures
with which public relations engages.
The example of marketing ethnography demonstrates the potential for public relations prac-
tice as a way of better understanding the organizational, community, stakeholder, and wider cul-
tures. It was with this in mind that Watson (2005, p. 2) compiled her bibliography for
practitioners (sponsored by General Motors). Her list was designed ‘‘to promote integrated
research between anthropology and public relations’’ and included anthropological sources on
the themes of community relations, corporate relations, cultural diversity, educational relations,
international relations, and political relations.
PUBLIC RELATIONS ANTHROPOLOGY: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Anthropological ideas could change the shape of the public relations discipline, its politics, and
its modernist tendencies. The discipline needs some basic anthropological ethnographic research
to provide richer data and to correct the overreliance on normative theory, and, in the case of
international public relations, on Hofstede. Only in this painstaking way can one begin to piece
together the lived experience of public relations cultures and the role of public relations in every-
day life. Detailed descriptive data derived from participant observation and long-term immersion
in public relations cultures and contexts can deliver concepts, themes, theories, and
self-understanding.
An anthropological ethnographic research agenda should facilitate the research, funding, and pub-
lication of ethnographies based on classic participant observation—and the discipline, as a whole,
needs to ensure that the term ethnographic is employed in a methodologically accurate way. Anthropology offers public relations a route away from simplified structures and processes,
and from approaches to culture that seek to reduce it to a series of variables to facilitate quan-
titative cross-cultural comparisons. Anthropology usefully messes things up for public relations
by foregrounding the notion of context and enabling deeper insights about public relations
people; occupational groupings and practices, both ‘‘professional’’ and amateur; and its organi-
zational and societal engagements and impacts.
REFERENCES
Alozie, E. (2004). Public relations exigencies in a developing democracy: A case study of Nigeria’s fourth republic. In
D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 239–
254). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Arnould, E., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market-oriented ethnography: Interpretation building and marketing strategy
formulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4) Ashkanasay, N., Wilderon, C., & Peterson, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of organizational culture and climate.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 179
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (Eds). (2001). Handbook of ethnography. London, UK: Sage.
Baba, M. (2006). Anthropology and business. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encylopedia of anthropology (pp. 83–117). London, UK:
Sage.
Banks, S. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social–interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bardhan, N. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of India. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 15, 225–248.
Bird, E. (Ed.) (2010). The anthropology of news & journalism: Global perspectives. Bloomington and Indianapolis. Boyer, D. (2010). Making (sense of) news in the era of digital information. In E. Bird. (Ed.) The anthropology of news
and journalism: Global perspectives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Braun, S. (2007). The effects of the political environment on public relations in Bulgaria, Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19, 199–228. Bryman, A. (2001). Introduction: A review of ethnography. In A. Bryman (Ed.), Ethnography (Vols I–IV; pp. ix–xxxix).
London, UK: Sage.
Chen, N. (1996). Public relations in China: The introduction and development of an occupational field. In H. Culbertson
& N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 121–154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1996). The management guru as organizational witchdoctor. Organization, 3, 85–107.
Coman, M., & Rothenbuhler, E. (2005). The promise of media anthropology. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.),
Media anthropology (pp. 1–12). London, UK: Sage.
Couldry, N. (2005). Media rituals: Beyond functionalism. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.), Media anthropology
(pp. 59–69). London, UK: Sage.
Culbertson, H. (2004). ‘Around Europe’: An introduction.’ In D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 127–131). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Culbertson, H., & Chen, N. (1996). (Eds.) International public relations: A comparative analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Curtin, P., & Gaither, K. (2005). Privileging identity, difference, and power: The circuit of culture as a basis for public
relations theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 91–115.
Curtin, P., & Gaither, K. (2007). International public relations: Negotiating culture, identity and power. London, UK: Sage.
Dayan, D. (2005). The Pope at Reunion: Hagiography, casting and imagination’. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.),
Media anthropology (pp. 165–177). London, UK: Sage.
Daymon, C., & Hodges, C. (2009). Researching the occupational culture of pubic relations in Mexico. Public Relations
Review, 35, 429–433.
De Beer, A., & Mersham, G. (2004). Public relations in South Africa: A communication tool. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie
(Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 320–340). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Doksoz, R. (2004). Public relations and Romania: Tourism and Dracula’s homeland. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.),
Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 163–177). Boston, MA: Pearson. Dove, M., & Carpenter, C. (2008). Envrionmental anthropology: A historical reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Edwards, L. (2006). Rethinking power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 229–231.
Ekechai, D., & Komolsevin, R. (1996). Public relations in Thailand; Its function and practitioners’ roles. In H. Culbertson
& N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 155–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Falkheimer, J., & Heide, M. (2006). Multicultural crisis communication: Towards a social constructionist perspective.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4(14), 180–189. Filby, I., & Willmott, H. (1988). Ideologies and contradictions in a public relations department: The seduction and
impotence of living myth. Organization Studies, 9(3), 335–349.
