Journal Resume II: Kristianus Ratuain-135120207121020

RESUME

An Open-System Approach to Building Theory in Public Relations

Glen M. Broom

Journal of Public Relations, 2006.

Vol. 18 No. 2: pp. 141-150.

School of Communication, San Diego State University, United States

The author described the building theory of public relations from a research perspective as a process that requires both scientific methods and openness to conceptual and methodological input from the larger fields of communication and human behavior.

Purpose of this paper is to dispel any ambiguity about building theory in public relations by return to more rigorous science and a more open search for concepts and theoretical frameworks to base a common mission in understanding public relations.

Methodology used in this paper is scientific conceptual description of process that consists of six domains among others : choosing focal concepts, defining the focal concept, explicating the concept, and make a brige of these concepts into a open model system of public relations. 

            When choosing a concept of the theory-building process, the author agreed that it begins most effectively when the researcher selects a concept derived from the practice and viewed by practitioners as important reffers to what is Chaffee (1991, pp. 14-15) called the “focal concept” which is not only intended to provide the researcher both rationale and motivation for the study, but it also tends to increase interest from those in the practice who often are critical of their work and yet may be essential participants in completing the research.

In the process of defining the focal concept, the author recasted the use of the concept analysis process taking into account an open-system model, with credit to the original authors (Walker & Avant, 1983) and to Chaffee (1991), into a sequence as the following :

1.      Select a concept of interest.

2.      Determine purpose.

3.      Identify how the concept has been defined and used.

4.      Determine defining attributes.

5.      Create a model case.

6.      Create related, but different, cases.

7.      Develop the measures.

8.      Build theory around the focal concept.

However, the author stated that its critical that when concepts are not defined explicitly, the variance in presumed definitions across studies makes building a coherent theory impossible and renders the findings meaningless when taken as a “body of evidence.”

As the defining of the concept has structured by the above mentioned sequence, the internal validation phase is required to take experiment testing for role differences and for administering the roles as experimental treatments in a controlled environment. The goal was to learn if the roles made any difference before its applied. In short, the purpose was to begin the task of building theory around the focal concept to public relations roles.

The next major step was to continue the concept explication process by operationalizing the roles as questionnaire items to measure the degree to which each was being enacted in practice by carefully craft and refine question-naire items that capture the true qualities of the concept (validity) in consistent and precise ways (reliability). Chaffee, (1991, p.12) reminded us that there is no single “true” operational definition of a concept. Rather, explication represents our best effort to capture the essence of the concept. This standpoint also stressed by Shoemaker, Tankard, and Lasorsa (2004, p. 29) that the measures of variables for collecting data depend on the methods used.

In bulding the theory, author agreed that its key to success in roles research surely was its broad-based conceptual foundation. Looking beyond the public relations literature made the difference. An alternative might be applied if the initial conceptual work had been limited to the public relations literature by attempt to describe public relations roles. In addition to this, author expressed that many have turned to methods that do not require data. Whereas literature reviews, critical commentaries, and case studies may point the way and inspire further research but without provide evidence that tests hypothe­ses and builds theory. If public relations is to contribute to the larger body of knowledge of communica­tion and human behavior, evidence is a prerequisite.

            It was the open- system approach to exploring the literature that produced a long-term stream of public relations research. And this exploration of literatures push to a further intellectual integration in which communication study would merge with other disciplines to form a science of human behavior, and that communication study would lead this drive toward unification of all behavioral sciences around a communication core, Chaffee and Rogers (1997, p. 177).

Result.

Building theory in Public Relations required a scientific process in its construction and public relations research is no exception to the rule. And in its scientific construction should be realy clear in its broad-based conceptual foundation and its focal concept in steps and strategies. And when the focal concept and conceptual foundation is clearly defined, validated and explicated, the use of open system is essential in this aspect as an approach to explore the literature and organizational environment analysis that produced evidences, data, behavior and indicators to  test, examine or measure the concept before the final result of building a new theory of public relations.

Conclusion.

            The antonym of Open System is closed System which considered isolated from the environment and other systems. Its boundaries are considered impermeable, which discourages the exchange of information with the environment. (Cutlip, Centre & Broom, 2006). And while open System is the views the environment as important to survival. Open systems continuously exchange outputs with the environment through permeable boundaries (Cutlip, Centre & Broom 2006, Morgan 1998).

An open system is a system that regularly exchanges feedback with its external environment with the important structure of inputs, processes, outputs, goals, assessment and evaluation, and learning. Aspects that are critically important to open systems include the boundaries, external environment and equifinality.

The effectiveness and key success of building theory of public relations depends on how focal concepts and organizational system is precisely determined and measured in scientifical methodologies taking into account all forms of communication study and disciplines that could produce essential elements to link or to bridge the causalities to public relations theoritizing.

Recommendation.   

1.    Any organization has its productive system that interacts with its environment, drawing certain inputs from the environment and converting these to outputs that are offered to the environment (open model system or closed system). The attainment of its preferred state is dependent on the efficiency with which the organization carries out this production process. So in order to analyze and apply a Public Relations study in  this system, it is necessary to clearly define the organizational system which composed of its own subsystems and establish the relationships between the system and its environment.

2.      Methodology used in the building theory of an organizational public relations should be a reliable scientific process, influence-caused anaysis studies of all interlinked elements and must be taken into account the subsystems or organizational system such as commercial sector, technical sector,  personnel sector, controller sector and their organizational flows as a whole or as a total system.

REFERENCES

Broom, G. M. (2012). Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations, 11 Edition. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.

Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 5(3), 17­22.

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.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Conceptandtheoryof organization-public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham &S.D. Brunig (Eds.), Public relationsas relationship management (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1986). Advancementforpublicrelations role models. PublicRelations Review, 12(1), 37-56.

Broom, G. M., & Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing thepractitioner’s impact on clients. Public RelationsRe- view, 5(3), 47-59.

Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Communication concepts 1: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chaffee, S.H.(1996). Thinking about theory. InM.B. Salwen &D.W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated ap­proach to communication theory and research (p. 16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Chaffee, S. H., & Rogers, E. M. (Eds.). (1997). The beginnings ofcommunication study in America: A personal memoir by Wilbur Schramm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the managerial role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 3-26.

Murthy, N. (2005, August 25). Speech to Queensland University of Technology Business Leaders Fo­rum, Brisbane, Australia.

Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., Jr., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomson, Grace.S (2007). The Open-Systems Approach to Organizational Design. Berkeley : SelectedWorks.

Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (1983). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Watt, J. H., & van den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research methods for communication science. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.