Understanding Australian multiculturalism in public relations practice through a social justice lens

Australian multiculturalism

Furthermore, these omissions of multiculturalism from key domains of PR knowledge production are troubling when viewed against the extensive scholarship (Moran, 2017; Jakubowicz and Ho, 2013; Lopez, 2000) detailing, since the 1970s, how multiculturalism as a concept and policy has significantly shaped and influenced Australia’s social, cultural and political landscape. As several scholars (O’Regan, 1994; Moran, 2017; Munshi, 1999) noted, issues of cultural difference, national identity and the contested relationship between immigrants and Indigenous Australians were a key part of the political and cultural agenda in Australia during the 1980s and 1990s. The paucity of PR scholarship on multiculturalism during this period suggests that the Australian PR discipline was largely absent from these broader interdisciplinary debates on cultural diversity, identity and difference (Castles et al., 1992; Hage, 1998), taking place at that time. This absence may also reflect the insularity of the Australian PR discipline, which has been critiqued for producing a narrow body of scholarship that does not engage with other disciplines (Hatherell and Bartlett, 2005). As a result, the communicative context of multiculturalism is an underexplored dimension in both Australian PR (Macnamara, 2004: 323) and the broader interdisciplinary scholarship on multiculturalism (Mansouri et al., 2017: 8).

In contrast to the Australian context, there is a much larger and broader body of US scholarship examining the implications of multiculturalism for PR theory and practice. From the 1990s onwards, multiculturalism was explored across various strands of US PR scholarship, including theory (Banks, 1995, 2000), practice (Sheng, 1995; Mundy, 2015; Martinez, 2007), education (Kern-Foxworth, 1989; Sriramesh, 2003; Pompper, 2005). US PR scholar Krishnamurthy Sriramesh (2003), was one of the earliest voices in the PR discipline to call for the ‘dire need’ for multiculturalism in PR education. Echoing Sriramesh, US PR scholar Stephen Banks (2000: ix) observed that mainstream PR scholarship and practice has paid very little attention to multiculturalism and the ‘predicaments of culturally diverse populations.’ As Banks (2000, p. 4) noted, the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Research Foundation’s influential ‘Excellence Project’ (Grunig et al., 1992) did not contain any reference or acknowledgement of multiculturalism, in either theory or practice. While it has been almost 20 years since Banks made these astute observations, his critique of the paucity of PR scholarship on multiculturalism is still relevant and applicable to contemporary Australian PR discipline.

Several scholars, working outside the US context, have also critiqued the tendency of the PR discipline towards analysing multiculturalism through the framework of the ‘other’ (Munshi and McKie, 2001; Edwards, 2011; Munshi, 1999). Debashish Munshi and David McKie (2001: 16) argued that multiculturalism was generally represented in PR textbooks in ‘demarcated’ sections with an emphasis on the ‘the need to communicate effectively with selected ‘other’ groups such as Latinos, African-Americans and Asians without acknowledging how the power to set the communication agenda remains in Western hands.’ As a result of what Munshi (1999: 40) called the ‘dominant managerial framework,’ CALD communities have effectively become ‘othered’ and defined as the objects of communicative practice rather than active subjects in their own rights.

On the whole, Australian PR scholars have tended to ignore the discursive complexities of multiculturalism addressed by these critical PR scholars (Munshi and McKie, 2001; Edwards, 2011; Munshi, 1999). This lack of engagement with the broader critical scholarship is reflected by PR scholars relying on governmental policy statements to define multiculturalism (Sison, 2010), or resorting to broad descriptive generalisations, such as: ‘Australianness has become increasingly synonymous with multiculturalism’ (Wolf, 2016: 74). As a result, the dominance of such prescriptive and descriptive modes of analysis has meant that Australian PR scholars have yet to interrogate multiculturalism fully as an ideological concept, contested discourse and politicised practice.

