Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent

Transcription

1 Getting to the heart of public relations Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent Melanie James University of Newcastle Abstract This paper suggests that public relations can be understood as the strategic attempt to get the subjects of public relations activities to construct the intended meaning of the employing or commissioning entity rather than any other meaning. The author puts forward that the intentional construction of meaning for strategic purposes may be at the heart of public relations as everything undertaken by practitioners could be framed within a concept of strategic intent. One way of conceptualising this assertion is to consider two key concepts within the field of public relations strategy and the construction of meaning. This paper suggests that the development of theory to accommodate such a position should be considered and proposes that a broadly social constructionist approach may offer the best prospect of undertaking this. If this view was widely adopted then the debate as to who holds the power and wherewithal to influence and control the meaning construction process, and the ethics of doing so, could take place. Keywords: Public Relations, Strategy, Social Constructionism, Meaning, Strategic Intent. Introduction Strategy has been a key concept at the core of public relations since the early 1980s (Holtzhausen, 2002, p. 254) however there has been little evidence of how the word strategy and those words relating to strategy strategic, strategies, strategically are defined nor is there any agreement about what public relations strategy is or should be (Xavier, Johnston, & Patel, 2005). Leichty and Warner (2001) state that public relations is first and foremost concerned with meaning (p. 61) and that meaning and interpretation are the central processes of all public relations activities (p. 61). This paper proposes bringing together strategy and the construction of meaning as a means of clarifying the purpose of public relations and suggests that the development of theory to accommodate such a position should be considered. 109 apprj-vol10.indd 109

2 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 Strategy in public relations It has been put forward that the term strategic might offer one of the most inclusive, although conflicting and contradictory, descriptions of the field of communication practice (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Vercic, & Sriramesh, 2007). There is an anomaly between what the public relations field acknowledges in terms of strategy being integral to communication programs and the seeming lack of understanding of the meaning of strategy by practitioners (Steyn, 2003). Often, it appears that one could remove the adjective, strategic from wherever it is used in the public relations literature without changing the substantive meaning of what was being put forward. Indeed removing the adjective in question would in some cases remove ambiguity. One suspects that, on occasion, the terminology is used in an effort to sound more business-like or to situate work in a managerial domain. Considering how often the words strategic, strategy and strategies are used within public relations texts, it is of interest that in an investigation of the status of theory building by public relations scholars (Sallot, Lyon, Acosta- Alzuru, & Jones, 2003) that these terms did not appear in the Categorization of Articles by Primary Classes and Subcategories nor in sub-categories within the theory development class. The words did appear in numerous titles of the 748 articles reviewed by the authors. Of the numerous especially themed issues of the public relations journals from 1975 to 2000 included in the study, not one specifically addressed the concept of strategy (p. 47). In raising these issues relating to strategy in public relations, it is only fair to point out that concepts of strategy outside of the field, such as theoretical approaches in the realm of strategic management, are far from clear with some ten schools of strategy being identified in the literature in 1998 (Franklin, 2002, p. 117). An exploration of how strategy has been defined and used in management theory was undertaken by communication researchers in 2007 (Hallahan et al., 2007). It too highlighted the diverse ways in which the concept and terminology had been used. Zerfass and Huck (2007) state that strategic communication concentrates on the core drivers of organisational success: Strategic communication shapes meaning, builds trust, creates reputation, and manages symbolic relationships with internal and external stakeholders in order to support organizational growth and secure the freedom to operate (Zerfass & Huck, 2007, p. 108). Interestingly and I believe incorrectly, Zerfass and Huck contrast strategic communication, which they state prepares an organisation for an uncertain future to everyday public relations which they see as supporting daily business (pp ). This raises a question about how some see daily business as non-strategic. Even when practitioners are designing and implementing tactics, this is done with strategic intent, which I define as the intention to do something for the purposes of maintaining or gaining some apprj-vol10.indd 110

