Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Public Relations: State of the Field

By Carl H. Botan and Maureen Taylor

Public relations is both a professional practice and a subfield of communication

with its own research and theory base. Public relations is relatively young as an
academic field, however, having developed identifiable theory in only about the
last 25 years. The field of public relations is developing into a theoretically based
area of applied communication that has the potential to inform several areas of
communication/mass communication and to offer theoretic and conceptual tools
useful in health, risk, and political communication, among others. Because many
readers are unfamiliar with public relations theory and research, this article first
reviews and summarizes theory-related scholarship in public relations, then cat-
egorizes and explains the theoretic trends in the field. The article concludes by
demonstrating how one of public relations’ theoretic/conceptual tools, issues man-
agement, can apply across all areas of applied communication.

Public relations is recognized as a type of applied communication along with

health and political communication (NCA/SCA, 1996). In fact, with about 250
papers submitted to the public relations divisions in the Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), the International Communica-
tion Association (ICA), the National Communication Association (NCA), and the
International Public Relations Research Conference (IPRRC) in 2003, public rela-
tions may be poised to become one of the most researched areas of communica-
tion. There are also several hundred universities teaching public relations in the
U.S. (cf. Neff, 1989; Public Relations Society of America, 2001), with more than 70
offering graduate degrees (Public Relations Society of America, 2001). Large pub-
lic relations enrollments also exist in Australia, Brazil, Britain, and Germany and in
many other countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Indeed, many depart-
ments of communication, mass communication, and journalism have become de-
pendent on public relations enrollments that often exceed the enrollments in
interpersonal, small groups, rhetoric, and several other areas.
In spite of the size of public relations, however, few readers of the Journal of
Communication are likely to have much background in public relations theory so

Carl H. Botan (PhD, Wayne State University) is a professor in the Department of Communication at
George Mason University. Maureen Taylor (PhD, Purdue University) is an associate professor in the
Department of Communication at Rutgers University.

Copyright © 2004 International Communication Association

645
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
the first task of this article is to provide a summary of previous efforts to synthe-
size public relations research and theory. Second, we will survey and evaluate
current and emerging public relations theories. Finally, we will offer one example
of how one area of public relations—issues management—may be able to make a
theoretic/conceptual contribution to the broader field of communication, particu-
larly in applied areas such as health, risk and political communication.
Probably more than any other subdivision of communication, public relations
has developed its own specialized journals, professional and scholarly associa-
tions, publishers, and network of collaborative relationships. Public relations has
two well-established and internationally read journals, Journal of Public Relations
Research and Public Relations Review, which begins its 30th year in 2005, as well
as newer scholarly journals published in other countries. Public Relations Quar-
terly bridges academic and professional interests and Public Relations Journal
serves as a trade publication for members of the Public Relations Society of America
(PRSA). Public relations researchers rarely submit research articles to venues out-
side their own journals, which may partially explain why so few communication
scholars seem to be familiar with public relations theory. Scholarly books in pub-
lic relations, as opposed to textbooks, also tend to be concentrated with two
publishers, Erlbaum with more than 25 currently available books, and Sage Publi-
cations.
Because public relations scholarship has not been made widely available to
communication/mass communication scholars, public relations is often under-
stood only as a technical area—or as a cash cow. Therefore, public relations
faculty are screened for technical skills but are often not expected to be research-
ers and theorists. This perpetuates the erroneous view that public relations is just
an applied technical area. There is a sufficient body of literature to challenge this
view. Indeed, in the late 1990s, Heath invited members of the public relations
academic and practitioner community to submit chapters for a “comprehensive
treatment of theory that could define the field and advance the practice” (Heath,
2001, p. xiii). The outcome of Heath’s effort was the 62-chapter Handbook of
Public Relations, which brought together academic and practitioner perspectives
on theory and research. Heath’s book showed “the revolution, or an evolution”
that has occurred in the last decade in public relations research. The first part of
this article will summarize that literature.

Existing Analyses of Public Relations Research

Several authors have synthesized public relations research and assessed its contri-
bution to theory development. These have often, although not always, been
bibliometric studies so they demonstrate both the strengths and limitations typical
of such work. For example, by using blind-reviewed journal articles, these studies
have been able to present numeric indicators of the popularity of certain research
issues in the literature. They have also suffered, however, from the limitations of
bibliographic method, including the fact that as a kind of content analysis,
bibliometric studies often report categories that are not directly relevant to theo-

646
 Table 1. Bibliometric and Metatheoretical Categories in Public Relations Research

647
Pavlik (1987) Botan & Hazleton (1989) Pasadeos, Renfro, Vasquez & Taylor (2000) Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-
& Hanily (1999) -Alzuru, & Jones (2003)

