Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation

Transcription

1 Sociology Compass 7/10 (2013): , /soc Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation Jacquie L Etang* Queen Margaret University Abstract This article presents an overview of the evolution and emerging architecture of the public relations academic discipline. Key developments and debates are described, highlighting some of the major tensions and debates that have arisen. The scope of discussion proceeds through definitions, a consideration of historical contexts, evolution of public relations research, key approaches, an introduction to the remit of key journals, and finally, consideration as to emerging themes and possible futures. It is suggested that the increasing emphasis on historical, sociological and cultural themes is leading to an increasingly reflexive and diverse field. This article aims to give an overview of the evolution and emerging architecture of the public relations academic discipline, characterising key changes and developments and arguing that there is now an optimistic future on the horizon after a stultifying start. It therefore offers an overview of the historical (and to some degree methodological) development and debates in the field and syntheses key shifts and changes. The article describes the emergence of a long-standing organisationally focused paradigm in public relations and then recounts how that paradigm has been gradually eroded so that the field now incorporates a number of alternative approaches. Consequently, this article gives a flavour of the increasingly variable dishes on the public relations (PR) menu. The article begins with a discussion of definitional debates and then proceeds to a discussion of historical and cultural contexts that frame the practice globally. This is followed by a descriptive overview of the formative years of the discipline and central assumptions and concepts that emerged, subsequently counter-pointed with a discussion of critiques and alternative lines of enquiry. Definitions Definitions have been very important in public relations scholarship as well as in practice as the occupation seeks to legitimise itself, define an area of expertise and jurisdiction, to position itself as a strategic and influential organisational function and to distinguish itself so far from propaganda that it is to be understood as a socially valuable, indeed ethical, occupation. Public relations scholarship and education remains unsure of its place in the world, often the butt of politicians and journalists derision. The practice is hugely variable in terms of its scope and sophistication, frequently almost indistinguishable from its better established and close relative, marketing. For these reasons, definitional debate remains a significant feature of the academic field; definitions can include, and in some cases may merge the functional, the idealistic and the critical. Public relations can be understood as intention or as a collection of techniques, as agency or communication production, as democratic education, communicative action or manipulation. Public relations is certainly a field of fractured and sometimes radically opposed identities, particularly if one takes account of overtly hostile accounts that 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

2 800 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation see the occupation as nefarious spin doctoring. These competing narratives are problematic for those of a modernist frame of mind and a point of departure for those who embrace postmodernity and multiple socially constructed perspectives (Radford, 2012). And yet, There is a modernist thread that continues to hold [these surface differences together: the explicit recognition that PR exists for the benefit of the commissioning organization (Radford, 2012, 59). Acknowledging the utility of some practical definition, and for purposes of clarifying the public relations phenomenon at a commonsensical descriptive level for those outwith the field, I shall risk a basic definition: public relations may be understood as the occupation responsible for the management of organisational relationships and reputation. It encompasses issues management, public affairs, corporate communications, stakeholder relations, risk communication and corporate social responsibility. Public relations operates on behalf of many different types of organisation both at the governmental and corporate level, to small business and voluntary sectors. Public relations activity (which may be carried out by salaried staff or commissioned agents designated as expert, or, indeed, by unpaid or unspecialised amateurs ) arises at points of societal change and resistance. Typically, public relations activity clusters around (1) public policy formation; (2) organizational change and development; (3) public issues such as the environment; and (4) major global shifts such as conflict, unstable international environments, globalisation, natural disasters, or human disasters such as war or global financial collapse (L Etang, 2011, p. 224). Understanding public relations activity requires an inter-disciplinary approach combining mass communications, media and cultural studies, organisational, management and marketing studies, politics and philosophy. Definitions, role and scope of public relations have been a major theme in the literature (Harlow, 1977; Gordon, 1997; Hutton, 1999; Vercic et al., 2001; Clark, 2000; McKie & Toledano, 2008). Hutton (1999), for example, proposed the definition managing strategic relationships and included a useful review of the efforts made by practitioners and academics to define their field, which has resulted in some rich and imaginative imagery and metaphor, but not very consistent terminology, many highlighting communicative and behavioural aspects: a guide to social conduct, social and political engineering, builder of public opinion, motivator, lubricant, catalyst, spotlight, educator, perception manager and manipulator of symbols (Hutton, 1999). The term public relations is not a neutral technical term but a concept that connotes different meanings in different cultural contexts in some parts of the world, it means guest relations or hospitality (parts of Asia); in others, it means working with publics and public opinion (Germany) or reputation management (Wartick, 2002; Watson, 2007). In some cultural contexts, public relations is used interchangeably with the tactical specialism media relations as though these terms were synonymous. The terms public relations, communication management, corporate communications and public affairs overlap even though a term may connote a particular emphasis; for example, public affairs may imply work in a more political context, working with governmental publics (civil service, politicians and think tanks). Public relations concepts are also central to other practices such as public diplomacy, to international relations and state diplomacy, public and cultural diplomacy, corporate diplomacy and to inter-cultural communication (Signitzer & Coombs, 1992; L Etang, 1996, 2009; Signitzer & Wamser, 2006, Szondi, 2009a, 2009b). Public relations and related terms such as communication management, corporate communications, public affairs and integrated communications are 20th century terms associated with an occupation that has its roots in a variety of historical public communication practices.