3 Getting to the heart of public relations kind of competitive advantage, however this advantage is defined. Tactics are undertaken with strategic intent in that they are an incremental move toward achieving the strategy or the desired strategic outcome. All public relations activity is strategic in the context that being strategic is not always about the future but also involves successfully operating within and occupying the present maintaining a strategic presence on the current ground so to speak. If everyday public relations is undertaken without strategic intent, one would need to wonder why it would be undertaken at all and if such activities could be called public relations. Zerfass and Huck (2007 p. 107) state that strategic communication aims to manage meaning in all kinds of interactions with internal and external stakeholders. In exploring strategy it is clear that there is some confusion and/or disagreement within the field about what strategy is, whether public relations can be practiced without strategic intent, whether public relations practitioners practice strategic communication, or whether they manage communication strategically. There is a need to challenge some of the dominant functionalist theoretical approaches in discussions about strategy, but there is also a need to examine an absence of strategy in some of the other theoretical approaches. Strategy is clearly a key concept within the field of public relations and it appears that in this quest I have joined with scholars who are only now in the process of coherently exploring this in terms of a unified body of knowledge (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 4). The concept of strategic intent The current state of public relations theory reflects the tensions between the dominant functionalist perspective of public relations theory, epitomised by Grunig s (1992) Excellence model of public relations and a co-creation of meaning theoretical perspective of public relations. However the co-creational perspective is not the only alternative theoretical approach being explored by the field s scholars. The work in critical and postmodern public relations scholarship has highlighted the idealistic nature of symmetrical communication and indicates that the functionalist approach to public relations theory needs to be reconsidered (Durham, 2005; Gower, 2006). Berger (1999) argues that exploring organizational public relations as a process through which ideological world view is constructed provides an alternative perspective that focuses on the raison d etre of public relations rather than on more traditional functional descriptives or normative analyses that dominate the field (p. 186). So whilst acknowledging that other approaches are being taken, the main challenge to the functionalist perspective is from those who see public relations better served by a co-creational theoretical perspective (Botan & Taylor, 2004, p. 651). Botan and Taylor (2004) state that the future of the field of public relations lies with whichever co-creationist model emerges as the most useful, the most theoretically valuable, and perhaps, the one that situates public relations theory as a foundational member of the field of communication (Botan 111 apprj-vol10.indd 111

4 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 & Taylor, 2004). It can be clearly seen that the co-creation of meaning theoretical approaches are gaining increasing attention in the literature but I am suggesting that there is a need for an umbrella concept for co-creational approaches, which have up until now primarily focused on relationship management and place an implicit value on relationships going beyond the achievement of an organizational goal (Botan & Taylor, 2004, p. 652). The umbrella concept would need to incorporate the idea of strategic intent. If this is not included, cocreational perspectives as currently articulated could be seen to be an attempt to develop theory to support normative definitions of public relations that espouse that public relations is about mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics (e.g. CIPR, 2007; NSPRA, 2008; PRSA, 1982), or other iterations of non-strategic mutuality in terms of benefits to all parties involved. An example of such theory is in the area of relationship management which is said to focus on managing organization-public relationships to generate benefit for organisations and publics alike (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Byrne (2007) found that dialogic approaches such as relationship management stem from a perceived ethical superiority of such models (p.19). In her Australian study she found such approaches were not legitimate operational definitions of the field in Australia (p. 19). Such approaches could be judged as self-serving to the field essentially PR for public relations. From the earliest days of James Grunig s work, there has been a rejection of persuasion, influence and related areas as inherently manipulative and unethical (Pfau & Wan, 2006). Much theoretical work in the recent decade seems to have focused on developing normative approaches to public relations which are in essence, non-strategic and designed seemingly for the betterment of society at large, perhaps thinking that this would improve the reputation of the public relations field. Heath (2006, p. 96) believes that attempts to divorce public relations from what is found offensive has postponed being able to fix what is wrong. But is public relations wrong or are some academics caught up in the wrong arguments? Is that why things are foggy (Heath, 2006)? Heath (2006, p. 96) suggests that the future of the discipline may rest with attention focused on the good of society instead of the communicator or organization but that approach could be seen as an attempt to turn public relations into something that it is not. What is absent from many normative theories of public relations is the concept of strategic intent. When one considers that the dominant discourse within public relations is that of public relations being a management function it seems odd that strategic intent is often absent in public relations literature. Given that strategic management is about actions that adapt an organisation to its changing environment to ensure survival and growth of the organisation (Steiner & Steiner, 2003), and that public relations is widely held to be a management function, one could ask why mainstream definitions of public relations are not more overt as to what public relations aims to achieve, i.e. to contribute to 112 apprj-vol10.indd 112

