1. Introduction 1 1.

Introduction 2

Abstract

Running Head: 1. INTRODUCTION Public relations is often studied from a managerial, instrumental perspective. However, to

understand its role in building trust or creating mistrust and in developing--or destroying--a

company’s license to operate, public relations also needs to be studied as a social phenomenon.

Chapter 1 With this book, we attempt to broaden the theoretical scope of public relations studies by

Introduction: Applying Social Theory to Public Relations1 applying the work of a group of prominent social theorists. What can be culled from the

Øyvind Ihlen perspectives of these scholars? We suggest that insights can be garnered for public relations

University of Oslo studies at the macro, meso, and micro levels. In other words, social theory can help us to make

& sense of public relations at the societal, organizational, and individual levels. This introductory

Betteke van Ruler chapter locates our project in the scientific landscape of social theory and sociology.

University of Amsterdam

Preprint version of Ihlen, Ø., & van Ruler, B. (2009). Introduction: Applying social theory to

public relations. In Ø. Ihlen, B. van Ruler & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social

theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 1-20). New York: Routledge.
 1. Introduction 3 1. Introduction 4

Contemporary everyday life is influenced by increased complexity, rapid change, globalization, follows, and we collectively set these concepts apart from many of the prevailing theories in the

and the deconstruction of social structures. As a result, corporations and other organizations field. The chapter ends with a presentation of the structure of the book.

today have a greater need to build relationships with their stakeholders and to communicate with How Public Relations Works

them about their aims and behavior. In this interaction, it becomes essential to offer answers to The purpose of research is to build theories to solve the problems that researchers face in

such questions as “Who are we?” “What are our goals?” and “How should we act to reach our a particular domain (Littlejohn, 1995). The core questions for every public relations researcher

goals?” This not only gives public relations new frames of reference, but also gives it a much are how does public relations work and what does it do in, to, and for organizations, publics, or

more prominent position in the management of organizations. Corporations increasingly tend to the public arena, in other words, society as a whole. The answers to these questions depend on

see public relations as a senior management function, and a wider range of organizations have the methodologies that the researcher uses. Here, methodologies are understood as a combination

started to utilize public relations. The public relations consultancy industry is indeed thriving. of deontological principles, schools of theoretical thought, and accompanying methods. Behind

With this boost in the prominence of public relations, we argue that its practice needs to this combination stands the “personal biography of the researcher: he or she approaches the

be understood in relationship to societal (macro), organizational (meso), and individual (micro) world with a set of ideas, a framework (theory, ontology) that specifies a set of questions

properties. Emerging from this, we also argue that there is a need to integrate social theory and (epistemology, analysis)” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, pp. 18-19). In addition, the use of

sociology (we often use the terms interchangeably, although the former may be said to be a methodologies is influenced by social factors, such as the attitudes that prevail in the research

broader term) as dimensions of public relations research. We intend to apply social theory, which collective and among those financing the research.

can be understood as the “effective effort by communities of scholars to make sense of their Whether they are predefined by a particular Weltanschauung (world view) or constructed

social world” (Baran & Davis, 2000, p. 4). by the researcher’s peer group (Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, & Jones, 2003), several scholars

In this introduction, we first discuss the necessity of making the methodological (in its have pointed out that our understandings of phenomena are built on certain underlying

widest sense) roots of research explicit and then argue for pluralistic studies of public relations philosophical assumptions. Although public relations can be seen as a scientific discipline in its

and against intellectual isolationism. We then briefly discuss the current schools of thought in own right, with specialized journals, professional and scholarly associations, and a network of

public relations research and argue that a focus on the societal level has largely been neglected. collaborative relationships (Botan & Taylor, 2004), every public relations researcher has his or

After this, we take a brief look at how public relations has been described in social theory and her own deontological background and disciplinary roots. These provide particular perspectives.

then provide a general overview of the way in which public relations scholars have used it. A Consequently, a researcher’s methodological roots heavily influence his or her perspective on

short discussion of some of the concepts that permeate many of the approaches in this book what public relations is, how it works, and how it should be researched. This is why it is
 1. Introduction 5 1. Introduction 6

important to make these roots explicit. We do not believe that it is possible to rid oneself of theory.

philosophical assumptions and become an “objective” researcher. At most, we can hope to Despite such calls to produce one general theory of public relations, there seems to be

reflect openly about the norms and structures that influence us, check for alternative growing interest among public relations scholars for differentiation in methodology (in the wider

explanations, allow for additional explanatory factors, and be careful not to overstate our sense of the word). Over the past few years, the major U.S. journals in the field, the Journal of

research findings. Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review, have published a growing number of

This book provides an overview of how public relations scholars use social theorists to articles with alternative methodological approaches. The Journal of Public Relations Research

develop research questions about how public relations works and, consequently, construct typical also produced a special issue on alternative paradigms in public relations (2005/1), with the

socially oriented public relations approaches. Contrary to most public relations approaches, a somewhat unfortunate title of “Public Relations from the Margins.” If one adopts a multi-

socially oriented view is not oriented toward management problems, but rather toward the paradigmatic perspective, then one cannot defend the existence of one mainstream and several

relationship that public relations has with the societies in which it is produced and with the social marginal approaches. In such a view, there are only more suitable and less suitable approaches.

systems it co-produces. However, we argue that sociological approaches to public relations can We would like to challenge our readers to review the chapters of this book to determine the

also give meaning to practices at the meso level of organizations and the micro level of suitability of the concepts presented for public relations. You may look for commonalities or

individual practitioners. Thus, many of the contributors to this book also point to some of the differences between the perspectives suggested and existing public relations theories, and you

practical implications of the theoretical insights on offer. are bound to find both. We agree with McKie (2001), who criticized the discipline for its

Perspectives on Public Relations intellectual isolation. This is why we prefer to see the multi-paradigmatic approach as a blessing.

