CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The previous chapter introduced the study’s problem and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature pertinent to the major variables of the study as expressed in the research questions. The first section reviews the literature related to the theoretical basis of the study. The next section examines the debate between those who believe in the globalization of public relations practices and those who believe that a localized approach is more appropriate.
Theoretical Perspective
In searching for an appropriate theoretical perspective upon which to base this study, the researcher determined that Grunig & Hunt’s (1984) four models of communication is the most appropriate. Heibert (1992) asserted that the only theory that describes reality now is the pragmatic theory. The “who says what to whom with what effect” model that started with Harold Lasswell in the 1940s is a simple model compared to today’s communication models, which are more sophisticated. However, according to Heibert (1992), communication is not successful unless the message is effective. Today’s communication models, though still calling for a circular process starting from a source through a medium to a receiver, include feedback as essential for the success of the communication process. Heibert further provided support for pragmatic communication theory by quoting public relations practitioners stating that public relations is a “two-way street”, or a “two-way symmetric” process.
Grunig and Hunt (1984) identified four typica1 models of public relations practice in North America. These models are press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical, and two-way symmetrical. Press agentry and public information are one-way models. They form a continuum of craft public relations, which ranges from propaganda (press agentry) on one end to journalism (public information) on the other. The two-way models make up a continuum of professional public relations, which ranges from persuasion on one end (two-way asymmetrical) to conflict management (two-way symmetrical) on the other.
Craft public relations Professional public relations
Press agentry (propaganda) two-way asymmetrical (persuasion)
Public information (journalism) two-way symmetrical (conflict management)
Press agentry and public information are not based on research and strategic planning.
The press agentry model can be summarized as public relations programs aimed to get favorable publicity for an organization in the mass media, such as in publicity for sports, movie stars, products, politicians or even managers. The public information model is the dissemination of information through the mass media and controlled media such as newsletters, brochures and direct mail.
The other two models are more professional, sophisticated and effective. The two-way asymmetrical model uses social science research to identify attitudes and to develop messages that appeal to those attitudes. This model works when there is no conflict between the organization and the public. When conflict arises, the two-way symmetrical model appears to be the most efficient model, because it assumes that both the organization and practitioner may change their behavior as a result of a communication program. Grunig and Hunt’s research shows that the professional continuum, with emphasis on the symmetrical model, is the most effective practice for organizational public relations.
It should be noted that in addition to these four models, another model was found in some countries that was not used in the United States. Public relations firms operate on behalf of international clients in the United States by the personal influence model. It is formed from former government officials who use their personal contacts to solicit good connections for the company. Some of the disadvantages of this model are the unethical practices that are connected with manipulating personal contacts (Botan, 1992). This model will not be considered in this study.
Globalization versus Localization
The Grunig and Hunt (1984) models appear to represent Northern American public relations. These models have proven to be a realistic approach to study the practice of public relations. They are also used and applied by researchers who study international public relations. Reagan, Summer and Hill (1992) tested the models in the state of Washington in the United States. Ekachai and Komolsevin (1996) researched public relations in Thailand in relation to these models. Grunig et al. (1995) used these models to study public relations in India, Greece and Taiwan.
Vercic, Grunig, and Grunig (1996) argued that a normative model of global public relations could be relevant to not only Western cultures but also too non-Western cultures. Some other public relations scholars suggested, however, that public relations should be culturally relevant (Banks, 1995; Botan, 1992; Epley, 1992; Reed, 1989). In the following sections, viewpoints advocating a global perspective versus a local perspective of public relations practice will be examined.
Advocates for Globalization
Proponents of globalization believed in the ability to create a “global village”. According to a 1985 study, most U.S. companies are either doing business in a foreign market or are examining the possibility of establishing a presence in a location outside the United States. Similarly, a survey of Chief Executive Officers revealed that global competition and globalization of operations were the greatest challenges facing firms in the 1990s (Fitzpatrick & Whillock, 1993). Murphy (1996) stated that telecommunications are the major supporting factor in paving the way for globalization by building the global information infrastructure.
In the area of public relations, Hiebert (1992) deemed old communication theories based on political ideologies “ridiculous” after the fall of the Soviet Union and advocated a global theory. Hiebert believed that because of new communication technologies the public could not be forced to one point of view. As noted previously, Hiebert believed in a pragmatic theory. Unfortunately, Hiebert did not take a strong stand in supporting his theory. This uncertainty led to the notion that this might be more a personal opinion more than an idea based on scholarly research (Bender & Druckrey, 1994).
For decades, the U.S. dominated the practice of public relations. However, Hirsch (1992) described how Turow and Carveth mapped out the change in institutional and economic environments since the explosion of domestic and international media acquisitions in the late 1980s. Major changes in the goals and strategies of the largest media corporations were made. The first change was to define the audience more globally than locally. Second, corporations sought projects with more public relations potential, for example, contracting with book authors for possible movies and a sound track.