5 Getting to the heart of public relations achieving the goals of an entity - whether that entity be a company, corporation, government, not-for-profit organisation or activist group. Some have questioned whether it is honest for public relations practitioners and theorists to assert that initiatives couched as symmetrical communication should be taken in the spirit of open collaboration with all of an organisation s publics (Roper, 2005, p. 84). Roper (2005) points out that in 2001 there was an acknowledgement from the lead developer of the two-way symmetrical model of public relations, J. Grunig, that it is to be expected that any organization that practices symmetrical communication is doing so in order to satisfy their own interests as well as those of their publics (p. 70). This is borne out in an exploratory study conducted by James (2009) which failed to find evidence in examples of practice that public relations was ever implemented without the objective of contributing to the attainment of the strategic goals of the commissioning organisations. James (2009) suggested that this did not mean that publics did not benefit as the result of any of the public relations activities but that the primary purpose of the public relations activity was to help the commissioning entity achieve its wider goals to have target publics construct the intended meaning of the organisation that commissioned the public relations activity. Byrne s (2007) study also found a strong client-centric orientation to descriptions of experience and perceptions of public relations from Australian practitioners and academics. These studies support Maloney s (2006, p. 168) definition of public relations above all, it is communication designed to further the interests of its principals. They would not invest in PR if it were otherwise. Definitions espousing mutual benefit as the primary purpose of public relations can be interpreted as normative rather than descriptive and it could be argued that this does not benefit the field. Hutton (1999) states that it is a common criticism of many academic definitions of public relations that they are normative or prescriptive, rather than descriptive of public relations true function in contemporary commerce and politics (p. 201). Without some point or goal, (i.e. strategic intent) behind public relations activity I suggest that we move into a different field, one that is by definition not public relations. Instead we would be in a space wherein would exist the Habermasian public sphere, identified as the public realm of civil society, which is concerned with issues of politics, but also as a realm distinguished by open discourse between individuals, with personal interests set aside, that allows for the rational formation of public opinion (Habermas, 1992). Roper (2005, p. 71) states that within this realm as articulated by Habermas, the necessary basis of communicative action is that dialogue is free of strategic intent, and, as a consequence, resulting public opinion is collaboratively negotiated. Public relations as evidenced in examples of practice described in award entries, undergraduate textbooks, academic articles and collections of case studies is never undertaken without strategic intent i.e. any entity engaging in 113 apprj-vol10.indd 113