3 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 801 Public relations is a contested and sometimes controversial practice, and consequently, there are multiple socially constructed definitions, some of which overlap those that define it as a descriptive collection of communication techniques, those that define it in terms of an organisational function and/or part of strategic management, those that define it in terms of an activity that is part of societal dynamics, those that define it as manipulation and propaganda and those that define it in terms of how it ought to be practised as a normative ideal. The ethical problematics of public relations practice relating to invisible undue influence, lobbying and political/ideological propaganda and visceral fears of the presence of an unregulated and un-unionised occupation of persuasive communicators and paid advocators, contributed to the development of an initial paradigm that focused on organisational needs, emphasised values of dialogue and mutuality between an organisation and its publics and argued that ethical practice would in fact be more credible and effective. Organisations and management were presumed to be societally beneficial; public relations scholarship tended to align itself to corporate need, even in some quarters, reinventing itself as corporate communications. However, these assumptions were challenged by scholars who observed public relations as an insidious influence on the media or lobbying in power elites, or who questioned a research agenda that privileged organisational needs rather than those of society and the public interest. This article shows how anxieties coming from radically different directions (desire for respectability and legitimacy versus critique) have shaped and continue to shape definitions, readings and (mis)understandings of public relations. The analysis to follow shows that multiple definitions have ultimately generated historiographical diversity and multiple paradigms whose existence ran counter to the strategic professional management functional paradigm that sought hegemonically (L Etang, 1996a: 34; Roper, 2005) to enforce a unified conception and grand theory on scholarship and practice. The efforts made to globalise US theory, while initially successful in colonising various parts of the world also triggered critical reactions notably from those in Europe, Scandinavia and New Zealand. To sum up the discussion so far, definitions of public relations are informed by rather different sets of assumptions, values and worldviews and have been increasingly subject to interrogation and debate moving up the academic agenda as scholars have become engaged in paradigm debate (Hallahan, 1992; Pieczka, 1996, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Edwards, 2012; Curtin, 2012). The public relations academy is currently becoming more reflexive and conscious of the dangers of a singular paradigm and efforts to develop a unifying grand theory (Curtin, 2012: 34). One recent reconceptualization has sought to highlight the connections and continua between alternative conceptions that may have been seen traditionally as oppositional and consequently defines public relations as the flow (Appadurai, 1996) of purposive communication produced on behalf of individuals, formally constituted and informally constituted groups, through their continuous trans-actions with other social entities (Edwards, 2012: 21). A range of the varied approaches within the public relations academy will be introduced later. First, I will outline contributions that have endeavoured to explain the emergence, rise and nature of public relations in contemporary post-industrial societies. Historical and cultural contexts: framing definitions and practice The very scope of public relations history is contested, since for some, the history begins with the use of the term public relations, while for others, it is the use of publicity and public communication by those in political power, and evidence of the existence of the practice is claimed in ancient monuments. Definitional debates as discussed earlier also influence the

4 802 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation historiography of public relations in terms of scope and approaches. If we accept that public relations practice is based in its socio-cultural context, then it follows that we will accept public relations histories that will be at least partially ethnographic, reflecting particular political and economic contexts. Yet, until recently, writing on public relations history, as in the public relations literature more generally, has been dominated by US accounts and corporate perspectives (Cutlip, 1994; Ewen, 1996). In fact, a historical framework of periods in US history has shaped conceptual approaches, since the key phases were used as a typology of practice as well as a way of explaining historical development (Cutlip et al., 1999; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). In particular, this led to US American PR history being strongly progressive, and its theory strongly idealistic as public relations was presented as on a morally improving path that was simultaneously increasingly effective. This framework of US history came to dominate the interpretation of public relations roles globally (L Etang, 2004; 2008). Indeed, Hoy, Raaz and Wehmeier (2007) argue that not only does American PR history dominate in terms of quantitative coverage but also a particular type of US history dominates that of progressivism. Specifically, it was suggested that public relations had evolved as a practice from basic publicity and public information to management science approaches that incorporated psychological theories of persuasion and social scientific research and evaluation (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). This framework has also been adopted as a typology for different types of practice globally in which publicity is seen as a primitive form, and two-way symmetrical communication is portrayed as sophisticated, strategic, organisationally influential, the most effective and ethical form of public relations. Gower (2006) gives an excellent summary of the way in which the field has developed and the emergence and subsequent dominance of the four models. Competing perspectives of US historical practices (Pimlott, 1951; Raucher, 1968; Tedlow, 1979; Olasky, 