In this article I consider the importance of paradigmatic variety in the scholarly field of public relations. I reflect on the role that both conflict and cooperation between different paradigms play in the development of academic fields, and review definitions of public relations to examine the extent to which both are present in public relations scholarship. Based on this discussion, I consider the assumptions that underpin existing approaches to public relations in order to reveal the ways in which they are connected, as well as differentiated, along a series of continua. I conclude by proposing a new definition of public relations, as flow rather than organizational function, that can accommodate the range of research encompassed by these continua, thereby facilitating greater unity, inclusivity and, I would hope, dialogue in the field.

No abstract

This article reframes public relations' contribution to democracy in light of the recent turn to deliberative systems in democratic theory. I consider the problematic that public relations poses to normative models of deliberative democracy, and how that problematic has been addressed in public relations theory thus far. I suggest that deliberative systems provides a more robust basis for theorising public relations' role in deliberation and propose an analytical approach for understanding the complex and sometimes contradictory role of public relations in deliberative democracy. The framework provides a starting point for locating public relations' engagement in deliberative systems and evaluating its effects.Keywords: public relations, organizational communication, deliberation, deliberative systems, democracy The Role of Public Relations in Deliberative SystemsThe role of public relations in deliberative democracy has long been a focus of debate. The instrumental approach to public relations poses a problem for understanding it as a positive force in democratic deliberation. Deliberative theorists emphasise the importance of rational, reasonable, open and inclusive debates among citizens to reaching legitimate decisions about how society should be governed (Chambers, 2012;Dryzek, 2000). These requirements distinguish deliberation from being 'mere talk' and from distortion through manipulation or coercion (Parkinson, 2012;Schudson, 1997). They are secured through a PUBLIC RELATIONS IN DELIBERATIVE SYSTEMS 3 number of normative conditions including the need to set aside vested interests, to prioritise rational argument and to include all those affected by the issue under discussion (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2010;Habermas, 1996;Jacobs, Cook, & Delli Carpini, 2010). Such conditions inevitably lead to critiques of public relations, given that the motivation to use it is usually associated with some form of organizational self-interest (e.g. improving reputation, relationships or sales), and that emotional appeals are widely used in campaigns alongside, or instead of, rational argument. Combined with evidence of poor public relations practice, the profession is easily framed as the cause of various pathologies of deliberation (Bohman, 2000;Stokes, 1998): government communicators may be seen to mislead the public about policy decisions; issues management campaigns may mislead policymakers about public opinion; and media relations practitioners may manipulate the media agenda such that media discourses represent 'pseudo-preferences' of the public rather than real ones. More generally, the profession could be accused of engaging in 'plebiscitary rhetoric ' (Chambers, 2009, p. 328), where the aim is to win the argument and gain power rather than reflexively engage with other actors in order to pursue a legitimate consensus.Attempts to reclaim the place of public relations in democracy emphasise its ability to generate social capital that connects individuals, groups and organizations, its value to activist groups, ...

No abstract

No abstract