Strategic research Metatheory Roles Comm tech & PR

Tools & techniques Symmetrical presupp’s Mgt. & corporate studies International practices Introspective
Corporate advertising Persuasion PR models Issues management Practice/Applications
Measuring effectiveness Dialogue PR theory development Negotiations Theory development (Subcat-
egories of theory development)
Public Relations: State of the Field

Publicity Theory Information subsidies/ Publics

agenda
Audiovisual techniques Rhetorical-organizational Organizational theory Roles Excellence theory/symmetrical
Psychographics Game theory Symmetrical (& excellence) Public relationships
communication
Management Psychographics Crisis response theory
Media relations Psychological type Critical/cultural
Politics Application issues Ethics/Social
International Coorientation model Academic vs. applied research
Information-processing Reflexivity Situational theory
model
Hierarchies of effects Self-efficacy Women’s studies/feminism/
diversity
Situational theory of publics Persuasion models Organizational communication
Roles & gender International PR
Professionalism Role theory/models
Social responsibility Rhetorical underpinnings
Public relations education Persuasion/pub opinion, fund-
raising, risk comm, social issues
& issues mgt., contingency
theory, complexity theory,
general social science theory

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
retical discussions. These categories often reflect the popularity of various topics
rather than their theoretic value. Most importantly, however, bibliometric studies
include some sources and exclude others. In the case of the studies discussed
below, this has usually meant investigating only the popularity of research themes
in the two primary public relations journals, although two of the studies below do
include the few public relations articles in Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly.
We wish to be clear that we do not condemn the works discussed below for
making what we view as necessary compromises. Indeed, we believe that the
foundation laid, chronologically, by Ferguson (1984), Pavlik (1987); Botan and
Hazleton (1989); Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily (2000); Vasquez and Taylor (2001);
and Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, and Jones (2003) is of great value to the field and
that these authors, taken together, made entirely appropriate decisions and com-
promises (see Table 1). Indeed, in a field with two primary scholarly journals,
choosing to start assessing research and theory trends by doing content analyses
of those journals makes imminent sense to us. We intend to build on and expand,
rather than reject, that foundation.

Ferguson, 1984
Often cited as the first attempt to survey theory in public relations, Ferguson’s
(1984) groundbreaking conference paper analyzed articles published in Public
Relations Review during the 9 years from its inception in 1975 (Sallot et al., 2003).
Ferguson identified three categories of research (not of theory): social responsibil-
ity/ethics, social issues and issues management, and public relationships. Ferguson,
like other early reviewers of public relations theory, concluded that not much
constructive theory work existed in public relations. Ferguson was also the first to
sound the call—in many respects still dominant in public relations theory and
research to this day—to focus on the relationships between organizations and
their publics as the unit of analysis and focus of theorizing. Known as the rela-
tional approach, this view has been further developed, chronologically, by Broom,
Casey, and Ritchey (1997), Ledingham and Bruning (1998, 2000), and Kent and
Taylor (2002), among others.

Pavlik, 1987
The first book-length effort at synthesizing research and theory lessons out of the
public relations literature base is What Research Tells Us (Pavlik, 1987). Although
not a theory book as such, Pavlik’s book summarized theoretic lessons from the
body of public relations work. Pavlik acknowledged that “although there has
been relatively little research dealing specifically with public relations concepts
and theory, there has been a considerable amount of communications research”
(p. 93). He identified “major research findings” (p. 45) in 18 areas (see Table 1).

Botan and Hazleton, 1989

The first systematic approach to public relations theory per se, as distinct from
discussions of what had been researched to date, appears to have been an edited
book, Public Relations Theory (1989). This book approached theory from three

648
 Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
perspectives: metatheoretic, theoretic, and applied issues. Botan and Hazelton
(1989) concluded that public relations theory was in an underdeveloped condi-
tion at the time. Moreover, the authors posited that a social scientific approach to
theory development was appropriate in public relations so theories from the es-
tablished social sciences could fruitfully be applied both to understand public
relations better and to advance its practice. Botan and Hazelton included chapters
addressing theory in 11 areas grouped into metatheory, theory, and applications
(see Table 1).

Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily, 1999

Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily (1999) conducted a citation analysis to identify the
most influential individual authors and pieces of work based on frequency of
citations. Thus, identifying areas of research was an ancillary benefit and occurred
only to the extent that the most cited individual authors and articles grouped
together. Within these constraints, Pasadeos and colleagues found six categories
(see Table 1) among the most cited works, with theory development as one of
those. They concluded that public relations “might benefit from a certain amount
of paradigmatic or topical diversity in the future” (Pasadeos et al., 1999, p. 29).
That conclusion was both at variance with Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, and Jones’s
(2003) conclusion that “it can be argued from the results of this study that no
dominant paradigms per se have emerged” (p. 51) and is important to the final
section of this article.