1987; Pearson, 1990a; Marchand, 1998; Ewen, 1996; Tye, 1998) have curiously had less impact on theorisation of the field, its assumptions and self-understanding. Pearson (1990b) argued that PR historians wrote their histories with rhetorical intent citing Smythe s Marxist explanation of capitalist economies marketing commodities to constructed audiences through media agendas that define reality (Pearson, 1990b: 84); the conservative Olasky s (1987) interpretation that corporate public relations activities were designed to circumvent free market forces in favour of collaborationism (strategic alliances) (Pearson, 1990b: 35); Hiebert s desire to show that there was a public relations revolution leading to a set of ideal public relations values (Hiebert, 1966; Pearson, 1990b: 29), and the British civil servant Pimlott s analysis of US public relations constructed a specialisation thesis that explained public relations as a natural response to the growth of the mass media that facilitated organisational adjustment to environmental change, a thesis apparently linked to that of technological determinism. In the UK, academic texts include some historical framing (Harrison, 1995; Edwards in Tench & Yeomans, 2006, 2009; Moloney, 2006). Specialised historical monographs focused largely on the 20th century exploring governmental communication (Grant, 1994) or the institutionalisation of public relations (L Etang, 2004) or specialised sectors (Davis, 2002; 2007; forthcoming). Media sociologists David Miller and Will Dinan interpreted British historical developments critically rather than functionally (Miller & Dinan, 2000; 2008; Dinan & Miller, 2007). They saw the evolution of public relations as a part of free market ideology and neo-liberal agenda that not only privileges business interests but also acknowledged that PR...is not just a servant of capital...it has enabled deregulation and privatisation (Miller & Dinan, 2000: 29). They emphasised corporate propaganda as a driving force in the development of public relations and highlighted the sinister and the secret. Their work is part of a tradition of public relations critique, that includes the British writers Richard West and Richard Kisch, both

5 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 803 of whom published books in the early 1960s (West, 1963; Kisch, 1964); Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988); Stauber and Rampton (1995). Dinan & Miller (2007) and Miller & Dinan (2008) were critical of the public relations academic discipline and its dominant functionalist agenda, referring to academic apologists and pointed out that Many academics specialising in PR attend to the often apolitical technicalities of PR practice [while] the broader issues of what evasion, deception and manipulative communications are doing to democratic structures are avoided or neglected (p.2). Miller and Dinan suggested that public relations itself is a propaganda term (2008: 27). They argued that corporate PR/propaganda is not simply a negative influence trained on governments and public servants, but on civil society (p.7). Public relations scholars have also argued that public relations either has or should have a profound influence on society, but generally from the opposite perspective, since they argue that public relations acts as the ethical conscience of the organisation (L Etang, 2003), that it is the appropriate organisational role to take responsibility for CSR, and that it can and should have a positive influence on society, helping to rebond communities that have become fragmented (Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988; Starck & Kruckeberg, 2001) and contributing to the growth of civil society in global contexts (Taylor, 2009, 2010). Thus, even in this initial sketch of definitions, scope and intentions, some ideological fractures are clearly apparent. The consequences on the academic discipline have been profound in terms of generating considerable defensiveness and morally tinted justification and in generating immense discomfort among public relations academics. This has resulted in some key features: a retreat into functionalism and technocratic efficiency, close alignment with the practice (facilitated through parttime academics who continue to consult and practice) and, in some cases, academics that appear to prioritise the needs of the occupation above those of scholarship (Gregory, 2012), marginalisation of critics as ideologically driven and external to the discipline. In short, the public relations scholarly community has had something of an identity crisis and inevitable insecurities partially contributed to by its late arrival in higher education (as recent as 1988 in the UK). In the United States, the historical genres of biography (Hiebert, 1966; Cutlip, 1994, 1995; Tye, 1998) and autobiography (Bernays, 1947; Hill, 1963) have been strongly represented which may have led to the tendency to over-emphasise individual practitioners as opposed to social change (Ewen, 1996). Public relations activity facilitates protest movements and activism (Demetrious, 2006; Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Historians need to see public relations as part of the political, economic and socio-cultural fabric rather than ideologically neutral management technocracy, a notion that is implicit in the longstanding campaign for the public relations of public relations. Texts that take a multi-cultural comparative approach to public relations have become increasingly popular, and contributing chapters usually give some brief background as to the origins of the occupation in specific cultural contexts (Freitag & Quesinberry, 2009: Sriramesh & Vercic, 2009; Sriramesh & Vercic, 2009; Tilson & Alozie, 2004; van Ruler & Vercic, 2004). However, frequently, it is the case that varied cultural practices are viewed through the lens of the US strategic management framework and the general theory of systems and Excellence. The bulk of this literature employs Hofstede s (1984) framework derived from a study of one company, but while this can and is used as a benchmark for quantitative study, it is weak on interpretation and specific contexts. Recently, scholars have attacked the use of Hofstede in cross and multi-cultural public relations and proposed instead investigations that draw on anthropology and ethnography (Courtwright, Wolfe & Baldwin, 2011; L Etang, 2012).