It is obvious that public relations theory can be and, in fact, is rooted in different It provides a rich source of ideas and insights into an elusive area of organizational and social

disciplinary fields, such as mass communications, interpersonal/speech communications, (social) life. As Stacks (2002) opines, “it is wrong to believe that one methodology is better than the

psychology, economics, and sociology, and in different schools of thought, such as other. Each methodology has advantages and disadvantages” (p. 5). We also believe that it can

functionalism, constructivism, feminism, Marxism, or cultural theories. Some may see this as a be seen as a sign of maturity for a discipline to contain different, comparative schools of thought

curse because they may believe that it can lead to confusion about what public relations is or can and to rest on different theoretical foundations (i.e., Botan & Hazelton Jr., 2006). As Szmatka

be. Ledingham (2003), for example, prefers one general theory of public relations--relationship and Lovaglia (1997) stated, a broad range of paradigms and research methods contributes to the

management theory--and sees this as an appropriate framework for its study, teaching, and growth of a knowledge field.

practice. He locates his approach in the fields of management and interpersonal communication Methodologies in Use
 1. Introduction 7 1. Introduction 8

As an area of systematic scholarly inquiry, public relations is a relative newcomer. When communication and consensus building theory, and speech communication and rhetoric,

Grunig and Hickson (1976) took stock of the academic research on public relations, they respectively.

concluded that there was little theory to be found. A similar conclusion was reached by Mary On whether there is one or more prevailing schools of thought in use, Vasquez and Taylor

Ann Ferguson in 1984 (as cited in Sallot et al. [2003]). Sallot et al. (2003) duplicated her (2000) stated: “Many different definitions of public relations have been offered, but it is

research and found that public relations has become a much richer field theoretically than it was generally accepted that public relations is strategic communication between an organization and

in its early days. Botan and Taylor (2004) came to the same conclusion: its publics” (p. 324). Indeed, contemporary public relations theories mainly focus on

Over the last 20 years public relations has evolved into a major area of applied management/the organization as one actor in the public relations process and the publics/target

communication based in research of significant quantity and quality. Public relations has groups/stakeholders/contributors as the other actors. There are some exceptions. Dozier and

become much more than just a corporate communication practice. Rather, it is a Lauzen (2000) argued that public relations should not be obedient to management, but should

theoretically grounded and research based area that has the potential to unify a variety of take a more distant stance. Their basic point was that scholarship should not be too tightly linked

applied communication areas (p. 659). to the social institution it studies, as this leads to a loss of perspective or a preoccupation with

Botan and Hazleton (2006) state in their book Public Relations Theory II that “a leading only one perspective. We argue that the instrumental and administrative approaches that

body of work has developed around Symmetry/Excellence Theory, which has probably done currently prevail must be supplemented with societal approaches that expose what public

more to develop public relations theory and scholarship than any other single school of thought” relations is in society today, rather than only what it should be at the organizational level. Such a

(p. 6). Earlier, Botan and Taylor (2004) argued that the most striking trend in public relations has “warts and all” approach ultimately questions the role of public relations and the sometimes

been the movement from a functionalist to a co-creational perspective, focusing on publics as co- uncritical presentation found in many textbooks that public relations is an ever-evolving and

creators of meaning and emphasizing the building of relationships with all publics. According to positive social force (Duffy, 2000).

Toth (1992), the scholarly field of public relations can be divided into systems, rhetorical, and Stanley Deetz (2001) has written about the so-called dissensus-oriented approaches in

critical approaches. Ruler and Verčič (2005) claimed that most public relations theory can be organizational communication that do not have as one of their chief aims the construction of

placed under the headings of two axes, one defined by communication approaches and the other better practice. Dissensus approaches try to disrupt the prevailing discourse and provide either

by organizational and management approaches. They also identified four models of public “forums for and modes of discussion to aid in the building of more open consensus” or “show

relations--informational, persuasive, relations, and discursive--that are rooted in information the partiality (the incompletion and one-sidedness) of reality and the hidden points of resistance

processing theory/functionalistic mass communication theory, social psychology, interpersonal and complexity” (Deetz, 2001, pp. 26-31). Such a pluralistic perspective attempts to address
 1. Introduction 9 1. Introduction 10

issues of partiality and power, instead of being linked to the social institution it studies through a Media sociologists have focused on the relationship between organizations as sources and

conflation of normative and descriptive perspectives. the media (e.g., Cottle, 2003; Davis, 2002; Schlesinger, 1990). Issues of power and resources and

A non-managerial perspective was also the basis for Olasky’s alternative exposition of the ability to gain favorable media coverage have been the important focus of such research (see

U.S. public relations history, especially in his differentiation between “public” and “private” the chapter on Bourdieu in this volume). However, media relations are but one part of public

relations. Referring to the sociologist Habermas, Olasky (1989) claimed that public relations relations, and public relations as a practice has received remarkably scant attention in the field of

practitioners and academics should approach organizations from a “public” perspective, as they social theory and sociology. Exceptions do of course exist, among which are Boorstin,

are concerned with phenomena of reflectivity (of organizational behavior) and societal Habermas, and Mayhew.

legitimacy. With his landmark book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, Daniel J.

