Abstract
This article considers public relations through the prism of decision-making. Decisions can be regarded as a way of dealing with complexity. In the following, two approaches to decisions and complexity are discussed. The first is an actor-based prescriptive approach, which focuses on decision-making as a means of managing environmental complexity. There are different tools and techniques that support public relations managers in finding adequate responses. The second is a descriptive approach, which is more interested in the ways in which such tools and techniques contribute to the complex decision process itself. In accordance with Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory, public relations decisions are regarded as a specific form of communication that (a) emphasizes the selectivity of the process by specifying particular public relations options or choices, (b) attributes this selection to a ‘decision-maker’ (e.g. a public relations manager) while simultaneously presuming strategic intent with respect to public perception, and (c) engages the past and future in a specific way. A decision-based approach that builds on communication may thus contribute to a more detailed understanding of public relations practice. Such an approach raises, among others, questions concerning strategic public relations options or the participation of digital entities as ‘decision-makers’. With its focus on decisions as communications, it furthermore links the field of public relations research to schools of thought such as CCO (communicative constitution of organizations) and strategy as practice.
Keywords
When deciding which theoretical approach to follow, public relations scholars today have a number of options to choose from. There is a growing range of definitions of the field and associated theories, and the functionalist or managerial paradigm is no longer the only accepted way of approaching public relations. It has been challenged or complemented by a number of non-functionalist and critical approaches (see, for example, the contributions in Botan and Hazleton, 2006; Heath, 2013; Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015b; L’Etang et al., 2016). At present, then, the scholarship can be divided into functionalist or managerial approaches on the one hand and non-functionalist or critical approaches on the other. 1 Some scholars have continued to focus on the management function of public relations or strategic communication. Public relations is considered here as the practice of managing communications, relationships, or issues on behalf of an organization. As a management or organizational function, it has been established to reach certain strategic goals and fulfill organizational missions (Hallahan et al., 2007: 3; Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015a: 4). Critical scholars, by contrast, claim that public relations theory and research should keep some distance from functional and organizational demands. Instead, these authors have sought to explore the effects of public relations on the public sphere and society in general. Public relations is seen here, for example, as part of a broader promotional culture or even a commercial democracy (Aronczyk et al., 2017; Cronin, 2018; Edwards, 2018). Moreover, it is regarded as inextricably bound up with communicative power and domination. Across these different approaches, references to social, political, and cultural theories are becoming more frequent and more established (Ihlen et al., 2018).
It nonetheless seems that there is still room for further theoretical development, especially when it comes to gaining greater recognition for the field beyond its disciplinary boundaries (see the discussion at 2018 ICA pre-conference on public relations theories, for example). Perhaps, however – and this is the starting point of this article – it is first of all necessary to acquire a more detailed sense of what is referred to as public relations (Edwards, 2012; Russell and Lamme, 2016). What do we mean when we speak of public relations, strategic communication management or promotional culture? What are we confronted with when we consider public relations as a practice that might have far-reaching effects? What kind of phenomenon do we observe and analyze?
Public relations through the prism of decision-making
In the following section, it is suggested that the central element of public relations as a particular social phenomenon is decisions. Public relations can then be understood as a specific practice of making and observing decisions that are linked to modern organizations, groups, and even individuals. There are two ways of approaching public relations and decision-making: The first part of the article deals with a more prescriptive actor-based perspective. The practice of public relations decision-making is analyzed by asking what kind of responses practitioners find in dealing with a complex media environment. Different tools and techniques are identified that may help tackling this challenge. While such a functional perspective might be a perfectly valid starting point, it does not recognize the full explanatory potential of decisions. The second part of the article, therefore, focuses on a descriptive perspective that does not build on action and problem-solving but communication. Public relations decisions are regarded as a special form of communication. Following systems theory, we are confronted with a process of attributing choice to some entity. When talking about public relations, this attribution additionally follows particular presumptions that will be further explicated. The proposed decision-based perspective not only links public relations theory to current approaches in organizational research but also goes beyond that by offering a more detailed picture of public relations practice that acknowledges different observation points as well as digital entities that may take part in the process. Finally, the article considers how this approach may further inspire public relations theory and research.