The emphasis in Australian PR scholarship on global comparative approaches (Sison, 2010; Ravenna, 2005) to multiculturalism, which focuses on the communications activities of large corporations (Macnamara, 2004) has also meant that there has been little critical analysis within a local context. For example, both Sison (2010) and Ravenna (2005) emphasised global PR practice as the key driver for increasing awareness of multiculturalism in PR practice. Such framings of multiculturalism within a global context are limiting because they construct a binary where multiculturalism is always situated as ‘over there’ rather than ‘right here.’ As Sriramesh (2012: 11) observed, such binaries create a ghettoising effect where critical discussions of multiculturalism are framed exclusively within the realm of ‘global PR.’ One result of this global focus is that there has, to date, been little attention paid to PR’s role in the construction and representation of multiculturalism within a local Australian context. However, it is important to note that in taking this perspective, I am not suggesting that researchers should ignore the increasingly complex intersections between the global and local, or the growing diasporic nature of multicultural communities (Sison, 2017). Instead, Australian PR scholars must start examining the local context of these intersections and recognise that the homogenising effects of globalisation can often take place alongside the increasing diversification and fragmentation of local communities (Banks, 2000: 104).

In the following section, I present the findings from a small-scale exploratory study that addresses this gap in the scholarship by focusing on how multiculturalism is understood within the localised context of PR practice in Victoria, Australia. In doing so, this paper investigates one particular blind spot in Australian PR: the attention to the social justice dimensions of multiculturalism.

(1) PR practitioners working in the Victorian Government

The first group of participants recruited were practitioners who worked in communication roles in the Victorian government sector, which included both state and local levels. These participants were selected because of their communications expertise and experience and were either currently working in the government sector in Victoria or had done so in the past 2 years. As a result of the recruitment activities, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 12 PR practitioners working in communication roles in the Victorian government sector.

PR practitioners working in the multicultural sector

The second group of participants were practitioners who worked in communications roles in the multicultural sector, or who had done so in the past 2 years. These participants were selected because they were involved in developing communication campaigns that target CALD communities and worked with these communities as stakeholders. For this study, the ‘multicultural sector’ was defined broadly to include any type of community-based organisation that provided direct services to CALD communities or advocated on their behalf to different levels of government. As a result of the recruitment activities, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of five participants working in communication roles in multicultural community organisations in Victoria. The range of organisations included a metropolitan-based community health organisation, a multicultural organisation that provided services and advocated on behalf of young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds and a regional multicultural community service organisation.

CALD stakeholders

This third group of participants were CALD stakeholders who were involved in representing their communities in a formal stakeholder/representative capacity with either a Victorian government or multicultural community organisation. This included being a member of a multicultural advisory committee or community stakeholder panel. These participants played a significant role in providing communications advice and assistance to the Victorian government or multicultural community organisations. Although these stakeholders were not communications practitioners, they were often asked to play a communicative role by providing initial feedback to government organisations on communications campaigns and materials. As such, these participants have specialised experience and knowledge in both multiculturalism and public sector communicative practices. The recruitment activities resulted in interviews with a total of eight CALD community stakeholders who were from a mix of cultural backgrounds and regional and metropolitan areas. Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Research Participants by Sector, Gender and Organisation Type.

Participant	Sector	Gender	Organisation type
1	Public sector	Male	Local government
2	Public sector	Male	Local government
3	Public sector	Female	Local government
4	Public sector	Female	Local government
5	Public sector	Female	State government
6	Public sector	Female	State government
7	Public sector	Female	Local government
8	Public sector	Male	Local government
9	Public sector	Female	Local government
10	Public sector	Male	Local government
11	Public sector	Female	State government
12	Public sector	Female	Local government
13	Multicultural sector	Male	Multicultural community health organisation
14	Multicultural sector	Female	Multicultural youth organisation
15	Multicultural sector	Female	Multicultural community health organisation for women
16	Multicultural sector	Female	Multicultural community services organisation
17	Multicultural sector	Female	Multicultural community organisation
18	CALD stakeholder	Female	Regional multicultural advisory body
19	CALD stakeholder	Female	Local government multicultural advisory body
20	CALD stakeholder	Female	Multicultural community organisation
21	CALD stakeholder	Female	Local government multicultural advisory organisation
22	CALD stakeholder	Male	State government multicultural advisory organisation
23	CALD stakeholder	Male	Local and state government multicultural advisory organisation
24	CALD stakeholder	Female	Multicultural community organisation
25	CALD stakeholder	Female	Local government multicultural advisory organisation