Freitag, A. (2004). Peru’s Fujimori: The campaign to sell the administration’s neoliberal policies. In D. Tilson &
E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 83–101). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Hammersmith, London: Fontana Press.
Haque, M. (2004a). Introduction to Asian public relations. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good:
Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 341–345). Boston, MA: Pearson.
180 L’ETANG
Haque, M. (2004b). Overview of public relations in Asia. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 346–362). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hasty, J. (2010). Journalism as fieldwork: Propaganda, complicity, and the ethics of anthropology. In E. Bird (Ed.), The
anthropology of news & journalism: Global perspectives (pp. 132–150). Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Hendry, J. (1999, 2008). An introduction to social anthropology: Sharing our worlds. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hodges, C. (2005). ‘Relaciones humanas’: The potential for PR practitioners as cultural intermediaries in Mexico City.
Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Bournemouth, Bournemouth, UK.
Hodges, C. (2006). ‘PRP culture’: A framework for exploring public relations practitioners cultural intermediaries.
Journal of Communication Management, 10(1), 80–93.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organization: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodernism values in PR. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1): 93–114. Holtzhausen, D. (2002a). Towards a postmodern research agenda for PR. Public Relations Review 28(3): 251–264.
Holtzhausen, D. (2002b). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern PR practitioner as organizational activist.
Journal of Public Relations Research 14(1): 57–84.
Ihlen, O., van Ruler, B., & Fredriksson, M. (2009). Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts. London, UK: Routledge.
Keating, E. (2001). The ethnography of communication. In P. Atkinson, C. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland
(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 285–301). London, UK: Sage. Kieser, A. (1997). Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization, 4, 49–74.
La Pastina, A. (2005). Audience ethnographies: A media engagement approach. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.),
Media anthropology (pp. 129–148). London, UK: Sage.
Leite, N., & Graburn, N. (2009). Anthropological interventions in tourism studies. In T. Jamal & M. Robinson (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of tourism studies (pp. 35–64). London, UK: Sage.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public
relations (pp. 14–34). London: International Thomson Business Press.
L’Etang, J. (2006). Public relations as diplomacy (revised). In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 373–388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
L’Etang, J. (2009a). Public relations anthropology. Conference paper presented at Stirling 21, UK National Conference,
September 2009.
L’Etang, J. (2009b). Public relations and diplomacy in a globalised world. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 627–626.
L’Etang, J. (2010a). ‘Making it real’: Anthropological reflections on public relations, diplomacy and rhetoric. In R. Heath
(Ed.). The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. 145–162). Los Angeles: Sage.
L’Etang, J. (2010b). Getting it real’—Anthropological perspectives on public relations, diplomacy, and rhetoric. In R.
Heath (Ed.), Sage handbook of public relations. London, UK: Sage.
Lardellier, P. (2005). Ritual media: Historical perspectives and social functions. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.),
Media anthropology (pp. 70–78). London, UK: Sage.
Lule, J. (2005). News as myth: Daily news and eternal stories. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.), Media anthro- pology (pp. 101–110). London, UK: Sage.
Mariampolski, H. (2006). Ethnography for marketers: A guide to consumer immersion. London, UK: Sage.
Munshi, D. (1999). Requisitioning variety: Photographic metaphors, ethnocentric lenses, and the divided colours of
public relations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 1(1), 39–51. Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and
the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 513–520.
Murty, K., & Vyas, A. (2006). Cultural traits. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology. London, UK: Sage. Pal, M., & Dutta, M. (2008). Public relations in a global context: The relevance of critical modernism as a theoretical
lens. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20, 159–179.
Petersen, M. (2005). Performing media: Toward an ethnography of intertextuality. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman
(Eds.), Media anthropology (pp. 129–138). London, UK: Sage. Peterson, M., & Smith, P. (2000). Sources of meaning, organization and culture: Making sense of organizational events.
In N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate. (pp. 101–116).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pieczka, M. (1997). Understanding in public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 65–80.
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 181
Pieczka, M. (2002). Public relations expertise deconstructed. Media, Culture & Society, 24, 301–323. Pieczka, M. (2006a). ‘‘Chemistry’’ and the public relations industry: An exploration of the concept of jurisdiction and
issues arising. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds,), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp.