Vasquez and Taylor, 2000

Consistent with the social science perspective of Botan and Hazleton (1989), Vasquez
and Taylor (2000) authored a chapter in Communication Yearbook 24 in which
they concluded that “public relations is both a social science field of study and a
professional practice” (p. 319). Unlike all of the other bibliometric works dis-
cussed here (with the exception of Renfro & Hanily, 1999), they included work in
one major nonpublic relations journal, Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly. Vasquez and Taylor reported seven areas of public relations research.

Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, and Jones, 2003

Most recently, Sallot et al. (2003) published a replication and extension of Ferguson’s
1984 study. Following Ferguson’s lead, these authors confined their analysis to
actual public relations journals so books and articles in any journal outside the
two primary journals were excluded again. Whereas Ferguson had only the first 9
years of the oldest journal in public relations to draw on, Sallot et al. had another
journal, Public Relations Research,1 to draw on and were able to review 748 titles,

1
The Journal of Public Relations Research actually existed as an annual from its founding in 1989 to
1991. When a quarterly format was adopted in 1992, volume numbering continued so that volume 4
of Public Relations Research was actually the first year in a quarterly format. For this reason, we refer
to Public Relations Research as a single journal. Sallot et al., on the other hand, chose to treat the
annualized version and the quarterly version as two distinct journals so their mention of three major
public relations journals actually refers to the same publications as our discussion of two such jour-
nals. There was, for a few years in the 1980s, another research journal in public relations known as the

649
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
abstracts, and articles. Not surprisingly, Sallot and colleagues found categories of
research similar to those Ferguson had found, but found many more of them (see
Table 1). Sallot et al.’s most significant finding, however, was that, whereas Ferguson
found that only about 4% of articles in Public Relations Review had directly con-
tributed to theory development by 1984, Sallot and her colleagues found that
about 20% of articles—or 148—in Public Relations Review and Journal of Public
Relations Research addressed theory development.
Public relations is becoming much more theoretic than in its early days as an
academic field. Indeed, it would be interesting to see whether, using the same
operational definition of theory development as Sallot et al. used in their article, if
other areas of communication/mass communication demonstrate any more em-
phasis on theory development than does public relations.

Current Research Themes in Public Relations Research

The works cited in the preceding section were largely content analysis efforts—
analyzing the published literature base of the field to identify themes. As we said
above, this is certainly one credible approach to analyzing the state of theory in a
field but it suffers from at least two inherent flaws. First, all content enters into the
process as equal contributions with differentiations made based only on frequency
rather than any qualitative assessments. Of course, the Pasadeos et al. article
(1999) escaped this criticism because it sought to rank authors and articles by their
influence as represented by citations. It suffers, however, from its own flaw be-
cause it accounts for only the most cited authors and pieces and does not make
any content judgments. Second, although the articles cited in the first section were
both rigorous and exhaustive (seeking in most cases to do a complete census of
pieces in the chosen outlets), they cannot escape the question all content analyses
must face—how representative is the content of the chosen outlets?
To a greater or lesser degree, the articles cited above each made compromises
in this respect by limiting themselves to analyzing contributions from one, or a
few, outlets. Apparently in response to this weakness, Sallot et al. (2003) closed
their article by saying:

While our study was limited to analyzing content of Public Relations Review,
Public Relations Research Annual and Journal of Public Relations Research it
would be useful to extend the analysis to scholarly books as well as other
academic journals . . . hopefully, others will replicate and extend our work
here, as we have attempted to accomplish with Ferguson’s (1984) research . . . a
network analysis of “schools”—using the term to describe philosophic orienta-
tions as well as institutions . . . and finally, a narrative story or history of the
public relations journals begs to be written by some gifted historian. (p. 54)

Journal of Public Relations Research and Education. That journal was not included as a major public
relations journal in the works reviewed in the first section of this study and, for that reason, was not
included as one by these authors either.

650
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Although the present article is not a narrative of public relations’ history, we seek
to build on Sallot et al.’s work by adding our own judgments to existing content
analyses. Our approach suffers from its own weakness, however, in that it does
not have the same kind of external validation and empirical foundation as the
studies discussed above.
Before we begin to make judgments about public relations, it is important to
keep in mind the assumptions that guide its practice as well as the theories that
attempt to explain it. Burrell and Morgan (1979) identified the various sociological
paradigms that guide how we understand phenomena. Most academics in communi-
cation are familiar with their discussion of ontology (the essence of a phenomenon),
epistemology (what grounds our knowledge), and axiology (what is valued).
Vasquez and Taylor (2001) identified eight assumptions of public relations that
they believe guide research in the field (pp. 334–337). Yet understanding the
assumptions of public relations is just the beginning. It is also important to note
that many contexts and exigencies call for public relations communication to
create changes in organization–public relationships. Contexts for public relations
include cultural/international, new technology, risk, fundraising, education, crisis,
and political communication, among many others. Within such a context, researchers
adopt a methodological lens such as a social scientific, rhetorical, critical/feminist,
or cultural approach for understanding and addressing exigencies. Finally, how-
ever, a particular theory or theoretic view is adopted to guide understanding and/
or practice, and it is to these that we turn our attention by first grouping them
into what we call the functional and cocreational perspectives. We believe
that one of the best ways to ascertain the state of the field is to trace the
assumptions guiding public relations research and theory over time and ex-
amine how it has changed from being a functional communication activity to
a cocreational communication activity.

