Public Relations Inquiry

2 downloads 0 Views 793KB Size Report
was to become the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand' (Motion et al., ..... countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia where he was acclaimed a 'PR ...
Public http://pri.sagepub.com/ Relations Inquiry

The global shadow of functionalism and Excellence Theory: An analysis of Australasian PR Jim Macnamara Public Relations Inquiry 2012 1: 367 DOI: 10.1177/2046147X12448581 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pri.sagepub.com/content/1/3/367

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Public Relations Inquiry can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pri.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pri.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://pri.sagepub.com/content/1/3/367.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 12, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from pri.sagepub.com at Airlangga University on October 11, 2013

1310.1177/2046147X12448581MacnamaraPublic Relations Inquiry 2012

Article

The global shadow of functionalism and Excellence Theory:  An analysis of Australasian PR

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3) 367­–402 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/2046147X12448581 pri.sagepub.com

Jim Macnamara

University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Abstract There are increasing claims and, in some quarters, celebration of a ‘sociocultural turn’ in public relations that has allegedly shifted the locus of scholarship and practice from USoriginating functionalist and organization-centric models to more socially and culturally orientated approaches. However, this article presents a critical analysis of PR education and scholarship in Australasia which shows that, despite a claimed ‘sociocultural turn’ and a number of emergent postmodern models identified by contemporary scholars around the world, Excellence Theory, including its various constituent theories, remains a dominant paradigm of PR in Australia and many South East Asian countries. The ontological and epistemological characteristics of PR in Australasia, and the influences that have created and sustained them, as well as the progress of alternative postmodern and critical conceptualizations, are explored in this article based on two stages of research. In the first, a broad exploratory study was undertaken using ethnography and elements of autoethnography to provide reflective insights into the nature of and influences on PR scholarship and practice in the region. In the second stage, the findings of this exploratory analysis were tested and further contextualized with empirical data from structured textual analysis of the PR texts and reference books most commonly used today. Keywords Asia, Australia, critical, education, excellence, functionalism, history, New Zealand, public relations (PR)

Corresponding author: Jim Macnamara, Professor of Public Communication, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia Email: [email protected]

368

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Introduction It is increasingly and somewhat jubilantly claimed that public relations (PR) is undergoing a ‘sociocultural turn’ that is shifting the locus of scholarship and practice from US-originating functionalist and organization-centric models to more socially and culturally orientated approaches (Edwards and Hodges, 2011). While evidence of such a shift has been presented, this has been mostly found in academic discourse – and, in particular, among critical scholars, most notably in Europe and the UK, as well as among emergent ‘schools of thought’ in the USA, New Zealand and other countries. It is argued here that broader analysis of the wider context of PR scholarship – geographically as well as ontologically and epistemologically – is required before a significant ‘turn’ can be pronounced. This article examines claims of increasing diversity and a shift toward postmodern critical and sociocultural approaches in PR scholarship away from dominant US-influenced functionalist models and Excellence Theory within an Australasian context, focused largely on Australia, but also incorporating observations and reflections on New Zealand and South-East Asian PR scholarship. Such regional analysis is important because Curtin has claimed that research within the critical/cultural paradigm has ‘stemmed mainly from … Australia/New Zealand’ along with Europe (2012: 37). While acknowledging pioneering critical scholarly work emanating from this region, this analysis looks beyond critical academic discourse to explore the broader ‘lived’ realities of PR education and scholarship and major influences on the field. This study was, therefore, exploratory and broad by design, as its aim is to provide context and localized experiences. The mixed method used draws on an individual scholarly journey, as well as historical and empirical data, to provide perspectives that might help broaden the research agenda and inspire further detailed studies of the issues raised.

Postcolonial PR histories PR is widely recorded as having begun as an industry or profession1 in Australia following the arrival of US General Douglas MacArthur and his entourage of 35 staff including ‘public relations’ practitioners in 1942 after the fall of the Philippines (Zawawi, 2009). In the most widely cited history of Australian PR, Zawawi notes the influence of American movie industry press agents in the 1920s and 1930s, but contends that American military PR techniques were ‘the catalyst to allow public relations to develop into a fully fledged profession’ (2009: 44). Other Australian PR texts including Tymson and Sherman (1987), Stanton and Phillips (1998) and Tymson et al. (2008), as well as Cunningham and Turner’s seminal communication industry reference, The Media and Communications in Australia (Turner, 2010), present similar accounts of the early influences that shaped Antipodean PR. Among MacArthur’s PR staff in 1944–45 was Asher Joel (later Sir Asher Joel) who cofounded one of the first PR consultancy firms in Australia in 1946 soon after his demobilization and then went on to jointly found the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) in 1949 and become one of the country’s most prominent practitioners, (PRIA, 2010).

Macnamara

369

This America-centric view of Australian PR history has been criticized recently by Sheehan (2007) and Macnamara and Crawford (2010) for ignoring earlier local developments in public communication practices. Nevertheless, strong American influences, as well as militarist tactics, are clearly discernible in events that shaped PR practice and in PR scholarly literature in Australia as well as its Pacific and South-East Asian neighbours. In addition to Zawawi’s US-centric view of the establishment of PR in Australia, Quarles and Rowlings claim that ‘the acknowledged origin of public relations practice in Australia and New Zealand was United States General Douglas MacArthur’s visit in 1942’ (1993: 9). The formal establishment of the PR industry in New Zealand is traced to ‘an historic meeting in the Auckland Star Hotel in 1954 when a group of demobilized military press officers, influenced by techniques of PR learned during World War II, formed what was to become the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand’ (Motion et al., 2003: 123). The origin of PR in Singapore is linked to the British military, which established a department of ‘policy and training’ with a thinly disguised PR and propaganda role during its occupation of the former colony in the 1940s, according to Tan and Soh (1994). However, in more recent times, this study shows that Singaporean, Malaysian and South Korean PR scholars and practitioners have predominantly studied and adopted US models and histories of PR – an approach criticized by Sriramesh (2004) who has called for PR education and practice to become more multicultural. The American-centric view of PR in Australasia reflects many documented histories of the field of practice worldwide, including Cutlip (1994, 1995), Ewen (1996), Hiebert (1966), Marchand (1998), Miller (1999), Olasky (1987), Pearson (1992), Tedlow (1979) and Tye (2002). L’Etang noted in a paper on history writing that ‘US scholars have always tended to assume the activities referred to as PR have been invented by Americans and then exported elsewhere’ (2008a: 328). The first book on PR published in Australia was The Australian Public Relations Handbook by Thomas Dwyer (1961) but, as the title suggests, this was a practical guide. For instance, it included a chapter written by Eric White, another former military PR officer and founder of the first PR consultancy to become national and then international with offices in New Zealand and South-East Asia (later sold to Hill & Knowlton). The first locally authored and published PR text book was Public Relations Practice in Australia by pioneering Australian PR scholar, David Potts (1976). While noting that PR should involve ‘two-way communication’ (Potts, 1976: 3), this influential and long-used text stated clearly that ‘PR is a management function’ and it drew heavily on US PR texts including the 1971 edition of Cutlip and Center’s Effective Public Relations as well as The Role of Public Relations in Management by UK practitioner, who held an honorary academic post at the University of Stirling, Sam Black (1972). Australian PR texts and reference books, reviewed comprehensively elsewhere by Johnston and Macnamara (2012), are identified as an important influence on local scholarship and practice, along with other factors, in ethnographic observations and textual analysis reported in this article.

The rise of the dominant paradigm A number of reviews of the field identify that PR today has a substantial body of theory as well as practice-orientated knowledge. Texts such The Encyclopaedia of Public Relations (Heath, 2005), Public Relations Theory II (Botan and Hazelton, 2006) and The

370

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research and Practice (Sriramesh and Verčič, 2009), as well as a number of special editions of Public Relations Review and Journal of Public Relations Research, have presented and explored a range of theories. These include rhetorical, persuasion, personal influence, game, relational, communitarian, feminist and public diplomacy theories, as well as strategic communication management conceptualizations of PR. However, Excellence Theory, developed by Jim Grunig and a group of mainly US scholars (Grunig et al., 2002; Toth, 2007), emerged as the ‘dominant paradigm’ of PR during the late 20th century and early 21st century (Pieczka, 1996: 143-4, 2006: 349-50). As is well-known, Excellence Theory – which grew out of Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) Four Models of PR which, in turn, superseded Grunig’s original synchronic and diachronic models based on the work of Thayer (1968) – posits two-way symmetrical interaction between organizations and their publics as a central requirement for and characteristic of PR excellence (Grunig and Grunig, 1992: 320). It argues that symmetry can be facilitated by PR practitioners who, ideally positioned within the ‘dominant coalition’ of senior organizational management, operate as ‘boundary spanners’ representing both organizational and publics’ interests, guided by their professional values, ethics and knowledge (Grunig, 2000; Grunig et al., 2002). Early criticisms of this theory were voiced by Murphy (1991) who argued that Grunig’s symmetrical model of communication was normative and rare or non-existent in practice and proposed a ‘mixed motive’ model. This and other early critiques are examined extensively in PR literature and will not be discussed here. However, it is significant that Grunig (2000: 33) has argued that Murphy’s mixed motive model ‘accurately describes the two-way symmetrical model as we originally conceptualised it’. He and his Excellence Theory co-researchers subsequently incorporated Murphy’s mixed motive model into the emerging body of Excellence Theory as ‘a combination of the twoway symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models’ (Grunig et al., 2002: 309). Over the years, Excellence Theory also has incorporated a number of other theories including situational theory of publics, originally developed by Grunig during his doctoral research (Grunig, 1966, 1968), and it has been modified quite significantly over the past two decades (e.g. Grunig, 1978, 1983, 1992, 1997). In addition to its foundation in systems theory (Broom, 2009) and strategic management theory (Dozier et al., 1995; Grunig et al., 2006; Grunig et al., 2002; Steyn, 2007), Excellence Theory today incorporates co-orientation theory (Broom and Dozier, 1990; Verčič, 2008), contingency theory (Cameron, 1997; Wilcox and Cameron, 2010), relational/relationships theory (Grunig et al., 2002; Hon and Grunig, 1999; Ledingham and Bruning, 2001) and elements of dialogic theory (Kent and Taylor, 2002; Pearson, 1989), rhetorical theory (Heath, 1992, 2009) and feminist theory (Aldoory, 2007; L’Etang, 2008b: 253; Grunig, 2006). Spicer (2007: 28) has noted the way in which the original Four Models and Excellence Theory have been ‘tweaked’, ‘morphed’ and revised since its first iteration in 1992 (Grunig and Grunig, 1992). It could be argued that a major strength of Excellence Theory is its flexibility and its evolution into a body of theory. On the other hand, while welcoming the growing body of knowledge in PR, a number of scholars have questioned the dominance of Excellence Theory, arguing that it is largely western focused and, specifically, American with ontological, axiological and epistemological assumptions grounded