6 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 public relations will only act collaboratively with publics with strategic intent. I do not think however that this view is entirely congruent with definitions of strategic action from a Habermasian perspective. Mayhew (1997, p. 36) defined such strategic action as action that is designed to achieve ends at the expense of other people. Public relations does not have to operate at the expense of other people. James (2009) found that public relations activities at times benefited the people or specific organisations who were the subjects of the public relations activity, and that this benefit may even have been mutual, but the processes and techniques used to achieve such an outcome were always undertaken by the commissioning entity with the strategic intent to acheve its goal/s. Public relations activities, whatever their aims, are strategic acts that can be seen as attempts to exert power and control over the organisational environment wherein the goals are being aimed for, which it has to be said is a deeply political act on behalf of the organization (Holtzhausen, 2002, p. 255). Public relations is the purposeful management of communication where strategic communication focuses on how the organization itself presents and promotes itself through the intentional activities of its leaders, employees, and communication practitioners (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 7). Public relations is by its very nature, whenever practiced, political, by way of being intrinsically partisan and impacting somehow, whether negatively or positively, on the citizenry of wherever it is practiced. The contested site the site for the strategic construction of meaning The concept of a site wherein public relations seeks to operate with strategic intent is identified by Berger (1999) as one of the fundamental characteristics that must be accounted for in conceptualising public relations. He describes what takes place in this site as being when practices of representation (in the forms of messages, images, and symbols) meet an other (p. 189). Representation, as described by Berger, refers to the purposeful expression of organizational voice(s) and appearance(s) to influence others (p. 186). His description of sites includes the locations, forums, channels, and contexts wherein virtually every form of human interaction and communication is conducted and he points out that organisations are most often practising public relations in multiple sites simultaneously (p. 190). For Berger, these sites are congested with multiple messages and appearances that are contested, fluid, and changing, thereby complicating meaning and understanding (p. 190). It is within these contested sites where meanings are constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed (Berger, 1999) that public relations practitioners operate. The concept of the contested site seems so central to the study of public relations one could ask why this concept is not at the very introduction of every course in public relations. It is where public relations techniques and processes 114 apprj-vol10.indd 114

7 Getting to the heart of public relations work to influence the way meanings are constructed by publics and I argue that this in itself is not inherently wrong or right, ethical or unethical. The way public relations practitioners operate in the contested space can be conceptualised in several ways including applying those theoretical approaches to public relations that centre on the co-creation of meaning, including rhetorical approaches that often encompass relationship management and issues management. However if the contested space is placed at the centre of the field, strategic intent becomes integral to all public relations efforts. A contested space wherein the construction of specific meanings is sought for strategic purposes lends itself to examination from a variety of theoretic perspectives management, discourse, sociological to name a few. It is clear that the critical discourse approach as put forward by Leitch and Neilson (1997) is congruent with the centrality of the contested space, or strategic terrain : Public relations is about the many ways in which different forms of communication between publics and organisations, but it is also concerned with power, strategy, objectives, and the manifold ways each articulates and overdetermines, constructs and deconstructs, organises and disorganises, the other. Public relations is about the many ways in which different types of publics interact with different types of organisations, and vice versa, on a strategic terrain of competing discourses and unequal access to power and resources (p. 26). Surma and Daymon (2009) suggest that public relations contributes to the interpretations made by publics and define public relations as a cultural practice because practitioners seek to influence how focal stakeholders, who are members of a multitude of cultures, become aware of and make sense of products and services, ideas, issues, companies and their images, etc. Depending on the extent of political influence and other resources, public relations contributes to the development of societal, organisational, ethnic and occupational interpretations. When reproduced and perpetuated, these become cultural assumptions about the way the world works, or about what is effective, successful, or desirable, and so on. Such assumptions comprise meaningful worlds, which are continually being worked out and negotiated discursively (Moffitt 1994). In effect, they are dynamic and socially constructed. (2009, np) Weaver, Motion and Roper (2006) put forward that public relations can be understood as the strategic attempt to control the agenda of public discussion and the terms in which discussion takes place. In these terms public relations practitioners are complicit in the attempt to gain, or maintain, social, political, and/or economic power for the organisations that they represent (p. 17). 115 apprj-vol10.indd 115