Functional Perspective
The most striking trend in public relations over the past 20 years, we believe, is its
transition from a functional perspective to a cocreational one. A functional per-
spective, prevalent in the early years of the field, sees publics and communication
as tools or means to achieve organizational ends. The focus is generally on tech-
niques and production of strategic organizational messages. Research plays a role
only insofar as it advances organizational goals. The major relationship of interest
is between the public relations practitioner and the media with a corresponding
emphasis on journalistic techniques and production skills.
Research from a functional perspective has traditionally been concerned with
business-oriented topics such as advertising, marketing, and media relations. Un-
der this approach, researchers focus on the use of public relations as an instru-
ment to accomplish specific organizational goals rather than on relationships.
Theories of media relations, the information subsidy, agenda setting, and persua-
sion contribute to this functional perspective.
Public relations scholarship has followed this functional path for many years,
so it is not surprising that theories supporting it are common. Indeed, because
public relations theory is so closely linked to a pragmatic practice, it makes sense

651
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
that utilitarian theories would be commonly employed. Yet, as public relations
becomes more interested in theoretical issues, it is expanding beyond the func-
tional perspective to a perspective that focuses on communication as a meaning-
making process.

Cocreational Perspective
The cocreational perspective sees publics as cocreators of meaning and communi-
cation as what makes it possible to agree to shared meanings, interpretations. and
goals. This perspective is long term in its orientation and focuses on relationships
among publics and organizations. Research is used to advance understanding and
the perspective embraces theories that either explicitly share these values (e.g.,
relational approaches or community) or can be used to advance them. The major
relationship of interest is between groups and organizations, and communication
functions to negotiate changes in these relationships. The cocreational perspec-
tive places an implicit value on relationships going beyond the achievement of an
organizational goal. That is, in the cocreational perspective, publics are not just a
means to an end. Publics are not instrumentalized but instead are partners in the
meaning-making process.
The past decade has brought with it new and exciting research that uses
cocreational theories. Yet, in some ways, the ideas of the cocreational approach
are not new because its foundation harkens back to Ferguson’s (1984) call for
relationships to be at the center of public relations research. With their clearly
rhetorical view of what issues are and how they develop, Crable and Vibbert
(1985) offered what was in many ways the most pronounced and probably the
first cocreational theory in public relations, although they were followed closely
by Heath and Nelson (1986). For Crable and Vibbert, in fact, publics were the
defining force in the cocreation of issues. More about their theory, and how it can
serve as one organizing framework for applied communication research, follows
in the final section of this article.
Examples of cocreational research include the shift to organizational-public
relationships, community theory, coorientation theory, accommodation theory,
and dialogue theory, but the most researched cocreational theory is symmetrical/
excellence theory. For many years, J. Grunig’s (1992) symmetrical/excellence model
of public relations, with its claim that it ensures more ethical public relations
practices than other models, dominated the pages of public relations journals. In
recent years, however, the emphasis in public relations research has shifted to
even more relational approaches, focusing on explicating, operationalizing, and
measuring relationships. More recently, and chronologically, the work of Broom,
Casey, and Ritchey (1997), Ledingham and Bruning (1998, 2000), Grunig and
Huang (2000), and Huang (2001) has helped focus public relations research on
the core public relations function of relationship building. Among other theory
bases used, public relations scholars have revisited interpersonal communica-
tion to understand relationship building better, including the construct of
trust, often seen as an important part of the relationship between publics and
organizations.

