Paradigm lost? A historical review of the application of systems theory to public relations since 1975

Abstract

This study traces the formative application of systems theory to public relations and its consideration as a promising paradigm framework for the field, through a rich array of critical perspectives, and more recent analyses that examine public relations as a social phenomenon. The principles of grounded theory are applied to the selection and assessment of a representative sample of academic literature published between 1975 and 2016. A categorization framework emerges from the thematic analysis of the data that re-evaluates the historical application of systems theory. Two main insights emerge from the study. First, even in cases where a specific systems theory is not directly invoked, systems concepts are evident throughout the data of this period. Second, although systems theory has been applied extensively in the analyses of the organization, and more lately in the analyses of the impacts of public relations on the social world as a whole, analysis of the individual as a system actor as a central unit of analysis was not apparent in the data. Accordingly, a reflection on the individual as a system actor is undertaken, along with an updated visual model of the public relations system. Concluding remarks summarize the case for the ongoing relevance of systems theory to public relations research, practice, and education.

Keywords

General systems theory metatheory paradigm systems theory

Introduction

The search for a meta-theory for public relations was one notable theme in scholarship of the late 20th century. Many researchers believed that such a theory would form the foundation of a shared ‘paradigm’ for the field, establishing a framework for ongoing theory development and giving credibility to a young academic discipline (Botan and Hazelton, 1989; Greenwood, 2010).

James E. Grunig was among the first to apply a systems model to public relations and used systems concepts as a catalyst for developing the four models of communication (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). In particular, several key concepts from systems theory – open systems, holism, interdependence and moving equilibrium – were specifically acknowledged as fundamental presuppositions of the two-way symmetrical communication model (Grunig, 1989: 38). Very rapidly following its introduction, ‘the concept of symmetry established itself as the dominant paradigm of public relations, gaining considerable attention, research, and publication’ (Brown, 2010: 277). It has also been acknowledged to have had a consequential influence on how public relations has been practised (Brown, 2010; Gregory, 2000). In turn, symmetrical communication became an important characteristic of Grunig’s ‘excellence theory’ of public relations, which ultimately took hold as the dominant theoretical model. Thereafter, the direct application of systems theory to public relations gradually faded to the background of the research landscape (Greenwood, 2010; Sallot et al., 2007).

Against the backdrop of the widespread popularity of symmetrical communication and excellence theory, Ron Pearson (1990) examined public relations researchers’ interest in systems theory as a meta-theoretical paradigm. He argued that the profession faced ‘a profound choice’ (Pearson, 1990: 220) that could lead in two different directions: a predisposition towards ‘strategic values’ would lead to systems analysis that ‘entrenched organizational self-interest’ (p. 232) and an emphasis on persuasive monologue, whereas a predisposition towards ‘ethical values’ would encourage an appreciation of the interdependence of system actors, and a shift to ‘communicative and collaborative decision-making processes and the role it might play in mediating tensions among interdependent social systems’ (p. 232). A decade later, Anne Gregory (2000: 206) argued that leading public relations texts at that time ‘do not do justice to the richness of system theory’. Gregory instead suggested that the concept of ‘adaptive systems’ (Buckley, 1967), as well as newer approaches – autopoiesis (self-referential systems), organizational ecology, actor-network theory (ANT), and chaos/complexity theory – had significantly more applicability to the study of contemporary public relations. More recently, there is evidence of researchers exploring still other ideas, such as Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory (Holmström, 2007; Merten, 2004), Habermas’ concept of the public sphere (Raupp, 2004) and a range of social theory.

Although interest in systems theory as a research paradigm has not regained its former prominence, the resilience and versatility of systems approaches are still in evidence and of interest to researchers. A contemporary re-assessment provides the opportunity to document and critically reflect on the historical application of systems theory to public relations, and to reconsider systems theory’s ongoing value for researchers and practitioners.

Review of literature

Paradigm struggles in practice and theory development

To appreciate the context in which systems theory was first applied to public relations, a brief discussion of the perceptions of public relations in the United States prior to the 1970s is pertinent. From the early part of the 20th century through the 1960s, public relations practice grew significantly in sophistication and influence. Practitioners were often perceived as shallow communicators, working against the public interest in pursuit of organizational goals (Cutlip et al., 1985). The work of professionals such as Edward Bernays portrayed the public relations counsellor as a persuasive communicator whose goal was ‘engineering the consent’ of an unsuspecting public. This legacy continued to cast a large shadow across the profession for many years. As Priscilla Murphy (1991: 119) reflects, ‘such a paradigm now looks both ethically untenable and ineffective, as the public [had] learned to receive this type of PR effort with suspicion’.

By the late 1950s, a growing concern from within the profession had resulted in calls for increased professionalism in the face of a ‘deterioration in public confidence’ (Bateman, 1958: 17). However, as Marvin Olasky (1989: 90) observes, many mainstream practitioners in fact rebelled against attempts to improve the perception of their profession, arguing that a time when public relations had become more powerful and profitable ‘was no time to get self-critical’. This sensibility was captured concisely by public relations counsellor Andrew Lazarus, who in 1963 proclaimed that the goal of practitioners should be ‘to make money – for their management, their clients, and themselves’ (Lazarus, in Olasky, 1989: 91). This debate continued through the pages of Public Relations Journal for some years, but effectively subsided: Olasky refers to this as the ‘aborted debate’ within public relations.

Olasky interprets the significance of this through the concept of the paradigm, as introduced by Thomas Kuhn (1962) in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Through a paradigm, researchers in that field understand the major problems and dynamics of their area of study. A paradigm can be very beneficial, as it documents a set of ‘presuppositions and frameworks to organize data’ (Olasky, 1989: 92), encapsulates a worldview about the given subject area and provides a structure for ongoing research. However, scholars will ultimately uncover new issues, problems or anomalies that call the paradigm into question; as new ideas gather momentum, they divide opinion in the field and can result in a ‘paradigm shift’, which in turn may lead to the establishment of an alternative paradigm. Kuhn suggests that knowledge in a given field of inquiry evolves through paradigmatic phases.

The notion of a paradigm is more typically applied to theories developed in scientific fields; however, Olasky argues that Kuhn’s concept explains the state of affairs in public relations at that time. The perception of the field as an organization-centric practice focused on corporate goals had effectively become the dominant paradigm, or worldview, within the profession. Practitioners who saw inadequacies in this paradigm argued for change, but their ideas did not gain sufficient momentum to create a shift. The image of the unscrupulous organizational communicator continued to be an underlying concern as academic interest in public relations began to expand in the 1970s.

