What should public relations theory do, practically speaking?

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to discuss issues of PR theory and practice. Design/methodology/approach -The paper presents seven questions that are crucial to the conversation between PR theory and practice. The questions center on these concepts, in turn: identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, audiences (including "the self"), dialogue in idealism and practice, and social engagement. Findings -The persistent, negative reputation of PR has to be of concern to theorists as well as practitioners. PR has tended to ignore, hold static, or even render invisible the internal affairs of organizations, including the values, opinions and preferences of employees. The idea of representation, with its epistemological, political, and linguistic senses, can help to inform PR theory through a full-blown consideration of what it means to "stand for" an organization or a cause or an industry. Advocates of PR practice who essentially argue that "the wrangle of the marketplace of ideas" will yield some kind of truth, or at least a high-quality debate, fail to acknowledge that the quantity of views expressed and the quantity of organizations engaged may no more bring us toward genuine deliberative democracy than 500 TV channels make us better informed. In PR practice, as well as in marketing and other communication functions of the organization, a great deal of the symbols organizations produce are both shaped by and tailored to self-consumption. Rather than assuming that the procedural correctness of symmetrical communication systems is necessarily to the same as dialogue, PR scholars and practitioners need to come to terms with the more subtle forms of power at play when organizations engage in talks and negotiations with their stakeholders. The paper advocates a perspective that takes into account the full "pragmatic" possibilities of persuasive campaigns -viewed not only in isolation but also in terms of their broader and cumulative effects. Originality/value -The paper adds to the debate on PR theory and practice.

Legitimacy and reputation in the institutional field of food safety: A public relations case study

“…Cheney and Christensen, 2006) is also reflected in the general theme of the neo-institutional approaches to public relations published so far. Apart from programmatic papers that seek to introduce neo-institutional theories to the broad field of public relations, strategic communication and organizational communication (e.g.…”

“…In public relations theory the distinction between legitimacy and reputation often becomes blurred. Arguably this is not just the result of theoretical infirmity; rather, it reflects how theory and professional practice are entwined in public relations, which began as a 'defensive profession' (Cheney and Christensen, 2006; see also Marchand, 1998) where the main concern was protecting rather than building up reputation and legitimacy. Although public relations historically has been defined in terms of 'using communication to build and hold goodwill' (Harlow, 1977), thus emphasizing both a dynamic and a defensive dimension, the active quest for legitimacy through institutionalizing responses to expectations and constraints in the environment is not considered a public relations task.…”

Monitoring the issue arenas of the swine‐flu discussion

“…Environmental monitoring includes trends in public opinion and events in the socio-political environment to identify in what direction developments are proceeding and what needs increased attention (Pavlik, 1987;Sumser, 2001). The process can be more or less self-referential; as Cheney and Christensen (2006) suggest, it is often, from the organisation's perspective, to confirm existing practices rather than to be open to new points of view. The social media environment requires constant monitoring and study to detect and interpret any weak signals..…”

“…According to Cammaerts (2007) these fragmented arenas show opposing and conflicting discourses, ideas and interests. This includes displays of subtle forms of power when organizations engage in talks and negotiations within a crowded message environment (Cheney & Christensen, 2006).…”

Monitoring the complexities: Nuclear power and public opinion

“…Issue arenas are places of stake exchange (Heath, 2006), negotiating interests (Cheney & Christensen, 2006) and spaces for enactment (Weick, 2001). A typical issue arena is formed around a topic, incident or a shared interest.…”