6 804 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation New wave historical scholarship Historical work developed an impetus in the first years of the 21st century. In the United States, some of this appeared to arise from those with interests in the longer established field of journalism history and access to archives of well-known practitioners and corporations. In the UK, much can be attributed to the energy of Tom Watson, a Professor at the University of Bournemouth. He edited a Special Issue of Journal of Communication Management in 2008 and from 2010 hosted annual conferences. Papers from these were published in Special Issues of Journal of Communication Management 15(3) and 38(3), and at the time of writing, he selected papers from the 2013 conference that will be published in a Special Issue of Public relations review ensuring a wider international readership. These conferences and publications opened up a space for historical discussion that had not previously existed and generated an international response pulling in scholars from all over the world including Jamaica, Latvia, Uganda, Philippines, Kosovo, as well as contributions that explored counter-narratives, race, screen and media images, her stories, biographies, historiography, nation-branding and professionalisation. Curiously, as these more recent contributions have made clear, although public relations practice clearly has had varied genesis in different socio-cultural environments, such as transitional economies (Lawniczak, Rydzak & Trebeski, 2003), the main thrust of early scholarship sought to develop generalisable theory about the practice and to apply such theory to all cultures, and it is to this tradition that I now turn. Formative years in public relations scholarship: central assumptions and concepts the dominant paradigm In the United States, academics were active from the 1950s, at least in terms of producing student texts. Academic research, which integrated organisational sociology and communications, began to advance the discipline and in the 1980s a large-scale international project (United States, UK, and Canada) led to the formulation of a theoretical-base focused on effectiveness and excellence. However, research that has subsequently emanated from this normative theory has been largely applied and quantitative. The dominant theme that emerged in the early years of US public relations education was that of public relations being the management function that managed and sustained mutually satisfactory relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Cutlip et al., 2006). The theme of mutuality subsequently became important in the development of a normative ideal for public relations that public relations should be practised as a two-way symmetrical communication process. Historically, [This] idea of symmetry in communication theory can be traced back to research in interpersonal communication and cognitive psychology...the key moment in the development of the idea is Theodore Newcomb s (1953) article (Pieczka, 2011). The two-way symmetrical concept was developed by James Grunig (this concept made him virtually the best-known US academic) who borrowed the concept from the communication scholar Thayer (1968). Thayer had developed models of synchronic communications (synchronising publics with the needs of the organisation) and diachronic communications (creating a dialogue in search of a solution that would benefit both organisation and publics) (Thayer, 1968; Grunig, 1991). Gruing adjusted and renamed Thayer s concepts that subsequently came to dominate the field. Two-way symmetrical communication was subsequently linked to Habermas Theory of Communicative Action 1 by Pearson (1990a) and became an ideal that seduced many public relations academics because it offered a comforting moral

7 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 805 justification for the public relations role in organisations and society and was a counter to claim that public relations was little more than propaganda (Moloney, 2006). Two-way symmetry had a feel-good factor for scholars and students alike even though it puzzled practitioners who often saw their work as persuasion and advocacy. Early academics and educators in the United States focused on the explanation and conceptualisation of public relations processes as part of the management function (defining problems, planning and programming, evaluation) (Cutlip et al., 1999). They also linked the function to the societal context and to the processes of public opinion formation. In due course, their reflections upon the dual organisational and social role of public relations led them to incorporate the study of public relations into a general theory that had its origins in physics and mechanics and was subsequently adopted by economists and sociologists (Pieczka, 1996: 127; Pieczka, 2006a: 335). The General Systems Theory was adopted by many disciplines in the 1970s and is a biological metaphor that focuses on adaptive processes of systems to their environment. Public relations scholars posited systems theory as a framework that could explain public relations as a management function that enabled the organisation to take feedback and adapt its functions in response to that feedback in order to survive and thrive (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Pavlik, 1987; Brody & Stone, 1989). In other words, public relations practitioners acted as boundary spanners on the cusp of the organisation and facilitated environmental scanning and feedback processes. This positioning wrote out the possibility of advocacy and activism since the PR practice took a powerful position but was simultaneously responsible for mediating and balancing organisational and stakeholder interests. Ideally, the organisation would achieve balance, or equilibrium through regulatory processes of homeostasis in relation to its environment. It was suggested that organisations that did not do this would atrophy and die. In order for organisations to act responsively, the requirement for flexibility and a degree of openness was identified as a significant component. Within public relations, the notions of organisations being relatively open or closed to change acquired a semi-ideological tone since good or effective public relations became aligned with notions of openness and dialogue. Curiously, dialogue itself has had little attention within the public relations field although recent work has moved the topic up