Macnamara

371

in US positivism, functionalism and behaviourism that limit its application as a global theory. Furthermore, critics argue that the dominance of Excellence Theory has stifled theory-building in PR, either subsuming or marginalizing alternative views. Following Pieczka’s critique (1996) and those of Elwood (1995), criticisms of the dominant US paradigm and calls for greater pluralism and diversity in PR theory and practice have been advanced by a number of European and New Zealand scholars including Holtzhausen (2000), Leitch and Neilson (2001), L’Etang (2008b), L’Etang and Pieczka (1996, 2006), McKie and Munshi (2005, 2007) and Motion and Leitch (1996). For instance, Holtzhausen (2000), Holtzhausen and Voto (2002) and McKie (2008) have advocated a postmodern approach to PR in place of the dominant US paradigm, which critics claim is functionalist and organization-centric. Jim Grunig has argued against such criticisms saying that many are based on misinterpretations of Excellence Theory (e.g. in Grunig, 2001 and Grunig et al., 2002: 30929). He and other Grunigian scholars also have claimed that Excellence Theory is postmodern (rather than modernist) and that it reflects societal corporatism rather than corporatism as well as elements of communitarianism (Grunig, 2000) and feminist theory (Grunig, 2006). Conversely, scholars such as Holtzhausen argue that PR theory, particularly as embodied in the dominant paradigm of Excellence Theory, is ‘embedded in positivism’ (2000: 96), while Curtin notes that the ‘underlying functionalism of role theory, systems theory and Excellence Theory places them squarely within the postpositivist paradigm’ (2012: 37). While some scholars treat positivism and post-positivism as distinctly different approaches (e.g. Guba and Lincoln, 2005), and some including L’Etang identify all perspectives that are not positivist (i.e. scientific, empirically-based and modernist) as post-positivist (2008b: 252), a more common view among researchers is that post-positivism is a slightly ‘softened’ and broadened stance within contemporary scientific and social science fields – and, therefore, part of the same tradition (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Miller, 2000). As social scientist Bell notes, there are not many hardcore positivists – who he refers to as ‘science-as-facts apologists’ – still standing (2010: 25). In contrast with positivist/post-positivist modernist notions of singular truth and certainty discovered through scientific research methods, and attendant behaviourist and functionalist approaches designed to achieve or ‘engineer’ consensus, postmodern thinking is grounded in interpretivism, constructivism and acceptance of diversity and dissensus. The former leads to command and control approaches in PR working on behalf of organizations and elites (i.e. organization-centric), while the latter informs critical thinking and societally orientated approaches. A number of critical scholars have pointed out that traditional PR is focused on achieving communication ‘effectiveness’ (e.g. Mickey, 2003) and, as Radford noted recently, ‘effectiveness, in this case, is determined by how well a PR message or campaign contributes toward the interests and goals of a client’ (2012: 55). As Brown concluded in a recent critical analysis of PR epistemology: ‘From Bernays to Cutlip, to Broom, to Grunig, the dominant thrust of PR thought has been to tame the contingencies of public opinion with the aid of structured, linear and, above all, systematic and managerial assumptions about the nature of reality’ (2012: 91). As well as being noted by Pieczka (1996) and L’Etang and Pieczka (1996, 2006), the dominance of US-developed Excellence Theory has been shown in a number of empirical studies. For instance, in replicating a 1984 study of PR theory-building based on

372

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

analysis of articles published in Public Relations Review and Journal of Public Relations Research2 (Ferguson, 1984), Sallot and colleagues reported in 2003 that, while theorybuilding had expanded and broadened, Excellence/symmetrical Theory was the most prevalent (Sallot et al., 2003). More recently, a review of PR literature in the period 2000–2005 by Pasadeos et al. (2010) confirmed that, while some new names and theories entered the lexicon of PR theory-building in the period, the largest category of cited works was still those related to Excellence Theory. Furthermore, the two primary ‘research clusters’ identified were Grunig’s Four Models and Excellence Theory. Nevertheless, Pasadeos et al. noted the ‘stirrings of a paradigm shift’ away from US-originating functionalist theories of PR (2010: 138).

The ‘sociocultural turn’ In the past decade, PR scholars have cited the emergence of a ‘sociocultural turn’ in PR (Edwards and Hodges, 2011), pointing to growing focus on postmodern, communitarian, rhetorical, feminist, cultural-economic and other models of PR with their theoretical foundations in neomarxism, poststructuralism, critical cultural studies, complexity theory, feminism, media sociology, anthropology and other transdisciplinary influences. Edwards and Hodges argue that increasing focus on sociological and cultural theories ‘constitutes a “turn” in PR theory that shifts the ontological and epistemological focus of the field’ (2011: 3). They cite Simpson who defines a ‘turn’ as a movement that ‘opens up new intellectual frontiers, invites new ways of seeing and suggests new questions to be asked’ (2009: 1330). This alleged opening up of the field is summarized in Toth’s identification of six paradigms of PR in existence today: tactical, strategic management, rhetoric, crisis communication, feminist and critical theory (2009, 2010). While the beginnings of what L’Etang (2009) calls ‘radical PR’ date back to the late 1990s, which saw the publication of books such as L’Etang and Pieczka’s (1996) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations in the UK and a landmark special issue of the Australian Journal of Communication edited by Leitch and Walker (1997) titled ‘Public relations at the edge’, radical rethinking of PR and non-US perspectives started to enter the mainstream in leading texts such as Handbook of Public Relations by Heath (2001). A decade on, Edwards stated that ‘much of the research presented in the 2010 Sage Handbook of Public Relations (Heath, 2010) contests functional PR theory’. She added: ‘most of these writers position their view explicitly in terms of a reassessment or reconsideration of Excellence principles’ (2012: 11). The first issue of Public Relations Inquiry in early 2012 celebrated this broadening and reconceptualizing of PR scholarship with a series of analytical articles, many of which have already been cited here. However, eminent British media scholar James Curran (2011) cautions against proclamations of a ‘turn’ within any disciplinary field, warning that such claims tend to be ‘accounts of ideas that make no attempt to relate intellectual development to a wider context’. He says such narratives ‘tell a simple story of progress in which error is confounded by enlightenment’, but that contextualization of research offers a more complex picture (Curran, 2011: 203). In short, proclamations of a ‘turn’ can be premature and, while drawing attention to a challenge to the status quo, run the risk of being unwarranted generalizations.

Macnamara

373

This article examines the ontological and epistemological characteristics of PR in Australasia informed by this brief historical overview, which establishes the presence of a dominant history and narrative of PR coming under increasing critique and intersecting with alternative histories and conceptualizations of PR emerging internationally and locally.

Methodology – Stage 1 This analysis of Australasian PR education and scholarship is based on mixed method research carried out in two stages. While collecting and analysing new empirical data on contemporary PR scholarship in Australasia in its second stage, this study began with a method little used in PR research, but which affords deep insights into the ‘lived realities’ of the culture and practices being studied. This method allowed exploration of the terrain beyond the relatively sparsely populated enclaves inhabited by readers of scholarly journals and critical texts – a step considered essential to understand the context and the status of PR education and scholarship in a holistic way.

Ethnographic analysis To provide ‘contextualisation of research’ and ‘relate intellectual development to a wider context’, as recommended by Curran (2011: 203), the first stage of this analysis used ethnography, including elements of the closely related method of autoethnography. Geertz (1973) described ethnography as a qualitative research method conducted to learn and understand cultural phenomena that reflect the knowledge and system of meanings guiding the life of a cultural group. Thus, ethnography is a useful method for exploring PR scholarship – the knowledge and system of meanings of a distinct cultural and professional group, as revealed through certain phenomena. In particular, Geertz described ethnography as ‘thick description’, meaning such analysis is based on detailed observation and interpretation during an extended period of field work. Tedlock notes that ethnographers live in a society for an extended period of time, which she cites as ‘two years ideally’ (2008: 151, emphasis added). This immersion in a group is important. ‘Thick description’ cannot be achieved by short-term observations from outside a group, through surveys, or even through structured or semi-structured interviews. Geertz (1973) identified the primary research methods used in ethnography as participant observation and sometimes participation by the researcher. Creswell further draws attention to key characteristics, benefits and methods of this approach in his definition of ethnography as ‘a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher studies an intact cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time by collecting, primarily, observational and interview data’ (2009: 13, emphasis added). Unlike the claimed ‘objective’ outside-the-group-under-study standpoint of the ‘scientific method’ of research, ethnography involves intensive study using observation and sometimes participation inside the world of those studied, as well as interviews. Interviews are necessarily in-depth, or may take the form of open-ended conversations over a period, with data collected in notes, audio or video recordings, diaries and other records such as documents (e.g. minutes of meetings, transcripts of speeches and statements).

374

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

While extensive ethnographic findings are only summarized here, the analysis fits the definition of ‘thick description’ as it is based on detailed observation and active participation in the cultural group over an extended period, informed by both deep practical experience as well as research and critical analysis. Observations are drawn from a total period of 35 years’ engagement in the PR industry in Australasia, including as a PR practitioner, an active member of PRIA (including serving as National President and 10 years as a member of the National Education Committee), and engaged in extensive applied and scholarly research in the field of practice in Australia, New Zealand and several south-east Asian countries. Further biographical details of the author are provided in the Author biography to substantiate his intimate, long-term experience and extensive access to the fields of PR scholarship and practice in Australasia. The author’s vantage point from being a practitioner and an academic researcher in the field over an extended period of time affords both emic and etic perspectives in observations and reflections. While some studies focus on one or other approach, Jensen states that cultural expressions, including communication, ‘can and should be studied from both internal and external perspectives (2012: 267) – although he warns against ‘conflating’ such views (2012: 272). He draws on Pike’s seminal work to advocate ‘concretely, to relate the two aspects of understanding and interpretation’ (Pike, 1967 cited in Jensen, 2012: 267). A limitation or weakness of this stage of research methodologically is that it did not involve interviews – at least not in a purposive systematic sense specifically for this study. Also, reliance on personal observation and personal participation skews the analysis towards autobiography or personal memoirs in some instances. However, distinguished anthropologist Barbara Tedlock (2008) rejects the binary separation of ‘objective observation’ associated with ‘scientific ethnography’ and subjective autobiographical accounts. The ethnographic research method of autoethnography recognizes the value of personal first-hand accounts and experiences. What separates ethnographic and autoethnographic research from autobiographical stories, according to Maréchal (2010), is reflexivity and the connection of observations to wider cultural, political and social meanings and understandings, both of which were applied in this analysis. LeCompte and Schensul (1999) also note that the research process in ethnography is flexible and ‘typically evolves contextually in response to the lived realities encountered in the field setting’ (Creswell, 2009: 13). Further elaborating on Geertz’s classic definition, Neuman emphasizes that ethnography is ‘very detailed description of a … culture from the viewpoint of an insider in the culture to facilitate understanding of it’ (2006: 381, emphasis added). Within these theoretical frameworks, the author has a unique vantage point as both participant and observer, and both practitioner and scholar, over a long period of time, that offer insights into the development and practice of PR in Australasia and the influences that have shaped the field. The extensive period of observation used renders this analysis broad, whereas researchers such as Jensen recommend that observation should be ‘focussed on a small field that can be explored in depth for relevant phenomena’ (2012: 273). However, he goes on to note that ‘in the early phases of a study especially, a wide-angle exploration may be indispensable: it is comparable, in some respects, to pilot studies’. This study was undertaken in an exploratory way to open up the debate and it is freely acknowledged

Macnamara

375

that further focused research is desirable to examine the insights reported here in a more detailed way. The validity and reliability of ethnographic observations and analysis reported here were addressed in several ways. First, reflexivity is recognized in both senses in which it is understood in the social sciences and used as a tool to acknowledge the role of the researcher in the research and the situated nature of the research (Finlay and Gough, 2003). In a personal sense, the researcher has attempted to be conscious of his relationship to the field of study and how power relations and his own worldview and perspective, for instance, might influence the research. This is addressed through applying self-critique as part of the analysis and reflecting ‘with the benefit of time’ that affords some distance. In a broader sense, reflexivity denotes the ways that cultural practices involve self-references and commentary on themselves and how examination can ‘bend back on’ and affect the entity undertaking the investigation – in short, the ways in which a researcher can become socialized into the culture that she or he is investigating. This is addressed through the second approach for ensuring validity – as far as possible, reflections on observed practices are compared with other scholarly research and historical literature to verify and contextualize observations. Third, personal observations are linked to concrete activities as far as possible, such as published policies, speeches and events, rather than relying solely on subjective interpretation. ‘Field notes’ were drawn from books, newspaper and trade magazine articles and columns, newsletters, photographs, published memoirs, minutes and reports of meetings, scrapbooks and online searches in relation to events and documents, as well as reflection.