Most public relations theorists, however, are concerned with the relationship between an Boorstin (1962/1992) coined the term “pseudo-event” to describe events that only exist to create

organization and its publics and not so much with the problem of how an organization relates publicity. Boorstin saw the flourishing of such events as marking a shift in American culture:

itself to the public arena and to society at large. Many of the prominent theories in the field have everything was now staged, “packaged,” and scripted for publicity. Looking at the practice of

been developed from (social-) psychological, systems, or rhetorical perspectives of Edward L. Bernays, Boorstin described how a hotel gained publicity by staging a jubilee

communication management, and most perceive a relationship between organizations celebration, rather than making changes to its “product” as such. The question had changed from

(management) and certain individuals or groups of individuals. In most of these approaches, the “is this correct,” to “does this have news value”? The images or illusions created by such

societal level is rather overlooked. Consequently, they are insufficient to cope with societal pseudo-events often bear no relationship to reality. For Boorstin, it was exactly this “menace of

issues or the societal legitimation of organizations. In most sociological approaches, legitimacy unreality” that threatened contemporary society. In other words, Boorstin probably wrote one of

is neither a moral nor an ethical deontological principle, but rather it is related to the empirical the first critical academic accounts of the influence of public relations in society.

issue of what is good and justifiable for (the members of) society. “The legitimacy of an The German thinker Jürgen Habermas also paid some attention to public relations,

organization is a measure of the extent to which the public and the public sphere at a given time although perhaps mostly in passing. Habermas is probably best known for his theory of “the

and place find the organization sensible and morally justifiable” (Munk Nielsen, 2001, p. 19). public sphere” (see the chapter on Habermas in this volume). In brief, the public sphere

This is why sociological approaches to public relations provide many more empirical than constitutes that societal arena in which citizens convene and discuss social problems freely. This

normative theories. public sphere forms a new basis for authority, with a consensus rooted in open-ended, rational,

Public Relations in Social Theory and critical argumentation and debate (Habermas, 1989). In his highly acclaimed book The
 1. Introduction 11 1. Introduction 12

Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, which was originally published in German in see, Habermas revised his originally highly critical point of view concerning public relations and

1962, Habermas denounced public relations for undermining the critical public sphere by understands--to mention one example--lobbyists in their societal function parallel to politicians

cultivating a consensus that is not based on rationality or good arguments, but rather on the or actors of the civil society” (p. 295).

ability to portray oneself as having the public interest in mind while hiding one’s real business Other social theorists, however, have taken up Habermas’ critique, most notably perhaps

intentions: Leon Mayhew (1997). Mayhew too argued that professional communicators such as public

[Public relations] mobilizes for the firm or branch or for an entire system a quasi-political relations practitioners are dominating the public sphere, that they have a grasp of what people

credit, a respect of the kind one displays toward public authority. The resulting believe and want and how they can be manipulated. What is described as “public opinion” is

consensus, of course, does not seriously have much in common with the final unanimity increasingly the result of marketing research that allows professional communicators to push the

wrought by a time-consuming process of mutual enlightenment, for the “general interest” right buttons. This is what he has called The New Public in a book of the same name (see the

on the basis of which alone a rational agreement between publicly competing opinions chapter on Mayhew in this volume).

could freely be reached has disappeared precisely to the extent that the [public relations The negative picture of public relations painted by these theorists has not stopped public

practitioner’s] self-presentations of privileged private interests have adopted it for relations scholars from attempting to use social theory. A few have aimed to extend these

themselves. . . . For the criteria of rationality are completely lacking in a consensus criticisms, but many have also attempted to improve practice with the help of insights from

created by sophisticated opinion-molding services under the aegis of a sham public social theory.

interest (Habermas, 1989, pp. 193-195). Social Theory in Public Relations

The public sphere that is encouraged by public relations is one in which the public is This book is certainly not the first attempt to bring social theories to bear upon public

supposed to fulfill its role by applauding decisions, rather than voicing critiques or engaging in relations. Sociological approaches seem to be relatively frequently used in such countries as

discussion. This public sphere is unfolding in front of the audience, rather than among it, and it Germany, Denmark, and New Zealand, and some U.S. academics have also applied or extended

has become impossible to separate what serves private interests from what serves the public the framework or concepts of social theory. In the U.K., such scholars as L’Etang and Piezcka

interest. Habermas’ accusation is that the goal of the public sphere is no longer debate, but rather have written from the perspective of the sociology of professions (L’Etang, 2004; Pieczka, 2000,

the furthering of special interests. 2002; Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001), but also from critical theory (L’Etang & Pieczka, 1996, 2006).