303–330). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pieczka, M. (2006b). Public relations expertise in practice. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 279–302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pieczka, M., & L’Etang, J. (2001). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of
public relations (pp. 223–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pimlott, J. (1951). Public relations and US democracy. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
Rao, U. (2010). Empowerrment through local news making: Studying the media=public interface in India. In E. Bird
(Ed.), The anthropology of news & journalism: Global perspectives (pp. 100–115). Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Rapport, N., & Overing, J. (2007). Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts. London: Routledge. Ritzer, G. (2000). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ritzer, G. (2002). McDonaldization: The reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy of hegemony? Journal of Public
Relations Research, 17, 69–86. Rothenbuhler, E. (2005). The church of the cult of the individual. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.), Media anthro-
pology (pp. 91–100). London, UK: Sage.
Schein, E. (2001). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In N. Ashkanasay, C. Wilderon & M. Peterson (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. xxiii–xxx). London, UK: Sage.
Schudson, M. (2005). News as stories. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.), Media anthropology (pp. 121–128).
London: Sage.
Schwartzman, H. (1993). Ethnography in organizations. London, UK: Sage. Signitzer, B., & Coombs, W. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations
Review, 18(2), 137–147.
Signitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public relations function. In C. Botan &
V. Hazleton (Eds.) Public Relations Theory II (pp. 435–464). Smajs, J. (2006). Culture. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 636–640). London, UK: Sage.
Smith, V. (2001). Ethnographies of work and the work of ethnographers. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont,
J. Lofland & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 220–233). London, UK: Sage. Sriramesh, K., & White, J. (1992). Societal culture and public relations. In J. Grunig (1992), Excellence in public rela-
tions and communication management (pp. 597–616). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sriramesh, K. (1996). Power distance and public relations: An ethnographic study of southern Indian organizations. In
H. Culbertson & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 171–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sriramesh, K. (2009a). Introduction. In K. Sriramesh & D. Verçiç (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. xxxiii–xi). London, UK: Routledge..
Sriramesh, K. (2009b). The relationship between culture and public relations. In K. Sriramesh & D. Verçiç (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice. London, UK: Routledge.
Sriramesh, K., & Verçiç, D. (Eds) (2009a) The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice.
London, Routledge.
Sriramesh, K., & Verçiç, D. (2009b). A theoretical framework for global public relations. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic
(Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice. London: Routledge.
Standing Conference of Organizational Symbolism (http://www.scos.org/).
Stevens, P. (2006). Witch doctor. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encylopedia of anthropology (pp. 2317–2318). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sussman, L. (1948–1949). The personnel and ideology of public relations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1948, 697–708.
Tedlock, B. (2000). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 455–487). London, UK: Sage. Terry, V. (2005). Postcard from the Steppes: A snapshot of public relations and culture in Kazakhstan. Public Relations
Review, 31, 31–36.
Thomas, G. (2005). The mergence of religious forms in television. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman (Eds.), Media
anthropology (pp. 79–90). London, UK: Sage.
182 L’ETANG
Tilson, D. (2004). Privatization and government campaigning in Ecuador: Caudillos, corruption, and chaos. In D. Tilson
& E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 63–82). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Tilson, D., & Alozie, E. (Eds.) (2004). Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Tsetsura, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2004). Theoretical development of public relations in Russia. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie
(Eds.), Toward the common good: Pespectives in international public relations (pp. 176–192). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tunstall, J. (1964). The advertising man. London, UK: Chapman & Hall. van Ruler, B., & Verçiç, D. (Eds.). (2004). Public relations and communication management in Europe—A nation-by-
nation introduction to pubic relations theory and practice. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Venkateswaren, A. (2004). The evolving face of public relations in Malaysia. In D. Tilson & E. Alozie (Eds.), Toward
the common good: Perspectives in international public relations (pp. 405–425). Boston, MA: Pearson. Verçiç, D., Grunig, L., & Grunig, J. (1996). Global and specific principles of public relations: Evidence from Slovenia.
In H. Culbertson & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 31–66). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vujinovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2010). The local, national & global challenges of public relations: A call for an anthropologi-
cal approach to practicing public relations. In R. Heath (Ed), Handbook of public relations (pp. 671–678). London, UK:
Sage.
Wakefield, R. (1996). Interdisciplinary theoretical foundations for international public relations. In H. Culbertson &
N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis. Mahwah, NJ.
Watson, M. (2005). Anthropology and public relations: Annotated bibliography of recent and significant research of
import to practitioners. Institute for Public Relations.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture. London, UK: Sage. Whittle, A. (2008). From flexibility to work-life balance: Exploring the changing discourses of management consultants.
Organization, 15(4): 513–534.
Zelizer, B. (2005). Finding aids to the past: Hearing witness t traumatic public events. In E. Rothenbuhler & M. Coman
(Eds.), Media anthropology (pp. 199–209). London, UK: Sage.
PUBLIC RELATIONS, CULTURE AND ANTHROPOLOGY 183
Copyright of Journal of Public Relations Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