Reflective analysis of PR in Australasia This author spent his first year working full-time in PR in Australia in 1976, the year that the first Australian PR text book was published (Potts, 1976) and the year in which Jim Grunig published his first study of PR behaviour in organizations based on Thayer’s diachronic and synchronic models (Grunig, 1976). Neither of these landmark works was known to me at the time, but they helped shape the work and scholarly environment of PR in Australasia over the following decades. An International Association of Public Relations (IPRA) report on PR education worldwide in 1976 noted the first tertiary course in Australia was a ‘three-year PR course leading to a Diploma of Arts (Public Relations) given by the Mitchell College of Advanced Education’ (later Charles Sturt University) where Potts taught and became Australia’s first professor of public relations (IPRA, 1976). Also 1976 saw the launch of one of Australia’s most eminent media and communication journals, Media Information Australia (now incorporating Culture and Policy Journal), instigated and edited for a number of years by noted Australian media scholar, Henry Mayer.3 Just a year before (1975), the first issue of Australian Journal of Communication was published at the University of Queensland – a journal that more than 20 years later was to lead the beginnings of a challenge to PR orthodoxy. But, by then, a foundation of PR practice and scholarship had been firmly established. Ethnographic observations, supported by historical data and subjected to reflexive analysis and reflective conceptualization (L’Etang, 2011: 19), enabled identification of

376

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

six key themes or types of influence in PR education and scholarship in Australasia during the period. These include five significant intra-industry influences that, in turn, have been framed within and shaped by macro-social, cultural, political and economic factors as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

A local academic publishing gap that existed from 1976 to 2000; Agenda-setting through international author and scholar tours and visits; Industry pressure for ‘work-ready’ vocationally orientated graduates; Industry and academic focus on and concepts of professionalization; Growing focus on PR measurement skewed towards organization goals and effectiveness; 6. The effects of globalization, particularly in the context of the growing dominance of capitalism, neoliberalism and North American postcolonialism.

A publishing gap 1976–2000.  It was almost a quarter of a century after release of the first Australian PR text by Potts that the next Australian-authored PR text book was published (Johnston and Zawawi, 2000). This says something significant and telling about PR scholarship in Australia during the 20th century. As Alexander observed in his study of PR scholarship in Australia, ‘text books in the 1970s and early 1980s were mostly sourced from the United States’ (2004: 1). The texts that scholars and students in the growing number of PR tertiary courses relied on, and those available to practitioners in specialist bookshops, included most notably Cutlip and Center’s Effective Public Relations of which eight editions appeared between 1952 and 2000, as well as other US texts such as Baskin and Aronoff’s (1983) Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice and Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) Managing Public Relations. These were the first three PR texts on my bookshelves during my formative years as a young practitioner. They presented an overwhelmingly organization-centric, functionalist management approach to PR. A study of the PR ‘profession’ in 1983 concluded that ‘not much constructive criticism was available’ (McGregor Report cited in Singh and Smyth, 2000: 391). In 1992, the first of the Excellence Study texts appeared (Grunig, 1992), quickly followed by the second (Dozier et al., 1995). Because of the focus on ‘communication management’ in their titles and content, the Excellence Study books gained readership among practitioners as well as among scholars, which contributed to their growing influence. Focus on strategic management and the positioning of PR at senior level in the ‘dominant coalition’ of organizations found ready acceptance among corporate and organizational communicators, as these concepts spoke to their ego and career ambitions. The dominance of American publishing houses, resulting in a flow of US books and journals, led scholars and practitioners to have comparatively less exposure to European thinking. Also, the disciplinary positioning of the dominant US models of PR within management and organizational communication theory, and broadly within functionalist thinking grounded in modernism, rather than within sociology or cultural studies, contributed to many PR scholars failing to engage with postmodern thinking and the philosophy and theories of poststructuralism gaining attention in Europe and the UK from the 1970s. For instance, one of the leading university courses in PR in Australia is offered

Macnamara

377

at Queensland University of Technology to this day as a Bachelor of Business (Public Relations) through the QUT Business School. Among the few UK PR books that entered the Australian and South-East Asian markets during the 1980s and 1990s was, most notably, Jefkins’ (1980) Public Relations and later editions in 1983 and 1988, as well as Jefkins’ (1988) Public Relations Techniques. These were practical handbooks rather than research or analytical texts. As such, they contributed to the early orthodoxy of PR as primarily media relations and publicity for organizations and they were overwhelmingly functionalist, focused on the goals and objectives of organizations and businesses. For instance, Jefkins (1988) was published as part of the M+E Business Handbooks series and several of his books were used in the non-tertiary technically orientated Communication, Advertising and Marketing Education Foundation (CAM) courses in the UK. Uptake of Jefkins’ books and ideas in South-East Asia was bolstered by his visits to the region. Jefkins conducted a series of workshops and conference presentations in Indonesia in the late 1980s and early 1990s and visited a number of universities. Also, several of Jefkins’ books were published locally in countries such as Indonesia, filling a vacuum in literature on the emerging practice of PR (e.g. Jefkins, 1992). International author tours and scholar visits.  Along with publishing books, the practice of author tours reveals itself from first-hand observation as a key influence that framed academic and professional discourse about PR. Jefkins travelled to many developing countries, including Malaysia and Indonesia where he was acclaimed a ‘PR guru’ and teacher (soko guru), witnessed by the author while working there from 1988–1991. Jefkins did not visit Australia, but his speeches, talks and lectures in Indonesia, for instance, spurred sales of his books, influenced local scholars and the content of emerging courses, and helped shape practice. Even in 2009, a Universitas Indonesia course paper for hubungan masyarakat (abbreviated to humas), the Bahasa Indonesia terms for public relations and PR, prominently cited definitions from Jefkins, along with those from dominant US texts by Cutlip and Center, Baskin and Aronoff and Grunig and Hunt (Universitas Indonesia, 2009). The impact of author tours and scholar visits can also be seen in Australia and other parts of the region. Jim and Larissa Grunig were invited to Australia as Visiting Eminent Practitioners in 1996 and undertook a tour of all state capital cities delivering numerous talks and seminars on Excellence Theory and evolving understandings of two-way symmetrical PR. In Sydney, for instance, seminars attracted substantial audiences of scholars and practitioners. The author observed these events first-hand as an attendee and also was involved in helping organize the Grunigs’ tour as a councillor of the PRIA in New South Wales at the time. Jim Grunig also visited Malaysia in 2004 and, although the author did not observe this tour, its impact on local scholarship and practice is recorded in doctoral theses and journal articles such as Kee and Hussan (2006). While not visiting Australia frequently, Jim Grunig subsequently conducted webinars for the PRIA (e.g. in February 2009), in which he continued to promote and defend Excellence Theory. The Grunigs were passionate ambassadors for Excellence Theory and American scholarship in physical and virtual tours. They brought a missionary zeal and approach that gained many converts during a period when there was a relative vacuum of local theory-building

378

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

and scholarly texts. This is not to deny or denigrate the efforts of pioneering Australian scholars such as Walker (1994, 2000) and the emergence of a ‘New Zealand School’ of critical scholars (L’Etang, 2008b: 11) which will be discussed in the later, but the presence and evangelism of influential American scholars, combined with a dearth of local publishing, exerted a significant influence. Because of his high profile and visits to the region, Jim Grunig attracted a considerable number of doctoral students from Asian countries including Hong Kong and Korea during the height of his ‘fame’, and this is evident in published literature and through observation. For example, discussions during a formal scholar visit to Hong Kong Baptist University in 2011 revealed a continuing strong commitment to Excellence Theory among local scholars such as Flora Hung and Regina Chen who gained their doctorates from the University of Maryland under Grunig’s supervision. Similarly, my engagement as external examiner of the PR and Corporate Communication programme at Tunku Abdul Rahman University in Malaysia 2010–12 afforded the opportunity to review course content and discuss PR scholarship with academics of that university, as well as the Universiti Malaya. These observations and discussions confirmed a continuing focus on American functionalist approaches, the Four Models and Excellence Theory. Another example of the personal influence model of communication executed through visits and tours is Glen Broom who has visited Australia frequently over the past 20 years and been hosted as a Visiting Professor several times by Australian universities including the University of Technology Sydney. Broom is a warm and generous scholar and has had a significant influence on local scholarship. Not coincidentally, successive editions of what is now Cutlip and Center’s Effective Public Relations authored by Broom were used as a primary PR text in a number of Australian universities during the 1990s and early 2000s. While advocating ethical approaches to PR, Broom’s work was, and still largely is, grounded in systems theory and role theory which propagates a distinctly functionalist view of PR. To fully understand the discourse of PR that was created in this period, it is important to examine what was not said, as well as the narratives of PR that were ascendant. It is noteworthy that, during the period from 1976 until the end of the first decade of the 21st century – some 35 years – few European PR scholars visited Australia. There was some interchange of scholarship between the UK and Australia – for instance Maria Hopwood joined Bond University in Australia from 2006–09 after 20 years at the University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK before returning to Leeds Metropolitan University in the UK. Tom Watson, an Australian who completed his PhD in the UK and took up an academic role at Bournemouth University, returned to Australia for several years in the early 2000s to work at Charles Sturt University, but subsequently re-emigrated to the UK. Most recently, Johanna Fawkes joined the staff of Charles Sturt University. However, the voices of critical European PR scholars have been comparatively little heard in Australia and SE Asia. The IPRA Gold Paper No 12, The Evolution of Public Relations Education and the Influence of Globalisation, published in November 1997 based on a study of eight countries including Australia and Singapore, demonstrated the dominance of functionalist views of PR, and Grunigian theory in particular, by the late 20th century. It cited PR as a ‘management discipline’ framed within social science theories (mainly systems and

