There is an existential discussion going on over at PRConversations. A post by the eminent Toni Muzi Falconi asks the question, “What comes next after Grunig?” — Jim Grunig being the legendary PR pro and educator whose landmark research in the 1980s led to the Excellence Theory of public relations.
PR has long had a love-hate relationship with theories. One hallmark of a true profession is that it has a strong theoretical basis in academic circles. So, the lack of a theory of its own (as near as I can figure) has led to gnashing of teeth and some amount of inferiority fantasy in the academic community.
Many of the most studied theories — Community Theory, Rhetorical Theory, Framing Theory, Systems Theory — borrow heavily from other disciplines, most notably from the general communication studies field. Coupled with PR practitioner resistance to theory in general and the academy in part, scholars for a time were very quick to dismiss PR as a separate profession. They preferred to see it, instead, as a part of communication, journalism, or marketing, and thus not as serious as their intellectual fore-bearers.
Grunig, along with co-researchers David Dozier, William Ehling, Larissa Grunig, Fred Repper and Jon White, conducted a massive study funded by the IABC Foundation to answer the question of why public relations has value to an organization.
In itself, this research wasn’t geared to establish a theoretical foundation for the profession. Instead, it answered two main questions: “Why and to what extent [does] PR make an organization more effective, and how much is that contribution worth economically?” and, “What are the characteristics of a public relations function that are most likely to make an organization effective?”
It was the process of identifying the structural and behavioral aspects of PR departments that led to the idea that Excellence was a theory. In a nutshell, Excellence says that the PR team should be led by a manager who is in senior management, and its work should primarily rely on two-way, symmetrical communication.
It’s this contention that an increasing number of scholars are taking issue with. The foundation of our profession is persuasion (Bernays, Ivy Lee) and the use of language and discourse in service of that effort (Rhetorical Theory) — either one-way or two-way, but definitely asymmetrical.
I don’t pretend to be as schooled in these matters as some of the commenters at PR Conversations, but as an experienced practitioner who is now dabbling in the academe (adjunct prof at Kent State this fall), I’m intrigued by the intellectual exercise. One person says that such navel-gazing (my words) isn’t important — likening the discussion to a college student trying to examine new majors. But our profession can no longer get by with “trust me” as its operating theory. There are solid reasons why we do what we do and recommend what we recommend. The theoretical foundation for these efforts gives us credibility even if we never mention them to our employers or clients.
What is PR, and why is it important? That’s a question worth discussing.
Tags: @commammo, asymmetrical communication, Bernays, Communication AMMO, communication experts, communication messages, communication methods, communication vehicles, Community Theory, discuss, effective communication, evaluation, Excellence Theory, Framing, internal communication, measurement, Media Relations, PR measurement, Public Relations, reputation management, Research, Rhetorical Theory, symmetrical communication, systems theory, Theory
[...] Go here to read the rest: Whither Public Relations? « Communication Ammo, by Sean Williams [...]
One of the sticking points with practitioners is the wat that theory and academic as terms are often used negatively as unrelated to practice. Although there is a lot of merit in conceptualising models etc, I wonder if more practitioners would understand the value of the body of knowledge if it is presented more as research into best practice ie insight not something that is idealistic.
Heather, thanks so much for stopping by to comment.
This is a terrific thought — I agree that these terms are regarded with suspicion, at least, and outright hostility by some. Do other professions have a similar aversion to these terms? I know the tendency is to compare what is theoretical with what is actual — and the idealistic with the practical.
If this holds PR back on the academic side, perhaps that doesn’t matter — is our perception of value negatively affected by the lack of a unifying theory of PR?
Not sure…
This divide is true in other professions – how many politicians know or care about political science? But I agree with Sean that a theoretical foundation for our profession, and I’d say even the disputes between theoretical schools, build tremendous credibility as well as help provide some definitional context to a relatively new profession that has, well, more than its share of flakes and flunkies. Like Toni I too agonize over the “Absolutely Fabulous” (or “The Hills” ??) perception of PR, but we’ve all seen some of the reality of that perception as well….There are times PR can feel like Toby Young’s quotation about the fashion biz, “Nobody in this industry really knows anything”.
