Abstract
This issue encompasses a range of themes and introduces some original concepts and perspectives. It also includes a specially themed section on neo-institutional theory, highlighting its relevance for public relations theories and practices.
The issue opens with an article that presents the concept of public relations theory – an idea adapted from media literacy. The purpose of the article is to make a qualitative difference to societal communication and specifically to the accountability of public relations practitioners in relation to those who are exposed to their sponsored discourses. Coombs and Holladay argue that public relations literacy will enable citizens to be conscious critics of a diverse range of public communication and active participants in social communication. The article usefully links to a range of media studies theories and civil society concepts in the context of digital and social media that facilitate mediated mobilization, reconfiguration and remediation (Lievrouw, 2011). It is this recombinative feature of digital media that makes sources more opaque, and identities more readily hidden or manipulated. For Coombs and Holladay, the advent of digital media offers not just hope but also concerns, since ‘anyone can become an activist and practice public relations in pursuit of a range of selfish or altruistic goals’. This tension highlights connections between public relations, ideology and agency, suggests the source of legitimation problematics and raises the spectres of regulation and control. Coombs and Holladay pursue an analysis in the context of risk that leads towards a sample curriculum.
Our second article, Galloway’s ‘Deliver us from definitions’ returns to a theme explored in Public Relations Inquiry 1(1) in 2012 in which several authors (Edwards, Curtin, Radford and Brown) debated paradigmatic developments and diversity. Galloway challenges the value of definitional quests where such quests are based on essentialism. Galloway’s project rejects normative accounts and seeks to explore what public relations is not – an apophatic approach drawn from theology and rhetoric and employed in diverse contexts including poetry and geometry. He argues that ‘we can know something about PR not so much by trying to define its essence but, instead, by interpreting our experience of what energizes and actuates its activities’. Galloway articulates a series of ‘provocations’ that eloquently challenge many common assumptions in public relations literature about the purpose of public relations practice, its jurisdiction, its geopolitical location, the legitimacy and expertise of its practitioners. The ‘provocations’ offer stark contrasts with confident unproblematized definitions of ‘relationship management’ that, according to Galloway, ‘oversell the experience of PR in action’.
Pieczka and Wood make a new contribution to public relations theory by using dialogue both as a method of inquiry and as a mechanism for change; presenting a new way of understanding ideas about relationships and ‘relationship management’. The main theoretical focus for the article is that of dialogue, its place in public relations theory, and they remind readers that the discipline has shown a poor understanding of the philosophy of dialogue and its practical tools in comparison to that demonstrated by other fields, such as public policy, community development, management or science communication’ (Pieczka, 2011; Pieczka and Escobar, 2010, 2013). Pieczka and Woods undertake a review of an empirical exploratory project that they initiated and that utilized an innovative dialogic technique in relation to alcohol education for teenagers. Their chosen methodological approach was inspired by action research that initially arose as a challenge to positivist science and emphasized cooperative co-creation and social relationships and a dynamic spiral of interlinked phases. Finally, Pieczka and Woods present an argument that the incorporation of a particular dialogic technique embedded within the action research approach has implications for the way in which knowledge may be produced in practice settings.
Our special section was conceived to concentrate on the dynamics of public relations practice and its societal effects, viewed through the lens of neo-institutional theory. The editors of this section provide an introduction to the section through a review of the scope of neo-institutional theory to provide a justification for the focus of the Section. Fredriksson, Pallas and Wehmeier suggest that public relations acts as a carrier and translator of institutions shaping the context of social interaction drawing upon the tradition of research that understands communication as organization. They emphasize the challenges and contradictions that face organizations and their response strategies, including ‘confidence rituals’ that appear to demonstrate conformity while seeking to evade accountancy. The section editors highlight three relevant streams of neo-institutional research – institutional logics, translation and institutional work – and apply them to the public relations context to highlight its particular logic. Frandsen and Johansen draw attention to complementary questions concerning the way in which public relations itself is institutionalized and how public relations contributes to the processes of institutionalization. In particular, they give emphasis to ‘the Scandinavian tradition’ that, in itself, introduces issues of intellectual cultural identity and style that are not often the focus of reflection within public relations. Their article concludes with a research agenda for mixed method empirical research. Kjeldson explores that ‘Scandinavian tradition’ in depth and focuses on the virus metaphor as an alternative to the fashion metaphor for processes of institutionalization, drawing on empirical research based in three Danish art museums. At a broad level she addresses two key questions: how can institutionalization be detected prior to the visible existence of public relations; and how can the public relations discipline benefit from an institutional perspective. A notable aspect of this article is the author’s use of the term ‘strategic communication’ instead of public relations, a practice that is not subjected to reflexive analysis. Finally, Merkelsen’s article concludes the special section by exploring the issue of food safety, politics and side-effects and the way in which this impacts legitimacy claims. Our issue closes with two book reviews focused on public relations in multiple cultural contexts. The Editors draw readers’ attention towards our Call for Papers for a forthcoming Special Issue on Memory.