Macnamara

379

psychological theories) and identified the main PR theories as Situational theory, the Four Models and Excellence Theory (IPRA, 1997: 23, 30–1). Industry pressure for ‘work-ready’ graduates – the practice-theory debate. A third key influence on PR scholarship throughout the period and even to the present day is industry pressure on the academy to produce ‘work ready’ graduates. Reflection and reflexivity force the author to be confessional on this point as, during terms as a state president, Deputy National President and then National President of the PRIA, I was directly involved in representing such views and contributing to such pressures. Most scholars agree that graduates need to be able to find employment and meet reasonable expectations of employers. However, they equally recognize that the role of universities includes producing graduates who know how to think analytically and critically and who are equipped to contribute to society as a whole – not only to specific fields of practice. The effects of such pressures from industry are evident in studies of Australian PR education and professional literature. Alexander reported that ‘in Australia, early academic public relations courses were heavily vocationally focused’ (2004: 1). In a previous study of PR education in Australia, Walker also referred to expectations that education should ‘provide tailor-made ready-to-work practitioners who can walk into a practice and earn their keep immediately’ (2000: 44). Representations from industry were given weight in Australia by the introduction of a university PR course accreditation scheme proposed and administered by the PRIA in 1991 in which the content of courses and teaching staff are regularly reviewed by a PRIA panel. Scholars supported (or went along with) the scheme because accredited courses offer graduates recognition by the PRIA, which bolsters their employment prospects. To maintain some level of balance between scholarly and practice considerations, accreditation panels are appointed by the PRIA National Education Advisory Committee, which comprises a mix of PR practitioners and academics. However, the influence of the industry with its practical focus is strong. In their review of Australian PR education at the turn of the millennium, Singh and Smyth (2000) reported that the PRIA ‘is now a strong national body … and plays a strategic role in nurturing and developing strong relationships among the industry, academia and the professional body’. Singh and Smyth also noted that ‘the PRIA makes a strong contribution through guest lecturing and teaching programs and offers many short courses, based on need analysis of its membership’ (2000: 388). Similar course accreditation schemes have since been introduced in other countries in the region. Pressure from industry is exerted both formally and informally. During accreditation reviews of PR courses, university staff are regularly urged to pay more attention to practical skills development (the author has been both reviewer and reviewed in these processes over the past 15 years). Informally, academics are accosted at almost every PR industry event by practitioners lamenting a lack of sufficient practical skills among graduates – such as writing and ‘understanding the business’ – with an implicit criticism of theory. ‘Theory doesn’t pay the bills’, and similar industry rhetoric, were common at meetings of the PRIA Registered Consultants Group (RCG), which I attended for many years as a consultancy head prior to becoming an academic.

380

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

The theory–practice debate and calls for more vocationally orientated PR education continue to this day. For instance, in 2011, a prominent Melbourne PR consultant published an edited booklet comprising articles by a range of practitioners and academics debating, sometimes hotly, the relative importance of theoretically informed education and practical vocational skills (Pearce, 2011). Professionalization.  Another significant influence closely related to industry pressures for practice-orientated education has been the ongoing movement towards professionalization of PR. Rather than employ sociological criteria for identifying professionalism, such as a defined body of knowledge or ‘domain of expertise’, a monopoly on provision of services, limited entry and fiduciary responsibilities, the PR industry in most Australasian countries, as in the USA, has equated professionalism with roles, values and, to some extent, status aspirations (De Bussy and Wolf, 2009: 377). This approach, particularly the focus on roles, has orientated the discourse of professionalism in PR toward management and functionalism, rather than societal values and interests. Professionalism is widely associated with gaining high-level roles in organizational management and the ‘ear of the CEO’. This focus is widely discussed in literature elsewhere, so it is not examined in detail here. The focus on and of PR measurement.  While rightly recognized as an important part of PR, and an aspect of research and practice still needing much development, measurement has inadvertently contributed to functionalist thinking – particularly approaches developed and advocated in the USA through initiatives such as the ‘Summit on Measurement’ held annually since 2002 (attended by the author three times) and the Commission on Public Relations Measurement and Evaluation established by the US Institute for Public Relations (IPR).4 The discourse of PR measurement and evaluation has predominantly focused on effectiveness – with effectiveness being almost always related to achievement of the organization’s objectives. While measurement can just as easily apply to evaluating social acceptance, and some applications such as reputation research do include societal views, even a cursory scan of ‘PR research and evaluation’ papers published on the US IPR website reveals functionalist, organization-centric titles such as (Institute of Public Relations, 2012): • ‘Using public relations research to drive business results’; • ‘Exploring the link between share of media coverage and business outcomes’; • ‘Guidelines and standards for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities’; • ‘Measuring the effectiveness of employee communications’; • ‘How to measure PR’s contribution to corporate objectives’. The first Asia Pacific Summit on PR Measurement held in Hong Kong in 2012 (attended by the author) had a similar focus, with much discussion of ROI (return on investment) with its obvious connection to organizational interests and business-speak. The theme, ‘Measuring what matters’ was almost totally interpreted as what matters to organizations.

Macnamara

381

Reflective and reflexive analysis reveal that the author himself has fallen into this trap in both practice and scholarly research over the past two decades, applying formative and evaluative research primarily to inform, guide and measure achievement of organizational strategies. Globalization and discourses of capitalism and neoliberalism.  Sustaining and reinforcing a functionalist approach and strategic management orientation of PR in Australia and some other parts of the Asia Pacific region has been the effects of globalization and, specifically, the growing dominance of capitalism and neoliberalism, a global trend over past few decades, particularly since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism (Couldry, 2010). Couldry notes the ‘fetishism of the free market’ and the infiltration of neoliberal values into governments and institutions, as well corporations (2010: 47–55). Even in central government controlled countries such as Singapore, capitalism and neoliberal values have permeated and supported the rise of market states engaged in strategic management of citizens as consumers. Despite some evidence of contra-flows (Thussu, 2010), it can be argued that globalization has primarily resulted in new forms of cultural imperialism and colonialism, particularly emanating from the USA.

A turning point – or a nascent stirring? Coincidentally, in the same year that IPRA published its guide listing Grunig’s theories as ‘Best Practice’ in PR (1997), the Australian Journal of Communication published a landmark special issue on the theme ‘Public relations on the edge’. While the Australian Journal of Communication had provided ‘oxygen’ to critical thinking about PR before, including a 1993 article by New Zealander Judy Motion applying Foucauldian analysis to PR, this was one of the first substantial challenges to dominant American PR orthodoxy, as it brought together alternative perspectives from Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the US – including some of the first radical thinking about PR in the region. The special issue was edited by prominent New Zealand scholar, Shirley Leitch, and Australian academic Gael Walker who later became a mentor and a colleague, influencing my contemporary understanding of PR. But, at the time, the special issue of this important but small academic journal, passed me by and I remained oblivious to the groundswell of alternative thought and critical analysis emerging in PR – as did most practitioners and quite a few academics. The Australian Journal of Communication and Media International Australia had a broad field of scholarship to cover and it was not until 1999 that the first specialist PR journal in the region, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, was launched in Australia, followed by PRism, which started in 2003 and is now published in New Zealand. In a recent review of international and cross-cultural PR, McKie and Munshi (2004) noted the vital role of non-US journals for non-US writers and the difficulty of alternative thinking gaining access to major US journals. As noted earlier, the first contemporary PR text or research book to be published in Australia, 24 years after Potts’s pioneering effort, was Johnston and Zawawi’s (2000) Public Relations: Theory and Practice. Even then, there was a further lag in local book publishing until near the end of the first decade of the 21st century when two more PR text books appeared – Harrison’s (2008) Strategic Public Relations: A Practical Guide

382

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

to Success and Chia and Synnott’s (2009) Introduction to Public Relations: From theory to Practice – along with the third edition of Johnston and Zawawi (2009). A number of scholarly books on specific PR activities and functions also appeared including Media Relations by Stanton (2007), Public Relations Writing in Australia (Mahoney, 2008) and Public Relations Campaigns (Sheehan and Xavier, 2009). A number of PR handbooks and manuals were published during the 1980s and 1990s in Australia, New Zealand and South-East Asia, including several Australian and Asian PR handbooks by Macnamara (1984, 1992, 2000), a New Zealand Public Relations Handbook (Peart and Macnamara (1987, 1996), and The Australian Public Relations Manual (Tymson and Sherman, 1987), later expanded to The Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual (Tymson et al., 2002). A number of these were widely used (including as text books), but they were practical manuals rather than research or text books and further reinforced a functionalist American approach to PR. The Johnston and Zawawi, Chia and Synnott and Harrison texts appearing in the first decade of the 21st century discussed a wider range of theories than American PR texts that previously dominated university bookshop and professional library shelves, but they also mostly adhered to dominant orthodoxies, as is demonstrated in the second stage of research reported in this analysis.

The rise of the ‘New Zealand School’ The exception to this dominant American functionalist view within Australasian PR has emerged among New Zealand scholars. I first observed the growing climate of critique of western ethnocentricity and American functionalism in New Zealand in a review by Munshi (1999) of one of my own early co-authored publications. Munshi stated that the text ‘makes no mention of issues of cultural diversity. Instead the book defines and describes the nature of public relations from one perspective: the perspective of the dominant managerial frame’ (Munshi, 1999: 44). He was entirely correct. Munshi went on to criticize the leading PR manual in Australasia at the time (Tymson et al., 2002) in similar vein. After a long period in which only North American writers were published in major collections on PR theory and even international practice (e.g. Culbertson and Chen, 1996), Heath’s (2001) Handbook of Public Relations included two chapters by New Zealand-based writers (Leitch and Neilson, 2001; McKie, 2001) as well as a history of PR in New Zealand (Motion and Leitch, 2001). L’Etang notes the rise of the critical ‘New Zealand School’ in PR scholarship led by writers such as Munshi, Leitch, Motion, McKie and Neilson (2008b: 12). These were joined by Kay Weaver, formerly from Stirling University in Scotland, in 1995. This raises the question: why is New Zealand scholarship demonstrably more critical than that of Australia when the two countries are close geographically, economically, politically and culturally to a large extent? A full analysis of New Zealand scholarship is beyond the scope of this article and the author’s knowledge, but several differences are evident that may account for the emergence of alternative ‘unAmerican’ PR thinking and scholarship in New Zealand, which has made a substantial contribution to contemporary scholarship. At a micro regulatory and underlying structural level, New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has legislated to ensure the independence and critical role of universities and their scholarly projects, with a requirement to ‘accept a role as a critic

Macnamara

383

and conscience of society’ embedded in the New Zealand Education Amendment Act, 1990 (Petelin, 2005: 459). In Australia, such a role is claimed by universities, but not enshrined in protective legislation and the independence and critical role of academics remain constantly under pressure from industry interests, as discussed previously. At a broader macro level, the intellectual climate reflects the political, economic and social climate of countries in the region during the period, influenced by globalization. After more than a century of British colonization and a further half-century of British postcolonialism in which Australia had close political and economic ties to Britain, a marked shift towards the USA occurred post-Second World War. This was epitomized in the saying ‘All the way with LBJ’, used as a campaign slogan by US President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 (Johnson, 2009) and then adopted by Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt in 1966 as a statement of policy direction during the Vietnam War era (National Museum Australia, n.d.). The shift in Australian foreign policy and international allegiance was given further political and economic significance with signing of the Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) Security Treaty in 1984, which Australia has embraced more fully than New Zealand as evidenced in the presence of US bases in Australia and unstinting support for American military engagements. More recently, Australia signed a Free Trade Agreement with the US, completing a long transition from its earlier gaze toward England as the ‘Mother Country’ and its early cultural links to Europe. These and other developments marked a cultural continental drift of Australia towards the US, while New Zealand has remained more closely linked to the UK and Europe economically, socially and culturally. Beyond these broad social, cultural and political differences, New Zealand scholars deserve individual credit for their initiatives in critical thinking and proposing alternative perspectives, which are essential elements for a disciplinary field to advance. Equally, recent observation and discussions with Australian PR scholars reveal emergence of a ‘new guard’ who are building on the pioneering critical work of Walker. Australian, and some South East Asian scholars, are increasingly engaging with scholarship and research in Europe through attendance at conferences such as BLEDCOM, interaction with ‘New Zealand School’ scholars (a number of whom have moved to Australia, including Motion and Leitch) and some European scholars such as Fawkes who moved from the UK to Charles Sturt University in 2012, as well as undertaking their own research. Slowly, Australian as well as New Zealand and some Asian scholars are gaining a voice through local journals and, ever so slowly, gaining access to international journals committed to diversity and critical analysis. But, despite some notable efforts, the shift remains nascent rather than mainstream and much more research and praxis is required, as is further evidenced in the second stage of this study.