Perspective I: Public relations as decision-making in a complex media environment
Placing decisions at the center of public relations theory might not seem like a surprising idea. In fact, we can often find references to decisions or decision-making in public relations texts and research. This holds true for different aspects. Some authors accentuate the involvement of public relations managers in top-level management decision-making (Dozier, 1992; Tench et al., 2017) or the interplay between public relations decision-making and corporate strategy (Mykkänen, 2017; Raupp and Hoffjann, 2012). Others elaborate on the necessity for a more collaborative (Motion et al., 2016) or ethical decision-making in public relations (Holtzhausen, 2015). Finally, some classical concepts such as framing, issues management, and agenda setting can be grounded in or regarded through the prism of decision-making. Decision-making is then a reasonably common reference point. The above-mentioned approaches usually focus on one basic question: How can a public relations manager make the right decision? Put differently: What options or strategies should the manager choose to reach set goals (whatever they might be)? What kind of choice will lead to success? Public relations theorizing on decision-making is thus mostly grounded in prescriptive decision theory. These theoretical approaches try to provide guidance on how to make the best decision under sometimes difficult circumstances (Peterson, 2017).
Addressing the challenge of complexity
The main challenge for public relations management (as for other management areas) in this sense is today’s increasingly complex media environment. It was on this basis that Gilpin and Murphy proposed complexity thinking as a new paradigm that responds ‘to a tightly coupled, nonlinear, and unstable communication environment’ (Gilpin and Murphy, 2010: 74, see also Murphy and Gilpin, 2013). In managing such a complex environment, the task for public relations decision-makers is to ensure requisite responses. Following cybernetic thinkers like Ashby, this means first of all to have a broad variety of options at one’s disposal. It needs variety to be able to deal with variety (Ashby, 1956; see also Nothhaft and Wehmeier, 2007). Taking a closer look, what kind of prescriptive decision-making approaches can we discern in the literature that addresses this challenge? How do public relations managers ensure sufficient variety? Here, we might draw a distinction between three ways of handling complex media environments. 2
Rational decision-making on the basis of as much data as possible and powerful algorithms
Managerial approaches to public relations that explain how to best reach organizational goals usually build on ‘solid information and data’. With the advent of digital media and the accessibility of large amounts of real-time data, new possibilities have emerged. Advanced, algorithm-based monitoring and evaluation techniques make it possible to keep track of relevant issues in the organization’s environment and the organization’s performance. They can thereby help to promote an even more effective communication management – a management that takes into account a wide range of variables within short time intervals (Grunig, 2009; Tench et al., 2017; Weiner and Kochhar, 2016; Zerfass et al., 2017). Furthermore, these advanced algorithms allow for a kind of automated processes that might enhance public relations management practice by making it faster and more efficient.
Recursive decision-making and context regulation
Complexity thinking emphasizes the notion that complex systems are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict or control. So, if the managerial conception of control has to be relinquished, what other options are we left with? One possibility here is to adopt a more context-sensitive way of dealing with complex systems (Nothhaft and Wehmeier, 2007). Since they cannot steer the system in question directly, public relations actors may try to influence its context or environment, in the hope that this will bring about the changes they desire. From such a perspective, public relations managers thus have to be regarded more as gardeners than as engineers (Nothhaft and Wehmeier, 2007). This mindset requires a reflective attitude and the readiness to change organizational practices (Holmström, 2005, 2009). Notions of recursivity and reflection can also be found in approaches that incorporate agile planning techniques (e.g. Scrum) into public relations activities (Van Ruler, 2015). Decision-making here is an ongoing recursive process that includes corrective feedback loops to be successful.
Mindful decision-making
Closely linked to the ideas of reflection, learning, and agility are approaches that favor mindfulness and experience for decision-making. All of these ideas pay attention to the fundamental intractability of decision-making problems that are characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability (McKie and Heath, 2016). In reaction to this, decision-making in complex situations may only rely on human beings and their particular mental capabilities and intelligence – rational as well as emotional ones. These resources can be referred to as mindfulness. As Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) put it, ‘[m]indfulness [. . .] is about the ability of a system to concentrate on what is going on here and now’ (p.35). Mindfulness is not limited to individuals and can also be observed in groups and organizations (‘collective mindfulness’ (see Sutcliffe et al., 2016; Weick et al., 1999)). Still, references to such schools of thought are rare in public relations theory that tends to cling to rationalistic management approaches.
These three ways of dealing with complex environments should nonetheless not be considered completely separate. They simply indicate where the respective authors see the most promising options for public relations decision-making in the face of complexity and uncertainty. In actual practice, we can probably observe various combinations of these techniques and approaches. Nevertheless, how to make the right decision in dealing with a complex media environment must remain an open question. This becomes even more evident when questions arise about what makes a decision ‘successful’. What is exactly meant by right (or false) decisions and how this evaluation relates to the respective tools and techniques are not elaborated in the above-mentioned approaches.
Rather, when interested in that kind of questions, we need a different starting point, one that is not bound to functional premises. Only then we may gain a more detailed picture about what makes public relations a complex decision-based practice, as the title of this article suggests. Such an understanding supports the idea of public relations as a particular social or cultural phenomenon (Edwards, 2018). Furthermore, it encourages avenues for research that, for example, focus on the emergence of public relations decision options, particular decision premises, and the role of digital tools in decision processes.
The practice of decision-making
If we would like to explain in more detail how public relations decisions actually take place and how they are linked to ideas of effectiveness and success, alternative interpretations of organizational decision-making processes are necessary (Brunsson, 1990; Cohen et al., 1972). A notable shift toward observing actual decision practices is required. The ‘garbage can concept’ of organizational decision-making by Cohen et al. (1972), for example, is well-known for having set the focus on these practices and describing them as irrational and chaotic. Following such a descriptive approach, it might be worth considering decisions as a form of communication. This means concentrating not on the making of a decision but on how communication brings about this making. It is a radical shift from management studies to communication theory, from action to communication. Actors as ‘decision-makers’ are referred to only in the second step. By focusing on decisions as communication, we will have to further elaborate on the specifics of public relations decisions. How do we know a particular decision is a public relations decision? The following section first deals with the idea of decisions as communication in a more general way and then goes into the details of public relations decisions.
Perspective II: Decisions as communication
In order to develop the proposed perspective, it may be helpful to draw on systems theory, especially as elaborated by Niklas Luhmann. Though systems theory may seem a little dated today, when we might more commonly speak of networks or institutions, it nonetheless offers us significant epistemological resources here. Communication is considered the fundamental operation for any social system, and action and decisions are only constituted by means of communication (Luhmann, 1992, 1995). Furthermore, systems theory’s specific empirical notion needs to be mentioned: ‘[S]ystems theory begins with practice, with operations, with the dynamics of self-enforcing and self-energizing processes’ (Nassehi, 2005: 181).
Some approaches to public relations that build on Luhmann’s work have already become established, especially in Europe (e.g. Hoffjann, 2011, 2015; Holmström, 2005, 2009; Preusse, 2016; Röttger and Preusse, 2013; Szyszka, 2008). In addition, we can find references to systems theory in research on organizational communication (e.g. Brunsson, 1990; Rasche and Seidl, 2017; Schoeneborn, 2011; Seidl and Becker, 2006; Theis-Berglmair, 2008). Research based on CCO thinking (‘communicative constitution of organizations’), for example, sees communication as the building block of organizations (Blaschke and Schoeneborn, 2017; Brummans et al., 2014; Cooren et al., 2011; Schoeneborn et al., 2014). In line with Luhmann and systems theory, Schoeneborn (2008, 2011) and others claim that it is precisely decisions that form the basis of any organization (Schoeneborn et al., 2014; see also Nassehi, 2005; Seidl, 2005).
Understanding public relations as a complex decision-based practice strongly relates to that area of research. However, systems theory and its elaborations on decisions may provide a foundation for public relations theory that goes beyond the organizational context. To show that, we need to pay attention to the fact that neither public relations nor decisions can be exclusively analyzed by looking at organizations. Accordingly, we will instead focus on the particular strategic notion concerning public perception that is linked to public relations decisions. Furthermore, the specific concepts of choice, risk, and the handling of time must be explicated for this case.
Accentuating selectivity
In examining decisions as the defining element of public relations from this kind of perspective, it is first of all important to come back to the notion of complexity more profoundly. When speaking of complexity, we refer to numerous elements that are temporally linked in one way or another. Selection becomes inevitable. ‘Complexity [. . .] means being forced to select; being forced to select means contingency; and contingency means risk’ (Luhmann, 1995: 25). In communication, this selection is processed in a threefold way. Communication emerges through the synthesis of information, utterance, and understanding (Luhmann, 1995, Chapter 4; see also Baecker, 2013). These three aspects (each regarded as a selection) are combined in one operation and only then considered as communication.
Communication processes are self-referential. This becomes especially obvious in the form of decisions, which mark a step out of routine communication. In bringing together understanding, utterance, and information in the form of a decision, communication accentuates the very selectivity of the process and attributes it to a ‘decision-maker’. Decisions, therefore, can be regarded as a communicative attribution of selective action (‘choice’) to some entity. So, the concept does not rely on human intelligence or rationality for the definition of decisions. Luhmann emphasizes: Decision is not understood as a psychological mechanism, but as a matter of communication, not as a psychological event in the form of an internally conscious definition of the self, but as a social event. That makes it impossible to state that decisions already taken still have to be communicated. Decisions are communications; something that clearly does not preclude that one can communicate about decisions. (Luhmann, 2003: 32; for the Luhmannian idea of decisions, see also Brummans et al., 2014: 184–186; Schoeneborn, 2008: 34–39)
Complexity in this perspective is not a problem for decision-making processes but is their basic element (Luhmann, 2013: 120ff.). Thus, decisions as a particular form of communication can be regarded as one possibility to deal with complexity. Actually, without complexity, there would be no need for decisions because every next step would already be predetermined (Nassehi, 2005). So, the complexity of any given situation is made visible and transformed by decisions in a particular way.
In detail: Public relations decisions as a particular form of decisions
In the following section, the details of these ideas are explicated by analyzing the specifics of public relations decisions by way of their factual, social, and temporal dimensions of meaning (for the general notion of meaning dimensions, see Luhmann, 1995, Chapter 2). This can only be outlined here. Still, the goal is to show where the benefits of these rather abstract ideas for the theory of public relations are.
The factual dimension of meaning: Public relations decisions as attributing different strategic options with regard to public perception
To begin with the factual dimension of meaning, a public relations decision like any other decision is first of all constituted by alternatives. Deciding means that there is a choice between alternative options. These options, however, are not simply given but constructed by the decision itself. As our notes on complexity have already shown, deciding is not the same as calculating. Decision-making implies not knowing what to do in a very fundamental sense (Luhmann, 2006, Chapter 4; Nassehi, 2005; Seidl and Becker, 2006). Public relations tools and techniques like those that have been mentioned above do not change that fundamental aspect of decisions. They may limit options and can be considered as decision premises in public relations practice (Oßwald and Raaz, 2018: 178). But even those premises cannot determine decisions. Renowned cybernetics thinker von Foerster (2003) puts this in the following way: ‘Only those questions that are in principle undecidable, we can decide’ (p.293). Decisions are then paradoxical in nature, insofar as they perform something only by simultaneously contradicting themselves. In order to be understood as decisions, they always have to communicate alternatives or selections (i.e. whatever is seen as alternatives at a given moment by a particular observer). Moreover, to be understood as decisions, they always have to communicate that the alternatives were no alternatives because the decision has been made the way it was made (Luhmann, 2004, 2006: 142; see also Brummans et al., 2014: 186).
To give an example of how this can be applied to our understanding of public relations, publishing a press release about a critical issue is to be considered a decision insofar as the communication recognizes that there are or were other options available, such as not publishing it, publishing it later, holding a press conference instead, announcing the news on Twitter, and publishing a press release on some other issue. However, in a paradoxical way, the decision is only a decision because all these options have not been realized, and therefore, they are not real options in a stricter sense. Concerning options, we recognize here that it is the decision itself that determines what possibilities different observers might think of – or not think of. Nevertheless, the range of options is not completely arbitrary. There are especially two aspects that are associated with public relations decisions in a factual way.
First, public relations options are those options that are strategic or goal-oriented. 3 But what does ‘strategic’ mean in a communication-based approach that does not build on psychological assumptions? This article cannot go into the details of reformulating different strategy aspects like intention, planning, and steering. In the case of intention, for example, a communication-based approach would emphasize that public relations options get communicatively linked to certain organizational (or brand, celebrity, etc.) goals (Kneer, 1998; Luhmann, 2006: 403–404; Rasche and Seidl, 2017). A connection is made between a decision and an intention to change something in line with particular goals – such as publishing a press release to prevent an organization’s reputation from being negatively affected or, on the contrary, not publishing a press release to prevent an organization’s reputation from being negatively affected. It all depends on how a decision is framed or considered in the communication process.
This points to the second characteristic that comes with options in public relations decisions. It is not only assuming an option to be explicitly goal oriented. The intended goals and the expected outcome must be seen to be linked to public issues and the public perception of the organization (the brand, the celebrity, and so on). How this ‘public’ is conceptualized in public relations theory and practice is a widely discussed topic with strong normative implications (e.g. Johnston, 2016; Stoker, 2014). In the public relations management literature, we often find terms such as ‘image’ or ‘reputation’ describing this perceptual dimension. The reference to public issues also marks the difference regarding marketing or advertising options. These are usually not linked to publics but to markets – even though, from a perceptual viewpoint, these lines are blurring (Bourne, 2016).
At this point, the constructivist character of this communicative approach becomes quite clear (Baecker, 2013; Luhmann, 1990, 1992 see also Berger and Luckmann, 1966). It is a particular observation that makes a communicative event a decision and more specifically a public relations decision. It might then happen that a particular organizational decision (such as, for example, withdrawing a product) is not seen as a public relations decision by members of the organization itself, or even by the press officer, but is nonetheless described as ‘pure PR’ by the press. The latter would stress the strategic intention of the decision and its orientation toward public perception. Or, vice versa, a product withdrawal might internally be considered a public relations decision through which the organization aims to enhance its reputation but is not framed in this way by the media.
At present, it would seem that organizational decisions are increasingly being described as public relations, promotional, persuasive, and so on in organizations as well as in the media and critical scholarship (Aronczyk et al., 2017; Cronin, 2018; Edwards, 2018; L’Etang et al., 2016). We notice that, in the last decades, the range of options we regard as public relations seems to have notably increased. Before, options like painting a building completely black, founding a football club, or sending a rocket into space normally did not come to mind. As recent examples have shown, however, even options such as these now fall within the ambit of public relations activity. They are considered as public relations decision options that are chosen in line with particular goals concerning public perception. One might, for example, even look at the 2011 protests in Greece through the prism of public relations and frame them as an attempt at strategic public communication (Botan and Trowbridge, 2015: 357–358). So, it seems that communication is increasingly observed and analyzed under the assumption of strategic decision-making toward public perception. Here, it is again worth clarifying that the approach remains strictly at the level of communication and accentuates the different perspectives.
The social dimension of meaning: Public relations decisions as attributing selective action and risk-taking to a ‘decision-maker’
As we have seen, decisions emerge in and through observation and communication processes (Luhmann, 2006; see also Seidl, 2005). Thus, ‘decision-making’ and ‘decision-makers’ are constituted by means of communicative attribution. In the case of public relations, the ‘decision-maker’ is usually the public relations manager, but we might also think of other persons (e.g. the CEO), the organization itself or possibly even digital entities as addresses of attribution. This attribution also implies a form of risk-taking on behalf of that entity. The specific risks that can be linked to public relations decisions again depend on the particular standpoint. From an organizational perspective, we mainly think of effectiveness and the risk of not meeting strategic objectives (e.g. media impact and reputation). Approaching public relations from a more critical point of view, we would most likely observe public relations decisions by attributing risks regarding public discourse. So again, it is chiefly a question of attributions and expectations, which are located at the level of communication. The risk of being wrong, for example, comes with every decision. Still, at the moment of decision, there is no right or wrong: These judgments only form part of an ex-post account, that is, an evaluation that only takes place after a decision has been ‘made’ (Luhmann, 2006: 173, 450; Nassehi, 2005: 186; Weick, 1979: 171 ff.). Apart from that, these evaluations about right or wrong may change over time and depend on the evaluator or observer. Nevertheless, further communication may proceed more smoothly if the decision in question is regarded as the right one.
In addition, the very process of communicatively attributing decisions to decision-makers serves to generate hierarchies and particular structures within organizations (Luhmann, 2006: 67, 137). This points to a highly relevant aspect concerning the participation of digital tools and algorithms in the decision process. As surveys have shown, these tools are increasingly used in public relations practice (e.g. Zerfass et al., 2016) in areas such as media monitoring, text editing, and content distribution. But how exactly do they partake in decision-making, what role do they play in organizational communication as a whole, and what does that mean for organizational hierarchies? These are currently some of the most discussed topics in the field (Baecker, 2011; Blaschke, 2015; Esposito, 2017; Luhmann, 1997: 303 ff.; see also the contributions in Blaschke and Schoeneborn, 2017; Brummans, 2018). Indeed, there is a lively debate about which basic terms and definitions should be used to address important questions concerning the participation of such digital entities. On the proposed decision-based approach to public relations, we would attempt to explain the inclusion of such digital entities again from a strictly communication-based perspective.
The temporal dimension of meaning: Public relations decisions as handling the past and the future in a specific way
Every decision can always be seen as an operation in time. This holds true for public relations decisions as well as for decisions in general. By constantly producing anchorage points for future decisions, they serve to reduce uncertainty – at least temporarily. In this regard, Luhmann (2004, 2006: 183ff.) refers to the work of sociologists Herbert A. Simon and James March, among others . In some detail, he further discusses how decisions relate to time, and his thoughts on this temporal dimension of decisions can be seen as one of the most interesting aspects of the approach (Luhmann, 1995: 296–297; Luhmann, 2006, Chapter 5).
For organizations, as for any other system, the past is gone and the future is yet to come. When we refer to decisions, however, this is no longer strictly the case. Deciding means treating the past in a flexible way by giving it the form of alternatives, insofar as the present decision-making operation creates or reconstructs relevant options out of a past, which are not pre-given. In the case of public relations, the set of options refers to those that have proved adequate in terms of goal-orientation toward public perception. Yet, there is no fixed or pre-established way in which alternative possibilities have to be constructed. The set of alternatives might also be seen differently by different observers at different moments in time, as discussed above. At this point, memory needs to be mentioned: it processes which alternatives are remembered and re-contextualized and which are not.
In addition, when decisions are made, the future is transformed into a relatively fixed state. It is converted into scenarios, goals, or objectives that indicate a state of affairs that is seen different from the expected natural course of things. This process depends on the way in which the relevant alternatives have been constructed and on the kinds of expectations and visions projected on to the future.
Decisions, therefore, imply a very special way of dealing with time. It is through their introduction of time into time (i.e. of the distinction between past and future into the present, which is, in turn, the distinction between past and future) that the reflexive form of decisions in a temporal sense becomes evident (Luhmann, 2006: 154–158). To return to our earlier example from public relations practice, the decision to publish a press release on a critical issue invokes the past by referring to alternative options that recontextualize the past in a certain way (publishing it, not publishing it, publishing it later, holding a press conference instead, announcing the news on Twitter, and so on). At the same time, it refers to the future by indicating certain goals that are to be achieved through it or through the implied assumption that it will be published in journalistic media. All this is concentrated in the present operation or the moment of decision. It becomes evident that such processes – the gradual interlinking of decisions – cannot be predicted. From one decision to another, complexity therefore changes its form, but it does not lose its general characteristics.
To sum up, if a communicative event is considered a public relations decision, this implies the following.
The assumption that there are/were factual alternative options
In the case of public relations, these options are communicatively linked to a strategic intention regarding public perception. The range of public relations options is not predetermined and seems to have expanded in the last years.
The attribution of the decision to a ‘decision-maker’
This might be a public relations manager or any other address – or maybe a digital entity as well. A particular risk-taking on behalf of that entity is implied. In addition, these attributions build and support hierarchies in organizations.
The assumption that it involves a special relation to the past and future
Public relations decisions transform the past by referring to a (collective, organizational, etc.) memory in making up public relations options. Simultaneously, they bring the future into a fixed state of plans and goals while acknowledging there cannot be any certainty.
Conclusion: Public relations as a decision-based social practice
By building on communication in the form of decisions, the proposed approach allows for a more detailed understanding of public relations as a social or cultural practice. It considers complexity not as a problem or challenge but rather as the foundation for the idea of decisions. The communicative practice of ‘making’ public relations decisions can be explored regarding their factual, social, and temporal dimensions of meaning. In all these dimensions, the variety of observation points needs to be taken into account. Although the approach may seem very abstract in some ways, it leads to lines of inquiry that are particularly promising:
We may, for example, ask what kind of decision options are getting linked to public relations and if the number and variety of these options have notably changed.
By empirically focusing on decision practices, we may analyze particular public relations decision premises that are currently referred to in organizations.
We may further ask how the role of digital tools can be conceptualized. How can we understand their involvement in the ‘making’ of public relations decisions?
These considerations indicate where some further investigation is required. Empirical research on public relations decision practices might, for example, find a great deal of inspiration in ethnographic studies on public relations and organizational communication. It may also be invigorated by research in the CCO and the strategy as practice tradition (Blaschke and Schoeneborn, 2017; Golsorkhi et al., 2015). There is, therefore, a growing stock of research that is broadly compatible with systems theory, and that could be drawn upon when further analyzing the practice of public relations decisions.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This article is based on the presentation at the ICA Preconference ‘Theories in Public Relations: Reflections and Future Directions’, 24 May 2018, Prague.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