The search for a paradigm was also a consistent theme in early public relations scholarship (Botan and Hazelton, 1989; Greenwood, 2010; Leeper, 2001; Pavlik, 1987). Many researchers believed this would establish a common framework for ongoing theory development within what was then a very young academic field and provide a body of knowledge that would assist the work of practitioners (Botan and Hazelton, 1989), thereby helping to improve the image of the profession.

Numerous theories were proposed, as evidenced in the ‘Public Relations Paradigm’ special issue featured in Public Relations Review in 1993. Systems theory was the first model to be considered as a paradigm for public relations (Pavlik, 1987) and greatly influenced Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) four models of communication, as well as symmetrical communication/excellence theory (Grunig et al., 1992). Inter-organizational relationships (Ferguson, 1984), communitarianism (Leeper, 2001), complexity theory (Gower, 2006), dialogic theory (Kent and Taylor, 2002) and evolutionary theory (Greenwood, 2010) have also been considered – among others – as an overarching field theory. Of these, Grunig’s symmetrical/excellence theory has arguably had the greatest impact on theory development (Botan, 1993; Pasadeos et al., 2010; Sallot et al., 2007).

The introduction of systems theory to public relations

Researchers who have documented systems theory’s impact on public relations commonly refer to natural scientist Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s (1968) general systems theory as the initial influence. Von Bertalanffy (1972: 414) was well aware that there were ‘many “system” problems asking for “theory”’ (emphasis in original) and suggested that the term ‘general systems theory’ should be interpreted broadly by researchers in other fields. Kenneth Boulding (1956: 208) also supported the application of general systems theory to a wide variety of disciplines outside the natural sciences, noting its ability ‘to provide a framework or structure of systems on which to hang the flesh and blood of particular disciplines and particular subject matters in an orderly and coherent corpus of knowledge’. Both Boulding and Von Bertalanffy saw the potential for systems theory to be helpful to the social sciences. Von Bertalanffy (1968: 195) understood a social system to be just as real as any other type of system, whether biological or mechanical, and that ‘social science is the science of social systems’. The strength of general systems theory, noted Boulding (1966: 199), was its ability to assist researchers ‘by developing a framework of general theory [that would] enable one specialist to catch relevant communications from others’.

Theorists studying management and organizational science were early adopters of systems theory. Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn (1966) had popularized the notion of the organization as an open system characterized by input–output exchanges with the external environment. Russell Ackoff (1971), as well as Fremont Kast and James Rosenzweig (1972), also considered a systems approach to be of particular interest for management scientists studying organizations as systems. Cristina Mele et al. (2010: 128) summarize the perspectives of management science, which view organizations as ‘socio-technical systems . . . comprised of a social component (people) and a technical component (technology and machines)’ (brackets in original). ‘Systems thinking’ – as a general term referring to the application of principles inherent in any type of systems analysis – continues to be used in organizational studies to this day.

The application of general systems theory by organizational theorists led naturally to an interest from public relations researchers. John Pavlik (1987) summarized how public relations researchers had begun to apply Von Bertalanffy’s ideas. Pavlik (1987: 126) observed social systems as being ‘open systems’ wherein organizations are interdependent with other system actors and the environment at large. To adapt to activity within this open system, organizations engage in research and information gathering (system inputs) and communications activities (system outputs). In this way, public relations – recognized as an important subsystem within the organizational system – ‘plays a key role in the adaptive behaviour of an organization’ (Pavlik, 1987: 127).

James E. Grunig (1975: 100) built upon the work of theorists who had applied systems theory to the study of organizations by developing a ‘multi-system theory’ of organizational communication, which he described as ‘the behaviour of individuals within organizations, and of organizations within an environment’. In particular, Grunig focused on the role of professional communicators, those who ‘mediate between subsystems, or between the organization and external systems’ (p. 101). Grunig saw public relations as part of the management subsystem of an organization, and characterized the mediating responsibility of communicators as a ‘boundary role’ existing between the organization and external stakeholders (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).

The four models of communication (Grunig and Hunt, 1984) – press agent/publicity, public information, two-way asymmetrical communication and two-way symmetrical communication – described not only different forms of communication but reflected a historical arc of the increasing professionalism of public relations practice. Lee Thayer’s (1972) concepts of synchronic and diachronic communication influenced Grunig’s distinction between asymmetrical and symmetrical communication. Several core ideas derived from systems theory – specifically, open system, interdependence, holism and moving equilibrium – are among those acknowledged by Grunig (2009) to be ‘pre-suppositions’ of symmetrical communications. In turn, symmetrical communication itself became an important characteristic of ‘excellence theory’: the result of a multi-year study funded by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation.

Despite the influence and continuing popularity of excellence theory – sometimes referred to as the ‘Grunigian paradigm’ (Dühring, 2015) – Grunig has received criticism for the way he applied systems theory: in particular, for misinterpreting key systems concepts (Pieczka, 1996), promoting an idealistic approach to ethical practice and privileging organizational interests. This dynamic between the concern for practitioner-organizational interests versus the interests of other system stakeholders lies at the nexus of an ongoing paradigm struggle within the discipline (Dühring, 2015; L’Etang, 2005; Pieczka, 1996; Sallot et al., 2007).

Research problem, methodology and methods

Research problem

Many different types of theory contributed to the understanding of public relations leading into the 1970s – communication theory, organizational theory, psychology and others – and systems theory had a significant impact. General systems theory served as an important catalyst for the work of J. E. Grunig, who in turn greatly influenced how many scholars applied systems theory with a focus on developing public relations practice for the better part of two decades. Critical approaches eventually established a foothold on the research imagination and challenged this organization-centric perspective.

Today, we appreciate that organizations operate in a multi-layered social system made up of many participants that interact and are in relationship with other system participants by means of communication technology and processes. This social system has become increasingly complex given the degree to which many organizations now operate internationally, the massive growth of communication systems and networks, and the prevalence of social media as a creator and enabler of fluid communities of interest.

However, the direct application of systems theory to public relations appears to have been somewhat muted since the popularity of Grunig’s (system-influenced) excellence theory took hold of the research imagination in the early 1990s, and competing meta-theories. To understand whether, and to what degree, systems theory has continued to be applied by public relations researchers, and uncover what patterns and relevant connections might yet be of theoretical value to the field, a review of a representative sample of public relations literature between 1975 and 2016 is proposed.