Methodology – Stage Two The second stage of this study involved a structured textual analysis of a substantial sample of contemporary PR texts and reference books commonly used in Australia to identify the paradigms, theories, models, practices and issues most discussed – and therefore most likely to be accessed by students, scholars and, to some extent, practitioners. The objective of this second stage of analysis was to test conclusions of the first stage in relation to approaches to PR scholarship and practice and ensure an up-to-date picture was obtained.

384

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Textual analysis of 20 commonly used undergraduate and postgraduate texts and reference books on PR was conducted during 2011. While this stage of research was conducted in Australia, the sample included the latest PR text in New Zealand and also a number of books on PR widely used in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong because of multinational book distribution and sales.

Research questions This stage of research was conducted to collect empirical data in response to four research questions as follows: • RQ1: What are the main communication and PR paradigms, theories and models informing contemporary scholarship and practice in Australia as identified in PR texts and reference books used locally? • RQ2: To what extent are functionalist conceptualizations of PR, as advanced in systems theory of PR, the Four Models and Excellence Theory, promoted in key texts and reference books used in Australia? • RQ3: What are the main themes, topics and issues addressed in PR scholarship as identified in PR texts and reference books used locally? • RQ$: To what extent is critical analysis discussed in key texts and reference books used in Australia?

Sample While it would have been ideal to identify the texts and reference books used in each university PR course to focus on those used most in the classroom, some universities do not list their prescribed texts online and teachers do not respond sufficiently to surveys. However, Cooperative Bookshops is the leading specialist supplier of educational books in Australia located on or near every university campus and their policy is to stock books that are either prescribed texts or recommended reading in courses offered in that university. (They order books based on teachers’ requests and texts listed in subject outlines.) Therefore, sampling the PR books stocked in ‘Coop’ Bookshops on campuses provided a proxy way of identifying texts and reference books that are being used in undergraduate and postgraduate PR courses. This sampling method yielded an eclectic mix of texts and reference books from authors and publishers in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and UK. Nevertheless, the sample had validity in terms of quantitative analysis, as it provided more than 8500 pages of discussion of PR that represents a substantial part of the information and research provided to students on theories, models and issues in PR. To ensure that the most contemporary texts were analysed, the sampling frame was books on PR published in the previous five years (2006–11) that were either prescribed texts or recommended references in undergraduate and postgraduate PR and related courses5 at Australian universities as at 1 March 2011. A Pearson Education (2009) survey of Australian PR educators confirmed that at least six of the books analysed were prescribed texts at that time. The sample produced a mix of Australian and international texts, a number of specifically theoretical analyses, two specifically critical texts, and several books focused on specific aspects of PR such as media relations and writing. The sample is listed in Table 1.

385

Macnamara Table 1.  The 20 public relations texts analysed Author/s

Year

Title

Publisher

Broom G

2009

Butterick K

2011

Pearson Education (USA) Sage (USA and UK)

Chia J and Synnott G (eds)

2009

Curtin P and Gaither T

2007

Franklin B, Hogan M, Langley Q, Mosdell N and Pill E Gordon A

2009

Cutlip & Center’s Effective Public Relations (10th edition) Introducing Public Relations: Theory and Practice Introduction to Public Relations: From Theory to Practice International Public Relations: Negotiating Culture, Identity and Power Key Concepts in Public Relations

2011

Public Relations

Guth D and Marsh C

2007

Harrison K

2011

Heath R and Coombs T

2006

Johnston J and Zawawi C

2009

L’Etang J

2008b

Mahoney J

2008

Mersham G, Theunissen P and Peart J

2009

Sheehan M and Xavier R

2009

Public Relations: A Values-driven Approach (3rd edition) Strategic Public Relations: A Practical Guide to Success Today’s Public Relations: An Introduction Public Relations: Theory and Practice, (3rd edition) Public Relations: Concepts, Practice and Critique Public Relations Writing in Australia Public Relations and Communication Management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand Perspective Public Relations Campaigns

Oxford University Press (UK) Pearson Education (USA) Palgrave Macmillan (Australia Sage (USA)

Smith R

2009

Stanton R

2007

Tench R and Yeomans L

2009

Toth E (ed.)

2007

Tymson C, Lazar, P and Lazar R (eds)

2008

Wilcox D and Cameron G

2010

Strategic Planning for Public Relations (3rd edition) Media Relations Exploring Public Relations (2nd edition) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management The New Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual (5th edition) Public Relations Strategies and Tactics, (9th edition)

Oxford University Press (Australia) Sage (USA and UK) Sage (USA and UK)

Allen & Unwin (Australia) Sage (USA and UK) Oxford University Press (Australia) Pearson (New Zealand) Oxford University Press (Australia) Routledge (USA) Oxford University Press (Australia) Pearson Education (UK) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (USA) Tymson Communications (Australia) Pearson/Allyn & Bacon (USA)

386

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Limitations It is recognized that teaching and learning and theory building are informed by and reflected in journal articles and conference papers as well as text and reference books. Journal articles, in particular, are major sites of contemporary research and theory, as noted by Jelen (2008) and Sallot et al. (2006). However, a preliminary university website search showed that most undergraduate and postgraduate PR courses in Australia prescribe and/or recommend text books and reference books, as well as journal articles and other resources. Also, the sample did not comprise a census of contemporary PR texts and reference books available in Australia (some books were not in stock at the time of sampling). However, this study analysed a substantial sample of contemporary PR literature, which comprises a primary site to examine the ‘body of knowledge’ in the field that forms the basis of teaching in many PR courses and frames much research. Therefore, textual analysis of these books was considered useful for testing the exploratory study’s findings of a continuing dominance of functionalist thinking and US models and theories in PR.

Method Because the research questions related to ‘what’ theories, models, themes and issues are discussed, and the extent of discussion about those variables (i.e. ‘how much’), a quantitative approach was appropriate. Content analysis using multiple coders and intercoder reliability assessment was not undertaken, as the analysis involved mostly exact word matching of the names of theories and specific concepts such as ‘ethics’, ‘history’, ‘culture’, etc and, therefore, this was considered unnecessary. However, the single coder textual analysis used structured coding of content at two levels based on a coding scheme established a priori, as recommended by content analysis scholars (Krippendorff, 2003; Krippendorff and Bock, 2009; Neuendorf, 2002). At an initial open or in vivo level (Glaser, 1978; Punch, 1998: 210-21), content of the texts was coded into the 12 broad descriptive categories listed in Table 2. Table 2.  First-level coding categories used in the analysis Category

Topic/focus

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12

Communication theories PR theories and models Roles/fields of practice (e.g. media relations, public affairs) Activities and methods (e.g. publicity, events) History of public relations Case studies of PR practice Research (formative and evaluative) Country or region of primary focus Cross-cultural, intercultural or multicultural focus Social media/new media Ethics in public relations Critical theory/analysis of public relations

Macnamara

387

A second level of axial coding (also referred to as pattern coding) was then undertaken to identify the specific theories, models, areas of practice, activities, issues and themes within these categories and reveal overall patterns (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Punch, 1998: 205). To consistently and reliably identify theories and models during coding, look-up tables were used listing established communication, media and PR theories. A list of 116 communication theories grouped under ‘seven traditions’ was drawn from Theories of Human Communication (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008: xiii-xiv) and media/mass communication theories were identified using a table of 150 theories in Potter (2009: 15–8). PR theories and models were identified and coded drawing on major analyses of PR theories including Botan and Hazelton (2006), Heath (2005), L’Etang (2008b) and Sriramesh and Verčič (2009).

Data analysis From the 20 texts, 8547 pages of textual content were analysed (indexes, glossaries and reference lists were excluded from the analysis). Content was categorized in one paragraph units (approximately 8–10 lines, or 0.2 of a page). Double coding of content was used where it related to more than one category. Data analysis was conducted using Microsoft© Excel©, which was sufficient for the sum, percentage and ranking calculations required.

Findings In the total of 8547 pages analysed, 1290.8 pages are devoted to theory (15.1% of total text content). This is comprised of 391.4 pages (4.58%) that discuss broad human communication theories and 899.4 pages (10.52%) that focus on PR theories. However, if Toth’s almost 600-page edited volume fully devoted to Excellence Theory is excluded from the sample, only 761.5 pages discuss and explain theories – both human communication and PR theory (8.9% of text content). General PR texts contain just 309.6 pages (3.9%) devoted to broad human communication theories and 451.9 pages (5.69%) devoted to PR theories. The most discussed human communication theory, by far, is systems theory, explained and analysed in 63.2 pages of PR text and reference book content. This mainly discusses basic systems theory with several texts focused on the early Shannon and Weaver (1949) mathematical model of communication and failing to mention other more advanced forms of systems theory. For instance, in the 2011 US text by Butterick titled Introducing Public Relations: Theory and Practice, only five pages are devoted to communication theory and these mention only Lasswell’s and Shannon and Weaver’s early linear models and the two-step flow model (which collectively received just 1.5 pages). Only one Australian PR text (Chia and Synnott, 2009) discusses cybernetic conceptualizations of communication – an evolution of basic systems theory developed by Norbert Wiener (1950). In US texts studied, Broom (2009) discusses cybernetics in a lengthy (20-page) section on systems theory. The next most discussed communication theory is persuasion, including both specific sociopsychological theories (e.g. elaboration likelihood and cognitive dissonance) as

