So for our first practise assignment for the CIPR Diploma, we were asked “What contribution does public relations make to modern society?”. I kind of turned this question on it’s head, and instead I discussed “What contribution does modern society make to PR?” Admittedly not the assignment we were given, but something more interesting and relevant to my area of work…
“PR is a relatively new discipline and its role in society is a constantly evolving one. So to are the theories that guide its practice. The profession is continually facing new challenges from developing modes of communication in the Web 2.0 era to an increasingly complex and diverse society who need to be communicated with.
Previous dominant theories that have guided PR practice are becoming less relevant as new approaches are needed to respond to this changing media landscape.
In systems theory, the idea of PR practitioner as ‘boundary spanner’ between organisation and audience is harder to understand as boundaries become more flexible. Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) emphasise the presence of an ‘established boundary’ between organisation and audience but with increasingly abundant channels of communication across the boundary, the PR practitioner can no longer be was viewed as ‘gatekeeper’ and must become facilitators enabling flow of information.
The 21st century has seen a massive rise in the number of people publishing content online. Access to new technologies and the availability of web publishing has introduced two fundamental changes for communicators and audiences: who provides information and how audiences get the information they need (Holtz, 1996).
New communications channels such as blogs, social networking sites, RSS feeds, video-sharing sites, wiki’s allow publics to become more discursive and find their own voices and communities who share their voices. The dialogue’s that user-generated content allows is in keeping with more recent rhetorical perspectives.
Heath (2001) supports the rhetorical approach as the primary perspective through which PR should be viewed: “Through statement and counterstatement, people test each other’s views of reality, value, and choices relevant to products, services and public policies”.
Skerlep (2001) also advocates the rhetorical approach as it allows multiple viewpoints to be given on situations, allowing the PR practitioner and audiences to arrive at the truth; “The ‘truth’ can only be reached through argumentative dialogue that reveals which of the participating parties has better arguments” (Skerlep, 2001). By rigorously questioning and challenging statements, we can arrive at the ethical truth. For this approach to be truly ethical, the PR practitioner must be responsive to these multiple viewpoints and not ignorant to them.
As new challenges are emerging for PR practitioners, Mackey (2003) suggests that more traditional PR theories are left wanting. In the globalised world, we are witnessing a more “plural society that is becoming even more postmodern and difficult to stereotype”. New theories of communication are needed that help map the apparently teeming and far harder to see and understand lateral communication between targeted publics and others (Mackey, 2003)
PR practitioners are required to continually address the challenges that are encountered as society evolves, re-evaluating the boundaries of the profession. Whilst this is necessary for its practice it can also confuse the publics understanding of the profession. PR practitioners must continue to look at new challenges to communications whilst re-enforcing the role of the PR professional in society as a facilitator of information exchange.”
References
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (2000) Effective Public Relations (8th ed) Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.
Heath, R. L. (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, London: Sage
Holtz, S. (1996) Communication and technology: The complete guide to using technology for organizational communication. Chicago: Lawrence Regan Communications.
Mackey, S. (2003) Changing vistas in Public Relations theory. PRism 1(1)
Skerlep, A (2001) Re-evalutaing the role of the rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse. Journal of Communications Management 6(2) 176-187

2 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 25, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Jason Whitmen
I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Jason Whitmen
March 2, 2008 at 1:09 pm
AW
Hola
Sorry for the delay… i know i *did* promise a comment, so here you go.
I think one of the most interesting points about the whole set of issues here is that you can turn the question on its head. The activity of PR can’t be encapsulated in one unilateral theory of communication from organization to audience; and you make this very clear in the discussion of the proliferation of media and fora for the creation, manipulation and transmission of ideas.
Heath’s quote nicely contextualises the problem and emphasises the processual nature of PR, rather than a ‘thing’ which professionals dispense at their own will. I suppose the question is how do we get from the position that Heath descibes to making a contribution to modern society?
Personally, i’m skeptical of Skerlap. The process of PR is too idealist; i.e. the mechanisms for reaching the “truth” are rarely or totally available; which needs some adjustment to reflect modern society. For example massive asymmetries of power (and therefore persuasiveness of each voice) between parties involved, Skerlap also seems apolitcal (the dimensions of agenda, rhetoric and truth are interwoven, but not neccesarily aligned) and factors of inclusivity and exclusivity (e.g. the digital divide in th UK or censorship in China [Google]) – between all these competing dialogues it is a large step to get a truth claim… hmmm ramble ramble
does modern society stand as a distinct group who are technologically ‘enabled’ or is it as ubiquitous a group as the term society should imply? (hmm a bit too socio-political).
I like your answer, it outlines the stands of theory out there and begins to illustrate the shortcomings of trad. approaches.