652
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) situated public relations research within
relational communication theory when they explicated the concept of relation-
ship. Ledingham and Bruning (1998, 2000) extended it again when they examined
the theoretic evolution of symmetrical communication as a normative model of
public relations practice. They argued that J. Grunig’s (1992) concept of public
relations as “building relationships with publics that constrain or enhance the
ability of the organization to meet its mission” was instrumental in shifting the
emphasis in public relations from managing publics and public opinion to a new
emphasis on building, nurturing, and maintaining relationships (p. 55). One major
aspect of relationships is the idea of dialogue as a theoretical framework for extend-
ing public relations theory from symmetrical models to dialogic orientations.
Pearson (1989) first presented dialogue as a theoretic approach to public rela-
tions. His dissertation, “A Theory of Public Relations Ethics,” provided ground-
work for current scholars to develop a more ethical framework for public relations
theory and practice. According to Pearson, public relations as the management of
interpersonal dialectic and ethical public relations means having a dialogic “sys-
tem” rather than monologic “policies.” Pearson’s theorizing about dialogue con-
tributed to the shift in public relations theory, but he did not live to see it because
of his premature death in 1989.
Botan (1997), building on Pearson, suggested, “Dialogue manifests itself more
as a stance, orientation, or bearing in communication rather than as a specific
method, technique, or format” (p. 192). For Botan, “traditional approaches to
public relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them instruments for
meeting organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates
publics to the status of communication equal with the organization” (1997, p.
196). Thus, the shift to relational communication and dialogue as frameworks for
public relations reflects the transition to a cocreational perspective. Indeed, it is
the attitudes toward publics that is the defining factor differentiating the func-
tional and cocreational perspectives. The axiological differences are clear in
that the functional approach values the organization and its mission. The
cocreational approach values the relationship between an organization and
its publics.
Kent and Taylor (1998) initially addressed dialogic relationship building on the
Internet and disagreed with Botan, arguing that dialogue is a product of commu-
nication rather than the process. They also viewed Grunig’s symmetrical model as
a procedural way for organizations to listen or solicit feedback from relevant
publics. Kent and Taylor later (2002) explicated the concept of dialogue as a
theoretical base for ethical public relations that challenges Grunig’s symmetrical
public relations theory.
With the strengthening of its theoretic base, public relations may finally be in a
position to begin repaying some of the theoretic debts it owes to communication
and mass communication. In particular, public relations may now be in a position
to not just help apply outside theories to health or political communication but to
offer a model of applied communication that can serve across specialties. This is
the task set for the final section of this article.

653
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Model for Applied Communication

There are a variety of areas of study that comprise applied communication re-
search. Although health, risk, crisis, and political communication research may
appear to be quite different in their theoretical approaches, they do share some
similarities. Issues management may be able to serve as one area that can high-
light the synergies among these areas. Crable and Vibbert’s (1985) theory of how
issues come to be, evolve, and are resolved holds promise across applied commu-
nication specialties for two reasons. First, the different kinds of applied communi-
cation typically share a focus on publics and on what it takes to work out relation-
ships with them. This tends to be the case regardless of whether the issue is
encouraging a healthier lifestyle, buckling a seatbelt, voting for a candidate, or
some aspect of public policy. The Crable and Vibbert model explicitly empowers
publics as the central force in defining issues and assigning importance to them.
Second, applied communication efforts can be understood as attempts to manage
issues, such as national development, handling a crisis, or communicating about
risky situations. At the heart of issues management is a belief that organizations
and publics can engage each other in ways that allow for one or both parties to
change (Taylor, Vasquez, & Doorley, 2003).
The strategic core, as opposed to more peripheral technical skills, of public
relations is issues management. For example, Chase (1982) said, “Issues manage-
ment is the capacity to understand, mobilize, coordinate, and direct all strategic
and policy planning functions, and all public affairs/public relations skills, toward
the achievement of one objective” (note the functionalist assumption; pp. 1–2).
Seitel (1998), in his widely selling public relations text, said, “Many suggest that
the term issues management is another way of saying that the most important
public relations skill is “counseling management’” (p. 449). The idea that issues
management is strategic public relations is generally accepted throughout the
public relations world—academic or practitioner; Europe, Asia, or the Americas;
corporate, agency, or nonprofit. So public relations scholarship is a logical place
to look for theories and models to guide applied communicators who seek to
manage the issues that define political, health, risk, or crisis situations.

Publics and Issues

Publics and issues are core concepts in public relations and, we would argue, in
most if not all applied communication situations. So differences in how the rela-
tionship between publics and issues is understood are central to understanding
how applied communication works—or does not work. Dewey (1927) identified
a public as a group of people who see they have a common interest with respect
to an organization and that endeavor “to act through suitable structures and thus
to organize itself for oversight and regulation” (p. 29). Dewey’s definition of a
public was pretty far ahead of its time for 1927, or for today. Dewey thought
publics “endeavor to act . . . to organize . . . for oversight and regulation,” and he
was on the right track. By saying that publics “endeavor” to do something, Dewey
embraced a somewhat humanistic perspective and acknowledged that publics
have a kind of will of their own. They are more than just reactive because they

654
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
seek to take charge of their destinies. This suggests it is fundamentally wrong to
think of publics as sitting and waiting to react to something that an organization
does. Botan and Soto (1988) said:

We can best understand a public as an ongoing process of agreement upon an

interpretation, and that during this process a public may well develop an interpre-
tation that is more sophisticated, insightful, and socially linked than the under-
standing with which the practitioner/client started. (p. 21)