388

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

well as persuasion generally (61.3 pages), followed by sociocultural theory (38.3 pages). However, 24 pages of the latter are in one book – the specialist Curtin and Gaither (2007) text devoted to international PR. Apart from this text, sociocultural theories receive little attention in PR texts and reference books despite being a major area of contemporary focus in communication. The next most discussed human communication theories relate to audience (reception theory, agency, demographics, psychographics, etc) (26.6 pages); agenda setting/framing (23.3 pages); interpersonal communication (19.3 pages); and rhetoric (15.3 pages). In discussion of PR theories, Excellence Theory including the two-way symmetrical model of communication is dominant with 203 pages of coverage. However, 175 of these are contained in one text – the Toth (2007) edited volume devoted to reviewing and discussing the future of Excellence Theory. If Toth’s specific analysis of Excellence Theory is excluded and only more general PR texts and reference books are analysed, Excellence Theory features, somewhat surprisingly, in only 28 pages of discussion in 19 texts totalling 7948 pages (0.35 percent). This correlates with the research of Jelen (2008) who found only one article and a low word count overall focused on Excellence/symmetrical communication in her content analysis of PR journals. Jelen explained this apparent paradox by identifying a high volume of mentions of the name Grunig, which she noted is largely synonymous with Excellence Theory. The following findings further contextualize Excellence Theory in the literature, as they identify a number of constituent theories that are prominently discussed. After Excellence Theory, the next most discussed PR theory in the 20 texts analysed is systems theory of PR, including discussion of PR in the context of strategic management systems (93.4 pages).6 This affirms a predominance of American positivist, functionalist and behaviourist concepts of PR that are foundational to Excellence Theory according to critics (e.g. L’Etang, 2008b; Pieczka, 1996) – although Jim Grunig disputes this interpretation (Grunig et al., 2002: 328). The main PR theories discussed in the texts are listed in Table 3. Situational and relational theories have been incorporated into Excellence Theory and could be seen as part of that corpus of knowledge. However, they were analysed separately

Table 3.  Public relations theories most discussed in PR texts Public relations theories

Pages

Percent

Excellence Theory Systems theory of PR Stakeholder and publics theory Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Strategic communication theory Relationship theory Situational theory of publics Grunig’s Four Models Rhetorical theory of PR Sociocultural/cross-cultural theory of PR

203.0 93.4 80.4 66.1 60.8 52.8 49.4 35.9 30.9 27.9

2.38 1.09 0.94 0.77 0.71 0.62 0.58 0.42 0.36 0.33

Macnamara

389

when discussed specifically without reference to other aspects of Excellence Theory. It is also noted that situational theory relates to publics, however ‘stakeholder and publics theory’ was coded separately when texts discussed stakeholders and publics generally and did not mention Situational theory of publics. It is interesting that Grunig’s Four Models, first conceptualized in 1984, still feature as the eighth most discussed PR theory in this substantial sample of texts, with almost 36 pages of discussion. This suggests that some PR texts and reference books are out of date, remaining focused on the original Four Models when Excellence Theory has evolved through convergence of asymmetric and symmetric models into a mixed motive or ‘new’ two-way symmetrical model (Grunig et al., 2002: 355, 358) and incorporated a number of other theories. A wide range of other communication and media theories are discussed in PR texts and reference books including the public sphere, media sociology, critical theory, semiotics, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, social exchange, two-step and n-step flow models, diffusion of innovations, mass communication, networking, media effects, elaboration likelihood, cognitive dissonance, uses and gratifications theory, encoding and decoding, spiral of silence and complexity theory. However, most receive only brief mentions – often only a few paragraphs. Other PR theories discussed include negotiation/conflict management, PR as propaganda and ‘spin’ (mostly presented with argument to the contrary); postmodern PR; organizational activism, the Circuit of Culture model presented by Curtin and Gaither (2007); co-orientation; planning models (e.g. RACE and ROPE);7 persuasion and dialogic theory. However, in most cases only one or two paragraphs are devoted to describing theories other than the dominant paradigm, which suggests a degree of tokenism and dogmatism in discussion of PR theories and models. Nine of the PR texts and reference books analysed – almost half – contain less than 20 pages discussing theory (3-6% of their content). This refutes claims noted by Byrne (2008) that university courses are overly theoretical and not practical. A highly practical focus in PR text books is shown in the following analysis of the roles/fields of practice and specific methods and activities that comprise PR. The most discussed aspects of PR are its various roles and fields of practice to which 2710.2 pages of total PR text and reference book content are devoted (31.7%). Within these roles and fields of practice, publicity and media relations is by far the most discussed role or specific field of practice (577.5 pages, almost 7% of the total content of the 20 texts). The next most discussed role and specific field of practice is cross-cultural and global communication (234.7 pages). However, most of this discussion (116 pages) is contained in just two books – Curtin and Gaither’s specialist text on international PR and Toth’s edited volume, which includes several chapters discussing international application of Excellence Theory. Most of the 80 pages discussing international PR and crosscultural communication in Toth (2007) advocate the application of Excellence Theory as a general global theory of PR and include little critical analysis of the theory or the practices it informs. The main roles and specific fields of practice discussed in PR texts are listed in Table 4. Specific PR methods and activities are discussed in 2015 pages (23.58% of total text and reference content). The most discussed methods and activities are listed in Table 5.

390

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Table 4.  Public relations roles/fields of practice most discussed in PR texts Public relations roles/fields of practice

Pages

Percent

Publicity and media relations Cross-cultural and global communication Government relations/public affairs Crisis communication Marketing/integrated marketing communication Issue management NGO/not-for-profit communication Internal/employee communication Corporate/business communication Community relations

577.5 234.7 227.1 212.1 190.7 172.8 163.3 162.0 154.3 137.6

6.76 2.75 2.66 2.48 2.23 2.02 1.91 1.90 1.81 1.61

Strategic planning is the predominant focus of PR texts and reference books in terms of the activities carried out by practitioners. While this could be expected to be a focus of Smith (2009) in his book devoted to Strategic Planning for Public Relations, all texts and reference books contain substantial chapters or parts of several chapters devoted to strategic planning. This is mainly framed within strategic management thinking, focused on how to achieve the objectives of the organization. Neither sections dealing with strategic planning as an activity, nor those discussing strategic communication theory, which is the fifth most discussed PR theory (see Table 3), engage in substantial critique of the concept of strategy. Notwithstanding the call by Hallahan et al. for strategic communication to be seen as ‘a rich, multi-dimensional concept that needs to be examined broadly’ with humanist as well as social science and modernist management overtones (2007: 27), most discussion of strategy, strategic planning and strategic communication are focused on achieving organizational objectives, with much less attention paid to publics’ and societal interests. Publics are often referred to as target publics in PR texts, denoting their conceptualization as the intended recipients of information transmission. Table 5.  Public relations activities most discussed in PR texts Public relations activities

Pages

Percent

Strategic planning Research for evaluation Media relations Writing Web/internet communication Formative research Events Sponsorships Publications (incl. newsletters, annual reports) Advertising

434.5 385.3 310.7 195.0 194.1 100.6 81.2 74.0 63.7 41.9

5.08 4.51 3.64 2.28 2.27 1.18 0.95 0.87 0.75 0.49

391

Macnamara

In addition to discussion of the roles and fields of practice comprising PR and the specific activities undertaken, a number of major themes were analysed in the second level of coding. Eight key themes were identified in the 20 texts as shown in Table 6. A major focus of PR texts and reference books is case studies of PR practice. Excluding Toth’s edited volume on Excellence Theory, which contains mostly theoretical discussion, more pages are devoted to PR case studies than to PR theory. One 660-page Australian text contains 113.5 pages devoted to case studies (17.2% of the text), albeit this text is very light on theory with only 21.2 pages of theoretical discussion (3.2% of the text). The UK Tench and Yeomans (2009) text contains 93 pages of case studies (14.5% of the text). Most PR texts contain 30–60 pages of case studies. Several also include practitioner profiles which provide further practical information (e.g. Chia and Synnott, 2009; Gordon, 2011; Heath and Coombs, 2006). At face value, these findings also suggest that critical analysis is a major feature of PR texts and reference books. However, while showing existence of a critical perspective in texts, this apparent finding is distorted because almost all of the critical analysis identified is contained in two texts – L’Etang’s (2008b) self-professed critique and Curtin and Gaither’s text on international PR Gaither’s (2007). Table 7 shows the focus of PR texts and reference books with these two specifically critical texts removed, and this is far more representative of the focus of PR texts and reference books generally. Table 6.  Major focus of PR texts and reference books including critical texts Area of focus

Pages

Percent

Case studies Research Critical analysis/theory Ethics PR industry structure/professionalization PR history Legal/regulatory issues New/social media

658.9 531.4 446.3 294.5 269.4 210.3 161.3 113.6

7.71 6.22 5.22 3.45 3.15 2.46 1.89 1.33

Table 7.  Main focus of mainstream PR texts and reference books Area of focus

Pages

Percent

Case studies Research PR industry structure/professionalization Ethics PR history Legal/regulatory issues New/social media Critical analysis/theory

605.9 513.4 258.4 252.5 197.8 152.3 108.7 66.3

7.55 6.40 3.22 3.15 2.47 1.90 1.36 0.83

392

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Analysis of 18 general PR texts and reference books (i.e. excluding L’Etang’s (2008b) critique of western/US models and theories and Curtin and Gaither’s (2007) alternative models for international PR) shows only 66.3 pages of critical analysis – just 0.83 percent of the 7685 pages in these widely-used texts and reference books. For example, despite the authors’ engagement in critical analysis elsewhere, Heath and Coombs’ (2006) 538-page Today’s Public Relations: An Introduction does not contain a section on critical theory or critical analysis and the term ‘critical’ does not appear in their index. It is the same in the 2009 10th edition of Cutlip & Center’s Effective Public Relations (Broom, 2009) and in Wilcox and Cameron’s (2010) ninth edition. Tench and Yeomans (2009) contains just three-quarters of one page discussing critical theory and only a few paragraphs elsewhere in the text briefly mention ‘critical modernism’, ‘critical reflection’ and ‘critical publics’. A new edition in production may change this focus. Only Toth (2007) and L’Etang (2008b) discuss power in any detail in terms of the imbalance that can exist between organizations and publics and how PR often reflects and exacerbates these inequities. Most PR texts and reference books skim over this contentious issue, which many feel is not adequately addressed in the dominant paradigm of Excellence Theory, and almost half of the texts analysed do not discuss power at all. Tables 6 and 7 show that new/social media also receive scant attention in the texts analysed – just over 113 pages out of the total of 8547 pages analysed (1.33%). This is equally concerning, as social media have been identified by many scholars as a major revolution affecting the practices of public communication (Flew, 2008; Jenkins, 2006; Macnamara, 2010; Nightingale and Dwyer, 2007) and a major area for focus in PR specifically (Breakenridge, 2008; Macnamara, 2010). The disparity between ‘web/internet communication’ discussed as a PR method/ activity in 194.1 pages and discussion of new/social media in just 113.6 pages (1.33% of total text and reference book content analysed) is caused by a primary focus in PR text books on Web 1.0 and quite dated communication technologies. For example, less than three pages of Wilcox and Cameron (2010) discuss Web 2.0 and social media specifically. The widely-used UK text by Tench and Yeomans (2009) contains no chapter on new/social media and fleetingly mentions new or social media in less than one page of text, despite 26 pages devoted to media relations and publicity. Research is extensively discussed in most of the texts and reference book analysed. This seems paradoxical in light of the under-utilization of research in PR practice noted by many authors (e.g. Watson and Simmons, 2004; Xavier, et al., 2004). However, most of this discussion is related to measurement of the effectiveness of campaigns linked to organizational objectives and management plans, as discussed earlier.

Conclusions While indications of a ‘socio-cultural turn’ in PR and the emergence of a range of alternative conceptualizations and theories of PR are deservedly welcomed, this analysis suggests that the shadow of functionalism and Excellence Theory is longer, stronger and more resilient than scholars confining their attention to academic journals and conferences see or acknowledge. It is being actively sustained at a macro level by globalization, which, despite some evidence of ‘contra flows’ (Thussu, 2010), is heavily dominated by

Macnamara

393

US economic, social and cultural capital and the economic and sociopolitical forces of capitalism and neoliberalism. PR scholarship conducted within a business or management framework, in particular (e.g. in faculties of business), remains significantly influenced by these ideologies and theories. At a micro or industry level, the broad context of PR scholarship and practice are influenced by at least five other key factors: a longstanding dominance of US publishing resulting from the macro-level influences described; the practice of author tours and scholar visits that, in Australasia, has been dominated by evangelizing and charismatic North Americans; industry pressures for ‘work-ready’ practically orientated graduates; narrow interpretations of professionalization focused predominantly on organizational roles; and the growing cause célèbre in PR, measurement, that has focused predominantly on evaluating organizational effectiveness. Even though Botan and Hazelton argue that ‘the rest of the field’ (i.e. beyond the dominant coalition) has failed ‘to develop, test, and defend other strong ideas’ (2006: 17) and ‘develop their work into alternative paradigms’ (2006: 9), there are a number of alternative paradigms and frameworks in which to theorize and reconceptualize PR discussed in academic literature. But these have not, as yet, been widely taken up in the broader context of PR education or practice in Australia and major South East Asian countries – and possibly not in New Zealand either. While critical thinking and research is increasingly published in academic journals and conference papers (and their importance in scholarship is fully acknowledged), broader dissemination of research and theory has to be recognized as an important and integral part of scholarship and education – including dissemination to practitioners who have already completed undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Recent discussions with and attendance at conferences of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand (PRINZ) indicate that the critical thinking and alternative frameworks espoused by the ‘New Zealand School’ of scholars have not yet trickled down as theorized in the diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1995[1962]). It would be interesting to examine the alleged ‘sociocultural turn’ in the broader context of teaching and practice in other countries as well. While a number of limitations of this exploratory study are acknowledged, the scholarly journey reflected upon, and the incomplete but nevertheless significant text analysis data presented, indicate that there remains a need for further research as well as praxis in the field and points to important areas for further investigation as well as the need for broader dissemination of research and knowledge. Notes 1.

The term ‘profession’ is frequently applied to PR, but a number of scholars point out that PR does not meet the definition of a profession based on sociological criteria. Others, however, use a more general definition based on roles performed compared with craft and technical activities. 2. Formerly Public Relations Research Annual. 3. Media Information Australia (incorporating Culture and Policy Journal) was published initially by the Media Information Research Exchange (MIRE) and then moved to the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy at Griffith University, jointly managed by the University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology, before moving to its current institutional home at the University of Queensland.

394

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

4.

The US Institute for Public Relations is a organization established to foster research – not represent practitioners, which, in the USA, is the role of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). 5. Related courses included media writing and media relations. 6. Specific discussion of systems theory of public relations was coded and analysed separately to discussion of systems theory generally. 7. RACE is an acronym for research, action, communication, evaluation. ROPE denotes the four stages of research, objectives, program/plan, evaluation.

References Aldoory L (2007) Reconceiving gender for an ‘excellent’ future in public relations scholarship. In: Toth E (ed.) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.399–411. Alexander D (2004) Changing the public relations curriculum: A new challenge for educators. PRism 2(1). Available at: www.prismjournal.org/number_2_1.html (accessed 7 April 2012). Baskin O and Aronoff C (1983) Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. Bell P (2010) Confronting Theory: The Psychology of Cultural Studies. Bristol and Chicago, IL: Intellect. Black S (1972) The Role of Public Relations in Management. London: Pitman. Botan C and Hazelton V (2006) Public Relations Theory II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Breakenridge D (2008) PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, Pearson Education. Broom G (2009) Cutlip & Center’s Effective Public Relations (10th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Broom G and Dozier D (1990) Using Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brown R (2012) Epistemological modesty: Critical reflections on public relations thought. Public Relations Inquiry 1: 89–105. Byrne K (2008) The value of academia: Variance among academic and practitioner perspectives on the role of public relations practice. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 9: 17–34. Buttrick K (2011) Introducing Public Relations: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage. Cameron G (1997) The contingency theory of conflict management in public relations. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Two-way Communication. Oslo: Norwegian Central Government Information Service, pp.27–48. Chia J and Synnott G (eds) (2009) Introduction to Public Relations: From Theory to Practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Couldry N (2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J (2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Curran J (2011) Media and Democracy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Curtin P (2012) Public relations and philosophy: Parsing paradigms. Public Relations Inquiry 1: 31–47. Curtin P and Gaither T (2007) International Public Relations: Negotiating Culture, Identity and Power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cutlip S (1994) Public Relations: The Unseen Power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Macnamara

395

Cutlip S (1995) Public Relations History: From the 17th to the 20th Century. The Antecedents. New York: Routledge. Cutlip S and Center AH (1971) Effective Public Relations (5th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. De Bussy N and Wolf K (2009) The state of Australian public relations: Professionalisation and paradox. Public Relations Review 35: 376–81. Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) (2008) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dozier D, Grunig L and Grunig J (1995) Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dwyer T (ed.) (1961) The Australian Public Relations Handbook. Melbourne: Ruskin Publications. Edwards L (2012) Defining the ‘object’ of public relations research: A new starting point. Public Relations Inquiry 1: 7–30. Edwards L and Hodges C (eds) (2011) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge. Elwood W (1995) Public Relations Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism. Westport, CT: Praegar. Ewen S (1996) PR! A Social History of Spin. New York: Basic Books. Ferguson M (1984) Building theory in public relations: Interorganisational relationships as public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, Gainsville, FL. Finlay L and Gough B (2003) Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. Flew T (2008) New Media: An Introduction. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Franklin B, Hogan M, Langley Q, Mosdell N and Pill E (2009) Key Concepts in Public Relations. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Geertz, C (1973) Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, pp.3–30. Glaser B (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Adline. Gordon A (2011) Public Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grunig J (1966) The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs 3: 1–51. Grunig J (1968) Information, entrepreneurship, and economic development: A study of the decision making processes of Colombian Latifundistas. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, USA. Grunig J (1976). Organisations and publics relations: Testing a communication theory. Journalism Monographs, 46: 1–59. Grunig J (1978) Defining publics in public relations: The case of a suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly 55: 109–18. Grunig J (1983) Communication behaviours and attitudes of environmental publics: Two studies. Journalism Monographs, 81. Fullerton, CA: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Publications. Grunig J (ed.) (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig J (1997) A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In: Moss D, MacManus T and Verčič D (eds) Public Relations Research: An International Perspective. London: International Thomson Business Press, pp.3–48.

396

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Grunig J (2000) Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1): 23–48. Grunig J (2001) Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In: Heath R (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage, pp.11–30. Grunig J and Grunig L (1992) Models of public relations and communication. In: Grunig J (ed.) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.285–325. Grunig, J and Hunt, T (1984) Managing Public Relations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig J, Grunig L and Dozier D (2006) The Excellence Theory. In: Botan C and Hazelton V (eds) Public Relations Theory II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.21–62. Grunig L (2006) Feminist phase analysis in public relations: Where have we been? Where do we need to be? Journal of Public Relations Research 18(2): 115–40. Grunig L, Grunig J and Dozier D (2002) Excellent Organisations and Effective Organisations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guba E and Lincoln Y (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 191–215. Guba E and Lincoln Y (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.105–17. Guth D and Marsh C (2007) Public Relations: A Values-driven Approach (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Hallahan K, Holtzhausen D, van Ruler B, Verčič D and Sriramesh K (2007) Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1(1): 3–35. Harrison, K (2011) Strategic Public Relations: A Practical Guide to Success. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. Heath R (1992) The wrangle in the marketplace: A rhetorical perspective of public relations. In: Toth E and Heath R (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.17–36. Heath R (ed.) (2001) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath R (ed.) (2005) Encyclopaedia of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath R (2005) Antecedent of modern public relations. In: Heath R (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.32–6. Heath R (2009) The rhetorical tradition: Wrangle in the marketplace. In: R. Heath R, Toth E and Waymer D (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. New York: Routledge, pp.17–47. Heath R (ed.) (2010) The Sage Handbook of Public Relations (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath R and Coombs T (2006) Today’s Public Relations: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hiebert R (1966) Courtier to the Crowd: The Story of Ivy Lee. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Holtzhausen D (2000) Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 12(1): 93–114. Holtzhausen D and Voto R (2002) Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as organisational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research 14(1): 57–85. Hon L and Grunig J (1999) Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. Available at: www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/Guidelines_Measuring_ Relationships.pdf (accessed 7 April 2012).

Macnamara

397

IPR. (2012) Research topics – Measurement and evaluation. Retrieved from www.instituteforpr. org/topic/measurement-and-evaluation/ (accessed 7 April 2012). IPRA. (1976) Report on Public Relations Education Worldwide. Gold Paper No 2. London: International Public Relations Association. IPRA. (1997) The Evolution of Public Relations Education and the Influence of Globalisation. Gold Paper No 12, London: International Public Relations Association. Jefkins F (1980) Public Relations. London: Pitman. Jefkins F (1992) Public Relations. Jakarta: Erlangga. Jefkins F (1988) Public Relations Techniques. London: Heinemann. Jelen A (2008) The nature of scholarly endeavours in public relations. In: Van Ruler B, Verčič A and Verčič D (eds) Public Relations Metrics: Research and Evaluation. New York and London: Routledge, pp.36–59. Jenkins H (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press. Jensen K (ed.) (2012) A Handbook of Media and Communication Research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Johnson R (2009) All the Way with LBJ: The 1964 Presidential Election. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnston J and Macnamara J (2012) History of public relations scholarship in Australia. Paper presented to the International PR History Conference, July, Bournemouth, UK. Johnston J and Zawawi C (2000) Public Relations: Theory and Practice. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Johnston J and Zawawi C (2009) Public Relations: Theory and Practice (3rd edition). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Kee C and Hussan M (2006) The advertising value equivalency (AVE) method in quantifying economic values of public relations activities: Experience of a publicly listed company in Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia 24(1&2): 33–54. Kent M and Taylor M (2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28: 21–37. Krippendorff K (2003) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krippendorff K and Bock M (2009) The Content Analysis Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. LeCompte M and Schensul, J (1999) Design and Conducting Ethnographic Research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Ledingham J and Bruning S (2001) Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leitch S and Neilson D (2001) Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical frameworks for practice. In: Heath R (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.127–38. Leitch S and Walker G (eds) (1997) Public relations on the edge (special issue). Australian Journal of Communication 24(2). L’Etang J (2008a) Writing PR history: Issues, methods and politics. Journal of Communication Management 12(4): 319–35. L’Etang J (2008b) Public Relations Concepts, Practice and Critique. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. L’Etang J (2009) Radical PR: Catalyst for change or an aporia? International Journal of Communication Ethics 6(2): 13–18. L’Etang J (2011) Imagining public relations anthropology. In: Edwards L and Hodges C (eds) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge, 15–32.

