The articulation of ‘agency’: How can public relations scholarship and institutional theory enrich each other?

Abstract

A recent critical turn to both public relations and institutional studies has highlighted ‘agency’ as a shared important theme. While public relations scholars call to bring back ‘agency’ into analysis of practice and process of public relations, neo-institutionalists use ‘agency’ to explain heterogeneity and innovation in institutional outcomes. In this context, this article proposes to use ‘agency’ as a meeting ground to explore how the two disciplines could engage in a dialogue that improves mutual understanding and theoretical enrichment of each other. It argues that institutional thoughts such as ‘embedded agency’, ‘institutional entrepreneurship’ and ‘institutional work’ advance understandings of the downplayed issues of power, diversity and activism in the public relations literature. In turn, the multi-paradigmatic public relations scholarship provides useful tools for analysing institutional agency. Also, this article discusses future research agenda to advance fruitful collaboration between the two domains.

Envisioning PR research without taking organizations as collective actors for granted: A rejoinder and extension to Hou

“…In a recent article in Public Relations Inquiry , Jenny Hou (2020) has identified “agency” as a vital meeting ground for mutual attention and exchange between PR scholarship and neo-institutional theory. Agency, defined here as the capacity of individuals or collectives “to act independently and reflectively while interacting with contexts” (Hou, 2020: 2), is taken both as a conceptual relay and key shared concern of the two research domains.…”

“…In a recent article in Public Relations Inquiry , Jenny Hou (2020) has identified “agency” as a vital meeting ground for mutual attention and exchange between PR scholarship and neo-institutional theory. Agency, defined here as the capacity of individuals or collectives “to act independently and reflectively while interacting with contexts” (Hou, 2020: 2), is taken both as a conceptual relay and key shared concern of the two research domains. We wholeheartedly endorse Hou’s article to be among the most important publications in PR research of the past few years, as it opens up important opportunities for PR scholarship to become inspired by recent developments in institutional scholarship (for similar endeavors see Sandhu, 2009, 2017)—especially “communicative institutionalism,” which rests on the assumption that “it is in and through communication that institutions exist, are performed and given shape” (Cornelissen et al, 2015).…”

“…We wholeheartedly endorse Hou’s article to be among the most important publications in PR research of the past few years, as it opens up important opportunities for PR scholarship to become inspired by recent developments in institutional scholarship (for similar endeavors see Sandhu, 2009, 2017)—especially “communicative institutionalism,” which rests on the assumption that “it is in and through communication that institutions exist, are performed and given shape” (Cornelissen et al, 2015). Vice-versa, Hou demonstrates that PR scholarship (especially when taking on board the notion of communicative institutionalism) can “amplify the explanatory power” (Hou, 2020: 16) at the intersection of both fields.…”

“…Hou’s argument, however—in alignment with large parts of contemporary PR scholarship and practice— tends to stick with a realist ontology of (organizational) agency, where agency “is exercised” (Hou, 2020: 16) by the organization as actor. In line with the above definition, agency is understood here as the “capacity to act.” However, with this notion of agency, Hou does not seem to make full use of the radical turn in perspective that communicative institutionalism implies (Meyer and Vaara, 2020): that organizations as collective actors do not exist independent from communication—but that they are created and maintained in and through communication.…”

“…In what follows, we want to point to two crucial aspects in which we think the arguments by Hou (2020) can benefit from extending the premises of communicative institutionalism (Cornelissen et al, 2015; Meyer and Vaara, 2020) toward their logical limit: First, what would it mean to fully acknowledge the constitutive role of communication for organizational actorhood and agency? Second, what is the role then of strategic communication and PR for the constitution of organizations as collective actors?…”