Just enough of that is reality that we need to work to separate the gold from the dross. Fortunately, I think our star is rising fast, and I have seen first-hand how the best academic work can be harnessed and adapted to build best practice PR strategies and tactics for organizations. Actually, this is also the case in marketing (which also has its share of flakes), but in that instance one is able to tap into the much wider B-school literature, where the relevance of a Michael Porter or Henry Mintzberg is more easily accepted and readily understood. PR leaders could learn from our marketing and buisness confreres on how leading academic theories and schools of thought can be woven into our strategic plans and programs. I’ve been doing this and have found it only benefits our credibility, as well as being genuinely helpful in its own right.
Sean, i think this is an excellent question. Could it be that part of the problem with PR as an academic field is that it is primarily an “applied” discipline from its inception? Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the first PR department/program made its debut on a university campus only after people in the world of business and government began handing out business cards with “Public Relations” under their names.
As such, much like accounting, it seems PR programs at post-secondary institutions could (should?) be viewed more as job training than engines of theory production. The phenomena that make up the subject of inquiry for PR scholars has largely been covered by other programs in the academy — communication, management, English, psychology, sociology etc. – fields that had already developed numerous theories to explain those various phenomena before PR broke onto the academic scene.
Perhaps the question for professors and professionals alike is the following: What key variables would a theory of public relations, as distinct from existing theories in other fields, seek to predict? What key phenomena would it seek to explain? Maybe “theory” and “academic” are terms with little resonance among PR practitioners, as Heather points out, because PR theory and academics have yet to provide useful theories that answer the critical questions practitioners face. Contrast this with other “applied” fields. You hear very few mechanical engineers, for example, suggesting that the theories of physics are worthless.
It occurs to me that the solution might lie in that last statement. Engineering programs do not much concern themselves with producing theories of engineering. They teach relevant theories from the physical sciences to the students they are training (who will then apply that knowledge to solve specific types of problems). So, if the social sciences and humanities already have the theoretical landscape relevant to PR staked out, why not adopt the same approach as engineering, making contributions to the theories of other disciplines where unique insights and understandings from the world of PR can add value?
Such an attitude might help us get past the “navel gazing” and get on to talking about which theories from which disciplines have the most relevance to solving the problems of public relations.
I think that resistance to theory comes mostly from those PR practitioners who haven’t been exposed to it. I find that my master’s students at the Cape Peninsula Univ of Technology (Cape Town) is enthralled by theory once they are exposed to it (they are all in practice).
The fact that I was a practitioner for more years than I have been in academia might just have something to do with it (probably having a good idea which theories to pick — those that have the most relevance to their work environment). That is the other very important criterium to interest practitioners in theory.
Sean, we discussed this issue in another post on PRConversations namely “PR professionals are from Venus, PR scholars are from Mars: How shall the ‘twain’ meet?” http://www.prconversations.com/?p=462
You will see there that Prof Craig Fleisher from Canada agrees when saying that he knows “too many academics who probably are ‘too distant’ from the practical realities of the fields they profess about, and too many practitioners who have never had the opportunity to consider the value to be gained from good research, theory/conceptualization, and instruction”.
Since you are now also on the other side of the fence, you might want to have a look at another PRC post titled “Engaging (and grilling) the social side of James Grunig”. Relevant to your and Heather’s discussion above is the following comment by Jim to Bill Huey:
“A good normative theory is descriptive as well as prescriptive. That is, the best normative theory is one that is accompanied by actual examples of its being practiced according to the normative principles and evidence of its effectiveness. Typically, such a normative theory is called a theory of best practices in the management literature.
Public relations textbooks also are filled with normative theories. Public relations educators teach normative theories–i.e., what they think are the best ways to practice public relations. Few would advocate practicing public relations in an ineffective or unethical way, even though that is how public relations might be practiced most often”.
