Lost in translation? On the disciplinary status of public relations

Abstract

The article deals with the current status of public relations (PR) as a scientific discipline which is in the process of breaking up into several subdisciplinary fields of research. It gives an overview of the problematic aspects of the disciplinary developments of PR and crystallizes the main points of the debate. The author criticizes the constant broadening and fragmentation of the field, occupying terrain from neighboring disciplines, and the eclecticism with which PR adopts concepts and theories from other fields without providing substantial theory building of its own. PR is considered a ‘postdisciplinary’ field of research, and the author points toward both the positive and the negative aspects that are associated with this. The conclusion suggests different approaches how to address the status quo.

Reassessing the Relationship between Marketing and Public Relations

“…This may also be due to the fact that the PR disciplines still appears as a hotchpotch of theoretical concepts and approaches with no central tenet or core concept (Cropp & Pincus, 2001;Dühring, 2015;Hutton, 1996Hutton, , 2010 of marketing studies and business in general (Hutton, 2010, p. 516). This may also be due to the fact that the PR disciplines still appears as a hotchpotch of theoretical concepts and approaches with no central tenet or core concept (Cropp & Pincus, 2001;Dühring, 2015;Hutton, 1996Hutton, , 2010 of marketing studies and business in general (Hutton, 2010, p. 516).…”

“…Today, the field is characterized by an ongoing fragmentation, a competition between diffent schools of thought, and a growing chasm between functional and non-functional approaches (Edwards, 2012;Dühring, 2015). Not only did some scholars abandon or diminish the term 'public relations' altogether, the discipline also lost the relative unity it enjoyed during the time of the 'Grunigian Paradigm'.…”

O não-lugar da comunicação comunitária: relações públicas e construção dialógica no programa “Minha casa, minha vida”

“…Nesse sentido, este texto alinha-se às definições de Grunig e Hunt (1984), que apresentam a função de gestão como procura dialógica do entendimento mútuo entre os diversos públicos, ainda que as simetrias propostas pelo modelo não sejam integralmente aplicáveis ao contexto. Sob uma perspectiva de maior coesão, essa abordagem dialoga diretamente com a escola crítica de relações públicas (Edwards, 2011), por considerar de forma mais contundente as relações de poder locais, a natureza socialmente construída da prática de relações públicas e a "força discursiva" da sociedade (Duhring, 2015). 2) Posicionamento do empreendimento como um "produtor de conteúdos" e não apenas como o espaço para circulação de informações;…”

The construction of an elusive concept: Framing the controversial role and practice of lobbying in Swedish media

“…Part of the controversy surrounding the concept of lobbying is rooted in the perception of lobbying as something good or bad, or as Ihlen and Van Ruler (2009) argue concerning PR, 'it is in itself not good or bad, but it can be used for good or bad causes ' (p. 5;Dühring, 2015). This perception of lobbying as either 'democratic influence' or 'legal corruption' highlights questions surrounding the role and practice of lobbying dealing with issues of power, accountability, and inequality of different interests in society (Davidson and Rowe, 2016).…”

“…The debate began more than 50 years ago when Milbrath (1963) summed up the current lobbying research and stated that 'the words "lobbyist" and "lobbying" have meanings so varied that use of them almost inevitable leads to misunderstanding' (Milbrath, 1963: 7). Furthermore, the concept of lobbying has an interdisciplinary nature and draws on insights from different fields such as political science, public affairs, and communication which might be an underlying cause to the hybrid definitions (Dühring, 2015;Edwards, 2012).…”