It may sound strange to say a public, which we often speak of as a “thing,” is best
understood as a process. However, publics are a continuing process of agreeing
on an interpretation because whether a group of people understands that it shares
an interest at a particular time determines whether a public exists. A public’s
interest can be objective or subjective.
Publics share interpretations of events and actions in their environment. When
these interpretations lead to something the public wants addressed, then an issue
exists. If, on the other hand, the public does not attach importance to a matter,
then it will not become an issue. This view of issues, and the central role of
publics in their creation, is fundamentally humanistic and is the primary contribu-
tion of Crable and Vibbert (1985), who said, “An issue is created when one or more
human agents attaches significance to a situation or perceived ‘problem’” (p. 5).
Such issues are not actually ready for resolution at all times. Indeed, the various
stages in the life cycle of an issue discussed below emphasize that an issue is
ready for decision at only a few points in its life cycle, and that not all issues ever
evolve to such a decision point. For example, the manufacturing of tobacco prod-
ucts went along for 100 years or more without becoming a public issue. In the
1990s, however, making and selling cigarettes became a huge public issue,
particularly when the targeted customers were teenagers. It was not until
major publics decided to attach significance to the question that it became a
major issue.

Life Cycle of an Issue

The decision whether a matter will be an issue is not an all or nothing proposition.
Issues are not absent one moment and then spring into life full-blown the next
moment. Rather they go through a fairly predictable cycle of development. The
existence of a life cycle for issues is crucial to the idea of strategic campaigns such
as those used in applied communication because, if issues were random in their
development, it would not be possible to approach them strategically. If, on the
other hand, issues do have a life cycle made up of various stages, it is possible to
plan to use different strategies to address them at different points. This has clear
implications for applied communication research.
Crable and Vibbert (1985), building on the earlier work of Jones and Chase
(1979), said public policy issues go through five stages that are defined by the role
played by communication: potential, imminent, current, critical, and dormant.
The stages of this life cycle are defined by both which specific publics and how
many different publics decide to attach significance to an issue. Therefore, this is

655
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
a fundamentally humanistic approach because it acknowledges human will and
decision making as the driving forces in the development of issues.
Other authors besides Crable and Vibbert have addressed or will address the
development cycle of issues. Although it is not the purpose of this article to try to
resolve any differences among these, the basic life cycle for the issues faced in
applied communication campaigns can be summarized in five steps, outlined
below, similar to those identified by Crable and Vibbert.
Preissues. Those engaged in applied communication campaigns depend on
their social environment. They must keep track of that environment—the practice
known as environmental scanning. One scans the environment for trends, which
are “detectable changes which precede issues” (Jones & Chase, 1979, p. 11). If
issues are what publics decide are important, then preissues are occurrences in
the environment to which publics have not yet attached significance but could.
Potential issues. Preissues become potential issues when some group or impor-
tant individuals attach significance to them. Crable and Vibbert’s (1985) potential
and imminent stages of issues both fall into this stage in which, because the issue
is not yet broadly known, most strategic options remain open. There are signifi-
cantly fewer potential issues than preissues because not all of the latter evolve
into the former, although there are still far too many potential issues in most
organizations’ environments to attend to them all. Developing from the pre- to
potential stages can be a fairly long process for some issues and may contain
several substages, depending on the field and the particular content of the issue.
For example, issues of public health may have avoidance or rejection and outrage
substages that call for very different strategies.
Public issues. Once major publics, such as consumer or regulatory groups,
endorse a potential issue, it may acquire legitimacy in the eyes of others, often
including mass publics. The usual route for an issue to attain public status is
through media exposure, which means that the issue has met someone’s defini-
tion of news worthiness. A reporter or editor has made a professional judgment
that the issue is important enough to warrant coverage in the media. In addition,
once an issue makes the news, there is a certain legitimacy conferred on it in the
minds of mass publics—it is on their agenda.
When issues become public, the positions of the parties are usually firm and
the number of strategic options is diminishing quickly. Public exposure creates a
situation in which many parties may have a lot at stake so they often will not risk
portrayal as the loser, even by compromising. Negotiated solutions are still pos-
sible, but frequently these involve careful, even scripted, language to assure that
no party appears to lose.
Media coverage is not the only way a developing issue can attain public status,
however. Issues can become public, for example, by conversations in a commu-
nity, door-to-door and mediated campaigns, petition drives, direct mail campaigns,
demonstrations, pickets, protests, and a host of other applied communication
methods. These methods of moving an issue to public status often draw media
coverage of their own, so although it may look like the media coverage has made
the issue public, the relationship between media coverage and the public status of
an issue can be quite complex.

656
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
With or without the media involved, a movement from potential to public
status is often the result of conscious efforts by activist or regulatory bodies. For
example, an environmental group’s press conference to publicize a threat to the
environment serves as a conscious effort to move a developing issue up to a
public stage by putting it onto the public agenda.
Critical issues. Issues reach a critical stage when, as Crable and Vibbert (1985)
said, they “are at a moment of decision” (p. 6). This means that the issue is ready
for resolution in the minds of most publics. Publics may interpret a failure to move
toward some kind of resolution as suspect behavior because they are ready for
something to happen. This is quite different from the public stage on which many
people are aware of the issue but are not pushing for a particular resolution. By the
time the critical stage is reached, there is often little time or room for negotiation.
Public relations crises are a particularly urgent form of critical issues. Crises are
issues that have reached the critical stage and share two distinguishing character-
istics. First, a resolution is demanded by some outside force within a time frame
that is too short for the organization to engage in its normal decision-making
process. Second, a crisis represents a turning point for an organization so that it is
unlikely to return fully to its precrisis state, whether for better or worse. In effect,
an organization has many of its chips on the table. If the amount the organization
has at risk is reduced enough, then the sense of crisis will disappear, even if the
time frame for decision making remains the same. On the other hand, if the time
frame for decision is extended enough, then the sense of crisis will also usually
disappear, even if the amount at risk remains the same.
Dormant issues. Issues that are resolved, or simply fade, are what Crable and
Vibbert called dormant. This suggests that issues do not go away but can come
back to the preissue or potential stage, where both monitoring and response
development should continue. Therefore, any “resolution” of an issue is best un-
derstood to be temporary, and each apparent resolution has the kernel of one or
more issues that are new contained within it.
Issues, then, typically go through several developmental stages or steps. Any
one issue may skip a stage, may never develop past a certain stage, or may
reemerge and not go through all the stages the second time around. In general,
however, issues go through something like the stages discussed here, and this is
important to applied communication because it is the existence of stages that
allows issues management to be pursued strategically.

Linking Issues Management to Applied Communication

We propose issues management as a theoretic tool applicable across the areas of
applied communication. Issues management can serve these areas because it
focuses on the common core of all applied communication—publics—and on
the role of communication in building relationships with them. Issues manage-
ment is particularly well adapted to meet the needs of applied communication
for at least two reasons.
The nature of issues management. First, issues management allows for indi-
viduals, organizations, and the media to play roles in social and political matters.
Issues management involves the detection of a problem, the attachment of signifi-

657
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
cance, and organizing activities to influence the issue. Detection of a problem
refers to the efforts of issues management programs to provide for the early iden-
tification of an issue. Organizing activities can include but not be limited to re-
search and analysis, response development, and communication strategies. En-
gagement between an organization and its publics is possible and highly desired
(Taylor, Vasquez, & Doorley, 2003).
In spite of a heavy corporate bias in much of the issues management literature,
any group or individual desiring to participate in social-political matters can apply
issues management techniques and procedures. Small nonprofit health organiza-
tions, civil society nongovernment organizations, activist groups, and all kinds of
political groups all can use issues management to help achieve their goals and
build relationships with publics. Not all groups or individuals can have equal
influence in the social and political arenas, however, because access to resources
such as money and media often determines organizational influence. Small groups
do not have the same type of resources as large powerful organizations and sub-
sequently find it harder to get their voices heard. Actively using issues manage-
ment in such applied communication areas does not guarantee equal success, but
it does confer the greatest chance of success for those finding themselves in inher-
ently unequal positions.
For example, government officials and their appointees hold the actual author-
ity in public policy matters—they alone are empowered by voters and given the
power to legislate. Still, any other actor (an individual or group) in the public
affairs arena can exert influence. Influence acts on the authority of governmental
bodies and officials to legislate (see Crable & Vibbert, 1985). Thus, from an onto-
logical perspective, issues management exists because many parties seek to influ-
ence the public policy process, even though it does not confer equality between,
for example, an activist group and a government body or a large corporation. At
the minimum, it can help to create a more level playing field.
Tools issues management brings to bear. Approaching applied communication
through issues management makes a number of theoretic/conceptual tools avail-
able. Cheney and Vibbert (1987), for example, concluded that there are four re-
flexive terms in the theoretical conceptualization of issues management: image,
issue, value, and identity. Issues, therefore, partially embody images, values, and
identities, making these relevant loci of analysis in issues management and facili-
tating the use of entire bodies of literature, such as identity or identification, in
issues management.
The value of issues management. The value of issues management flows from
its scholarly and practical relevance for organizations interested in shaping soci-
etal or political situations. Issues management is a valid approach to social and
political issues because almost any individual or group can use it. Issues manage-
ment is heuristic in that it yields a new area of observation to develop a body of
knowledge and associated research techniques. The potential for additional theory
and research captures the scholarly relevance of issues management. Axiologically,
issues management explains and improves organization—public communication
and subsequent relationship building.