You can find more at http://www.prconversations.com/?p=478#comment-84006
Since my name comes up here explicity once and implicitly a second time, I will respond by saying that I am not opposed to theory. On the contrary, I have published on the subject of persuasion theory myself and repeatedly urged public relations scholars to develop a descriptive–not prescriptive–theory that explains how public relations works. As I said on PRC, a prescriptive theory such as Grunig’s may be great dog food, but the dogs just aren’t eating it. Perhaps if scholars bent their efforts toward explaining how PR does work instead of how it should work and should be practiced, practitioners would pay more attention.
Goodness, go into a two-hour client meeting and look what happens!
Many thanks to Jim, Jeff, Benita and Bill for taking the time to comment, in particular with such probity.
Before I became involved with the Institute for PR, I can honestly say I didn’t have a clue what theories were operating beneath my practice. My education is in political science and broadcasting. I always felt hamstrung, however, when someone asked me why I was undertaking a particular course of action. Unlike lawyers, accountants and others, my professional bone fides were based (it seemed) entirely on my ability to project confidence. I was great at selling my ideas, and as it turned out, many of them were good ones that worked.
I feel much more settled as a professional now, having gained some understanding of the underpinnings of my craft, what informs in a normative sense my ideas and why they seem to work.
That said, I know I could benefit mightily from further study, which I aim to pursue as my um, personal circumstances, settle.
My recommendation, to echo Mr. Huey’s, is to ask scholars to focus less on prospective theory — what might work — in favor of uncovering the theory behind what does work. Perhaps that already makes up a goodly proportion of the scholarship and I am simply ignorant of it. As an academic newbie, I beg your indulgence.
Jeff, there are many other disciplines which have adopted a “training” perspective of their master’s programs. Unfortunately, it seems the academy at the Ph.D. level doesn’t take them as seriously if there isn’t more of a theoretical basis for their efforts. The professional professor, required to publish or perish, and blaze new territory, can’t do so without pushing the envelope (at least, that is what I think happens!).
Benita – perhaps the answer is for practitioners to job-swap with the profs from time to time…Kidding, but really, how can anyone simply break in to the business, even laden with honor and title? Maybe working in the practice during a sabbatical (perhaps with the assistance of companies and governments) would help that effort.
Also, B – I do have several students who do seem very interested in the theoretical matters, so I think there is good hope there. . .
Again, my thanks to all of you — an excellent discussion!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Judy Gombita and Sean Williams. Sean Williams said: "Whither Public Relations?" http://bit.ly/4bEW0o HT @jgombita ; PRC rec that got me thinking [...]
Hi Sean, thanks for the added insight on the topic. As you know, I’ve been an instigator on these discussions for the last year or so. What surprises me in this most recent discussion is the notion that academics all the sudden have moved past Grunig and Excellence. Just last year we had a rather spirited discussion that Grunig took part in, advocating for Excellence quite aggressively, just as those of us who are searching for a more workable “theory” argued against its utopian facets.
However, while some of the academic literature is moving away from Grunig-centered influence, as mentioned by Tim Coombs on PRC, PR scholars are still tied deeply to it.
I agree with Bill Huey in that professionals aren’t/haven’t bought into Excellence. As such, it’s time to move on to something more applicable. This is why I advocate tackling “real world” challenges that would add to the professional’s toolkit, such as ROI and other topics that demonstrate PR’s influence on organizational efficiencies.
While it is a bit off topic, another reason that professionals aren’t “eating” the scholarly dog food is b/c academic journals are nearly unreadable in their present state. I recently reviewed an article for a top-tier communications journal that spent 5 pages explaining why history-based research was important…in 2009! The strict template of journal articles, which almost necessitate that every article go back over the definition of PR and the lengthy lit reviews are far removed from the professional world. It’s kind of crass, but a top young PR professional told me a couple weeks ago that his agency is so busy that they have no time for any of the research that we forced him to study as a student. His comment, “Research is done when I pick up a trade magazine on the way to the bathroom.” And scholars wonder why there isn’t linkage between what we’re doing and what professionals do.
Jim Savage’s comment above about the influence of management thinkers is a good one. Outside of the social media self-appointed gurus, the PR scholarly community doesn’t provide that kind of broad thinking to the wider business community. Thus, we allow marketing profs and others to counsel business readers (and leaders).
Okay, so that’s enough from me. I appreciate your post and the great responses.
