Abstract
From a critical rhetorical perspective, several public relations scholars (see Boyd and Waymer, 2011; Heath, 2011; Ihlen, 2011) theorize and view public relations as a form of organizational rhetoric – whereby no matter who is speaking on behalf of the organization, it is the organization speaking not the individual. Of course, logic would tell us that the corporate voice cannot represent adequately multiple, competing interests, simultaneously, and yet that is precisely what many stakeholders and publics expect organizations, including government and corporate actors, to do (see Waymer, 2009). In one form or another, several of the articles in this issue highlight this dialectic between corporate/organizational self-interest and stakeholder/public interest. In so doing, as a collective, the authors contributing to this issue challenge readers to reconsider how we talk about, theorize, and nuance key terms, practices, and frameworks, such as dialogue, transparency, tragedy (vs crisis response), and lobbying and media framing of lobbying efforts.
In the opening article, ‘Panacea, placebo or prudence: Perspectives and constraints for corporate dialogue’, written by Øyvind Ihlen and Abbey Levenshus, the authors highlight the limitations of public relations scholars using dialogue as normative ideal and best practices for technical exchange. The authors use a discussion of the macroeconomic rationality of businesses coupled with a sociological, Bourdieusian perspective on the environments in which businesses operate to conclude that scholars have not paid enough attention to systemic, macro-level limits that constrain practitioners’ ability and willingness to engage in dialogue. Thus, a theoretical blind spot exists and public relations studies continue to be published in the domain of ‘dialogue’ without those authors adequately acknowledging the shortcoming of that approach to dialogic studies.
In a similar vein, in the second article written by Tae Ho Lee and Lois Boynton, the authors critique, contribute to, and advance the literature in the domain of another popular framework used in public relations: transparency. The authors conduct a thorough review of the transparency literature – drawing from both the natural and physical sciences on transparency (amount of light and illumination present when viewing one object through another object) and the social sciences which includes communication and public relations definitions of transparency. After reviewing the relevant literature, the authors create a comprehensive theoretical framework of transparency, and then they propose an operational definition of transparency – both as a process and as a research framework. As in the aforementioned Ihlen and Levenshus’ article on dialogue, Lee and Boynton in their article about transparency highlight the fact that research and statements of best practices in transparency often overlook the highly subjective and intersubjective considerations of situational factors, such as crises, organization types, and regulatory environments that include laws, regulations, and social norms, in addition to stakeholders’ perspectives. A common theme between these two articles is as follows: prevailing public relations frameworks, such as dialogue and transparency, and the professional practice that is informed by such frameworks can both benefit from a critical examination of their key tenets. Another important consideration that these articles allude to but do not address directly is as follows: When scholars establish normative orientations and espouse best practices for principles of dialogue and transparency in the practice of public relations, do these scholars take into account whose interests is advanced or whose interests should be advanced by the normative frameworks? Stated differently, under what circumstances if any can, will, or should organization’s self-interests be prioritized completely above all other interests? Moreover, if key stakeholders ever deemed it appropriate for an organization to prioritize self-interests, and then that organization communicated clearly that prioritization intent to publics and stakeholders; does that communication adhere to the tenets set forth by theories of dialogue and transparency?
Many scholars of crisis communication (Coombs, 2007; Lerbinger, 1997; Liu et al., 2013) argue that organizations at fault in crises must find ways to respond appropriately to various stakeholders who are affected both directly and indirectly by a crisis. In these crisis situations, organizations are likely to be more guarded to minimize potential financial losses and reputational and legal threats. Thus, the fact that corporate actors take macro-level considerations of the business environment into account – especially in crises – will constrain their willingness and ability to engage in dialogue with some publics and situational factors of the crises will constrain their willingness and ability to be completely transparent. The third article in this issue, however, explores how organizations might respond in ‘crisis-like’ events in which the organization is not at fault, yet still faces communication constraints.
Hayes, Waddell, and Smudde in their article ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims: Explicating the public tragedy as a public relations challenge’ take care to identify tragedies as events that might appear similar but should be considered substantively different from organizational crises. According to the authors, in tragedy situations, whether man-made or natural disasters, tragedies have considerably greater and singular impact than a traditional industry crisis, and current typologies of crises fail to account for organizations being impacted by and being obligated to respond to events of which they are neither the victim nor the perpetrator.
The authors argue that tragedies might require a different paradigm for public relations and crisis communication: in both industry responses to tragedies and academic scholarship that addresses tragedies via crisis communication frameworks.
The fourth article in this issue is titled ‘The construction of an elusive concept: Framing the controversial role and practice of lobbying in Swedish media’ written by Helgesson and Falasca. This study reports the results of a 10-year longitudinal study that analyzes media coverage and framing of lobbying in Sweden and the increasingly influential role of the practice of lobbying in the Swedish political system. The authors argue that the results illustrate that the perception of lobbying is without nuance and a common negative frame is present and continues to be reproduced. Lobbying has a negative connotation because it is often seen as the unseen hand and voice that guides or even manipulates corporate influence or government influence on public policy decision and outcomes. The articles discussed above all highlight in some form different tensions related to corporate voice.
While many articles that have been published in Public Relations Inquiry have been reflexive and/or critical in nature, the final article in this issue deviates from this form. This particular article falls within the interpretive paradigm of communication scholarship. The article is included because the topic warranted its inclusion in this journal because the very practical question the authors pose in this study, ‘what are the best practices for leadership development in public relations?’, is and should be of interest and value to our readership. The final article in this issue is ‘Understanding and addressing the gaps: Generational perspectives on public relations leadership development in the United States’ by David Remund and Michelle Ewing. The authors in this exploratory study conducted semi-structured interviews (total n = 49) in the United States, with a purposive snowball sample of three populations with differing experience levels in the public relations industry: (1) senior practitioners with more than 10 years of professional experience in public relations, with at least five of those years in a management or supervisory role; (2) young professionals working as a public relations practitioner, having completed an undergraduate degree in public relations within the past 5 years; and (3) current students working toward an undergraduate degree in public relations. The authors find that leadership (development, opportunities, and cultivation) continues to be a pressing issue in the public relations industry, and more work must be done to adequately foster leadership development within the profession. It is important, periodically, to allow the voices of practitioners that we study – regardless of identity markers and categorization – to tell the story of what they need and desire from the profession. Including this type of article in this issue allows readers to oscillate between the critical and (less critical) interpretive paradigms that we use to understand better the practice of public relations and public relations’ influence on society.
As critical scholars, we will always (a) challenge White privilege and also question the racial, ethnic, gender, and/or sexual orientation composition of leadership in public relations; (b) investigate the access that practitioners have and/or barriers practitioners encounter to acquiring leadership positions in the discipline; (c) critique the practice of leadership – whereby we question social constructs such as the White leader prototype (Logan, 2011) in which White leadership is normalized, reified, and typically unquestioned; (d) or question the role and influence that public relations leaders actually have as we contemplate whether they are mere the pawns and mouthpieces of organizations or whether public relations leaders are actually empowered to be organizational activists (Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002).
With that said, this issue also concludes with a book review by Nneka Logan of the book Power, Diversity and Public Relations written by Lee Edwards. Logan does a masterful job detailing the root causes that Edwards attributes to the ongoing problem of homogeneity in public relations practice and leadership – particularly in the UK public relations industry. Logan asserts that in Edwards’ choice to center Black, Asian, and other minority ethnic practitioners’ voices, the book serves an important epistemological function by enabling Edwards’ readers to better understand the ontological experience of both non-whites and whites in the public relations industry and the complex role race and ethnicity play in shaping their experiences as well as the field.
As Logan puts it, Edwards’ work is far-reaching whereby the book ‘can also stimulate thought around discrimination and resistance in the workplace, in global contexts, wherever difference is found’.
The content of the articles in this issue will challenge readers to critically examine and reflect upon often used, yet seldom problematized constructs, frameworks, and practices such as dialogue, transparency, crises versus tragedy situations, and the appropriate organizational response, lobbying, and leadership. In closing, we present this volume, with its bent toward the interrogation of the organizational voice and leadership writ large to you.