Methodology

The principles of grounded theory (GT) have been applied to systematic analysis and thematic interpretation of a sample of texts. Different schools of thought exist concerning when and how GT should be applied. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967) originally developed the methodology as a reaction against the reliance on quantitative approaches for sociological research, and the tendency for qualitative research to employ methods that lacked sufficient rigour. Adherents of ‘classic’ GT eschew applications that stray from the core principles of the method. On the contrary, Kathy Charmaz (2009: 9) observes that the guidelines for GT represent a ‘set of principles and practices, not as prescriptions or packages’ and suggests that GT is applicable to many different types of inquiries. Judith Holton (2018: 239) observes that the popularity of applying GT has resulted in methodological confusion, and a blurring of the distinction between classic GT and a ‘general inductive method’. As an example, Holton (2018: 237) points out that researchers applying GT techniques may ignore the core principle of ‘theory emerging from data’, because the focus of the study is assumed by the researcher’s prior interest. Instead, Holton suggests that systematic approaches of applying the principles of GT instead be referred to more generally as ‘grounded theorizing’ – a term that accurately characterizes the methodology employed in this study.

Joost Wolfswinkel et al. (2011: 1) point out that selection of relevant literature is a critical exercise, yet many researchers ‘do not offer clarity about how and why they obtained their specific sample of literature’. They contend that the principles of GT are very applicable to conducting a rigorous review of literature and ‘extracting the full theoretical value out of a well-chosen set of studies’ (Wolfswinkel et al., 2011: 2). Accordingly, research methods used in this study were designed to minimize the potential for data selection bias on the part of the researcher, and encourage a systematic, objective approach to selecting and analyzing the data.

Methods

This study follows Wolfswinkel et al.’s five-step process for applying the principles of GT to a transparent and systematic selection of literature, as outlined in Supplemental Appendix 1. Analysis of the literature was then done by means of thematic analysis as described by Jennifer Attride-Stirling (2001: 387), which is designed to uncover salient themes ‘in a text at different levels, and thematic networks aim to facilitate the structuring and depiction of these themes’. A description of the steps involved in this method is presented in Supplemental Appendix 2.

The research population is defined as peer-reviewed texts focused on the direct application or critique of some form of systems theory applied to public relations, or a consideration of public relations with respect to social systems. Journals that focus primarily on subjects of interests to professional communicators have been excluded, since the editorial approach of such publications is generally more commercial than academic in nature.

A wide-ranging search was undertaken to achieve broad, international perspective and to avoid reflecting only the dominant ideas within the field. A pool of 140 articles was identified for potential consideration. Through numerous close readings, a final sample of 30 texts was selected (Supplemental Appendix 3). The final sample does not propose to represent a comprehensive list of all possible articles that could have been included; rather, it endeavours to be broadly representative of the theoretical landscape. Texts were deconstructed though numerous close readings with a goal of uncovering the global themes in each text. Analysis, comparisons and conclusions are based on a consideration of these themes as derived from the data, rather than presentation and interpretation of detailed arguments presented by the authors of each text.

Thematic analysis

The approach to analysis in this study is ‘thematic’; that is, the focus is on uncovering and understanding general themes represented in the data, and what can we learn when reflecting about the interrelationships of these themes. As described above, the study does not claim to have identified all relevant examples literature that might have been included; instead, a representative sample has been constructed that emphasize the breadth and variety of ways systems theory has been applied or considered. In addition, thematic analysis does not attempt to present a detailed critique of researchers’ arguments or assess the respective merit of any particular theory. The goal is to uncover potential patterns in the data, and then assess what may be learned from such patterns.

Analysis suggests evidence of three broad but distinct ‘thematic categories’ that depict how systems theory has been applied to the study of public relations. Each category is distinguishable by a common theoretical approach and a set of underlying themes. For purposes of this study, the three categories are identified as ‘organization-centric’, ‘critical reflection’ and ‘sociological turn’.

For purposes of thematic analysis, each text is placed into one category, on the basis of common themes. These decisions were arrived at through a systematic approach to textual analysis, involving close readings, text deconstruction and re-construction into significant and recurrent themes. However, the process of placing data into categories is a subjective one – some of the data are not easily limited to one category, might be considered a better fit within a different category or perhaps defy categorization.

Analysis and insights that follow represent a condensed version of a more comprehensive analysis (Hiscock, 2017).

Category I: Organization-centric

Key themes: organizations as open systems, communication subsystems, the environment, public relations functions and process relationships, symmetrical communication and excellence theory.

Themes from the organization-centric category are complementary to ideas evident in management and organizational science. Systems theory is presented as an effective metaphor for understanding business and organizations (Ackoff, 1971; Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Kast and Rosenzweig, 1971; Katz and Kahn, 1966). In the early 1970s, public relations was considered to be an organizational endeavour: practitioners are identified as those working in the communication departments of organizations or as external consultants in public relations or communications agencies. It is not surprising, therefore, that when public relations researchers began to directly apply systems theory, their perspective was informed by its close connection with organizational theory. Characteristics of theory development in this phase demonstrate a variety of common themes: organizations as open systems interacting with an environment (Bell and Bell, 1976), a communications subsystem reporting to a management subsystem (Grunig, 1975), public relations as an intermediary system between the organization and its stakeholders (Hazelton, 1991) and the consideration of an external social system often referred to simply as ‘the environment’ (Grunig, 1975; Pavlik, 1987).

A focus on relationships is also prominent throughout this period. Grunig (1975) observed the usefulness of general systems theory as a means for organizations to manage environmental relationships. Mary Ferguson (1984) has been given credit for galvanizing interest in inter-organizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. A discussion of relationships also figures prominently in the work of other researchers of this phase (Cutlip et al., 1985; Hazelton, 1991; Pavlik, 1987). Glen Broom et al. (1997) explicitly note that systems theory is fundamentally concerned with, and helps understand, organization–public relationships.

Researchers also found value in applying systems theory in a discussion of functional process. Thomas Bivins’ (1992) ‘systems model of ethical decision-making’ and Vincent Hazelton’s (1991) ‘public relations process model’ are notable examples.

Although Von Bertalanffy’s general systems theory is acknowledged as the primary influence on early public relations theory development, references in the literature are less specific, with researchers using the more general terms ‘systems theory’ and ‘systems’. Bivins (1992) is the only researcher within this category who acknowledges the potential relevance of a different systems model, specifically, Walter Buckley’s (1967) model of ‘complex adaptive systems’.

Overall, the impression of the data in this phase is a consistent, if general, application of systems theory: organizations are systems, and public relations is the organizational subsystem with responsibility in managing communication within and outside the organization. Systems theory’s value is its emphasis on relationships, process and structure. Communication subsystems process inputs received from other systems within the organization and the external environment, and engage in information transfer (communication) within and outside the organization. Outcomes of public relations activities are assessed by their ability to help an organization reach strategic or operational goals; implicitly, the organization is situated at the centre of the public relations system.