Locating the research in the state of Victoria and the public sector context

This study focused on the state of Victoria because it is the most culturally diverse state in Australia and one of the highest proportions of overseas-born people who come from non-main English-speaking countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). As well as a culturally diverse population, multiculturalism has a strong social, political and cultural history in Victoria (Koleth, 2010; Lentini et al., 2009). Indeed, Victoria is considered by many scholars (Lentini et al., 2009: 14) to be at the forefront of the development and strengthening of multicultural policies often in the face of increasing federal hostility. In 2004, the Victorian government enshrined the principles of multiculturalism in law with the establishment of Multicultural Victoria Act (2004), which is also supported by a range of other legislation including the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (Vic), the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006) (Vic) (Koleth, 2010: 20). More recently, the Victorian government (2017) reiterated its support for multiculturalism with the release of a new Multiculturalism Policy Statement, Victorian. And proud of it. As a result of these factors, multiculturalism is a concept and policy that is strongly embedded within the fabric of Victorian law, culture and society.

The centrality of multiculturalism as a policy within the Victorian public sector is evidenced by the Victorian government’s Multicultural Communication Policy 2011; State Government of Victoria (2011), which placed an obligation on PR practitioners to include communication with CALD communities in any Victorian government-funded campaigns. The Multicultural Communication Policy 2011; State Government of Victoria (2011) stated that government departments and agencies must spend a minimum of five per cent of their communications campaign expenditure on multicultural media. In 2019, this standalone policy was incorporated into the Victorian Government Advertising and Government Communications Guidelines under the subsection Communicating with Multicultural Victorians. The same existing obligations of the five per cent media spend carried over.

Within this context, multiculturalism as a Victorian Government policy has a direct impact on PR practitioners working in the public sector. Thus, for public sector practitioners the capacity to engage with CALD communities and understand multicultural communication practices is a relevant and increasingly important part of their PR practice. As such, PR practitioners’ understandings of multiculturalism, and how this translates into effective practice, can have broader societal impacts. The ability of CALD communities to access government-funded services and programs is often dependent on access to information. As well as these access and equity issues, public sector PR can also affect the government’s ability to implement culturally inclusive policies and programs. Thus, public sector PR practice, therefore, offers a critical local site for exploring and analysing the role of PR as a society and relationship function.

Locating the public relations researcher as an ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’

In qualitative research, several scholars (Daymon and Holloway 2010; Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Liamputtong 2009) argued that reflexivity is critical because the researcher is the actual ‘instrument’ of data collection and analysis. As Stuart Hall (1990, p. 222) noted: ‘We all write and speak from a particular place and time, from a history and a culture which is specific.’ Hall’s comments suggest that reflexivity may thus require researchers to not only situate themselves in their own research but also constantly interrogate the very position(s) from which they speak and write from.

What, then, are the particular positions from which I am speaking and writing? In addressing this question, I will reflect on how the personal and professional interweave to critically shape and influence this study. This research came about through my own experiences as a PR practitioner working in the Victorian government and community sectors. During my time as a practitioner, I was struck by how ill-prepared my graduate-level public relations education was in terms of providing me with the knowledge and skills to work in multicultural environments. Upon reflection, it was clear that multiculturalism and multicultural communications were critical dimensions missing from my post-graduate Australian PR education. In the absence of any PR industry education, I found myself drawing on my academic background in cultural studies as well as my own lived experiences as a first-generation Asian-Australian migrant to make sense of multicultural communications as a field of practice.