8 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 All these scholars approach public relations from a broadly social constructionist epistemology and an interpretative approach to research. A social constructionist approach that places the concept of contested space (where meaning is negotiated, constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed) at its centre lends itself to examination of a) the issues related to the ethics of what is being undertaken in public relations, b) the issues related to power and resources available to those contesting meaning constructions in the space and c) the issues related to the means by which communication is managed and executed by public relations practitioners and others. It may be that it is social constructionism, with its potential to shake our foundations (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 104) of the practice and philosophy of public relations, provides a platform for propelling the practice and scholarship of the field (p.104). Social constructionism an umbrella concept for the strategic construction of meaning? Social constructionism stems from the assertion of Berger and Luckman (1966) that reality is socially constructed (p. 13). Social constructionism contends that reality is a social construction that is created, maintained, altered, and destroyed through the process of human interaction (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 105) A social constructionist orientation to public relations focuses on the making of meaning through human interaction (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 104). Gordon and Pellegrin draw on the seminal work of Berger and Luckmann (1966) acknowledging that it was their book, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge that saw the theoretical perspective known as social constructionism matured to its current definition (p. 106). Berger and Luckmann concluded that: 116 In the dialectic between nature and the socially constructed world the human organism itself is transformed. In this same dialectic man produces reality and thereby produces himself (1966, p. 204). Language is central to social constructionism, not as a reflection of the knowable world but as an artefact of social interaction (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008). Berger and Luckmann (1966) state that language builds up semantic fields or zones of meaning that are linguistically circumscribed (p. 55). Public relations practitioners work with the medium of language to convey meaning and this work often concerns itself with advocating specific meanings (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 114). Practitioners formulate and transmit words to create meaning and knowledge but that they lose all control once these words hit the marketplace of ideas with publics able to redefine the pieces of knowledge crafted by the practitioner in any way they choose (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 115). Within social constructionism, the intellectual domain of public relations is concerned with the study of socially constructed meaning (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 115) and that this underpins all public relations practice. Gordon and Pellegrin apprj-vol10.indd 116

9 Getting to the heart of public relations see practitioners offering publics a particular meaning promoting a particular way of understanding the world (Gordon & Pellegrin, 2008, p. 115). This is where strategy and the construction of intended meanings come together a potential new theoretical approach within a social constructionist epistemology. This can be seen in the recent work of Heide (2009) who has also applied a social constructionist approach to a sub-field of public relations, crisis communications, stating that practitioners must acknowledge that people always create meanings in different situations, and their interpretation will inevitably be dissimilar to the sender s original meaning (p.56). He concludes that public relations is an institution that constructs certain world views and realities through communication activities. Public relations can be seen as a process of strategic disseminations of texts to maintain, develop certain sociocultural practices and the preferred values of an organization (p. 58). Heide s (2009) observations lend weight to the appropriateness of a wider consideration of the emerging social constructionist approaches to public relations. I suggest it may be possible to draw together the various strands of previous scholarly work and overlay the concept of strategic intent onto Hall s Articulation Model of Meaning (Moffat, 1994); cultural topoi (Leichty & Warner, 2001); dialogical theory (Kent & Taylor, 2002); sense-making (Walker, 2006); sociodrama (Mickey, 2008), and many other theories that offer frameworks for examining how intended meaning might be constructed. This could offer ways of conceptualising strategic intent in the construction of meaning under a social constructionist umbrella. Interestingly, this approach may not rule out applying a symmetrical approach to public relations as espoused by Grunig. In a discussion where Grunig (2001) laments the way both disciples of the symmetrical theory and critical scholars who debunk it seem to have reconstructed the theory inaccurately in their minds to the extent that the theory appears to be ridiculous (p. 18), he puts forward the following which would support his symmetrical approach being an approach through which the strategic construction of meaning in a social constructionist framework could take place: Symmetrical public relations does not take place in an ideal situation where competing interests come together with goodwill to resolve their differences because they share a goal of social equilibrium and harmony. Rather, it takes place in situations where groups come together to protect and enhance self-interests. Argumentation, debate, and persuasion take place. But dialogue, listening, understanding and relationship building also occur because they are more effective in resolving conflict than are one-way attempts at compliance gaining (p. 18). Grunig has provided an example of public relations terrain of struggle, the contested site where meaning is constructed with strategic intent. This 117 apprj-vol10.indd 117

10 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 construction of meaning by publics can be seen to be facilitated by public relations practitioners. Interestingly those examining public relations through a media studies lens have primarily understood public relations through the pursuit of its clients interests (Pieczka, 2002) can the public relations field itself stomach doing the same? A client s interest is not always profit driven but it is goal driven and there is little evidence to support that public relations techniques and practices are ever employed without strategic intent. Perhaps this concept could unify a diversity of theoretical voices. Leichty (2003) wrote that the diversity of theoretical voices is not a sad commentary on the state of public relations but is a starting point for characterising public relations theory and practice (p. 300) but I disagree. If the public relations field accepted that the concept of strategic intent applied under a broad social constructionist banner did unify the field, then the debate as to who holds the power and wherewithal to influence and control the meaning construction process, and the ethics of doing so, could take place. The field could acknowledge its practice as always being somehow advocacy-focused. The popular public debates could move from is public relations all about spin to examinations of how and for what purposes intended meanings are being constructed by parties. This acceptance would make teaching public relations much more straightforward and possibly bring more respect to the field as we no longer pretend to be something we are not. Conclusion It seems clear that strategy and meaning are the key concepts in public relations however they are concepts that may best be explored through approaches that have, until recently, been seen only at the edges of public relations scholarship, especially North American scholarship social constructionism, cultural studies and discourse perspectives. The purpose of research is to build theories to solve the problems researchers face in working in a domain (Littlejohn, 1995) and I am suggesting that more research work is required to determine whether combining concepts relating to strategy and the construction of meaning provide the basis for new theory perhaps a strategic construction of meaning theory. I have put forward for consideration an argument for the field of public relations to further consider that the intentional construction of meaning for strategic purposes is at the heart of public relations and that everything undertaken by practitioners is done with strategic intent. This holds true whether a practitioner is doing what would commonly be called tactical tasks such as updating the about us section on the website, pulling together a media contact list or writing an employee newsletter, through to the highly strategic work of developing crisis response plans, government relations programs or national product launches. More research is needed to shed light on the methods and processes of strategic meaning construction used in the practice of public relations so that the 118 apprj-vol10.indd 118

11 Getting to the heart of public relations findings could assist both practitioners and critics of public relations to better present their cases and pinpoint those areas of concern. The understandings gleaned from such research could provide insights into how decisions are made to intentionally represent an organisation or an organisation s view. This could assist organisations in further refining public relations programs. It could also assist the wider citizenry is being able to decode public relations practice and representations. Such research could also underpin the development of ways in which practice can be taught and critiqued in academic settings. References Berger, B. (1999). The Halcion Affair: Public Relations and the Construction of Ideological World View. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin. Botan, C. & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: state of the field. Journal of Communication, Botan, C. (2006). Grand Strategy. In C. Botan & B. Hazelton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp ). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Byrne, K. (2007). Asking the Insiders: An investigation into areas of meaning and perception convergence and divergence on practitioner and academic definitions of public relations in Australia. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 8, CIPR. (2007). Definition of PR. Retrieved 14/09/2007, 2007, from cipr.co.uk/education/careersinpr/whatispr.asp Durham, F. (2005). Public Relations a structuration: a prescriptive critique of the StarLink global food contamination case. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (1), Franklin, P. (2002). Guest editorial - Elephants, metaphors and tropes in strategic management theory: Implications for a strategy for strategy? Strategic Change, 11, Gordon, J. and Pellegrin, P. (2008). Social Constructionism and Public Relations. In T. Hansen-Horn & B. Neff (Eds.), Public Relations: From Theory to Practice (pp ). Boston: Pearson. Gower, K. (2006). Public Relations Research at the Crossroads. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), Grunig, J. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations. In Heath, R. (Ed.) Handbook of Public Relations (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grunig, J., Grunig, L., & Dozier, L. (2006). The Excellence Theory. In C. Botan & B. Hazelton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp ). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 119 apprj-vol10.indd 119