Category II: Critical reflection

Key themes: critiques of how systems theory had been applied, critiques of symmetry/excellence theory, consideration of systems models, power imbalances through public relations practice and increased consideration of the social world.

This category reflects a variety of theoretical approaches that, as a group, call for a re-evaluation of the organization-centric paradigm. A common thematic link is evidenced not so much by specific theoretical ideas but by a common theoretical purpose, specifically, a critical review of the presuppositions of earlier representations of systems theory. Theorists in this phase addressed a world of far greater complexity than had been presented by earlier researchers, and as a result, they were able to identify weaknesses in the early applications of systems theory. The narrow perspective of public relations as simply ‘managing communications between an organization and its publics’ is judged to be incomplete.

Ron Pearson’s (1990) work is particularly worthy of note. Pearson was among the first to undertake a thorough and objective re-evaluation of how systems theory had been applied to that point. He saw the application of systems theory to that date as leading in one of two different directions, depending on the perspective applied to the analysis. Prioritizing strategic values would lead to narrow, functionalist interpretations of public relations, whereas prioritizing ethical values would lead to an appreciation for the interdependencies between system participants. This distinction succinctly captures the underlying tension in public relations theory and practice, that is, a focus on organizational goals versus an appreciation of the organization’s impact on the system as a whole. Pearson felt earlier that theorists applying systems theory had generally overlooked the applicability of Walter Buckley’s (1967) theory of complex adaptive systems, an approach more suited to social analysis where ‘decision-making is seen as the exemplar . . . of the general selective process occurring in every adaptive system’ (Buckley, in Pearson, 1990: 231). Decision-making in a social system depends on communication, and Pearson draws a connection between Buckley and Habermas, and the latter’s focus on communicative processes in the public sphere.

Pearson’s analysis can be viewed as a point of critical juncture, in that it was one of the early views offering a thorough critique of functionalist interpretations of systems theory. In addition, his consideration of social theory presaged the work of later researchers.

Magda Pieczka (1996) was more direct in her critique of symmetrical/excellence theory. She conceded that systems theory was more evident in Grunig’s work than that of other theorists, but observed that he interpreted and applied important systems concepts incorrectly. This, to Pieczka, resulted in a watering-down of system analysis and ambiguity as to what type of systems model was being applied. Pieczka (1996: 356) also observed that Grunig’s notion of excellent public relations, while put forward as a theory, had evolved into something closer to professional discourse.

Roy Leeper (2001) diverts our attention away from the traditional public relations’ focus on organization–public relationships; instead, he proposed community as the central concept of study (‘communitarianism’), for it is in community that he believed societal values are rooted. Although Pamela Creedon (1993) sees value in the systems metaphor, she argues that it omits a consideration of the feminine voice and uncritically accepts gendered norms.

Timothy Coombs (1993: 116) described how systems-influenced rationales did not address power imbalances, which are generally weighted in favour of corporations. Coombs (1993: 112) suggests that one reason for this is the reliance by researchers on the pluralist assumption that ‘all parties have equal access to and equal power in the policy making process’. By overestimating the ability of individuals to organize into groups as a means of modulating organizational influence, theorists applying systems theory were able, in effect, to shield public relations from criticisms related to power imbalances.

Robert Brown (2011) argued that the epistemological assumptions of the ‘systems/symmetry’ approach made it inadequate to explain public relations, suggesting that it offered an immensely rational approach that is too simplistic to be able to deal with the complexity of the modern world. Derina Holtzhausen’s (2002: 256) postmodern analysis rejects altogether the assumption of a rational practitioner in pursuit of rational goals, and the ‘excellence’ focus, as examples of ‘meta-narratives that drown out other, equally valid, discourses in public relations research’.

Anne Gregory (2000) comments on the value in applying systems theory but argues that early theorists opted incorrectly to apply the biologic system model as a literal interpretation of Von Bertalanffy. Gregory instead suggests Walter Buckley’s (1967) model of complex adaptive systems as a better choice – echoing Pearson and Bivins – considering it much more relevant to an analysis of social systems (Gregory, 2000: 268). Gregory also points to a number of newer systems-related ideas as offering potential for analysis, specifically, autopoietic (self-referential) systems, organizational ecology, chaos/complexity theory and ANT.

Whereas theorists had used systems theory as part of an attempt to develop a single ‘unifying theory’ for the field, Robert Heath (2006) observed that systems theory alone does not provide enough of a societal perspective. As an alternative, by adding the perspectives of social exchange theory (with its emphasis on effective relationships) and rhetorical theory (communications aimed to create shared realities) alongside systems insights, Heath (2006: 96) developed a more encompassing theory of a ‘fully functioning society’. Similarly, Elizabeth Toth (1992) sought to augment systems theory by a consideration of rhetorical and critical theory. Ulrike Röttger and Joachim Preusse (2013) apply systems theory to a model of external consulting. Although this interpretation is functionalist in nature, it goes beyond a focus on the organization. They contend that consultants must maintain a reflective distance – a ‘second-order view’ of the client’s perspective – to be able to advise the organization strategically.

Category III: Sociological turn

Key themes: society as the unit of analysis, systems-wide effects of public relations, power imbalances, the public sphere and application of social theory.

The texts in this category turn away from the search for a paradigm and towards the application a wide range of social theory. The major theme connecting literature in this phase is the assumption that public relations is a social activity and should be understood in relation to its context in society (Ihlen and Verhoeven, 2012: 323). The organizational viewpoint is no longer privileged compared to other stakeholders or publics. Communication plays an important role in the social system, but it is interpreted as a characteristic of that system, not solely (or more narrowly) as an aspect of strategic public relations practice.

The social system as a whole, including actors at all levels, becomes the unit of analysis. Public relations is conceptualized as a communicative force that impacts, and is impacted by, the social world in a recursive relationship. Øyvind Ihlen and Betteke Van Ruler (2009) note that public relations research has been an isolated discipline, too closely aligned to the social institutions it analyzes. The application of social theory provides the opportunity to look beyond the ‘micro’ and ‘meso’ perspectives of practitioner and organization, and bring the ‘macro’, or societal, view into play. This is explored through deeper consideration of a wide range of social theories, such as Habermas’ public sphere (Leitch and Neilsen, 2001; Raupp, 2004), Luhmann’s analysis of communication in complex social systems (Holmström, 2007), Giddens’ structuration theory (Witmer, 2006) and Bourdieu (Edwards, 2011).

Lee Edwards (2011: 73) discusses public relations through Bourdieu’s framework of fields, capital and symbolic power, describing how Bourdieu’s ideas provide us with a ‘radical socio-cultural view of PR’ in which the practice and society recursively reproduce each other. Through Bourdieu, the effects of public relations can be examined at the individual level, the organizational level, within public relations as an occupational field and in terms of overall social hierarchy.

