The Context of Theories OR Theoretical Contexts

Why is it important to understand theories? I mean, theories are often quite commonsensical to begin with, occasionally convoluted, and always pretty boring. Well, at least from a student's point of view, I suppose.

However, having a good knowledge of academic theories provides one with a solid foundation upon which to build a more meaningful understanding and practical relationship with a subject. In this case, Public Relations.

Originally, theorists of public relations drew their understanding and inspiration from psychology, sociology, social science and management fields and, most obviously, the realm of communications. A PR practitioner is, after all, at the core of it all, a communicator.

The above areas of understanding all contribute in many ways to the understanding of public relations. For example, psychology allows a practitioner to understand the cognitive behaviours and attitudes of people they may wish to target in their messages. By understanding their target audiences, PR practitioners can more effectively communicate with them. Sociology and the study of the social sciences helps a PR practitioner understand their target audiences as a group (as opposed to the more personal or individual perspective that psychology may give). As PR practitioners usually have to communicate with the public as groups or a whole, understanding human behaviours in social networks and situations also allows for more effective communication. And as PR practitioners have to work together with other practitioners within an organisation as well as with their clients, the understanding of organisational management is key in helping a practitioner communicate well with each other and with their clients.

Need I elaborate on how important the understanding of comminication is to a PR practitioner? ;D

However, as Public Relations has grown into a field of its own, it no longer needs to borrow solely from other diciplines. PR now has theories of its own that are specific to this field of study.

These theories are made of various fields of understanding that include: systems theories like cybernetics, requisite variety, and boundary spanning; communication theories such as information transmission models, persuasion, attitude vis-a-vis behaviour change, source credibility, 2-step and multi-step flow, emotional appeals, coorienttion theory, agenda setting, and framing. Together they create the framework upon wich to build public relations theories.

The PR theories mentioned in the course text include: the excellence theory, Grunigand Hunt's 4 models and variations to it, situational theory of publics, and relationship management. From these theories, a purer and deeper understanding of public relations can be had.

Of course, all theories are subject to an individual's perspective of it. Different people may view the same thing or concept differently. And especially in different ultural settings, one culture may view something differently from another culture. An example may be of multi-national corporations employing different market strategies, promotions, and advertising for the different countries they are situated in. A good MNC will not employ the same strategies and advertising images and concepts for both its western (home) country and an international branch in, say, an asian or islamic country.

These issues highlight the importance of theoretical understanding, and the role it plays in effective public relations.

Oh-so-TRENDY~

So, for week 2, the readings were on understanding 21st century public relations and trends. I as particularly interested in the chapter on trends and development.

It covered mainly the shaping of PR and the various influences that are involved in said shaping of the industry, and the roles people have in creating these influences.

Harris and Fleisher, in the course text, mentioned the sticky push-pull ideal that the public wanted: they wanted governments to be involved in public policy, but at the same time did not want them to be too involved. This point, I felt encapsulates the problem of trying to please a mass public. Often, they desire something, or for things to be done a certain way, but are too difficult to please. They may lobby for greater government aid in public health, and then complain when taxes have to be increased to support a ublic healthcare system. Or like Harris and Fleisher's example states, they want the government to be more involved in public policy-making, but yet kick up a fuss when the government steps in, claiming that they are being to "powerful", or overly-regulatory.

Public relations (especially in organisations like governments) often have to straddle this fine, finicky line.

Another point they mentioned was on organisational transparency and ethics. Enron and its subsequent corporate collapse was given as an example of a company with poor organisational transparency. Their PR department had little knowledge of the company's doings and therefore were not able to perform their duty as communicators betweenc ompany and public efficiently. Especially after the finacial crisis and the collapse of certain key stock market players, corporate transparency is at an all-time importance. The public, and investors, is especially keen on making sure they know what is going on, and they are less likely to trust a company whose PR department's statements cannot be wholly trusted.

Furthermore, these departments must maintain their trustworthiness to the public. Ethics is another fine line that PR practitioners have to straddle. It is tough to maintain a client's confidentiality while simultaneously being transparent and truthful to the public. Where and how does one draw the line between protecting a company's interests and witholding vital information from the public?

I think that in the future of PR, these issues are especially important and have to be continually addressed. It is easy to start off addressing these issues, but often, they can get forgotten. In order for a company to remain trustworthy and of good repute and reliability in the public's eye, I believe that one must be dilligent and consistent.

So, let's get started~

This week, I had my first Intro to Public Relations class.

As far as introductory lectures went, it was typical, but interesting nonetheless. Tanya gave us a brief overview of what public relations was. It was a nice surprise to find out that some of the things we see in publications (think magazines and newspapers) are actually part of public relations.

The example she used in her lecture was that of magazine features like "Editor's Picks" and other product recommendations. The items showcased in features like these aren't actually "handpicked" by the Editor, but rather products sent in to said Editor by PR reps behind those products.

I believe her explanation for it was that it was like advertising, but free, as opposed to having to pay advertising fees for product ad placement.

Perhaps I feel somewhat cheated by this revelation. Now when I read my beauty magazines, I know I'll be wondering whether or not Cleo's Editor really tried out that facial masque or deep-conditioning shampoo, and if the new revolutionary exfoliant mentioned by Cosmo's journalists really perform as described by them or if it's just a marketing line created by a product PR executive.

Tanya also mentioned that protesters often contact media companies prior to their demonstrations so as to have their protest covered. That, at least, wasn't new to me, as I've had a friend--a Political Science major--tell me about how to distinguish real protesters in the Middle East from those who are government-back. (The government-backed "protesters" have neatly printed banners and flyers, have proper news coverage, and aren't the ones arrested by the law enforcement officers, he said.) While unsurprised, it does leave a somewhat odd feeling. Vague dissatisfaction, perhaps. It feels like a lie, like consumers of products and of the news are being, if not lied to, then led to make certain conclusions. To think in a certain way.

Public relations is supposed to be how organizations communicate with the masses with regard to current situations, using the media as a communications tool. There are so many different definitions of the term "public relations". However, entering this course, I cannot help but enter with the bias that PR is about spinning stories to suit a certain angle--one that benefits, certainly, the parent company, and doesn't always reveal the truth to the public.

Perhaps as I venture through this course, I will be further enlightened and I will gain and clearer, less biased view of public relations.