12 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 Habermas, J. (1992) The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D. & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining Strategic Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), Heath, R. (2006). Onward into more fog: thoughts on public relations research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), Heide, M. (2009) On Berger: A social constructionist perspective on public relations and crisis communication. In Ø. Ihlen, M. Fredriksson & B. van Ruler (Eds.), Public Relations and Social Theory. (pp ). New York: Taylor & Francis. Holtzhausen, D. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, Hutton, J. (1999). The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public Relations Review. 25(2), James, M. (2009). The construction of intended meanings: furthering understanding of the purpose of public relations. In T. Flew (Ed.) Communication, Creativity and Global Citizenship: Refereed Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communications Association Annual Conference, Brisbane, July ISBN Available at: Kent, M. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review. 28, Ledingham, J. & Bruning, S. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization public relationships dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In J. Ledingham & S. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ledingham, J. (2006). Relationship Management, a general theory of Public Relations. In C. Botan & B. Hazelton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp ). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leichty, G. & Warner, E. (2001). Cultural topoi: implications for public relations. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leichty, G. (2003). The cultural tribes of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research. 15(4), Leitch, S. & Neilson, D. (1997). Reframing public relations: new directions for theory and practice. Australian Journal of Communication. 24(2) Littlejohn, S. (1995). Theories of human communication (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Maloney, K. (2006) Rethinking public relations. (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge. Mayhew, L. (1997). The new public: professional communication and the means of public influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University. 120 apprj-vol10.indd 120

13 Getting to the heart of public relations Mickey, T. (2008). Sociodrama for Public Relations Practice. In T. Hansen-Horn & B. Neff (Eds.), Public Relations: From Theory to Practice (pp ). Boston: Pearson. Moffit, M. (1994). Collapsing and integrating concepts of public and image into a new theory. Public Relations Review, 20, Motion, J. & Leitch, S. (2007) A toolbox for public relations: The oeuvre of Michel Foucault. Public Relations Review. 33, NSPRA. (2008). National School Public Relations Association definition of public relations. Retrieved , from schoolpr.htm PRSA. (1982). Official Statement on Public Relations. Retrieved 19 September, 2007, from Pfau, M. & Wan, H. (2006). Persuasion: an intrinsic function of public relations. In C. H. Botan & B. Hazelton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp ). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pieczka, M. (2002). Public relations expertise deconstructed. Media, Culture & Society. 24, Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical Communication: Excellent Public Relations or a Strategy for Hegemony? Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Jones, K. (2003). From Aardvark to Zebra: A New Millennium Analysis of Theory Development in Public Relations Academic Journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), Steiner, G. & Steiner, F. (2003). Business, government and society: a managerial perspective (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Steyn, B. (2003). From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation. Journal of Communication Management, 8(2), Surma, A. & Daymon, C. (2009) Critical discourses in the culture-public relations relationship. Refereed proceedings of the International Public Relations Research Symposium Bledcom Accessed PR-relationship-FINAL.doc Walker, G. (2006). Sense-making Methodology: A Theory of Method for Public Relations. In C. Botan & B. Hazelton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II (pp ). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weaver, C., Motion, J. & Roper, J. (2006) From Discourse to Propaganda. In J. L Etang & M. Piezcka (Eds.) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. London: Routledge. Xavier, R., Johnston, K., & Patel, A. (2005). Exploring strategy: what public relations strategy means in practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Relations, 6(2). 121 apprj-vol10.indd 121

14 Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, Vol. 10 Zerfass, A. & Huck, S. (2007). Innovation, Communication, and Leadership: New Developments in Strategic Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(2), apprj-vol10.indd 122