the public relations academic agenda (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Pieczka, 2011; Theunissen & Noordin, 2012). In the 1980s and 1990s, US researchers explored the role of public relations to develop a hierarchical framework that became simplified into a dichotomous model comprising manager versus technician (Dozier, 1984; Dozier & Broom, 1995) Along the way, the researchers also discovered that women dominated in the technical communication production roles and were less well represented in the higher managerial roles, a finding that triggered further research inspired by liberal feminism (Toth 1996; Toth & Cline, 1991; Toth & Grunig, 1993, Aldoory, 2003, 2005, 2009; Hon, 1995.) The influence of strategic management led to further functional studies outside the United States (Moss & DeSanto, 2012; Moss & Warnaby, 1997) and the managerial role. Academics advocated a strategic role for public relations whereby public relations activities are closely linked to organisational strategy and objectives, reputation and risk management and corporate social responsibility (CSR) CSR is seen as central to organisational reputation for which public relations is responsible (Bartlett & Devin, 2011; Bartlett, 2011; Coombs & Holladay, 2012; Cheney, Roper & May, 2007; Christensen, Morsing & Thyssen, 2011; Ihlen, Bartlett & May, 2011;, L Etang, 1994a,b). Here, I shall give an overview of the nature and type of discussions that are important in the field. Reputation became a central theme in the PR as well as management and marketing literature (Fombrun, 1996; Schultz et al., 2000; Weigelt & Camerer, 1988). The protection

8 806 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation and maintenance of reputation was the focus of a much-cited article in public relations literature (Benoit, 1997). Benoit had earlier attempted to develop a general theory of image restoration drawing on earlier impression management thinkers from applied psychology, specifically Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1989, 1991). Benoit introduced the concept of apologia public acknowledgement that may include some confessional aspects while avoiding legal liability from Ware and Linkugal, and this concept has been further expanded and incorporated within the public relations literature by Hearit (2001). All of these authors are part of the inheritance of an older tradition of sociological and social-psychological research conducted by Goffman (1959) whose classic established the concept as significant in understanding individual human behaviour in culture, and which appears to have entered the public relations literature via the concept of framing some from specifically media and psychological perspectives (for example see Froehlich & Rudiger, 2006; Knight, 1999), and there is also a helpful review of framing studies in public relations research (Lim & Jones, 2010). Goffman s theoretical implications for public relations have also been evaluated ( Johansson, 2007). Ferguson s influence (1984) is frequently cited and shaped the emergence of a quantitatively driven relational approach or paradigm exploring variables in organisational relationships (Bruning and Ledingham, 1999; Ledingham, Bruning, and Wilson, 1999; Ledingham and Bruning, 2000; Broom, Casey and Ritchey, 2000; Grunig and Huang, 2001; Ledingham, 2001; and Bruning, 2002). Ferguson identified three areas of scholarship unique to public relations and which she believed might be further developed into paradigms: social responsibility and ethics, social issues and issues management and public relationships. She argued that the public relationships area had the most potential because of the primary focus on the relationship between organisations and publics. Situational theory was initially developed by Grunig, 1997) from the perspective of seeking to understand how and why people seek information in decision situations. He realised that understanding, and being to research populations on the basis of their interest and information seeking attitudes in relation to organisations and their issues constituted a tool that could be used to discern when a stakeholder group might morph into an active public that could potentially threaten an organisation. Influenced by theories about economic decision-taking and also theories of opinion formation Grunig blended his ideas into a framework that could be used for statistical research since it categorised the key elements of problem recognition, constraint recognition, level of involvement, information seeking and information processing as independent or dependent variables. In short, these terms could be used as a way to segment populations and also evaluate statistically their responses. Systems theory, situational theory, symmetrical theory, roles theory and the four models were brought together in the International Association of Business Communication IABC-funded Excellence research project in 1984 (to which reference was made earlier) which aimed to address the questions: How, why and to what extent communication contributes to the achievement of organizational objectives? The Excellence researchers conducted a major literature review on a range of contributing disciplines and aimed to understand the value of public relations and its return on investment (Grunig, 1992). The Excellence team concluded that public relations could achieve organisational goals through its interactions with strategic constituencies, its identification of stakeholders and classification of potential publics and its use of symmetrical communication to develop and cultivate important relationships (Grunig, 2006: 158 9). According to Grunig, the Excellence model,