658
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Applied communication researchers currently employ many aspects of issues
management in their problem-driven research. Health communication campaigns
for organ donation, communication campaigns that create greater understanding
of the risks associated with certain behaviors, and political communication efforts
aimed at mobilizing public support for an issue or person already draw implicitly
and explicitly on many aspects of issues management. By introducing our under-
standing of issues management and public relations to the readers of the Journal
of Communication, we seek to build on the existing commonalities throughout
applied communication.
We have tried to provide an overview of the state of the field of public relations
and hope we have introduced aspects of public relations theory to communica-
tion and mass communication scholars and educators who may not be very famil-
iar with the field. Issues management is one way to bring all applied communica-
tion fields together as they research public actions, the formation of publics around
specific issues, how organizations engage publics, and the development and un-
derstanding of a wide range of social and political issues.

Conclusion

Public relations has developed significantly in the past 2 decades, and we have
attempted to lay out some of the issues that will no doubt influence its develop-
ment in future decades. More importantly, we sought to illustrate the kind of
contributions that public relations can make to other areas of the field, especially
applied communication. We readily acknowledge that public relations cannot yet
hold its own in theory development with the older, more mature areas of commu-
nication and mass communication. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years, public
relations has evolved into a major area of applied communication based in re-
search of significant quantity and quality. Public relations has become much more
than just a corporate communication practice. Rather, it is a theoretically grounded
and research-based area that has the potential to unify a variety of applied com-
munication areas and serve different types of organizations, including nonprofit
organizations with prosocial agendas.
We believe that there has been the equivalent of a dominant paradigm in pub-
lic relations for about the past 2 decades. We see the period extending from
roughly the late 1980s to the early 2000s as dominated by Grunig’s symmetric
perspective. We expect the period starting in the early 2000s and extending into
the next decade to be characterized by a paradigm struggle away from symmetri-
cal research. The future state of the field of public relations lies with whichever
cocreationist model emerges as the most useful, the most theoretically valuable,
and perhaps, the one that situates public relations theory as a foundational mem-
ber of the field of communication.

References
Botan, C. (in press). Grand strategy, strategy and tactics in public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton
(Eds.), Public relations theory II. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
659
Journal of Communication, December 2004

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public
relations. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 187–201.
Botan, C., & Hazleton, V. (1989). Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Botan, C. H., & Soto, F. (1998). A semiotic approach to the internal functioning of publics: Implications
for strategic communication and public relations. Public Relations Review, 24, 21–44.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public
relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Chase, W. (1982, December 1). Issue management conference: A special report. Corporate Public
Issues and Their Management, 7(23), 1–2.
Cheney G., & Vibbert S. L. (1987). Corporate discourse in public relations and issues management. In
F. M. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communi-
cation (pp. 165–194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. Public Relations
Review, 11, 3–16.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow Press.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the annual conference of the Association for Edu-
cation in Journalism and Mass Communication. Gainesville, FL.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators:
Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham
& S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the
study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heath, R. L. (2001). Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues management: Corporate public policy making in an infor-
mation society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public
relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61–90.
Jones, B. L., & Chase, H. W. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review, 5, 3–23.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public
Relations Review, 24, 321–334.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review,
28, 21–37.
Ledingham, J., & Bruning, S. (2000). (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational
approach to the study and practice of public relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of
an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65.
National Communication Association [Speech Communication Association], 1996. A study of the repu-
tations of doctoral programs in communication. Retrieved from: http://www.natcom.org/ComProg/
GPDHTM/Scripts/reputationstudy.htm. April 9, 2004.

660
Public Relations: State of the Field

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/54/4/645/4102915 by Perpustakaan Fakultas Sastra Universitas Indonesia user on 02 December 2024
Neff, B. (1989). The emerging theoretic perspective in PR: An opportunity for communication depart-
ments. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 159–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R., & Hanily, M. (1999). Influential authors and works of the public relations
scholarly literature: A network of recent research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 29–52.
Pavlik, J. (1987). Public relations: What research tells us (Vol. 16, Sage CommText Series). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Pearson, R. (1989). A theory of public relations ethics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
University.
Public Relations Society of America. (2001). Public relations education for the 21st Century: A port of
entry. Report of the National Curriculum Commission. New York: Public Relations Society of America.
Sallot, L., Lyon, L., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & 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, 27–90.
Seitel, F. (1998). The practice of public relations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, M., Vasquez, G. M., & Doorley, J. (2003). Extending issues management: A case study of
engagement between Merck and AIDS activists. Public Relations Review, 29, 257–270.
Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Public relations: An emerging social science enters the new
millennium. Communication Yearbook, 24, 319–342.

661