Apparently, however, he has changed his view somewhat since the original publication of Their publication of Critical Perspectives in Public Relations in 1996 marked a watershed for

the aforementioned book. Bentele and Wehmeier (2007) have commented that: “As far as we can non-instrumental-oriented studies of public relations. The 1992 collection Rhetorical and
 1. Introduction 13 1. Introduction 14

Critical Perspectives on Public Relations also contained essays with a critical bent (Toth & 2004; Ronnebeger & Rühl, 1992). Public relations activities have also been analyzed using

Heath, 1992). Others too have been interested in the related dimension of power (e.g., Berger, Foucault’s discourse theory (e.g., Livesey, 2002; Motion, 1997; Motion & Weaver, 2005) and

2005; Cottle, 2003; Courtright & Smudde, 2007; Edwards, 2006; Plowman, 1998; Weaver, Bourdieu’s field theory (e.g., Edwards, 2006, 2007; Ihlen, 2004, 2005).

Motion, & Roper, 2006). The present volume takes stock of several of these perspectives and approaches to the

Scholars have used a range of perspectives from social theory, for instance, study of public relations and, in the process, deals with such themes and keywords as reflexivity,

postmodernism (e.g., Holtzhausen, 2000, 2002; Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002; McKie & Munshi, legitimacy, power, resources, actor/agency, agent/system, reflectiveness, late modernity,

2007; Mickey, 1997), feminism (e.g., Aldoory, 1998; L. A. Grunig & Hon, 2001; O’Neil, 2003; inequality, subalterness, and social capital, to mention but a few. Of particular importance are the

Toth, 2001), constructivism (e.g., Merten, 2004), communitarianism (e.g., Hallahan, 2004; concepts of publics, the public, and the public sphere, which we dwell on briefly in the following

Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988; Leeper, 2001; Starck & Kruckeberg, 2001), cultural theory (e.g., section to clarify the aim of this book.

Banks, 1995; Leichty, 2003; Leichty & Warner, 2001), critical theory (e.g., Moffitt, 1992), Publics, Public, and the Public Sphere

postcolonial theory (e.g., Dutta-Bergman, 2005; McKie & Munshi, 2007; Munshi & Kurian, The German communications scholar Kückelhaus (1998) described three approaches to

2005), and structuration theory (e.g., Durham, 2005). public relations: product-oriented, marketing-oriented, and societally (sociologically) oriented.

The theorist who has probably received the most attention is Habermas, in particular his As van Ruler (2004) pointed out, product orientation can be likened to a one-way emission

work on the public sphere, but also his discussion of discourse ethics (e.g., Burkart, 2004; model of public relations (called “the publicity model” by J. E. Grunig and Hunt [1984]),

Jensen, 2001; Leeper, 1996; Maier, 2005; Meisenbach, 2005; Olasky, 1989; Pearson, 1989a, whereas a marketing orientation can be equated with Grunig’s asymmetrical two-way model (J.

1989b, 1990). However, public relations scholars have also been accused of misusing Habermas’ E. Grunig, 2001). However, the societal perspective cannot be equated with Grunig’s other

work, as the strategic intention of public relations puts it at odds with the ideals of model, the two-way symmetrical model, because this perspective uses the society as a whole as a

communicative action, of yielding to a better argument that serves the public interest (Benson, unit of analysis and considers its social structure and institutions to be the basis and outcome of

2008, May; Holmström, 1997). Furthermore, it is often argued that the way in which public public relations. This implies that the main interest is not the corporation or organization itself,

relations is actually practiced is a far cry from the Habermasian ideals put forward in textbooks but rather its place in society as a whole (i.e., in the social structure). In this respect, society is

on public relations (Moloney, 2000, 2005). seen from the perspective of what in German is called Öffentlichkeit (“in public”). Öffentlichkeit

The work of Niklas Luhmann has also been popular among public relations academics in does not mean “the public” as in publics, audiences, etc., but rather “publicly,” as in “what is

the German-speaking world and in Denmark (e.g., Geist, 2001; Holmström, 1997, 2004; Merten, potentially known to and can be debated by all” (Hollander, 1988, p. 88) and “public sphere,”
 1. Introduction 15 1. Introduction 16

which can be defined as “a space for communication, which in principle is available to all.” in public life?”), level (“What is the level at which we discuss public matters?”), and quality

Certain rules apply in this communication space, which is characterized by certain structures (“What are the frames used in the debates?”). This echoes what Carey (1975) called a cultural

(Raupp, 2004). Öffentlichkeit is an outcome, and therefore it is a quality of the public approach to communication (communication produces cultural identity). In many European

communication system in the society (Ronnebeger & Rühl, 1992). Journalism, advertising, and countries, theory building in public relations is closely related to journalism, not only because its

public relations all play a role in developing or destroying the quality of this public practitioners deal with journalists and influence media content, but also because of their

communication system. Consequently, the public sphere cannot be seen as the aggregation of overlapping functions in society.

individual views (see Price, 1992), but rather as having a dynamic of its own and thus creating a In the pre-modern societal setting, values and norms were concrete and fundamental,

symbolic reality. The moment an organization brings out a certain message, it produces a certain even if their truths were not necessarily taken for granted (Zijderveld, 2000). They were

component of the public sphere by presenting meaning and constructing frames in the public institutionally fixed and closed to reflection and relativization. In the modern world, society is

debate. Although we agree with Grunig that public relations should not be thought of only as institutionally pluralistic, humanly individualistic, and culturally generalized; that is, the

communication and that it also has something to do with the behavior of organizations (J. E. situation is reversed, and this allows for the empirical foundation of a constructionist view of

Grunig, 1993), we concur that the creation of meaning is a crucial activity of organizations. society. Although constructionism is rooted in continental European sociology, it is certainly not

The Concept of Meaning a typical European perspective. It was John Dewey in 1916 who argued that society is not only

An essential aspect of a sociological perspective on public relations is its concern with maintained by communication, but also constituted by it (Kückelhaus, 1998). The basic premise

issues and values that are publicly relevant and publicly debated, in other words, issues that of a sociologically constructivist approach to public relations is that human beings reflect the

relate to the “public sphere,” as Jensen (2000) argues. Also, in most sociological approaches to other to themselves and social reality in a dynamic process (Bentele, 1997). Hence, constructing

public relations, the public sphere is seen as a social construction of mankind. Ihlen (2004), for social reality is a shared process of meaning construction (Bentele & Rühl, 1993). In this view,

example, combines the rhetorical approach with the sociological approach and shows the way in reflective interpretation and the conceptualization of meaning are at the forefront in a constant

which public relations constitutes the struggle of actors in a public battlefield of meanings, process of de- and re-construction (Nistelrooij, 2000); they are a “reflection.” Krippendorf

thereby contributing to “the” public meaning, or, in other words, to social reality. In these (1994), a constructionist communication scientist, discussed the “recursiveness” of

sociological approaches, public relations serves the same kind of (democratic or anti-democratic) communication: it is an ongoing social process of the de- and re-construction of interpretations.

function as journalism does; both contribute to the free or controlled flow of information and its This is why Faulstieg (1992) and other constructionist public relations scholars state that public

meanings and to the development of the public sphere in size (“How many people are involved relations is not so much interaction between human beings, but rather societal action.
 1. Introduction 17 1. Introduction 18

van Ruler and Verčič (2005) proposed viewing a sociologically oriented approach to work to point to the centrality of responsibility in current discourses and to the way in which

public relations not so much as an alternative but as a macro-view, one that is additional to the public relations is seen to (re)present organizations or loosely coupled networks and to serve up

meso (management-oriented) and micro (people-oriented) views. Public relations as an academic arguments for their outlooks and negotiate their responsibilities, but also to manipulate facts to

discipline needs an understanding of how the public relations function works and how it is serve their interests.

influenced by and influences social structures. Such research endeavors have an obvious and Next, Mats Heide (Lund University, Helsingborg) draws on the work of Peter L. Berger

legitimate role in themselves, and they cannot rest merely upon the obligation to point to ideal to discuss crisis and public relations. Heide argues that the social constructionism advocated by

practices before or after criticizing current practices. It is time to gain a better grasp of how Berger and his colleague Thomas Luckmann helps us to remember that crisis is not necessarily

public relations works in society. Along the way, knowledge that has implications for practice, an “objective” phenomenon that hits an organization.

that is, for public relations at the meso and micro levels, may also be gained. In Chapter 4, Øyvind Ihlen (University of Oslo) suggests that the work of Pierre

Structure of the Book Bourdieu is useful to the study of the power struggle that organizations engage in with the help

Each of the following chapters contains an overview and a presentation of a chosen of public relations. This, it is argued, affords public relations research with a much more realistic

theorist’s key concepts, followed by a discussion of how the insights of these concepts can be view, based on a conflict model, than is on offer in the many normative theories of the field.

applied to public relations theory. Most of the chapters also point to their relevance for public This interest in the study of power can also be seen in the chapter on Michel Foucault that

relations practice in one way or another, although they vary in the extent to which they address follows. Judy Motion and Shirley Leitch (both from the University of Wollongong) discuss how

this. Some of the contributors propose elaborate models using insights from “their” theorist as Foucauldian theory can help public relations theory move toward an understanding of public

raw material, whereas others mainly point out and briefly illustrate the potential that certain of relations as a discourse practice with effects on power.

“their” theorist’s concepts have for public relations. Some stick closely to the sources; others use In Chapter 6, Jesper Falkheimer (Lund University, Helsingborg) presents the work of

these mainly as a springboard for their own thoughts. We encourage our readers to consult the Anthony Giddens and uses it as a lens to show how public relations has developed in a socio-

boxes in each chapter that present short biographies of the presented theorists and pointers to historical context. Falkheimer contends that a Giddens perspective might constitute a “third way

their major works and the secondary literature, where available. public relations perspective”: one that lies between managerial, functionalistic, and prescriptive

Rather than attempt to impose or construct a hierarchy of importance or popularity, we traditions and between critical and interpretative approaches.

opted to put the chapters in alphabetical order. Thus, the volume begins with a chapter on Ulrich Catrin Johansson (Mid-Sweden University) treats us to the work of another classic

Beck written by Magnus Fredriksson (of the University of Gothenburg). Fredriksson uses Beck’s theorist, Erving Goffman. Johansson argues that Goffman helps us to understand how
 1. Introduction 19 1. Introduction 20

communication at the interpersonal level has important implications for public relations. Vilma Luoma-aho (University of Jyväskylä) shows how the writings of Robert Putnam

Goffman was also the first sociologist to discuss framing, a concept that has become extremely have relevance to public relations through the concept of social capital. Putnam’s insistence on

popular within media studies and that has begun to make inroads into public relations. Other the importance of maintaining a sense of community and his emphasis on the way in which

relevant Goffman concepts include impression management, footing, and face, which are also social networks have long-term benefits can be transferred to public relations.

explored in this chapter. Partly in keeping with the spirit of this particular theoretical approach, and partly to

In Chapter 8, Roland Burkart (Vienna University) applies and extends the work of Jürgen remedy the fact that a long list of male theorists dominates this book, Chapter 13 addresses a

Habermas in relation to the concept of understanding as it is found in Habermas’ work. Burkart theoretical stream, namely feminist theory, as well as the work of an individual theorist. After an

presents a model for communication that addresses validity claims that are related to truth, overview on work in this area, Lana F. Rakow and Diana Nastasia (both of the University of

trustworthiness, and legitimacy. Burkart maintains that all public relations practitioners should North Dakota) proceed to a discussion of the work of Dorothy Smith. They posit that feminist

take these issues into account in their planning and communication in the four specific phases studies of public relations have been concerned with the lives of women in public relations rather

suggested by his model. than with public relations in the lives of women.

Chapter 9 is devoted to the French thinker Bruno Latour. Piet Verhoeven (University of Although Western male theorists dominate the book, Mohan Jyoti Dutta (Purdue

Amsterdam) argues that Latour’s so-called Actor-Network-Theory could be useful in analyzing University) introduces Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and discusses the work of this important

how public relations practitioners conduct their work and how they play a role in the collective post-colonial theorist on public relations. Using Spivak as a springboard, Dutta argues that the

by constructing reality and shared definitions of the world. knowledge structures of public relations must be seen in relation to the politics of representation,

Using Niklas Luhmann’s systems perspective, Susanne Holmström (Roskilde University) power, and materiality. He points to the possibility that public relations can commit itself to

points to the way in which public relations has helped organizations to move toward a so-called emancipatory goals through an interrogation of the communicative practices that connect

reflective paradigm, in which the organization realizes that its worldview and rationale is but one transnational corporations, nation states, and global structures.

among many. In Chapter 15, Arild Wæraas (University of Tromsø) uses the work of classic sociological

In Chapter 11, Richard Stanton (University of Sydney) scrutinizes the writing of Leon theorist Max Weber to discuss the processes of legitimacy and legitimation and how they are

Mayhew. Despite Mayhew’s negative view of public relations, Stanton points to the way in important for public relations. Wæraas claims that these processes are at the very heart of what

which certain of Mayhew’s ideas could in fact serve to build an ethical public relations practice, public relations is all about.

for instance, through mechanisms that help redeem the rhetorical tokens of influence. The book is then rounded off with conclusions drawn by Øyvind Ihlen (University of
 1. Introduction 21 1. Introduction 22

Oslo) and Piet Verhoeven (University of Amsterdam), who attempt to bring together the insights References

offered by the book’s contributors. They present five conclusions that pertain to what can be seen Aldoory, L. (1998). The language of leadership for female public relations professionals. Journal

as the domain of public relations studies, the context in which public relations ought to be of Public Relations Research, 10(2), 73-101.

studied, and the concepts, issues, and empirical avenues that follow from the two first Banks, S. (1995). Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. Thousand

conclusions. Oaks, CA: Sage.

The book concludes with a commentary in which Günter Bentele (University of Leipzig) Baran, S. J., & Davis, D. K. (2000). Mass communication theory: Foundations, ferment, and

and Stefan Wehmeier (University of Greifswald) take its contributors to task for their treatment future. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

of the social theorists presented. Bentele and Wehmeier call for public relations theorists to draw Benson, R. D. (2008, May). Public relations in the Public Sphere: Habermas, Bourdieu, and the

on the theories presented, and also look further at concepts that have not been treated in this question of power. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Conference of the International

volume, to model public relations as a social system in society. Communication Association, Montreal, Canada.

For practitioners, this book is meant to help them take a step back and reflect on their Bentele, G. (1997). Public relations and reality: A contribution to a theory of public relations. In

practice beyond day-to-day strategizing. For scholars, our hope is that these chapters can serve as D. Moss, T. MacManus & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international

inspiration. We hope they will take up some of the theories on offer, either by adopting the perspective (pp. 89-109). London: International Thomson Business Press.

suggestions of our contributors or by adapting and modifying the insights presented. In the vast Bentele, G., & Rühl, M. (Eds.). (1993). Theorien oeffentlicher Kommunikation [Theories of

theoretical landscape that is social theory, there are also plenty of other theorists to choose from, public communication] München, Germany: Ölschläger.

and the potential for a second, expanded volume of this book is great. Nothing would please us Bentele, G., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). Applying sociology to public relations: A commentary.

more. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 294-300.

Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on

public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 17(1), 5-28.

Boorstin, D. J. (1962/1992). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:

Vintage Books.
 1. Introduction 23 1. Introduction 24

Botan, C. H., & Hazelton Jr., V. (Eds.). (2006). Public relations theory II. Hillsdale, NJ: Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations

Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Research, 12(1), 3-22.

Communication, 54(4), 645-661. Duffy, M. E. (2000). There’s no two-way symmetrical about it: A postmodern examination of

Burkart, R. (2004). Consensus-oriented public relations (COPR): A concept for planning and public relations textbooks. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 17(3), 294-315.

evaluation of public relations. In B. van Ruler & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations and Durham, F. D. (2005). Public relations as structuration: A prescriptive critique of the Starlink

communication management in Europe: A nation-by-nation introduction to public global food contamination case. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 29-47.

relations theory and practice (pp. 459-465). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2005). Civil society and public relations: Not so civil after all. Journal of

Carey, J. W. (1975). A cultural approach to communication. Journal of Communication, 2(1), 1- Public Relations Research, 17(3), 267-289.

22. Edwards, L. (2006). Rethinking power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 229-

Cottle, S. (Ed.). (2003). News, public relations and power. London: Sage Publications. 231.

Courtright, J. L., & Smudde, P. M. (Eds.). (2007). Power and public relations. Cresskill, NJ: Edwards, L. (2007). Exploring power in public relations: A Bourdieusian perspective [Ph.D.

Hampton. dissertation]. Leeds, UK: Leeds Metropolitan University.

Davis, A. (2002). Public relations democracy: Public relations, politics and the mass media in Faulstieg, W. (1992). Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit. Grundwissen: Kritische Einführung in

Britain. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Problemfelder [Public relations. Basics: Critical introduction to problems]. Bardowick,

Deetz, S. A. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.

handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods Geist, U. (2001). Om paradokser, usandsynligheder og tillid – en præsentation af Luhmanns teori

(pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. om sociale systemer. In M. Femø Nielsen (Ed.), Profil og offentlighed: Public relations

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. for viderekomne (pp. 301-334). Frederiksberg, Denmark.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-29). Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Relations Review, 19(2), 121-139.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L.

Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 1. Introduction 25 1. Introduction 26

Grunig, J. E., & Hickson, R. H. (1976). An evaluation of academic research in public relations. Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public

Public Relations Review, 2(2), 31-43. relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research,

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and 14(1), 57-84.

Winston. Ihlen, Ø. (2004). Rhetoric and resources in public relations strategies: A rhetorical and

Grunig, L. A., & Hon, L. C. (2001). Women in public relations: How gender influences practice. sociological analysis of two conflicts over energy and the environment [Doctoral

New York: Guilford Press. dissertation]. Oslo, Norway: Unipub forlag.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a Ihlen, Ø. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations.

category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 492-496.

Hallahan, K. (2004). “Community” as a foundation for public relations theory and practice. Ihlen, Ø., & van Ruler, B. (2007). How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public

Communication Yearbook, 28(1), 233-279. relations perspectives. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 243-248.

Hollander, E. (1988). Lokale communicatie en locale openbaarheid: Openbaarheid als Jensen, I. (2000, July). Public relations and the public sphere in the future. Paper presented at

communicatiewetenschappelijk concept [Local communication and local public sphere: the 7th International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.

Public Sphere as communication scientific concept]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Jensen, I. (2001). Public relations and emerging functions of the public sphere: An analytical

Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. framework. Journal of Communication Management, 6(2), 133-147.

Holmström, S. (1997). The inter-subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. Krippendorf, K. (1994). A recursive theory of communication. In D. Crowley & D. Mitchell

Journal of Communication Management, 2(1), 24-39. (Eds.), Communication theory today (pp. 78-104). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Holmström, S. (2004). Grænser for ansvar: Den sensitive virksomhet i det refleksive samfund Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community. Westport, CT: Praeger.

[Limits for responsibility: The sensitive business in the reflective society] (Ph.D. Kückelhaus, A. (1998). Public Relations: Die Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit:

dissertation no. 41/2003): Roskilde Universitetscenter. Kommunikationstheoretische Annäherungen an ein neuzeitliches Phänomen [Public

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Relations: The construction of reality: Communication scientific perspectives into a

Research, 12(1), 93-114. current phenomenon]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeustcher Verlag.

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain: A history of professional practice in the

Relations Review, 28, 251-264. Twentieth Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 1. Introduction 27 1. Introduction 28

L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (Eds.). (1996). Critical perspectives in public relations. London: McKie, D. (2001). Updating public relations: ‘New Science’, research paradigms and uneven

International Thomson Business Press. developments. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 75-92). Thousand

L’Etang, J., & Pieczka, M. (Eds.). (2006). Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary Oaks, CA: Sage.

practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McKie, D., & Munshi, D. (2007). Reconfiguring public relations: Ecology, equity and

Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationships management as a general theory of public enterprise. New York: Routledge.

relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181-198. Meisenbach, R. J. (2005). Habermas’ discourse ethics and principle of universalization as a

Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jürgen Habermas’ discourse ethics and public relations. moral framework for organizational communication. Management Communication

Public Relations Review. Quarterly, 20(1), 39-62.

Leeper, R. V. (2001). In search of a metatheory for public relations: An argument for Merten, K. (2004). A constructivistic approach to public relations. In B. v. Ruler & D. Verčič

communitarianism. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 93-104). (Eds.), Public relations and communication management in Europe: A nation-by-nation

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. introduction to public relations theory and practice (pp. 45-54). Berlin: Walter de

Leichty, G. (2003). The cultural tribes of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, Gruyter.

15(4), 277-304. Mickey, T. J. (1997). A postmodern view of public relations: Sign and reality. Public Relations

Leichty, G., & Warner, E. (2001). Cultural topoi: Implications for public relations. In R. L. Review, 23(3), 271-284.

Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 61-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moffitt, M. A. (1992). Bringing critical theory and ethical considerations to definitions of a

Littlejohn, S. W. (1995). Theories of human communication (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. “public.” Public Relations Review, 18(1), 17-29.

Livesey, S. M. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen Shell commits to sustainable Moloney, K. (2000). Rethinking public relations: The spin and the substance. London:

development. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(3), 313-349. Routledge.

Maier, C. T. (2005). Weathering the storm: Hauser’s vernacular voices, public relations and the Moloney, K. (2005). Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review, 31(4),

Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 219- 550-555.

227. Motion, J. (1997). Technologising the self – an art of public relations. Australian Journal of

Mayhew, L. H. (1997). The new public: Professional communication and the means of social Communication, 24(2), 1-16.

influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Motion, J., & Weaver, C. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations Pearson, R. (1990). Ethical values or strategic values? The two faces of systems theory in public

research: Life sciences network and the battle for truth. Journal of Public Relations relations. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public Relations Research Annual (Vol.

Research, 17(1), 49-67. 2, pp. 219-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Munk Nielsen, J. (2001). The legitimacy concept and its potentialities: A theoretical Pieczka, M. (2000). Objectives and evaluation in public relations work: What do they tell us

reconstruction with relevance to public relations. Roskilde University Center. about expertise and professionalism? Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(3), 211-

Munshi, D., & Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public 233.

relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics. Public Relations Review, 31(4), Pieczka, M. (2002). Public relations expertise deconstructed. Media, Culture & Society, 24(3),

513-520. 301-323.

Nistelrooij, A. v. (2000). Collectief organiseren: Een sociaal-constructionistisch onderzoek naar Pieczka, M., & L’Etang, J. (2001). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In R. L.

het werken met grote groepen [Collective organizing: A social-constructionistic research Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 223-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

project into large scale group work]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Lemma. Plowman, K. D. (1998). Power in conflict for public relations. Journal of Public Relations

O’Neil, J. (2003). An analysis of the relationships among structure, influence, and gender: Research, 10(4), 237-261.

Helping to build a feminist theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Price, V. (1992). Public opinion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Research, 15(2), 151-180. Raupp, J. (2004). The public sphere as central concept of public relations. In B. van Ruler & D.

Olasky, M. N. (1989). The aborted debate within public relations: An approach through Kuhn’s Vercic (Eds.), Public relations and communication management in Europe: A nation-by-

paradigm. Public Relations Research Annual, 1, 87-95. nation introduction to public relations theory and practice (pp. 309-316). Berlin: Walter

Pearson, R. (1989a). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the de Gruyter.

idea of communication symmetry. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public Ronnebeger, F., & Rühl, M. (1992). Theorie der public relations: Ein entwurf. Opladen,

Relations Research Annual (Vol. 2, pp. 67-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Pearson, R. (1989b). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Jones, K. O. (2003). From aardvark to zebra: A

idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazelton Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. new millennium analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals.

111-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 27-90.
 1. Introduction 31 1. Introduction 32

Schlesinger, P. (1990). Rethinking the sociology of journalism: Source strategies and the limits Weaver, K., Motion, J., & Roper, J. (2006). From propaganda to discourse (and back again):

of media-centrism. In M. Ferguson (Ed.), Public communication: The new imperatives: Truth, power, the public interest and public relations. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.),

Future directions for media research (pp. 61-83). London: Sage. Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 7-21). Mahwah, NJ:

Stacks, D. W. (2002). Primer of public relations research. New York: Guilford Press. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Starck, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2001). Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory Zijderveld, A. C. (2000). The institutional imperative: The interface of institutions and networks.

revisited. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Szmatka, J., & Lovaglia, M. J. (1997). The significance of method. Sociological Perspectives,

39(3), 393-415.

Toth, E. L. (1992). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical, and

systems perspectives. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Toth, E. L. (2001). How feminist theory advanced the practice of public relations. In R. L. Heath

(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 237-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Toth, E. L., & Heath, R. L. (Eds.). (1992). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Ruler, B. (2004). The communication grid: An introduction of a model of four

communication strategies. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 123-143.

van Ruler, B., & Verčič, D. (2005). Reflective communication management: Future ways for

public relations research. In P. J. Kalbefleisch (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 29,

pp. 239-274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Public relations: An emerging social science enters the

New Millennium. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 24, pp. 319-

342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Footnote
1
A previous version of this chapter was published in Public Relations Review 33(3),

2007, as “How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives.”