Sean, I didn’t have a clue either “what theories were operating beneath my practice”. I ‘fell into PR’ with a management degree (economics and business management) and practised through common sense. And as you say, we didn’t do too badly.
But the more senior/older(?) I got, the more I felt and saw that things weren’t right or not as good as they could be. So I was well versed in the problems, had a gut feeling as to what the answers might be, but couldn’t really explain WHY to senior management. So I also felt very “hamstrung” and that is why I decided to study further. Must admit that I was extremely fortunate that, at the time (1993) the PR program started at U of Pretoria, positioned in Economic and Management Sciences. Need I say more!
What an illumination — theory and theories showed the way. I gathered them like little pearls and hung them around my neck, and move nowhere without them, to this day. From Mintzberg’s management roles and concept of ‘emergent strategy’ (which I have applied to PR) to Ansoff’s concept of ‘enterprise strategy’ (which I have also applied to PR, considering it to represent PR’s contribution to organisational strategy formulation); from Freeman’s ‘stakeholder theory’ to Wood’s ‘corporate social performance’ theory– they all delighted and excited, and although they are quite old by now, they still have high applicability to PR.
One advantage of returning to university at age 42 was that I could put names and faces to every theory. Must admit that I cannot remember a theory that didn’t have applicability to PR practice. And many of them weren’t even PR theories.
So, you don’t need to wonder what my paradigm is. It is most definitely a strategic approach to the field, which I constructed based on an interdisciplinary framework. And Bill, you are going to have to forgive me yet again
Because I’m sure you have guessed it already. One of them is the Excellence theory. But in my defense I can mention that there are 8 other approaches in this framework, most of them from other fields–from Plato’s dialogue to Holmstrom’s reflection!
In case you are wondering, Bill told me my fortune over at PRConversations-go have a look but promise not to tell my students. I will never live it down! But Bill, if you were closer, I sure would have invited you to address my class. http://www.prconversations.com/?p=606#comment-91326
Sean and Bill, I don’t agree with you two that scholars should focus less on normative theory — what might work — in favour of uncovering the theory behind what does work. There are enough who focus on “what does work” — master’s and doctoral students and junior lecturers and research firms all do that. It is the easy part.
In my opinion, a scholar adds real value to the field by being a trailblazer — trying to change/improve the work of practitioners through innovation. The thing is, who else is doing that?
While PR theory may have it’s place among academic circles, one should retrace the purpose of PR. In most cases it either is purposed for translating concepts into perspectives that either generate sales (emphasized), or accomplish a goal with respect to bending public perception in one direction or another.
You are encouraged to review and become familiar with the Baldridge award criteria and you may learn just a bit more about practical PR and measurable results. Many who develop theory will leave out (or selectively omit) key factors that ultimately neutralize the model.
In the end: Gee, after spinning your wheels, a review committee is going to cut funding because it ain’t working, or the one driving the program might face the facts and thus, ”hmm, I really thought it would work.”
In case any one has missed the obvious here, it’s Benita’s scholarship that “comes after Grunig.” Simply check out her chapter in The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Of anyone clamouring on PR Conversations, it’s Benita above all else who is “descriptive” at the same time as being “prescriptive.” If she didn’t live a monk’s life in the mountains east of Cape Town, we would all be genuflecting at conferences to the profession’s best “applied theorist.”
Simply read the chapter, read her book, read the Digital Management work.
Thanks Bob, Warren, Fraser for your comments. Much appreciated. This is a wonderful discussion. I’ll weigh in with further comments later this weekend.
Benita,
I didn’t say that scholars should focus on what does work, but rather on HOW it works. That’s the difference between witchcraft and medicine, science and tinkering. Moreover, it’s what scholars get paid to do, not practitioners. Otherwise, they should be teaching three or four classes a semester and advising 50 students.
And yes, I’d love to come to Cape Town and address your class.
Hmmm… the old theory vs practice and/or academics vs. practitioners debate. I hesitate to weigh in here, but I guess I just can’t my mouth shut.
Some background, which will explain my perspective: I have an MBA in Public Relations. I got it back in 1971 when we studied more about the history and practice of PR, and little or nothing about theory. In hindsight, the PR curriculum at that grad school was pitiful. I really learned on the job and I was fortunate to have some outstanding teachers/mentors at work.
My background is strictly agency-side. I’ve worked with some larger clients with internal PR or Corporate Relations or Communications Departments, usually where the top PR person had a direct report to the CEO of the company. But still, I was on the outside — an agency resource.
I must admit, I’m not conversant with the various PR theories mentioned above. I have over time had to deal with various methods of measuring what we do, with mixed results.
I do think the state of PR education, from my outside perspective, is still not what it should be. We continue to have new graduates entering (or trying to enter) the workforce with inadequate writing or journalistic skills and limited ability to think creatively or intuitively.
Again, I say this with very little knowledge of current theories, but I believe, after nearly 40 years in PR, a lot of what we do is based on:
* ability to understand needs of our target audiences
* knowledge/understanding channels to communicate with those targets and understanding how those channels operate
* experience or access to experience, in order to know what may or may not work
* COMMON SENSE, so you can use all of the above and blend it into something that will have a good shot at working in each unique situation you encounter.
If there’s theory that gives you all of that, bring it on. I welcome it.
I forgot to mention… I agree with Benita about applying various non-PR theories to PR. There are Management and Psychology theories I’ve learned about that come into play in my work in PR.
Fraser, you have me speechless. Just how much, you will be able to judge from the length of the comment — but thanks!
What does come to mind though, is that you are giving me undue credit with regards to the Digital Management software. My contribution has been small in comparison to what Gerhard Butschi has done to ‘demistify and reduce to simple bytes’ the art of public relations (as Toni put it on PRC — see http://www.prconversations.com/?p=606#comment-91310) and to ‘marry theory and practice’, as I would like to put it.
I have cheered from the sideline, my main contribution having been conceptual and making sure that everything that is in the software, is based on ‘best practice’ theories. The real ‘applied theorist’ is Gerhard. Not only does he have deep knowledge of theory (as well as practice), but he has also designed the PR processes and systems, and turned it into software.
I repeat the invitation that Don Bates made on PRC re the software. If anybody is interested in having a peek, please let him know.
Hi David, It’s been some time. We only seem to meet in academic vs. practitioner debates. But I do enjoy the opportunity to converse/debate with practitioners (probably am still one at heart), especially those so far away and those who challenge popular notions. Ask Bill Huey–we have had some interesting discussions.
I am totally surprised to learn that there even was an MBA in Public Relations so long ago. Although you think the PR curriculum was pitiful, and you were exposed to little or no theory–if you think of it, there probably wasn’t any PR theory around at that time! They did the best they could.
With an interest in Strategic Communication Management, I found myself hampered very much by a lack of theory when I started teaching in 1996. So there was no choice but to turn to the Strategic Management literature and start developing theory myself. It has been a lot of fun, though. To say nothing of the intellectual challenge (in that I heartily concur with Sean).
I wish more practitioners could be as privileged as I was to be exposed to the value of theory. I know they would find it exciting too. If there is one thing I have become convinced of during the last 13 years of teaching, it is that every single person has the desire to learn in order to improve themselves.
David, thanks for stopping by.
I believe that our profession is still young enough to have periodic doubts about who we are and what value we bring. These panic attacks are exacerbated by the stubbornness of many leaders outside the practice to demand quantifiable results from every activity, and of leaders inside the practice who cling to the concept that ours is 99% art and shouldn’t be held accountable.
With a theoretical foundation drawn largely from other disciplines, competing professional associations (in the U.S.) and disagreement over what constitutes professionalism, we lack the independent authority of our fellow support units in law and finance. We can’t even agree on what is ethical and not ethical (a problem laid bare in social media.)
We are continuing to debate matters that should long be settled, such as whether the news media relations activity we undertake has a discernible impact on our business. Businesses find it altogether too easy to cut communications staff during downturns, particularly in internal communication. Everyone wants an effective measurement capability, but few seem to want to pay for it.
We are marching toward status as true professionals, but we have a ways to go.
And, a great big huge “thank you” to all who took part in the most commented-upon post in the five month history of this blog! Wow!