JOURNAL RESUME

An Open-System Approach to Building Theory in Public Relations

By Glen M. Broom, School of Communication San Diego State University

   In this valuable journal, Glen M.Broom propose that to construct a theory of public relations requires much more than a scientific method, but also openness to conceptual and methodological. What he meant by openness to conceptual and methodological is input from the larger fields of communication and human behavior. But rather than working on that long procedure Glen suggest an alternative idea which is putting his attention to the narrowly defined public relations theory that may lead to open-system approach in building the theory.

    In this scientific process, Glen’s ambition is to offer a return to more rigorous science and a more open search for concepts and theoretical frameworks on which to base our common mission. Glen thinks that Public relations is not so developed yet, so his idea is to draw the boundary around a “body of knowledge” and limit the inquiry to what is reported in public relations literature. Because the early stages of building theory may provide a foundation for the emerging profession and its practice someday. In the meantime, we are duty-bound to conduct our research and publish findings in ways that en sure the integrity of that foundation. That will mean paying more attention to the questions we ask, to the methods we employ, to the decisions we make about what gets published, and to the openness of our search for concepts and theoretical frameworks.

    Based on his experiences the theory-building process begins most effectively when the researcher selects a concept derived from the practice and viewed by practitioners as important. To borrow the term, this is what Chaffee (1991) called the “focal concept” (pp. 14–15). Not only does this approach 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 our work and yet may be essential participants in completing the research. And for many years, Glen have introduced graduate students to this concept adapted from one of his wife’s nursing research books—speaking of an open-system model. Following, with credit to the original authors (Walker & Avant, 1983) and to Chaffee (1991) for things he added from his powerful little book on concept explication to this concept analysis process using an outline, is his recasting of the concept analysis process:

1. Select a concept of interest. Pick something that truly interests you, as you will be working with it longer than you think. Avoid primitive terms that you can define only by giving examples. Primitive terms are accepted as being commonly understood, meaning that there is shared meaning among users. Choose instead derived terms—those that use primitive terms to describe something. For example, individual and person are primitive terms, whereas group and public are derived terms.

2. Determine purpose. Answer the question, “Why am I studying this concept?” Answers could be to clarify meaning of an existing concept, to develop an operational definition, to challenge theory, or any one of many other reasons. The point here is to clearly spell out the purpose of your inquiry.

3. Identify how the concept has been defined and used. Do not limit your search to one definition or use of the concept or to one research domain. Do not accept the first “authoritative” source you find. Find as many sources as you can on how the concept and related concepts have been defined and used. Note implicit as well as explicit uses of the concept. Keep a list of similar concepts as well as concepts that are causally related to your concept. This is what people refer to as “steeping” one self in the literature.

4. Determine defining attributes. Review all of the definitions and uses that you found in the literature to develop a list of the characteristics frequently used in other definitions and measures. This process begins to yield criteria that you will use to build a definition and to operationally differentiate the concept from others.

5. Create a model case. Construct a “prototype” that represents the “pure” in stance of the concept without including other concepts. The purpose is to be abso lutely sure that you can recognize what is and what is not your focal concept when observing situations that may or may not include instances of the concept.

6. Create related, but different, cases. Construct examples of borderline, re lated, and contrary cases. These examples help further clarify the concept by illus -trating that other concepts may exhibit some but not all of the defining characteristics of your focal concept. The objective is to provide examples of what is not the concept.

7. Develop the measures. Consult the list of “defining attributes” identified in the fourth step that indicate the presence of the focal concept. List how others mea sured the attributes of related concepts. Try to answer the question, “In order to mea sure the focal concept, which attributes must we quantify?” This step moves the process from the abstract world of ideas to the empirical world of observable indica tors of the presence of the concept. It also is a cyclical process of moving from one world to the other until the definition and measures are refined

8. Build theory around the focal concept. Begin constructing the theoretical model—a framework for the studies that will follow—by summarizing the ante cedents and consequences of the focal concept found in other studies (third step in the process). What did other researchers find to be “causes” of variance in the focal concept, and what were the “effects” of variance in the focal concept.

    In conclusion,I think this is a good journal, the writer expose all about the stuffs that the readers needed to know about public relations study, and from here we knew that organisationshould aim to work within an organismic system; responding and adapting to environmental change will enable them to meet their publics’ needs. However, when referring to a social system, no system is completely open or closed. In terms of public relations, the degree of openness or closeness determines an organisation’s sensitivity to its environment and relevant publics. (open system approach)

Bibliography

Broom, G. M. (2006). An Open-System Approach to Buliding Theory in Public Relation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (2), 141-150.

ELMO GIOVANNI W 135120207121015