398

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

L’Etang J and Pieczka M (1996) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations. London: International Thomson Business Press. L’Etang J and Pieczka M (2006) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Littlejohn S and Foss K (2008) Theories of Human Communication (9th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth. Macnamara J (1984) Public Relations Handbook for Managers and Executives. Melbourne: Information Australia. Macnamara J (1992) The Asia Pacific Public Relations Handbook. Sydney: Archipelago Press. Macnamara J (2000) Jim Macnamara’s Public Relations Handbook. Melbourne: Information Australia. Macnamara J (2010) The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices. New York: Peter Lang. Macnamara, J and Crawford R (2010) Reconceptualising public relations in Australia: A historical and social re-analysis. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 11(2): 17–34. Available at: www. pria.com.au/journal/area?command=record&id=86&cid=14 (accessed 7 April 2012). Mahoney, J (2008) Public Relations Writing in Australia. South Melbourne: Oxford. Marchand R (1998) Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Maréchal G (2010) Autoethnography. In: Mills A, Durepos G and Wiebe E (eds) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Vol 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.43–5. McKie D (2001) Updating public relations: ‘New science’ research paradigms and uneven developments. In: R Heath (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.75–92. McKie D (2008) Postmodernism and PR. In: L’Etang J Public Relations Concepts, Practice and Critique. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.259–60. McKie D and Munshi D (2004) Pumpkins, Kiwi fruits, and global hybrids: A comparative review of 21st century public relations scholarship in Australia/New Zealand and the United States. The Review of Communication 4(3–4): 278–87. McKie D and Munshi D (2005) Global public relations: A different perspective (special issue). Public Relations Review 30(4). McKie D and Munshi D (2007) Reconfiguring Public Relations: Equity, Ecology and Enterprise. London: Routledge. Mickey T (2003) Deconstructing Public Relations: Public Relations Criticism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller K (1999) The Voice of Business: Hill & Knowlton and Postwar Public Relations. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Miller K (2000) Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From ‘straw person’ argument to collaborative coexistence. In: Corman S and Poole M (eds) Perspectives on Organisational Communication: Finding Common Ground. New York: Guildford, pp.46–67. Motion J and Leitch S (1996) A discursive perspective from New Zealand: Another world view. Public Relations Review 22: 297–309. Motion J and Leitch S (2001) New Zealand perspectives on public relations. In: R Heath (ed.) Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.659–64. Motion J, Leitch S and Cliff, S (2003) Public relations in Australasia: Friendly rivalry, cultural diversity, and global focus. In: Sriramesh K and Verčič D (eds) The Global Public Relations Handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.121–41. Munshi D (1999) Requisitioning variety: Photographic metaphors, ethnocentric lenses and the divided colours of public relations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 1(1): 39–52.

Macnamara

399

Murphy P (1991) Limits of symmetry. In: J. Grunig J and Grunig L (eds) Public Relations Research Annual, Vol 3. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.115–31. National Museum Australia. (n.d.) Prime Ministers of Australia – Harold Holt. Available at: www. nma.gov.au/primeministers/harold_holt (accessed 7 April 2012). Neuendorf K (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman W (2006) Social Research methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Nightingale V and Dwyer T (eds) (2007) New Media Worlds: Challenges for Convergence. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Olasky M (1987) Corporate Public Relations: A New Historical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pasadeos Y, Berger B and Renfro R (2010) Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research 22(2): 136–58. Pearce C (ed.) (2011) Public Relations 2011: Issues, Insights, Ideas. Melbourne: Craig Pearce Strategic Communication. Available at: craigpearce.info/marketing/public-relations-2011-issues-insights-ideas/ (accessed 7 April 2012). Pearson R (1989) Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Co-orientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. In: Grunig J and Grunig L (eds) Public Relations Research Annual, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.67–86. Pearson R (1992) Perspectives in public relations history. In: Toth E and Heath R (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.110–30. Peart J and Macnamara J (1987) The New Zealand Public Relations Handbook. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Mills. Pearson Education. (2009) Unpublished survey of Australian PR educators. Sydney, November. Peart J and Macnamara J (1996) The New Zealand Public Relations Handbook (2nd edition). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Petelin R (2005) Editing from the edge: De-territorialising public relations scholarship. Public Relations Review 31: 458–62. Pieczka M (1996) Paradigms, systems theory and public relations. In: L’Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations. London: International Thomson Business Press, pp.124–56. Pieczka M (2006) Paradigms, systems theory and public relations. In: L’Etang J and Pieczka M (eds) Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.331–58. Potter W (James) (2009) Arguing for a General Framework for Mass Media Scholarship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Potts DJ (1976) Public Relations Practice in Australia. Sydney: McGraw-Hill. PRIA. (2010) About us – Sir Asher Joel. Available at: www.pria.com.au/aboutus/cid/148/t/ aboutus (accessed 7 April 2012). Punch K (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage. Quarles J and Rowlings B (1993) Practising Public Relations: A Case Study Approach. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Radford G (2012) Public relations in a postmodern world. Public Relations Inquiry 1: 49–67. Rogers E (1995[1962]) Diffusion of Innovations (4th edition). New York: Free Press. Sallot L, Lyon L, Acosta-Alzuru C and 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): 27–90.

400

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

Shannon C and Weaver W (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Sheehan M (2007) Australian public relations campaigns: A select historical perspective 1899–1950. Refereed conference proceedings Australian Media Traditions: Distance and Diversity: Reaching New Audiences, Sydney, November. Available at: www.csu.edu.au/special/amt/publication/ sheehan.pdf (accessed 7 April 2012). Sheehan M and Xavier R (2009) Public Relations Campaigns. South Melbourne: Oxford. Simpson B (2009) Pragmatism, mead and the practice turn. Organisation Studies 30(12): 1329–47. Singh R and Smyth R (2000) Australian public relations: Status at the turn of the 21st century. Public Relations Review 25(4): 387–401. Spicer C (2007) Collaborative advocacy and the creation of trust: Toward an understanding of stakeholder claims and risks. In: Toth E (ed.) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.27–40. Sriramesh K (2004) Public Relations in Asia: An Anthology. Singapore: Thomson. Sriramesh K and Verčič D (eds) (2009) The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Routledge. Smith R (2009) Strategic Planning for Public Relations (3rd edition). New York: Routledge. Stanton R (2007) Media Relations. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Stanton R and Phillips R (1998) Public Relations Precepts and Practices. Penrith, NSW: University of Western Sydney. Steyn B (2007) Contribution of public relations to organisational strategy formulation. In: Toth E (ed.) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.137–72. Tan Y and Soh Y (1994) The Development of Singapore Modern Media Industry. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Tedlock B (2008) The observation of participation and the emergence of public ethnography. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.151–71. Tedlow R (1979) Keeping the Corporate Image: Public Relations and Business 1900–1950. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tench R and Yeomans L (2009) Exploring Public Relations (2nd edition). Harlow: Pearson Education. Thayer L (1968) Communication and Communication Systems. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Thussu D (ed.) (2010) International Communication: A Reader. London: Routledge. Toth E (ed.) (2007) The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Toth E (2009) The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical and excellence perspectives. In: Heath R, Toth E and Waymer D (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Perspectives on Public Relations II. New York: Routledge, pp.48–60. Toth E (2010) Reflections on the field. In: Heath R (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Turner G (2010) Public relations. In: Cunningham S and Turner G (eds) The Media and Communications in Australia (3rd edition). Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, pp.207–16. Tye L (2002) The Father of Spin: Edward L. Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations. New York: Henry Holt. Tymson C and Sherman, B (1987) The Australian Public Relations Manual. Sydney: Millennium.

Macnamara

401

Tymson C, Lazar P and Lazar R (2008) The New Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual (5th edition). Manly, NSW: Tymson Communications. Universitas Indonesia. (2009) BAB II: Kerangka Pemikiran – Pengertian Humas [Framework for thinking: Understanding PR]. Available at: www.google.com.au/search?q=Frank+Jefkins+P R+Indonesia&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivnso&ei=IItmT7SrF8nfmAXC38SCCA&sa=N&gs_ sm=12&gs_upl=27405l27405l0l28624l1l1l0l0l0l0l344l344l3-1l1l0&oq=Frank+Jefkins+PR+ Indonesia&aq=f&aqi=&aql= (accessed 7 April 2012). Verčič D (2008) Co-orientation model of public relations. In: Donsbach W (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Communication. Available at: www.communicationencyclopaedia.com/ public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_chunk_g97814051319958_ss141-1 (accessed 7 April 2012). Walker G (1994) Communicating public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research 6(3): 141–61. Walker G (2000) What outcomes should public relations education provide? Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal 1(2): 35–46. Watson T and Simmons P (2004) Public relations evaluation – survey of Australian practitioners. In: Proceedings of the Australian New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA04) Conference, University of Sydney, July. Available at: conferences.arts.usyd.edu.au/viewpaper. php?id=97&cf=3 (27 June 2012). Wiener N (1950) The Human Use of Human Beings. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Wilcox D and Cameron G (2010) Public Relations Strategies and Tactics (9th edition)). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Xavier R, Patel A and Johnston K (2004) Are we really making a difference: The gap between outcomes and evaluation research in public relations campaigns. In: Proceedings of Australian New Zealand Communication Association Conference, Sydney, 7–9 July. Available at: conferences. arts.usyd.edu.au/viewabstract.php?id=114&cf=3 (27 June 2012). Zawawi C (2009) A history of public relations in Australia. In: Johnston J and Zawawi C (eds) Public Relations: Theory and Practice ((3rd edition). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, pp.26–46.

Author biography The author, Jim Macnamara, worked for 30 years in public relations practice and then media and communication research (1976–2006) before becoming a full-time senior academic in 2007. Some highlights of his career that illustrate his unique vantage point to observe changing practices and thinking in the field include: • • • • • • •

Started working in PR in 1975 with Army Public Relations, after training as a journalist and doing military service from 1972 to 1974; Senior PR manager, including Director of Public Relations for the National Farmers Federation in Canberra and Deputy Manager of Hill & Knowlton, Sydney from 1977 to 1984; Co-founder and CEO of a leading independent PR consultancy firm, MACRO Communication for 13 years from 1985 to 1997, including opening and managing offices in Australia, Singapore and Jakarta, Indonesia; An active member of the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) since 1984; Made a Fellow of the PRIA in 1997; State President of the PRIA in New South Wales from 1998 to 1999; National President of the PRIA from 1999–2001;

402

Public Relations Inquiry 1(3)

• Councillor of the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) in Australia from 2000 to 2002; • Member of the National Education Advisory Committee of the PRIA since 2002; • Founder and CEO of the leading specialist research company involved in media and PR research in the region, CARMA International Asia Pacific, for 11 years from 1995 to 2006, working with clients and offices in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong and China; • Founding Fellow of the Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (FAMEC); • A regular guest speaker at conferences, seminars and workshops of the PRIA, PR Institute of New Zealand, Institute of Public Relations of Singapore and the Hong Kong PR Professionals Association, and many international conferences including the PR Measurement Summit in the USA and conferences of the IABC and IPRA; • External examiner of PR courses at a leading Malaysian university; • Lecturer and researcher in communication theory, media studies, research methods and public relations and an active scholarly researcher; • Author of 12 books on media, communication and public relations including Jim Macnamara’s Public Relations Handbook, The Asia Pacific Public Relations Handbook, the text book Public Relations Theories, Practices, Critiques (Pearson Australia, 2012) and several research books, including The 21st Century Media (R)evolution (Peter Lang, New York, 2010), as well as co-author of The New Zealand Public Relations Handbook and the author of numerous articles in scholarly journals in Australia and internationally.