My professional identity as a practitioner also plays a critical role in shaping and influencing the position from which I write and speak. Conducting qualitative research into one’s own industry, as well as being supported by that industry via a scholarship, raises what I suggest are a set of challenging epistemological questions around positionality: Are you an insider looking out, or an outsider looking in? Can you inhabit both positions? This inside/outside dynamic is further complicated by the ongoing tensions and debates about the relationship between PR research and practice. As Vardeman-Winter (2014, p. 103) observed, PR researchers have ‘loyalties to two often-conflicting groups: to the publics we hope the information will lend some empowering insight, and to the practitioners, who need to conduct business with strategy and efficiency.’ During the process of conducting this research, I came to recognise that these ‘loyalties’ often placed the PR researcher in the fraught epistemological position of being both an insider and outsider within the PR industry.

Adopting a qualitative methodology through thematic analysis

A qualitative research methodology, using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), was adopted in this study because it allowed for an inductive exploration of the underlying values and beliefs embedded within participants’ perspectives of multiculturalism. Another sound basis for selecting a qualitative methodology is to respond to the current gap in PR scholarship of interpretive research that explores practitioners’ understandings and subjective experiences of public relations (Hodges, 2006; Daymon and Holloway, 2010). Within the context of Australia, there has also been a paucity of research to date examining how PR practitioners understand the concept and policy settings of multiculturalism and apply it in their PR practice.

A combination of convenience, purposeful and snowball sampling (Liamputtong, 2009: 11) was used to recruit participants because the researcher resides in Victoria and has worked as a PR practitioner in Victoria. Liamputtong (2009: 11) defines purposive sampling as the ‘deliberate selection of specific individuals, events or settings because of the crucial information they can provide that cannot be obtained so well through other channels.’ Snowball sampling, on the other hand, is described as the non-random sampling technique where participants are invited to recruit people they know to the study and through these recommendations and referrals, a larger group of participants in the target population is reached (Tenzek, 2017: 1614). The adoption of these sampling techniques reflected the fact that the study’s sample size was not intended to be a representative one.

Scope and limitations

There are two limitations that may be applied to this study: firstly, its single focus on Victoria and the public sector, and secondly, the sample size of 25 participants. The findings of this study may not be generalisable within an international context because of the study’s scope: the Victorian government and multicultural sector and Australian PR practice. The sample size may seem relatively small but this should be weighed against the fact that there was an intensive focus on selecting information-rich participants who have a detailed experience and knowledge of multiculturalism within a communicative context. It should also be noted that another limitation is that this study did not include the private sector/corporate PR practice. While the private sector does engage in communications practices that target CALD communities, these practices are usually focused on the marketing of goods and services. Though the outcomes of this study may have implications for the corporate sector, such as around issues of cultural diversity and voice, I suggest that understanding multicultural communication practices within the corporate sector is a separate area for future research

Having outlined the methodology, the following section outlines the key findings of this study and discusses the implications for Australian PR scholarship, as well as the PR discipline more broadly.

Descriptive understandings: ‘melting-pot’ or ‘mosaic’?

One of the core values underpinning Australian multiculturalism as a policy is the recognition and respect for Australia’s culturally diverse population and society (Ho, 2013: 31). In this study, this value is reflected by the descriptive understandings of multiculturalism that emphasizes its empirical dimensions. For many participants, ‘multiculturalism’ is understood primarily as a descriptive term that reflects the demographic reality of Australia’s culturally diverse population and its immigrant history. For many PR practitioners working in the government sector, multiculturalism is framed within the practical context of understanding the cultural diversity of their audience. As Participant 12, a practitioner working in local government, explained, multiculturalism is ‘about cultural diversity in our community and being aware of the different people in our community.’ There was an interesting contrast between, practitioners working in the government sector tended to describe Australia as a cultural ‘melting pot,’ while CALD stakeholders preferred the metaphor of a ‘cultural mosaic.’ These different views about the most appropriate way to describe the cultural diversity of Australia’s population underscores not only the shifting and contested language of multiculturalism but also its inherently ideological nature. In this light, these participant perspectives are important because they highlight another aspect of multiculturalism that is often elided over in Australian PR scholarship: its discursive dimensions. As such, this study reveals that the terms used by practitioners such as ‘melting pot’ and ‘cultural mosaic’ to describe cultural diversity are not neutral concepts, but instead reflective of normative values about how society should be organised (Lopez, 2000: 446).