Carveth traced the decline of American media’s dominance through the lens of economics and business strategy. The Australian publisher Rupert Murdoch dominated newspapers and television. Polygram from Holland and Sony from Japan became two of the three largest American rock music-recording companies.
Not only were other countries becoming involved in public relations to a greater degree, but also it appeared that principles of the practice of public relations were the same worldwide despite country-by-country differences in public relations focus. Based on his personal travels to South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and North America, Sharpe (1992) concluded that conflict shapes the face of public relations differently country by country, even though the principles as to what public relations is and can do remain the same worldwide. Sharpe observed, “public relations can be practiced in a wide variety of cultures, not only in an American type of democracy” (p.103). His strongest case was Nigeria, where he found that though Nigeria is very different from the United States, public relations practice was one of the most impressive. However, it must be noted that the British colonial background of Nigeria and the democracy that exists there is similar to American democracy. Thus, the conclusion that public relations can be practiced the same worldwide based on Sharpe’s observations of Nigeria may be an erroneous one.
A common characteristic of research on public relations and globalization is the dominance of qualitative research. Another characteristic is the various perspectives of globalization. Several researchers focused on public relations roles. Wilson (1990) focused on issue management, noting that there are universal images and reputations that destroy an organization no matter where the company is located in the world. Wilson asserted that the nature of the international operations and public relations efforts of multinational corporations made it too expensive for such organizations to be only concerned with local or national image within the U.S. or only the economically developed Western nations. According to Wilson, “A multinational chemical company must be concerned with issues of pollution in all locales of operation and on a global level, not just from the perspective of dealing with political activists near its U.S. headquarters or using headquarters personnel to implement issues management in locations around the world” (p.50).
D’Jaen (1998) was concerned with factors that help companies establish a strong corporate reputation and found that these factors are consistent across international borders. As an illustration of the global nature of corporate reputations, she described a trip to Vietnam, where she noticed an old episode of the U.S. Oprah Winfrey television show being broadcast that featured a fast food chain controversy that had been resolved a year ago. However, in Asia it was new information that was as damaging to the company’s reputation as it had been in the U.S. a year before.
Roth et al. (1996) examined the existence of ethical values that are shared all over the world during their search for a universal code of ethics for the practice of international public relations. The researchers argued that while not all public relations practitioners may agree to a specific code of ethics there might be agreement to a set of principles that contain enough ambiguity to allow for differing interpretations and practices. Hunt and Tirpok proposed “to put forth a general code and let its interpretation and use suggest further refinements that will help adopt it to the nuances of the global community”. Kruckeberg (1996) observed that “cultural relativism is not problematic for a universal ethics code” and that “globally . . . there is a plentitude of shared ethical values, and those which are within differing areas of moral taste can be discussed, universally accepted or negotiated” (p. 182).
Gruban (1995) believed in the existence of generic principles in public relations that have been proven global and are therefore applicable to most cultures and political systems. If these principles were employed with caution, he added, they could facilitate the transformation of political systems and social culture. As noted previously, Sharpe (1992) contended public relations principles and roles are the same worldwide and, therefore, public relations can be globalized.
Three major themes regarding the globalization perspective of public relations emerge in the literature. First, the research purports that certain public relations principles are the same all over the world, particularly since the fall of the former Soviet Union (Hiebert, 1992). Second, ethical values that organize the practice of public relations are shared even in different cultures (Hunt & Tirpok, Kruckeberg, 1996; Roth et al., 1996). Third, globalization advocates agree that the world is heading towards becoming a “global village”. Corporations are implementing issue management that is globally accepted and not just related to their national identity (Hirsh 1992; Wilson, 1990).
There are, however, a number of researchers who are convinced that globalization in public relations can never succeed due to cultural differences and beliefs, not just with the West and the rest of the world but within countries (Banks, 1995; Botan, 1992; Taylor & Kent, 1999; Waisbord, 1998). These proponents of localization believe that public relations should reflect cultural practices. In the next section, the viewpoints of advocates of localization are discussed.
Advocates for Localization
Taylor and Kent (1999) found that many of the assumptions that guide Western theories of public relations and public relations practices are not applicable in other regions of the world. Based on their case study on the practice of public relations in Malaysia, they found the Western assumption that the practice of public relations targets a variety of organizational publics was not true because in many developing nations government officials are more important than the general public in making public relations more effective. Taylor and Kent (1999) maintained that to create theories and practices that can be followed on an international level, scholars should examine how theories developed. For instance, American public relations theories have their roots in democracy and capitalism (Pearson, 1990). European theories started with the social critic Max Weber (Nessmann, 1995). In Asia, eastern theology and hierarchic relationships formed public relations.