9 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 807 Produced the global theory of generic principles and specific applications. The Excellence model actually is much more than a model. It is a general theory that is made up of a number of middle-range theories such as a theory of public relations and strategic management, the situational theory of publics, practitioner roles, the organisation of the public relations function, internal communication, activism, ethics, and gender and diversity (Grunig, 2001). Consequently, the Excellence approach became more than just a theory...it [became]... a discourse not just a tentative proposition about relationships between phenomena, but a way of thinking (Pieczka, 1996: 155). Consequently, while many scholars sought to fit their own ideas within this dominant framework, it was only a matter of time before others challenged the framework and developed alternative conceptions. Paradigm debate? Emerging agenda and the politics of the discipline There have been various different conceptualizations of the field s architecture (Aldoory, 2005; Botan & Taylor, 2004; Toth, 2007; Toth & Heath, 1992), and the review presented here is written from the perspective of a European critical scholar. Paradigm debate has accelerated in recent years following critiques of the dominant paradigm, characterised by its US accent and its adherence to functionalism, drawing on organisational sociology, psychology and management. Within that paradigm, several strands and sub-themes emerged: relationship management, which focused on quantifying relationships between organisations and stakeholder/publics; communitarianism, which argued that the appropriate role for public relations is community-building (Kruckeberg & Starck 1988; Starck & Kruckeberg, 2001); rhetorical, which argues that the role of public relations as organisational rhetor can be explained as the good organization speaking well, thatisbeneficial to societies asitfacilitatespublicdebateandhelpsrespectivegroupstoarriveatconsensuswithina systemic framework (Heath, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2001a; Ihlen, 2002, 2008). Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) addressed the role that public relations could pay in improving intracommunity relations, Most of the concerns of public relations practitioners today simply did not exist before the loss of community. For it was this loss of community [partly the consequence of urbanisation and industrialisation] that provided impetus for the development of modern public relations...today public relations practitioners concern themselves primarily with relationships between and among groups and with solving problems usually related to communication (Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988: 44). Kruckeberg and Starck argued that public relations practitioners should help community members and the organisations that they represent become aware of their shared common interests which are the basis for their contentions and their solutions (Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988: 112) thus proposing an active societal function for public relations, which is distinctly different to the organisational focus of much of the literature. They argued that public relations practitioners could help individuals to overcome alienation and to develop interpersonal networks and relationships. They drew their inspiration from the Chicago School scholars who adopted a progressive and optimistic approach to the study of communication in modern life. Following research into organisational roles and gender, liberal feminism was also incorporated into the Excellence framework as a way of developing further variables for excellent practice (Aldoory, 2003, 2009; Aldoory & Toth, 2002; L. Grunig, 1988, 1993; L. Grunig, Toth & Hon, 2000, 2001). A critical feminist intervention challenged the functional

10 808 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation portrayalof systems yet still worked within it by proposing an infrasystem that introduced otherwise unseen and unacknowledged dimensions of gender, race, class and sexuality (Creedon, 1993: 160). Toth and Heath s edited collection (1992) introduced the notion of rhetorical and critical approaches including contributions from critical scholar George Cheney and media theorist Oscar Gandy (though the book has considerably more emphasis on the rhetorical and its potential to facilitate societal debate only two pages in the introduction to the book focus on critical perspectives, and there is no in-depth discussion of Critical Theory or power). Critical research began to emerge within the public relations discipline in the early 1990s (Moffit, 1992; Ewen, 1996; Motion & Leitch, 1996; L Etang & Pieczka, 1996; Cheney & Christensen, 2001). Key interventions were made by British media sociologists, in particular, a major project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council that explore the scope and scale of the political public relations industry. Two key theories of the German sociologists Jurgen Habermas The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and the Theory of Communicative Action (TCA) (discourse ethics) entered PR and Burkart developed TCA into a model of practice Consensus oriented public relations (Bentele & Wehmeier, 2007). These developments signalled the beginning of a major shift and the emergence of alternative conceptions that were resisted (and continue to be resisted) by members of the dominant paradigm who argue that critique fails to produce workable theory (Heath, 1997; Grunig, 2001; Toth, 2007; Gregory, 2012). Ethics in terms of PR as a professional practice has been a consistent theme, and codes of ethics are a concern for the official professional bodies (L Etang, 1992, 1994a,b; Bowen, 2008). Ethical concerns link specifically to societal impact, propaganda and CSR, and a core problematic remains the challenge of determining the social worth of the practice (L Etang, 2011). PR academics have made use of moral theory to understand the PR role, but recent work has branched out into new direction, for example, exploring implication of Jungian thought for ethical practice (Fawkes, 2010: ). Leeper (1996a,b) suggested that ethics must be central to public relations in order that it can meet social obligations. She explained the origins of late 20th century communitarianism and the important role of communications within it and also explains links between communitarianism and CSR in the United States focusing on concepts such as quality and stewardship (Leeper, 1996a: ). Probably influenced by the wider debates in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business ethics, public relations literature began to shift towards wider, more societal concerns (Coombs & Holladay, 2007; 2012). Although literature on CSR is notoriously siloed in a variety of disciplines, closer attention to communicative practices in this area has become marked (Bartlett, 2011; Cheney, May & Munshi, 2011; Ihlen, Bartlett & May, 2011;, L Etang, 1994a,b, 1995) and more critical (Christensen, Morsing & Thyssen, 2011). More recently, the communitarian line of thinking has developed into work that explores the role of public relations in building civil society notably (Taylor, 2009, 2010). However, Taylor s approach has been criticised by those taking a subaltern perspective that critiques assumptions that globalised versions of an idealised US civil society is necessarily beneficial to those communities (Pal & Dutta, 2008). Subaltern theory points out that communities may be othered by powerful dominant elites, even if this is not intended, with the consequence that their perspectives and rights may be compromised. A different perspective on community and public relations was developed (Luoma-Aho, 2009). She drew on the work of the political scientist Robert Putnam who made his name in 1995 with his article Bowling alone in which he lamented the loss of community and the growth of isolated individualism which described the loss of civic tradition in America