Prescriptive policy framework for social cohesion: ‘framework for communities’

The understanding of multiculturalism as a prescriptive framework for strengthening social cohesion was a dominant theme across all three participant groups and underscored its public policy dimensions. The intersection between official multicultural policies and communications practice was expressed through the use of words like ‘integration,’ ‘inclusion’ and ‘social cohesion’ by participants in this study. As Participant 15, a practitioner who worked in the multicultural sector, explained: multiculturalism was ‘about creating a framework for communities from different cultures to maintain an identity and also be able to cohabitate.’ This point of social cohesion is also underscored by Participant 3, a practitioner who worked in the local government sector, who described multiculturalism as being about ‘people from all walks of life integrating and coming together to live cohesively in a community and I guess not be isolated in their own bubbles, as we see in some communities.’ The words used by these practitioners reflect an understanding of multiculturalism as a prescriptive model for social cohesion and as a normative ideal for social harmony (Ho, 2013; Moran and Mallman, 2019).

The descriptive and prescriptive understandings outlined above are also the dominant ways in which PR scholarship has engaged with Australian multiculturalism. As I discussed, Australian PR scholars have often relied on prescriptive government policy statements (Sison, 2010) or broad descriptive generalisations about social cohesion (Wolf, 2016: 74) in their discussions of Australian multiculturalism. In the following section, I examine three understandings in this study that challenge this narrow scope in Australian PR scholarship by presenting a more critical view of multiculturalism as an ideological concept, contested discourse and politicised practice.

Contested and divisive discourse: ‘It’s just become an ‘us and them’’

In contrast to the descriptive and prescriptive understandings, several participants offered a more critical understanding of multiculturalism as a contested and often divisive public discourse. In his interview Participant 2, a practitioner working in local government, drew particular attention to the discursive nature of multiculturalism as a socially constructed term. According to Participant 2, there was a distinction between those who viewed multiculturalism as a divisive policy and those, like himself, who saw it as a ‘force for social cohesion.’ In his comments, Participant two paints a much more complex and contested picture of multiculturalism than apparent in descriptive or prescriptive understandings of the term. Moreover, his comments are interesting because they highlight how multiculturalism is a concept, discourse and practice that can be ‘mobilised’ (Gunew, 1997: 37) by different actors and for varying interests. The participant’s insights are important because they address another critical dimension of multiculturalism that is largely absent from the existing Australian PR scholarship; namely, the understanding of multiculturalism as a socially constructed concept embedded in a highly politicised public discourse (Moran, 2011; Mansouri, 2015). Significantly, this study revealed that many practitioners were alert to these societal tensions and the fraught and politicised nature of the public discourse on multiculturalism. The ideological dimensions of multiculturalism are also reflected in participants’ understanding of multiculturalism as a rights-based framework, which l will now address.

Rights-based framework: ‘The right to your self-actualisation and self-identity’

A key finding of this study is that Australian multiculturalism is principally understood by participants in this study through a social justice lens (Jakubowicz, 1989; Jayasuriya, 1987; Ho, 2013), and via an ethnic rights model (Jayasuriya, 1987). Indeed, a connective theme in this study is the emphasis of participants, particularly CALD stakeholders and practitioners working in the multicultural sector, on the social justice dimensions of Australian multiculturalism. This social justice lens is best summed up by Participant 24, a CALD stakeholder, who stated that multiculturalism is about ‘being accepted like everyone else and having equal opportunities.’ This point was further emphasised by Participant 18, a CALD stakeholder, who stated: that multiculturalism is ‘about the services, the laws, the structures, it’s about representation on power structures, boards and council.’ These two comments suggest that instead of a prescriptive policy, participants understood multiculturalism as a rights-based framework for CALD communities to assert their cultural identities, access services and address social inequalities.

