Public Relations Theory

Carl H. Botan, Carl H. Botan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351225724
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Beginning with the basic premise that public relations can best be understood as a specialized type of communication, the contributors to this volume establish public relations as a vital and viable realm for communication research and theory development. Through the application of communication theories, they attempt to explain and predict public relations practices and then use these practices to develop communication theories. Their discussions fall into three distinct categories: metatheory, theory, and examples of applications of theories. An ideal volume for professionals and students in communication, journalism, and related fields.

Preface

This book evolved out of the belief that public relations can be best understood as a specialized kind of communication. If this assumption is true, we reasoned, it should be possible to study public relations as an instance of applied communication. We should be able to apply communication theory to explain and to predict public relations practice, and use public relations practice as a site for the development of communication theory.

In the spring or 1987 a conference on communication theory and public relations was held at Illinois State University. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Illinois State for support for this conference. Participants were selected for the conference on the basis of a competitive blind review of papers that addressed the topic of communication theory and public relations. Based on a desire to test the limits as well as the core of this approach to public relations, a broad definition of communication theory was used, allowing room for related social science theories to be included.

The participants met in a workshop format for 3 days using prepared papers as the basis for discussions that ranged across a wide spectrum of theoretical issues. These discussions fell into three categories: those addressing issues of metatheory, those addressing issues of theory, and those addressing issues or examples of application of theories. These three categories were later used to organize this book, although the chapters are substantially different from the original papers discussed at the conference. These changes, in part the result of conference discussion and in part the result of the editing process, have had the overall effect of putting the focus of the book even more clearly on communication theory.

Carl H. Botan
Vincent Hazleton, Jr.

1
The Role of Theory in Public Relations

Vincent Hazleton Jr.
Illinois State University

Carl H. Botan
Rutgers University

Abstract

This chapter lays a foundation for understanding the kinds of theory and how they are developed by addressing how metatheories effect theory development, providing a vocabulary of theory development, and assessing the prospects for theory development in public relations. The chapter concludes by warning against a premature commitment to any particular theory or methodology while urging a continued exploration of the boundaries of public relations.

Introduction

This is a book about public relations and public relations theory. The book seeks to identify and explain the theoretic roots appropriate to the study of public relations as a social science.

The book is divided into three sections. First, are issues of metatheory or world views that direct the focus of research and the practice of public relations. The chapters in the second section address particular theories or theory areas that are seen as relevant to public relations research and public relations practices. In the third section issues concerning the application of theories to practice are addressed.

This chapter lays a foundation for understanding the role of theory and kinds of theories so that the reader might employ the following chapters to best advantage. This chapter is organized into three parts. The first part addresses issues of metatheory and its influence on theory development. The second part suggests a vocabulary for evaluating and comparing theories. The schema provided draws heavily from the work of others, most noticeably Leonard Hawes (1975). Although this is only one possible schema among many, it is one that we find useful in our teaching and research. Finally, we examine the prospects for theory in public relations.

Metatheory

Theories are fundamentally products of human endeavor, therefore theory construction may be studied like other forms of human behavior, such as communication. In fact, theory construction, as a social enterprise, is a communication-bound activity.

Influenced by points of view much like the one presented in the preceding paragraph, philosophers and practitioners of science (e.g., Kuhn, 1970; Polanyi, 1958) have argued that theory construction is not the dispassionate and objective process that it was once considered. Instead, theorists and researchers bring to this process fundamental assumptions or world views that direct inquiry and theory development.

As Grunig notes in chapter 2, the content of such metatheories, which he calls "presuppositions," may be considered "extra-scientific" in so far as they are not subject to direct observation and therefore may not be refuted easily. Presuppositions are assumed to be true. Because the obvious truth of these beliefs cannot and need not be demonstrated, they are seldom discussed; and their influence may not be recognized.

Hazleton and Cupach (1986) argued for the utility of a concept they call "ontological knowledge". Ontological knowledge refers to what communicators know about themselves and the world in which they exist. Such knowledge defines what a communicator assumes is possible or impossible in a given situation. A metatheory may be considered as a type of ontological knowledge, which by its self-evident nature, can blind researchers to certain paths for understanding and learning.

Pearce, Cronen, and Harris (1982) suggest two general questions, which when answered from different metatheoretic perspectives lead to different forms of research and to different theories. The first question is: "What counts as data?". The second question is: "What do data count as?".

Pearce and colleagues suggest that the first question, "What counts as data?", implies the following more specific questions:

1. "What is the appropriate unit of analysis?" Our own experience suggests that researchers and theorists disagree about the smallest meaningful unit of data. How researchers regard the often cited maxim that "meanings are in people not in words" may determine whether public relations scholars focus their study on symbols, messages, or message effects.

2. "What is the appropriate unit of observation?" In public relations should we focus on individuals, groups, or institutions/organizations? Answers to such questions are not trivial. For example, it is possible to assume that annual reports are products of individual effort rather than a product of the organization. In the first case, a researcher would seek a representative sample of practitioners. In the second case, a researcher would seek a representative sample of organizations.

3. "What is the appropriate form of data?" The most obvious distinctions are between quantitative and qualitative methods. However, finer distinctions may be made within each of these alternatives concerning appropriate measurement. For example, in a quantitative study it might be arguable that the mean, median, or mode is the correct and appropriate measure of central tendency for summarizing message strategies across public relations campaigns. In a qualitative study, the question may be the number of examples that are adequate to support a claim or the extent to which summary claims and observations may substitute for particular examples that are the focus of concern.

The second question, "What do data count as?" is informed by answers to two additional questions:

1. "What does a statistical relationship indicate?" Is a particular finding indicative of a causal or associational relationship? Although Pearce et al. (1982) do not suggest the following, we would argue that this question is also relevant in qualitative research. For example, the qualitative researcher must consider whether particular observations are indicative of temporary or enduring phenomena. This extension is possible when you consider qualitative research as instances where n = 1 or some other small number not suitable for traditional statistical analysis.

2. "What is the relationship between the data and the theory?" Answers to this final question are reflected directly in the ways that theories are constructed and modified as well as in the initial theory choices that researchers pursue. Researchers infer different properties from a common observation depending on their interest in uncovering laws (e.g., Berger, 1977), discovering rules (e.g., Cushman, 1977) or specifying systems (e.g., Monge, 1977).

Fundamental disagreements of the type suggested above are not uncommon. For example, Gerald Miller (chapter 3) and James Grunig (chapter 2) disagree about the nature and ethical character of persuasion. Miller argues that public relations messages are a subset of the universe of persuasive messages. Grunig considers persuasion to be only one type of public relations message. Moreover, Grunig considers all persuasion as unethical, whereas Miller sees evaluation of means and ends as necessary to assess the ethicallity of persuasion.

At the root of this disagreement are different beliefs about the motivations of public relations practitioners. According to Miller, all public relations may be motivated by desires to understand or control the environment and to gain understanding from those in the environment. It is this motivation that is central to recognition of persuasion. Grunig argues that public relations may be motivated by desires for mutual understanding; messages generated by such motivations are not persuasion, and they are ethical.

This fundamental disagreement is, at present, unresolvable. Resolution would first require an unambiguous measure of the motivations of public relations practitioners. If public relations practitioners were found to be homogenous in their motivations to influence when communicating (even if only for the purpose of achieving understanding in their public), we would conclude that Miller is correct. If public relations practitioners were found to be heterogenous (exhibiting motivations to influence as well as motivations to understand), then we would conclude that Grunig is correct. It is doubtful that either author could propose a measure that both they and we would consider an unambiguous measure of motivation. Until such a measure exists, so that the disagreement may be resolved, we will continue to evaluate these theories based on our own presuppositions about motivations for public relations.

Poole and McPhee (1985) touched on another dimension of presuppos...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Author Index
• Subject Index