11 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 809 (Luoma-Aho, 2009: 232). Putnam emphasised the importance of local informal networks and the complementary development of trust in a community that builds social capital features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions (cited in Luoma-Aho, 2009: 233). Putnam distinguished between easily made reinforced connections between those who were already connected and newer bridging social capital that enhances trust sand collaboration across groupings. Alternative conceptions began to multiply in the 21st century including those drawing on cultural studies (Curtin & Gaither, 2006), anthropology and ethnography (L Etang, 2011, 2012; Vujinovic & Kruckeberg, 2010) and post-colonial, critical race and subaltern theories (Bardhan & Weaver, 2011; Edwards, 2010; McKie & Munshi, 2007; Pal & Dutta; 2008; Waymer, 2010). Studies that focus on promotional culture (Wernick, 1991) have been identified as relevant to public relations practice since public relations practice has been defined as a form of cultural intermediary (Bourdieu, 1986) behind the scenes of production. As Hodges (2011) and Curtin & Gaither (2006) pointed out in separate contributions, Cultural intermediaries are by definition advertising practitioners, management consultants, PR practitioners and other occupational groups who belong to those intermediary occupations that involve information and knowledge intensive forms of work that have come to be seen as increasingly central to economic and cultural life (Hodges, 2011). Thus, public relations came to be properly situated into the cultural economy and understood, by some at least as, Cultural intermediaries continually generate representations at the articulation of production and consumption to help structure how publics think, feel, and act within a particular regulatory context. This conceptualization places PR practitioners as key players in the cultural economy (Curtin & Gaither, 2006: 107). Scholars influenced by socio-linguistics re-conceptualised the public relations role that explores public relations practitioners as discourse technology (Weaver & Motion, 2002). Postmodernism was introduced initially as a functional aid to help public relations practitioners respond to a dynamic and changing post-modern environment (Grunig, 2000; Holtzhausen, 2000, 2002), but more recent engagement has focused on the implications of postmodernism for ways in which PR is talked about (Radford, 2012: 50) although heavily criticised from the fading dominant paradigm on the grounds that thereisnocashvalue in the approach (Toth, 2002). Edwards and Hodges noted the cultural turn (Edwards & Hodges, 2011) and the growing use of social theory as a lens through which to view public relations. Edwards employed Bourdieu to explore power and public relations (Edwards, 2008, 2009, 2011a) and a landmark edited collection Public relations and social theory: key figures and concepts (Ihlen et al., 2009) drew on a Special Issue of Public relations review published in 2007 (Ihlen et al., 2009). This explored public relations through the lenses of a number of different theorists: Beck, Bourdieu, Foucault, Giddens, Goffman, Habermas, Latour, Luhmann Mayhew, Putnam, Smith, Spivak and Weber. Issues of power (Edwards Smudde & Courtright, 2010; Heath, Motion & Leitch, 2010; Waymer, D., 2010; Pompper), identity, race and sexuality (Vardeman-Winter & Tindall, 2010; Waters & Tindall, forthcoming2013) These developments signalled a major shift in the PR landscape as sociological questions began to be addressed, a trajectory still in development. Increasing diversity also became reflected in the proliferation and remit of academic journals, a sign of growing maturity. The pattern of journal formation in the field and greater emphasis on

12 810 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation scholarship suggests increased confidence and a growing academic community, but tensions remain between those who believe that the purpose of public relations research is to construct new and better ways of practicing the profession (Grunig, 2001, p.17), and who align themselves as industry allies, for example, my unashamed ambition is for the practice to be more rigorous and respected... (Gregory, 2012, p.1), and those who seek to deepen understanding of the PR phenomenon from a variety of perspectives. Conclusions This brief survey has sought to explain the evolution of public relations research agendas, key themes and approaches to analysis and to capture emerging trajectories. At one point, it seemed that public relations scholarship solely sought acceptance and integration with management science and to disconnect from political science. Public relations has now clearly shifted from an almost entirely functional position focused on organisational requirements to a more open and creative discipline that increasingly draws inspiration from social theory and cultural studies to understand the role of public relations cultural intermediaries. Despite resistance the field is diversifying and promises to deliver more varied methodological approaches and producing more varied readings and nuanced understandings from multiple perspectives of this fascinating occupation in dynamic global, multi-cultural contexts. Short Biography Jacquie L Etang has pursued critical themes relating to public relations since the late 1980s and early 1990s when she published articles on PR, CSR and business ethics, subsequently collaborating with Magda Pieczka on Critical perspectives in public relations (1996) and a followup volume Public relations: critical debates and contemporary practice (2006). She is the author of Public