Juliana Raupp (2004) argued for the relevance of Habermas’ ideas, where effective participation is a reflection of rational communication in the ‘public sphere’, a concept, according to Raupp (2004: 309), that had ‘not yet consistently been adopted as the starting point for public relations theory’. Lee Edwards (2016: 67) undertakes an analysis of how public relations can be viewed through the lens of deliberative systems theory, and ‘how deliberation unfolds across society’, from small-scale deliberations to debates in the public sphere. Public relations can have positive and/or negative impacts on deliberative systems based on the degree to which it encourages dialogue or engages in persuasion.

Klaus Merten (2004) argued that the communications (mass media) system is the most relevant of societal subsystems as it takes place at all levels of the system – from micro (individuals), to meso (organization/group), to macro (societal). The media system constructs layers of mediation between individuals and their direct experience of social phenomena. The power of public relations practice derives from its focus on the communication of fictional realities through the media subsystem. Suzanne Holmström (2007) analyzes public relations through the lens of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory, wherein social systems are conceived of as systems of communication, and social structures are the result of decision-making within the system. Society is not hierarchical, but poly-contextual; all system perspectives are variable and contingent. Reflection is presented as a capacity that allows the individual and the organization to appreciate perspectives of other system participants.

As noted earlier, Gregory (2000: 270) identified ANT as one of the newer theoretical perspectives that ‘have relevance to the practice of modern-day public relations’. Piet Verhoeven’s (2009) interpretation of Latour represents a thorough treatment of the subject, though few researchers appear to have applied ANT to public relations in detail.¹ The lack of direct interest in ANT by researchers and practitioners is not surprising, given the nature and complexity of Latour’s ideas. As an example, ANT’s appreciation of non-human actants problematizes traditional definitions of ‘publics’, as understood by practitioners. ANT rejects the notion of humans and nature as distinct entities; non-humans exist with humans within a sociology of associations. All actants are accorded a form of agency in their interactions, or ‘associations’, with each other. (Non-human actants are not ascribed to be sentient; rather, they are conceived to display a form of agency in relation to their associations with human actants.) ANT is clearly not systems theory, nor does it conceive of a traditional social system. Its relevance to this study is precisely because it extends our traditional conception of the social system, ‘actors’ and their inter-relationship.

Observations and analysis

Ongoing relevance of systems theory

Underlying many of the texts studied is the clear recognition of the presence of a social system. Much of the data do not directly discuss or mention systems theory, nor claim to be undertaking a ‘system’ analysis. Nonetheless, we can observe in most of the data a common purpose in attempting to confront the nature of public relations with respect to the social world: a world in which there are individual actors/practitioners, organizations, publics and other groups characterized by varying degrees of durable form, communities and larger societal aggregations. In many of the texts, researchers provide a general description of the social hierarchy as it relates to the public relations system. A selection of these distinctions is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptions of system hierarchies (selected).

Researcher	Focus of analysis	Social units of increasing size and complexity
Grunig (1975)	Organization subsystems	Functional subsystems	Organizations and publics	‘The environment’
Broom et al. (1997)	Relationships	Interpersonal	Organizations and publics	Social systems
Ferguson (1984)	Relationships	Organization	Publics	‘The environment’
Pearson (1990)	Strategic and ethical values	Micro domain (individual, family, community)	Meso domain (political systems)	Macro domain (mankind)
Hazelton (1991)	Communications process	Micro (organizational subsystems)	Organization	Macro (environmental suprasystem)
Creedon (1993)	Organization	Infrasystem (individuals and organizations)	Subsystems (in the organization)	Suprasystems (economic, technical, political)
Merten (2004)	Communication systems	Individual communications	Organizational and group communication	Societal communications
Raupp (2004)	Social system	Public (all individuals)	Publics (groups of persons in the environment)	Public sphere
Ihlen and Van Ruler (2009)	Social system	Micro-level (individuals)	Meso-level (organizations)	Macro-level (society)
Edwards (2016)	Deliberative systems	Campaign level (micro)	Issue level (macro)	System level (public sphere)

Terms used in these depictions differ: organization-centric (traditional) perspectives refer to organizations, publics and some type of external environment, whereas in texts of the other two categories, the descriptions are more varied. A popular description of system hierarchy makes use of ‘micro/meso/macro’ distinctions. These general terms are used flexibly, and researchers who use them define them in different ways. Generally speaking, a collection of system actors is implied in the data: a social hierarchy of smaller units leading to larger social structure.

The models offered by Luhmann and Latour are distinctive exceptions in this regard. Although considered to be a systems theorist, Luhmann views the social world as systems of communication and decision-making; societal structures, such as organizations, are not durable structures, but result from the outcome of decisions by social actors. Latour, as mentioned, provides an entirely new conception of ‘the social’. The challenging nature of Luhmann’s and Latour’s ideas make them problematic to transfer to the world of the practitioner.

However, the data implicitly or explicitly acknowledge concepts (and/or conditions) that are generally part of any definition of a system: actors or interactants (participants in the system), the concepts of relationship and interdependence, structure or form that manifests through system interaction (though not necessarily resulting in a discernable hierarchy), communications and/or information transfer (inputs/outputs), and agency and decision-making. These attributes are fundamental building-block concepts used in any description of a system and, as such, are inherently available to any researcher thinking through or applying systems ideas to public relations.

Applying the principles of ANT allows us to appreciate the subtle presence of systems concepts as an underlying conceptual influence² that connects the themes observed in each category. A community of researchers can be considered to be a distinct community, or network. It is reasonable to assume that most of the researchers whose texts are included as data in this study would be aware of each other’s work, and therefore have potentially influenced each other to some degree. In ANT terminology, we can identify this set of associations as a ‘black box’, which refers to a collection of actants, both human (in the current example, researchers) and non-human (published research). The black box serves as a construct to analyze the associations between these actants.

Building on Latour’s model, Christopher Hartt (2013) identifies a sub-group of non-human actants that he refers to as a ‘non-corporeal actant’. Hartt (2013: 19) defines this term to include ‘values, beliefs, concepts, and ideas which have no physical entity (corpus) but interact with other human or non-human actors/actants of the network’. As it relates to this study, we can identify the principles and core concepts of systems as non-corporeal actants. By examining the associations of researchers, literature samples and core concepts (as attempted in this study), it is possible to clarify and make sense of these associations. The result is not a linear history of public relations theory development, but an alternative way of making sense of a history of ideas. A core insight gleaned from this analysis is the presence of systems concepts throughout the data, even though they are not always presented or named in the same way and even when they are not explicitly invoked.

Collectively, researchers whose work forms the data set of this inquiry have identified various aspects of the social system as their primary unit of analysis. Examples are organizations as systems and systems of organizational communication (Grunig, 1975, 1984; Hazelton, 1991), organization–public relationships (Ferguson, 1984), relationships (Broom et al., 1997), power in relationships (Edwards, 2011; Heath et al., 2011), publics (Leitch and Nielsen, 2001), community (Leeper, 2001), communication systems (Merten, 2004), public sphere (Raupp, 2004) and the social system (Holmström, 2007; Ihlen and Van Ruler, 2009).

Many of the researchers comment on the practitioner as an ‘individual’, though few focus in depth on the individual as a central unit of inquiry in the context of a systems analysis.³ Broom et al. (1997), drawing on research from interpersonal communication theory, note that social relationships must be defined in terms of the individual’s viewpoint, yet they argue the organization–public relationship should be the central unit of study for public relations. Leeper (2001: 97) suggests that community should be viewed as the central unit of analysis in public relations, asserting that while the individual may be considered as ‘prior to association . . . the individual is not prior to community; community is seen as necessary to the development of the individual’. In both these examples, the individual is explicitly acknowledged, but not considered as the central unit of analysis. In traditional public relations, organizations are described as communicating with publics in order to influence the adoption of certain behaviours – the implication being that ‘organizations’ can communicate and ‘publics’ can receive and process information. However, the individual is the basic meaning-making and decision-making unit in society; in Pieczka’s (1996: 350) words, ‘it is the human being that acts as the information-processing unity, and therefore the whole process has to take account of human sense-making strategies’. Organizational communication, action and cultural dynamics are therefore not simply a function of the organization as such, but of the collective actions of individuals making up those organizations, which we then interpret as organizational behaviours. Furthermore, Pearson (1990) notes that ethics in public relations exists at the micro level – the level of the individual – and manifests in the decision-making activities of individuals when they engage in rational discussion with other system members. Systems-influenced research has under-theorized the individual as a systems actor due to the presupposition of public relations as an inter-organizational phenomenon. The focus of researchers applying social theory to public relations is analysis at the system level as a whole. Both of those perspectives are important and required: since interdependency is not only a feature of all systems, we must also appreciate and value insights from each level of any system. However, this study suggests that there is value in systems-influenced research that focuses on the individual practitioner as the central unit of analysis.

Towards a consideration of the individual as system actor

A preliminary discussion and analysis of the individual within a systems context is undertaken in the following section. I suggest that effective systems thinking is influenced by the ability of the individual to adopt multiple perspectives and factor this into their decision-making. I further propose that systems thinking is fundamentally ethical in nature, given its focus on the concept of interdependence. Finally, I develop a conceptual model as a heuristic designed to reinforce these points.

Perspective is a term used frequently in the public relations literature. With respect to the individual practitioner, three separate but related meanings are particularly relevant:

Communication: perspective as an expressed opinion, or point of view.

Relational: how things appear when viewed from a particular position or vantage point within a system – an individual’s worldview.

Interpersonal: the ability to perceive and reflect on self and other within a system.

The importance of perspectives to public relations is evident in other ideas within the field, as depicted in Table 2.

Table 2.

System perspectives.

Wolter and Miles (1983)	The ‘I’ force. Modern PR. Right/wrong assessed against own view. Focused on narrow goals of the individual.		The ‘We’ force. Postmodern PR. Acknowledges self and others. Public relations should benefit the public.
Culbertson (1984)	‘Breadth of perspective’: ‘variety of responses one calls to mind before tackling a problem’ (p. 3) Inclined to take views of others into account Appreciates ramifications/arguments for viewpoints opposed to own (reflection) *Awareness that more than one conclusion can be valid . . .

PR: public relations.

Louis Wolter and Stephen Miles (1983) articulated the ideas of ‘I-force’ and ‘We-force’ in relation to public relations practice. They describe the ‘I-force’ as a characteristic of modern (traditional) public relations, or the expression of the practitioner’s point of view and pursuit of strategic requirements on behalf of the organization. In contrast, the ‘We-force’ reflects a postmodern interpretation of public relations that recognizes interdependence as the driving force of the profession, and of the social world in general. Practitioners, organizations and society are interdependent. Pearson (1990: 222) interprets Wolter and Miles’ idea as one that balances strategic and ethical concerns, in that ‘no entity exists except in relationship with other individuals as part of a whole’ (p. 222).

Hugh Culbertson (1984) identifies breadth of perspective as a critical competency for public relations practitioners: the term refers to the ability of an actor to call to mind numerous responses to any given problem before deciding on their own course of action. Practitioners as individuals must take into account other perspectives and assess the ramifications of many different scenarios. Displaying breadth of perspective is important because ‘conflicting perspectives often are found to be at the heart of public relations issues’ (Culbertson, 1984: 9). Individuals capable of systems thinking have the capacity for a more focused understanding of interconnectedness and interdependence. In this way, practitioners are encouraged to engage in ‘a more thorough exploration of the obligations and options inherent in ethical decision-making’ (Bivins, 1992: 381).

Albert Sullivan (1965) identified the tension in public relations practice as a tension between partisan values and mutual values (Pearson, 1989: 58).⁴ Partisan values are central to the relationship between practitioners and the organizations they represent. These are reflected in loyalty and commitment to the organizational perspective: the practitioner serves an organization and is willing to champion, fight for and defend the organization’s interests (Sullivan, 1965: 419). Mutual values, on the contrary, recognize the rights of other individuals, and Sullivan (1965: 427) believes that practitioners must recognize this ‘on the level of personal responsibility’. Mutual values ‘take into account the viewpoints, interests and rights of others’ (Pearson, 1990: 57) – in other words, mutual values and the cultivation of breadth of perspective are interrelated. Sullivan observes that ethical challenges in public relations exist where partisan and mutual values intersect: decision-making must be balanced by a consideration of mutual values along with partisan values.

The ability to see this point is encouraged through systems thinking and a deliberate intention to take the perspectives of others into account. Table 3 brings together the ideas of various researchers discussed in this section to demonstrate the connection between these concepts.

Table 3.

Mapping perspectives to values in the public relations system.

System actor(s) and perspective	Individual	Individual plus organization	Individual plus organization plus other system actors
‘Modern v Postmodern PR’ (Wolter and Miles, 1983)	‘I-force’ (Independence)		‘We-force’ (Interdependence)
Value orientation (Sullivan, 1965)	Partisan values (Practitioner and organization share a focus on organizational interests)		Mutual values (Interests, viewpoints and rights of others in the system are considered)
Systems theory influence (Pearson, 1990)	Strategic values		Ethical values
Public relations practice

PR: public relations.

The public relations system, re-considered

An updated model of the public relations system is presented in Figure 1. The model acknowledges the role of the individual as a system actor and reflects the application system thinking to a consideration of interrelationships of actors in the public relations system.

Figure 1.

Public relations systems model.

‘Individuals’ refers to organizational leaders, public relations practitioners and members of any organization materially engaged in public relations activities. Leaders influence organizational decision-making as a whole, including communication strategies and tactics. Perhaps most importantly, leaders are role models in organizations and set the tone for corporate culture, values and norms of behaviour. Practitioners are directly involved in strategy and execution of communication campaigns, and must be attuned to stakeholders and other influences outside and inside the organization. Practitioners operate at the nexus of internal and external forces, and should be expected to present a balanced synthesis of these perspectives to leaders.

To distinguish system levels, the terms ‘micro’, ‘meso’ and ‘macro’ are employed – terms used by both Pearson (1990) and Ihlen (2009) – as neutral identifiers that refer to a hierarchy of increasing scale and complexity. The individual is introduced as a distinct system actor at the centre of the system, and the fundamental building block of organizations, communities and society. Ihlen also situates the individual at the micro level, as does Pearson.

The micro-level model represents those collective entities that are most likely to engage in public relations activities. Corporate interests are differentiated from organizations, since public relations activities refer to the wide variety of other entities that may employ public relations but whose collective worldview may be much different, for example, charitable foundations, universities, government departments, institutes, activist organizations and associations.

Communities and publics are distinguished from each other and situated at the meso level. Both include individuals organized (formally or loosely) around shared interests, and often have some identifiable physical form. The word ‘publics’ is employed as a broad term to encompass not only aggregations of consumers but also groups of individuals who find shared interests in cultural activities, social or political causes and leisure pursuits. These can also be thought of as forms of community.

The macro level in systems analysis is often referred to by a general term like the ‘environment’ or ‘society’: the term ‘public and digital sphere’ is used to describe this level. Individuals do indeed experience a sense of belonging and societal connection through participation in communication being transacted within the social system. However, our understanding of the public sphere has effectively been redefined by the increasing intervention of mediating technologies; social discourse, public discussion and debate increasingly take place via digital and social media.

Conclusion

Tracing the influence of systems theory in a sample of academic literature of the past 40 years demonstrates its ongoing relevance to public relations. The tension in systems analysis – between strategic and ethical values (Pearson, 1990) – remains; however, the continued application of systems concepts has matured significantly, resulting in a more diverse and balanced landscape of organizational and system-wide perspectives.

As a meta-theoretical framework, systems theory offers a conceptual unifier that encourages researchers to value this dynamic tension: to appreciate, for example, functionalist approaches as complementary, instead of competitive, with sociological perspectives. For practitioners, the principles of systems theory may provide a more integrated rationale to support corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and policies rooted in ethical action, acknowledging that organizational health and sustainability depends upon ecological, financial and natural systems in which organizations operate. In general, activating a system ‘lens’ encourages a more holistic appreciation of public relations theory development, a more integrated approach to research and practice, and the prospect of developing theory that integrates insights from social, critical and functional perspectives. In doing so, it does not replace, but complements, a wide range of public relations theory – thereby serving as an enduring root metaphor for many ideas relevant to the field.

As presented in this study, system thinking is considered a fundamentally ethical orientation. This realization has implications for a study of public relations ethics and practice generally, or in conjunction with discussions of CSR, as one example. The system concept is a flexible and accessible tool through which to discuss many practical, real-life situations. It can be employed by practitioners as a rhetorical device (or framework) to encourage organizational reflection and enlightened perspective-taking, and thereby influence the development of strategies that genuinely seek to balance individual, organizational, communal and societal benefits.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental – Supplemental material for Paradigm lost? A historical review of the application of systems theory to public relations since 1975

Supplemental material, Supplemental for Paradigm lost? A historical review of the application of systems theory to public relations since 1975 by Robert Hiscock in Public Relations Inquiry

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Appendix_3_revised_Aug24 – Supplemental material for Paradigm lost? A historical review of the application of systems theory to public relations since 1975

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Appendix_3_revised_Aug24 for Paradigm lost? A historical review of the application of systems theory to public relations since 1975 by Robert Hiscock in Public Relations Inquiry

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Robert Hiscock

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biography

Robert Hiscock serves as the director of Marketing and Communications at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada. His professional experience includes marketing communications and public relations consulting, as well as senior organizational roles in post-secondary education, insurance and telecommunications sectors. During his career, he has also held sessional appointments as a lecturer in undergraduate and graduate courses in marketing, advertising and communications at Dalhousie University, Saint Mary’s University and Mount Allison University. He holds a BA (English) from Western University, an MBA from Dalhousie University and a Master of Arts (Communication) from Mount Saint Vincent University. His research interests include public relations history, theory development, and ethics.

References

Ackoff

(1971) Towards a system of systems concepts. Management Science 17(11): 661–671.

Attride-Stirling

(2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1(3): 385–405.

Bateman

(1958) A new moral dimension for communication. Public Relations Journal 14: 16–17.

Bell

(1976) Public relations: Functional or functionary? Public Relations Review 2(2): 47–57.

Bivins

(1992) A systems model for ethical decision making in public relations. Public Relations Review 18(4): 363–383.

Botan

(1993) Introduction to the paradigm struggle in public relations. Public Relations Review 19(2): 107–211.

Botan

Hazelton

(1989) Public Relations Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

Boulding

(1956) General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197–208.

Broom

Casey

Ritchey

(1997) Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2): 83–98.

10.

Brown

(2010) Symmetry and its critics: Antecedents, prospects, and implications for symmetry in a post-symmetry era. In: Heath

(ed.) The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 277–292.

11.

Brown

(2011) Epistemological modesty: Critical reflections on public relations thought. Public Relations Inquiry 1(1): 89–105.

12.

Buckley

(1967) Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Burrell

Morgan

(1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. New York: Routledge.

14.

Charmaz

(2009) Constructing Ground Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Coombs

(1993) Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist paradigm. Public Relations Review 19(2): 111–119.

16.

Creedon

(1993) Acknowledging the infrasystem: A critical feminist analysis of systems theory. Public Relations Review 19(2): 157–166.

17.

Culbertson

(1984) Breadth of perspective: An important concept for public relations. Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL, 5–8 August. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED247578

18.

Cutlip

Center

Broom

(1985) Effective Public Relations. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

19.

Dühring

(2015) Lost in translation? On the disciplinary status of public relations. Public Relations Inquiry 4(1): 5–23.

20.

Edwards

(2011) Public relations and society: A Bourdieuvian perspective. In: Edwards

Hodges

(eds) Public Relations, Society and Culture. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 61–74.

21.

Edwards

(2016) The role of public relations in deliberative systems. Journal of Communication 66(2016): 60–81.

22.

Ferguson

(1984) Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL, 5–8 August, 1984.

23.

Flynn

(2014) Do they have what it takes? A review of the literature on knowledge, competencies, and skills necessary for twenty-first century public relations practitioners in Canada. Canadian Journal of Communication 39(3): 361–384.

24.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

25.

Gower

(2006) Public relations research at the crossroads. Journal of Public Relations Research 18(2): 177–190.

26.

Greenwood

(2010) Evolutionary theory: The missing link for conceptualizing public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 22(4): 456–476.

27.

Gregory

(2000) Systems theories and public relations practice. Journal of Communication Management 4(3): 266–277.

28.

Grunig

(1975) A multi-systems theory of organizational communication. Communications Research 2(2): 99–136.

29.

Grunig

(1989) Ch 2: Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In: Botan

Hazelton

(eds) Public Relations Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, pp. 17–44.

30.

Grunig

Hunt

(1984) Managing Public Relations. New York: CBS College Publishing.

31.

Grunig

Dozier

Ehling

, et al. (eds) (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

32.

Hartt

(2013) Actants without actors: Poly-dimensional discussion of a regional conference. Journal of Critical Organization Inquiry 11(3): 15–25.

33.

Hazelton

(1991) Toward a systems theory of public relations. In: Avenarius , et al. (eds) Ist Public Relations eine Wissenschaft? Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH, pp. 33–45.

34.

Heath

(2006) Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research 18(2): 93–114.

35.

Heath

Motion

Leitch

(2011) Power and public relations: Paradoxes and programmatic thoughts. Available at: http://www.instituteforpr.org/power-and-pr

36.

Hiscock

(2017) Paradigm Lost (And Found): A Historiographical Review of the Application of Systems Theory to Public Relations since 1975. Master’s thesis, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada. Available at: http://ec.msvu.ca:8080/xmlui/handle/10587/1832

37.

Holmström

(2007) Niklas Luhmann: Contingency, risk, trust and reflection. Public Relations Review 33: 255–262.

38.

Holtzhausen

(2002) Toward a postmodern research agenda for public relation. Public Relations Review 28(3): 251–264.

39.

Holton

(2018) From grounded theory to grounded theorizing in qualitative research. In: Cassell

Cunliffe

Grady

(eds). Sage Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods. London: Sage, pp: 233–250.

40.

Ihlen

Van Ruler

(2009) Applying social theory to public relations. In: Ihlen

Van Ruler

Fredriksson

(eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1–20.

41.

Ihlen

Verhoeven

(2012) A public relations identity for the 2010s. Public Relations Inquiry 1(2): 159–176.

42.

Kast

Rosenzweig

(1972) General systems theory: Applications for organization and management. Academy of Management Journal 15(4): 447–465.

43.

Katz

Khan

(1966) The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

44.

Kent

Taylor

(2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 28(2002): 21–37.

45.

Kuhn

(1962) The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

46.

Leeper

(2001) In search of a metatheory for public relations: An argument for commmunitarianism. In: Heath

(ed.) The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 93–104.

47.

Leitch

Neilsen

(2001) Bringing public into public relations. In: Heath

(ed.) The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 127–138.

48.

L’Etang

(2005) Critical public relations: Some reflections. Public Relations Review 31: 521–526.

49.

Mele

Pels

Polese

(2010) A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications. Service Science 2(1–2): 126–135.

50.

Merten

(2004) A constructivist approach to public relations. In: Vercic

Van Ruler

(eds) Public Relations and Communications Management in Europe: A Nation-by-nation Introduction to Public Relations Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–54.

51.

Murphy

(1991) The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. Public Relations Research Annual 3(1–4): 115–131.

52.

Olasky

(1989) The aborted debate within public relations: An approach through Kuhn’s paradigm. Public Relations Research Annual 1: 87–95.

53.

Pasadeos

Berger

Renfro

(2010) Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research 22(2): 136–158.

54.

Pavlik

(1987) Public Relations: What Research Tells Us. Beverly Hills: Sage.

55.

Pearson

(1989) Albert J. Sullivan’s theory of public relations ethics. Public Relations Review 15(2): 52–62.

56.

Pearson

(1990) Ethical values or strategic values? The two faces of systems theory in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 2: 219–234.

57.

Pieczka

(1996) Paradigms, systems theory, and public relations. In: L’Etang

Pieczka

(eds) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, pp. 265–278.

58.

Raupp

(2004) The public sphere as a central concept of public relations. In: Vercic

Van Ruler

(eds) Public Relations and Communications Management in Europe: A Nation-by-Nation Introduction to Public Relations Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.311–316.

59.

Röttger

Preusse

(2013) External consulting in strategic communication: Functions and roles within systems theory. International Journal of Strategic Communication 7(2): 99–117.

60.

Sallot

Lyon

Acosta-Alzuru

, et al. (2007) From aardvark to zebra redux: An analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals into the twenty-first century. In: Hanson-Horn

Neff

(eds) Public Relations: From Theory to Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 343–387.

61.

Somerville

(1999) Agency versus identity: Actor-network theory meets public relations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4(1): 6–13.

62.

Sullivan

(1965) Values in public relations. In: Lerbinger

Sullivan

(eds) Information, Influence, and Communication: A Reader in Public Relations. New York: Basic Books, pp. 412–439.

63.

Toth

(1992) The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorial, critical, and systems perspectives. In: Toth

Heath

(eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, pp. 315–320.

64.

Thayer

(1972) Communications systems. In: Laszlo

(ed.) The Relevance of General System Theory. New York: George Braziller, pp. 1–12.

65.

Verhoeven

(2009) On Latour: Actor-network theory (ANT) and public relations. In: Ihlen

Van Ruler

Fredriksson

(eds) Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 166–186.

66.

Von Bertalanffy

(1968) General Systems Theory. New York: George Braziller.

67.

Von Bertalanffy

(1972) The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal 15(4): 407–426.

68.

Witmer

(2006) Overcoming systems and culture boundaries: Public relations from a structuration perspective. In: Botan

Hazelton

(eds) Public Relations Theory II. Mahwah: NJ, pp. 361–374.

69.

Wolfswinkel

Furtmueller

Wilderom

(2011) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems 22(1): 1–11.

70.

Wolter

Miles

(1983) Toward public relations theory. Public Relations Journal 39(3): 13–16.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB

0.34 MB