Typology Teasing: Extending on Sociological Approaches in Public Relations

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

While managerial and instrumental perspectives do prevail in the public relations field, now, more than ever a variety of perspectives and theories are on offer (e.g., Bardhan & Weaver, 2011; Edwards, 2014; Edwards & Hodges, 2011; Heath, Toth, & Waymer, 2009; Ihlen, van Ruler, & Fredriksson, 2009; L'Etang & Pieczka, 2006; McKie & Munshi, 2007). These publications address, among other things, traditions and literature from sociology, postmodernism, cultural theory, anthropology, rhetoric, critical theory, and communication studies.

In the wake of this development there is a need for public relations to come to terms with itself as a multi-paradigmatic discipline. This panel will focus on the sociological research strand in particular, which includes widely diverse approaches to social problems and different solutions for these. Each panelist will present and discuss one particular research program in public relations, and relate this to the typology suggested by Stanley Deetz’s (1996). Here, Deetz highlights differences in approaches to organization science and introduces some contrasting dimensions of metatheory of representational practices. First of all, there is the relation to the dominant social discourse (dissensus versus consensus); secondly, there is the dimension of origin of concepts and problems (local/emergent versus elite/a priori). Together, these dimensions produce a matrix with four cells where each cell represents an approach to organizations studies. That is dialogic studies, critical studies, interpretive studies and normative studies.

Each of the approaches offers prototypical discursive features. For instance, the approaches differ in the basic goals that are suggested, ranging from producing law like relations among objects (normative), displaying unified culture (interpretive), unmasking domination (critical), to reclaiming conflict (dialogic). Similarly, the approaches are characterized by different methods: nomothetic science (normative), hermeneutics/ethnography (interpretive), cultural criticism/ideological critique (critical), and deconstruction/genology (dialogic). They also suggest different benefits to the organization: control/expertise (normative), commitment/quality of work life (interpretive), participation/expanded knowledge (critical) and diversity/creativity (dialogic).

The panel’s overall aim is to stimulate discussion between the approaches – everyone represented by a scholar in the panel. Not only on the merit of their chosen research program, but also in the merit of the Deetz typology. It is an open question whether the typology provides a good fit for the approaches and to what extent it promotes distinctions that are fruitful for the field of public relations. The most important goal of the panel is still to tease out the genuine differences between the research programs and, as Deetz writes, make the conflicts among them “more productive” (1996, pp. 191-192). In other words, the purpose is not categorization as such rather it is to extend the sociological approaches to public relations by discussing them against the suggested dimensions.

Sub Unit

• Public Relations

Chair

• Oyvind Ihlen, U of Oslo

Individual Presentations

• Normative Studies and Social Capital: The Fix-It Approach to Public Relations - Vilma L. Luoma-aho, University of Jyvaskyla, Dept. of COM.

• An Interpretive Approach to Public Relations - Magnus Fredriksson, U of Gothenburg

• Critical Theories in Public Relations - Magda Pieczka, Queen Margaret U

• Dialogic and Postmodern Studies of Public Relations - Derina R. Holtzhausen, Oklahoma State U

Respondent

• Finn Frandsen, U of Aarhus