relations in Britain: a history of professional practice (2004), a textbook Public relations: concepts, practice and critique (2008), and more than 60 chapters and articles on a range of themes including rhetoric, diplomacy and public diplomacy, history, propaganda, ethics, CSR and anthropology. In 2007, she was awarded a prize for contribution to the literature by the University of Girona. She is the founding and lead editor (with Jordi Xifra and Tim Coombs) of Public Relations Inquiry (launched January 2012). Jacquie holds a Chair in Public Relations and Applied Communication at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland. She teaches public relations on undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, professional diplomas and supervises several doctoral students. She has examined PhDs in the UK, Norway, France and Australia. She is also a Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster. Notes * Correspondence address: Jacquie L Etang, Queen Margaret University, Edenburgh, Scotland EH21 6UU. JLetang@qmu.ac.uk 1 Curiously, Habermas theory of the Public Sphere was not really taken up by public relations scholars and only entered the field as a consequence of interventions made by media academics. References Aldoory, L The Empowerment of Feminist Scholarship in Public Relations and the Building of a Feminist Paradigm. Communication Yearbook 27: Aldoory, L A (Re)conceived Feminist Paradigm for Public Relations: a Case for Substantial Improvement. Journal of Communication 55:

13 Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation 811 Aldoory, L Feminist Criticism in Public Relations: How Gender can Impact Public Relations Texts and Contexts. Pp in Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. Edited by R Heath, E Toth and D Waymer. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Aldoory, L. and E. Toth Gendered Discrepancies in a Gendered Profession: a Developing Theory for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 14: Appadurai, A Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bardhan, N. and C. K. Weaver Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi-paradigmatic Perspectives. New York & London: Routledge. Bartlett, J Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility. Pp in The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. edited by O Ihlen, J Bartlett. and S May. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bartlett, J. and B. Devin Management, Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Pp in The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by O Ihlen, J Bartlett and S May. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Bentele, G. and S. Wehmeier Applying Sociology to Public Relations: a Commentary. Public Relations Review 33: Benoit, W. L Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication. Public Relations Review 23: Bernays, E Engineering of Consent. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 250 (March). Botan, C. and M. Taylor Public Relations: State of the Field. Journal of Communication 54: , Bowen, S A State of Neglect: Public Relations as Corporate Conscience or Ethics Counsel. Journal of Public Relations Research 20: Bourdieu, P Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge. Brody, E. W. and G. Stone Public Relations Research. Praeger. Broom, G., Casey, S. and J. Ritchey Concept and theory of organization-public relationships. In JA Ledingham and SD Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp.3 22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruning, S. and J. Ledingham Relationships Between Organizations and Publics: Development of a Multidimensional Organization Public Relationship Scale. Public Relations Review 25: Bruning, S. D Relationship Building as a Retention Strategy: Linking Relationship Attitudes and Satisfaction Evaluations to Behavioral Outcomes. Public Relations Review 28: Cheney, G. and L. Christensen Public Relations as Contested Terrain: a Critical Response. Pp in Handbook of Public Relations edited by R Heath. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Cheney, G., S. May and D. Munshi. (Eds.) The Handbook of Communication Ethics. New York: Routledge. Christensen, L., M. Morsing and O. Thyssen The Polyphony of Corporate Social Responsibility: Deconstructing Accountability and Transparency in the Context of Identity and Hypocrisy. Pp in The Handbook of Communication Ethics, edited by G Cheney, S May and D Munshi. New York: Routledge. Clark, C Differences between Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: an Analysis. Public Relations Review 26: Coombs, T. and S. Holladay It s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society. Malden MA: Blackwell. Coombs, T. and S. Holladay Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: a Communication Approach. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Courtwright, J. and R. Wolfe and J. Baldwin Intercultural Typologies and Public Relations Research: A Critique of Hofstede s Dimensions Pp in Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi-Paradigmatic Perspectives, edited by N Bardhan and CK Weaver. London: Routledge. Creedon, P Acknowledging the Infrasystem: a Critical Feminist Analysis of Systems Theory. Public Relations Review 19: Curtin, P Public Relations and Philosophy: Parsing Paradigms. Public Relations Inquiry 1: Curtin, P. and K. Gaither International Public Relations: Negotiating Culture, Identity and Power. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cutlip, S The Unseen Power: Public Relations. A History. Hillsdale, JJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S Public relations History: From the 17 th to the 20 th Century. Hillsdale, JJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutlip, S., A Center and G Broom (any one of 8 editions) Effective Public Relations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Davis, A Public Relations Democracy. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Davis, A The Mediation of Politics. London: Routledge. Davis, A. Forthcoming. Promotional Times. Polity. Demetrious, K Active Voices Pp in Public Relations: Contemporary Debates and Contemporary Practice, edited by J L Etang and M Pieczka. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrernce Erlbaum. Dinan, W. and D. Miller. Eds Thinker, Faker, Spinner, Spy: Corporate PR and the Assault on Democracy. London/ Ann Arbor: MI Pluto Press. Dozier, D Program Evaluation and Roles of Practitioners. Public Relations Review 10: