Week 3 PR blog

I think the key points to remember from the week three Johnstone and Zawawi (2000: pp. 43-71) and Gower ‘Public Relations Research at the Crossroads” (Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (2) 177-190) readings are that there are many theories in regard to public relations practices and approaches- each of which, based on particular assumptions, provides a framework which both enables questions to be raised and furthers understanding.
Mackey (cited in Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000: pp. 43-71) suggests that while some theories originated from other disciplines i.e. agenda setting (the selection or omission of news items and the subsequent focus given or not) came from communications studies; systems theory (the inside/outside boundary spanning role of public relations) originated in philosophy and sociology and more latterly in organisational theory; semiotic (the study of signs) and Habermas’s critical theories (how citizens are influenced to think as a result of capitalist society, the loss of the public sphere, rational arguments between discussants with equal power) from the cross disciplines of communication, sociology and cultural studies. More recent theories have developed from within public relations studies.
The best known of these is the ‘four models’ approach suggested by Grunig and Hunt (1984) model 1 being press agentry (i.e. stunts/explicit publicity seeking); model 2 public information; model 3 two-way asymmetric and model 4 two-way symmetric. Most people consider mainstream public relations operates asymmetrically but Grunig and Hunt argue that the symmetrical PR model in which targeted publics benefit as much as the programs sponsors or originators is the most effective. Critics suggest this theory relies on a level playing field and that minorities and 3rd world populations are disadvantaged.
Gower suggests however that while there exists a strong body of public relations knowledge, the field is at a crossroads due to these earlier assumptions being challenged from, amongst others, post-modernists and critical theorists- resulting in new theories and approaches. According to McKie (cited in Gower, 2006) while management literature has embraced post-modernism, PR has failed to keep pace meaning that in order for PR to have a management function, it has to do likewise. Gower is also critical of ‘excellence’ models which mean that alternative theories can be overlooked and cites the ‘two-way symmetrical’ model as an example. Rather Gower suggests that the public relations field should move forward and embrace a diverse range of ideas, methodologies, and theoretical approaches; the process itself permitting self-evaluation.
Some of the more recent theories suggested by Johnstone and Zawawi (2000) are Heath’s (2001) rhetorical theory which argues persuasive communication through the use of convincing reasoned arguments permits PR practitioners to ‘think outside the square’ whereby there is no absolute ‘truth’ and contemporary society is instead “fluid and capable of being won over by the best rational argument” (Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000: 58). Similar to Grunig and Habermas, rhetorical theory relies on participants having an equal power relationship in order to be effective.
Ledingham and Brunings (2000) suggest a ‘relationship management’ approach which allows both PR scholars and practitioners to ‘break down’ a relationship into its component parts in order to measure each aspect and in so doing permits an analysis of how relationships change as a result of public relations campaigns. Situational theory, according to Grunig and Hunt, suggests that people can be categorised according to 3 variables- problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement, in order to predict how people will react to an organizations messages. Holtzhausen (2000) advocates a post-modern (diverse political, cultural, social and economic perspective) whereby PR practitioners challenge conventional management thinking- becoming in the process ‘keepers of the corporate conscience’ whereby the responsibility for keeping the organization abreast of post-modern thinking lies with the public relations department.
Other concepts mentioned by Mackey (cited in Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000) are those of ‘opinion, attitude and belief’ which enable charting of “how firmly people particular views relevant to a particular subject” (Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000: 64) and ‘Audiences and media effects’ which are used to determine “how the mass media process and distribute messages to audiences” (Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000: 64). Mackey concludes his chapter with a summary of ‘Social learning theory’ which suggests that “people modify their attitudes and behaviour to emulate or fit in with the attitudes and actions exhibited by others” (Johnstone and Zawawi, 2000: 66).
For each theory there are both positive and critical aspects and therefore the readings made me think more about public relations theory/practice and which, in differing situations, would be most practical. The practice of public relations calls for diverse and fluid strategies; the more knowledge available to public relations practitioners, the more chance that its messages will be received.