Therefore, despite the shift in contemporary official multicultural policy towards social cohesion (Jakubowicz, 1989; Ho, 2013), this study suggests that social justice forms a strong and deeply embedded value within participants’ understandings of multiculturalism. Underscoring this concept of multiculturalism as a rights-based framework is the distinction that many participants drew between ‘mainstream’ and CALD perspectives. As Participant 17, a practitioner in the multicultural sector, observed: ‘there is a disconnect between policy definitions and objectives of that policy, with, how the community sees itself, and what the community wants for itself.’

Furthermore, Participant 18 pointed out that multiculturalism is about the “right to your self-actualisation and self-identity,” and should be distinguished from “mainstream” views that focus on “integration and tokenism.” Taken together, these participants’ comments are valuable because they point to one problematic aspect of ‘official’ (Stratton, 2017) multiculturalism: its tendency to ignore the actual perspectives and voices of CALD communities. A compelling illustration of this is offered by Participant 22, a CALD stakeholder, who described multiculturalism as ‘something that I’ve always had an aspiration for, it’s almost like a dream, it’s beautiful and to me, it’s everything.’ Further on, he suggested that multiculturalism was not something ‘tokenistic’ but one of the main ‘threads in the fabric’ of Australian society and that ‘multiculturalism is not a minority, we are the majority if you look at the statistics.’ Such comments reveal that multiculturalism plays a central and significant role in both the personal and professional identities of participants. They also suggest that for these participants, multiculturalism is understood as something tangible and concrete; something that has a material impact on their own lives and the lives of the communities they represent or work with.

Practice and sector: Aspiration or reality?

The materiality of multiculturalism is also addressed by participants who drew a sharp distinction between the ideas of multiculturalism as a policy and its real-world application as a practice. As Participant 17, a practitioner working in the multicultural sector, observed, there is a ‘difference between how multiculturalism is defined and understood, to [sic] how it’s practiced.’ Several participants offered critical views of the multicultural sector by highlighting issues around representation, gender and power relations. The gendered nature of the multicultural sector and the lack of a ‘feminist lens’ was addressed by Participant 15, who explained that ‘multicultural organisations or ethno-specifics often tend to not have a feminist lens or gender lens and tend to be led by men.’ Her comments are interesting because they point to not only the gendered relations of power within the multicultural sector but also the precarious position of women within the practice of multiculturalism. These participants’ comments reveal a level of self-reflexivity, as well as empirical knowledge about the complexities of multiculturalism as a practice and sector, that has thus far been a missing dimension in Australian PR scholarship. Their insights are valuable because they expose the complex interplay between people, institutions and structures that give meaning to multiculturalism as both a concept and a practice (Werbner, 2012). Their critiques of multiculturalism are reflective of the broader scholarship (Ho, 2013; Jakubowicz, 1989; Mansouri et al., 2017) around the limitations of the Australian multicultural sector.

In summary, this section has situated these participants’ broad spectrum of understandings of multiculturalism within the broader context of the different phases of Australian multicultural policy. It is significant to note that for many participants multiculturalism has more than one meaning and as a result, there is often a blurring and tension between these five different types of understandings outlined in this paper. One key point of tension revealed in this study is the contrast between participants who understood multiculturalism from a prescriptive perspective and those who viewed multiculturalism, through a social justice lens, as a rights-based framework for CALD communities. The prescriptive understanding focuses on ‘ensuring social cohesion among a diverse population,’ while the rights-based framework focuses on addressing social inequalities in CALD communities (Ho 2013: p. 38). Moreover, what these tensions reveal is that the five different understandings of multiculturalism outlined here do not exist in harmony, but are instead reflective of the competing ideas and values embedded within the “many discourses of multiculturalism” (Moran 2017: p. 269).

In unpacking the underlying ideas and values that are embedded within these divergent understandings of multiculturalism, the findings revealed that participants in this study predominantly understood multiculturalism through a social justice lens as a rights-based framework for CALD communities to assert their cultural identities, access services and address social inequality. In the following section, I consider the implications of understanding multiculturalism through a social justice lens for Australian PR scholarship and practice.