Taylor (2000) conducted a case study of the reaction towards the Coca-Cola scare in Europe when children became ill from drinking Coca-Cola. She found that national culture affects the behavior of the public toward threat and that countries with close cultures reacted in the same manner to the threat. Waisbord (1998) analyzed national and regional cultures in Latin America and concluded that, “the existence of a globally mediated public sphere is not synonymous with shared concerns, cultures, and identities. While technology lessens distance and fuels new consciousness, identity-shaping entails a more complex process by which mass populations are mobilized and integrated and identities are created and maintained” (p. 396).
During fieldwork in Kuwait and the Gulf area, Wheeler (1998) discovered that “local cultural frameworks play an important and under recognized role in the kinds of practices that are enabled by networked communications and adaptations to the global economy” (p. 360). Wheeler noted that the big difference between the West and the rest of the world is that the West monopolizes technology. He posed the question, What about the countries that do not have satellites or complete free Internet without censorship. Western culture is rejected as imperialistic morally bankrupt and harmful to local identity.” (p. 361).
Sriramesh (1992) hypothesized that public relations variable that are currently known may not explain Indian public relations practice and thus emphasized the use of the ethnographic research methodology. Though it has been over a decade since this research was conducted, Sriramesh’s findings are still relevant today for two reasons. First, because very little information was available regarding public relations in India, this research paved the way for further studies. Second, the finding on how societal culture affected public relations was well elaborated.
Dwek (1995) found that European public relations style is different from the United States style. European public relations style does not have a universal approach to conducting press conferences. Their press conferences take longer time than U.S. conferences because they demand more details and information to make their decisions. Because of their lack of a universal language, European countries must print their press material in the national language and its local dialects.
After a multi-year project of comparing approaches to public relations from around the world, Botan (1992) concluded that an international public relations is also intercultural public relations. Botan discussed the need to understand the assumptions that shape public relations through the world. Botan, citing Sattler (1981) noted that public relations in the U.S. originated from the media, especially journalism. He also noted that while many African countries, for example, also trace their public relations practice to journalism and the media, their practices are not similar to those of the U.S. Thus, Botan advocated localized rather than globalized public relations.
After consulting with 30 senior practitioners in international public relations, Epley (1992) concluded, “no matter how small the globe shrinks, it is still made up of many tiny segments each with its own unique culture, language, politics, and idiosyncrasies. Global public relations are local public relations” (p. 112). Epley’s study is relatively old and one has to be cautious in generalizing about such a small sample. However, the findings have been cited in many newer studies and have applicability.
As with research supporting globalization, research-supporting localization is also characterized by qualitative approaches. Another characteristic of the localization approach is that it is more current. Today’s public relations researchers are less interested in international public relations than they were in 1992 (Hiebert, 1992).
In addition to being more current, localization research seems more focused and more integrated. As evidenced in this review, a number of researchers have focused on cultural differences and case studies done all over the world, with two themes emerging. The first is the tendency towards localization. Clancy (2000) conducted qualitative interviews with senior executives, in which one executive, a vice president of a national e-commerce services company, stated, “localization is a large issue” (p. 28). Another executive of another multimillion international e-commerce American company told Clancy that the company was receiving many orders from Japan. As a result, the company had to launch a localized version of its website because of cultural differences between the American and Japanese credit card purchases over the Internet. The executive noted, “While many U.S. consumers are comfortable using credit cards, this is not the case in Japan” (p. 28). Although Clancy’s findings cannot be generalized because of the small sample of interviewees, they can be considered a good starting point for research on international marketing and consumers’ purchasing habits.
As discussed previously, Dwek (1995) found differences in the practice of public relations even within similar cultures such as the United States and Europe. Taylor’s (2000) case study concluded that national cultures affect the behavior of the public to threats. The existence of a globally mediated public sphere does not mean shared concerns, according to Waisbord (1998). Botan (1992) observed that the uneven growth between nations is an obstacle in the way of globalizing the practice of public relations, further, even in countries where public relations had the same origin; different practices were detected (Botan, 1992).
Conclusion
In reviewing the literature on the practice of public relations in undeveloped countries that are similar to Lebanon in culture and economy, it appears public relations is practiced in these countries based on the press agentry and public information models rather than the two-way models. The literature shows a lack of focus on the elements necessary to create a global practice for public relations, such as same language, same culture, same economic structure, or same religion. For example, clear answers to the questions Can public relations can be practiced the same way in Western countries with democratic capitalist regimes. Moreover, can public relations be practiced the same way in all countries that live by the Islamic religion? Remain unanswered.
In Chapter three the details of the study’s methodology will be presented. An explanation of the settings and participants, the test instrument, and method of data collection will be included.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment