Public Relations Theory

by:  Debora Dian K. – NIM: 135120207121028

Communication Science – Faculty of Social and Political Science

Brawijaya University

This article consists of my review about public relation theory. There are two journals that will be reviewed. First, What the role of public relations theory? By Reginald Watts. Second, what should public relations theory do, practically speaking? By George Cheney and Lars Thoger Christensen.

Depends on PRSA (Public Relations Society of America), Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics. Simple and straightforward, this definition focuses on the basic concept of public relations — as a communication process, one that is strategic in nature and emphasizing “mutually beneficial relationships.”

In the first journal, Reginald Watts said that professionalism of public relations practitioners can be said if they have a good and extensive knowledge greater than recipients (Watts, 2006). In solving the problem, a public relations practitioner must have a solution that has been used in previous. What was said by the PR should be considered carefully and based on research that has been substantiated. Because public relation is directly related to public.

To be a professional, PR have to grasp, dissect and critically examine the elements that relate and apply them coherently. We need to extract value from existing academic work and repackage it into a method that is suitable for use by practitioners.

According to Jacque Derrida (One of the most important philosopher from University of Cambridge at his age), their challenge is to gather assumptions about the philosophy and language that makes dealing with the main function of PR.

When the trespassed invader of PR can be repell and overcome, there’s time that we can said those are new era of Public Relations.

As we live in an intense and increasingly knowledge-based society. Standards are soaring on all sides. The territory once dominated by the discipline of public relations is being invaded. Invaded at every skill level especially strategy. Sometimes the invasion is from advertising agencies, sometimes from marketing consultants, and more frequently by specialists such as lawyers, accountants, management consultants, and of course defeated parliamentarians!

We need to mobilize elements from the great body of academic work which already exists and translate that work into methodologies suitable for practitioner use.Unless we come to terms with our dearth of knowledge concerning how people take meaning from the channels by which we communicate our work will not be advanced. We need to mobilize elements from the great body of academic work which already exists and translate that work into methodologies suitable for practitioner use. The Theory must also use by the PR to understand the values and ideas in these days. The issues which are comes very different and PR should knowing to use and implement the theory to see the case or issue that happen recently/ lately.

In the second journal that talked about The purpose of issues of PR theory and practice which from The paper presents seven questions that are crucial to the conversation between PR theory and practice. The questions center on these concepts, in turn: identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, audiences (including “the self”), dialogue in idealism and practice, and social engagement. As we may know PR has tended to ignore, hold static, or even render invisible the internal affairs of organizations, including the values, opinions and preferences of employees. The idea of representation, with its epistemological, political, and linguistic senses, can help to inform PR theory through a full-blown consideration of what it means to “stand for” an organization or a cause or an industry.  Writings on public relations in recent years have engaged in a great deal of self-reflection (along with much hand-wringing). Basically, this is a good thing, not only in light of the negative reputation of PR practice in the views of many citizens and academics (and not a few practitioners!) but also because the lines of conversation between PR theory and other bodies of knowledge have not always been open. In historical terms, PR began as a “defensive” profession in the late nineteenth century, was biased by studies of propaganda between the two world wars, has been attuned largely to one-way advocacy for specific private interests to this day, and has struggled to gain both academic legitimacy and ethical credibility. These discussions have produced some moments of clarification, even insight, but perhaps not as much as they have slid into pointless turf battles. The questions center on these concepts, in turn: identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, and audiences dialogue in idealism and practice, and social engagement.

There are some of the Requirements that PR should do and this are very important, there are:

First. How should PR theory be concerned about its own public image/identity?

The persistent, negative reputation of PR has to be of concern to theorists as well as practitioners. In that respect, the interface between PR theory and democratic theory has been useful, there has been a kind of denial of the very history and practical realities

Second. How should actual organizational culture(s) be taken into account in PR theory?

This has only exacerbated the cynicism of members of many organizations and has, in a way, limited the horizons of communication between the organization and its various publics.

Third How can the multiple senses of “representation” enrich PR practice?

Here, theories of emergent organizational networks, virtual organizations, and the postmodern communication environment can be especially valuable, alongside considerations of material and ideological interests.

Fourth. How can PR re-conceive advocacy in a way that rejects naı¨ve societal pluralism?

Advocates of PR practice who essentially argue that “the wrangle of the marketplace of ideas” will yield some kind of truth, or at least a high-quality debate, fail to acknowledge that the quantity of views expressed and the quantity of organizations engaged may no more bring us toward genuine deliberative democracy than 500 TV channels make us better informed.

Fifth. How can PR practice better understand its own “auto-communicative” functions?

This is true in at least three senses. First,   the messages that organizations use to reach external audiences are usually received with greatest interest by the organization’s own members. Second, the polls, analyses and data-gathering activities that organizations conduct in order to understand their surroundings are often self-referentially organized to confirm and support existing practices and viewpoints. Third, the strategies that organizations devise and follow in order to adapt to their surroundings have a tendency to enact the very conditions to which they are designed as a response.

Sixth. How can PR know genuine dialogue when it sees it, given the structures of everyday practice?

Rather than assuming that the procedural correctness of symmetrical communication systems is necessarily to the same as dialogue, PR scholars and practitioners need to come to terms with the more subtle forms of power at play when organizations engage in talks and negotiations with their stakeholders.

Seventh. How can PR theory and practice authentically engage pressing social issues?

This is a difficult question, and it is one that plagues our colleagues around the world who wish to take PR education beyond narrow, market-centric, instrumental conceptions of the craft. With just such a perspective, we have engaged students in penetrating analyses of PR, marketing and advertising. And, the broader approach allows us to consider issues of consumption, productivity, sustainability, democracy, success, and even happiness.

For me, the discussion above are worth to learn by every PR before practice directly in the work world daily. Where the PR theory and practice which from The paper presents seven questions that are crucial to the conversation between PR theory and practice to analyses the works and the concepts, identity/image, organizational culture, modes of representation, advocacy, and of course audiences. Here also we may know PR has to tended to ignore, hold static, or even render invisible the internal affairs of organizations, including the values, opinions and preferences of employees. The idea of representation, with its epistemological, political, and linguistic senses, can help to inform PR theory through a full-blown consideration of what it means to stand for an organization or a cause or an industry. Basically, this is a good thing, not only in light of the negative reputation of PR practice in the views of many citizens and academics (and not a few practitioners!) but also because the lines of conversation between PR theory and other bodies of knowledge have not always been open. Well that is all what PR Should do to influence the audiences and this are the very important to we as a PR to consider it.

References

Watts, R. (2006). DEBATE PAPER What is the role of public relation theory?.Journal of Communication Management. Vol. 10 No. 1. doi: 10.1108/13632540610646418

Sent 23.31