Comparative study of the Structural and Content Features of Public Relations Association Websites of Turkey, Iran, and United States"

Öz

Websites play a crucial role in providing information, news, and services to target audiences and stakeholders. They are also widely used for product promotion, online sales, and educational purposes. This study was conducted to examine and compare the structural and content features of public relations association websites in Türkiye, Iran, and the United States. The sample of the study consisted of the official websites of these three associations, and the unit of analysis was defined as all pages within each website. Data were collected using a standardized 55-item checklist. To ensure coding reliability, the data were coded independently by two researchers, and the inter-coder agreement rate was calculated as 0%95. The obtained agreement level indicates that the coding process achieved an acceptable level of reliability. The findings reveal that the website of the Turkish Public Relations Association ranked highest in terms of structural, content, and overall features, with scores of 93.75%, 100%, and 96.36%, respectively. The website of the Public Relations Society of America achieved scores of 78.12%, 100%, and 87.27%, placing it at a moderate level. In contrast, the website of the Iranian Public Relations Association scored 62.50%, 73.91%, and 67.27%, respectively, ranking lower than the other two websites. These findings indicate that the Turkish Public Relations Association website is the most comprehensive and standardized in terms of structural and content characteristics. The results may contribute to the improvement of digital public relations strategies and the development of professional association websites.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Relations
• Public Relations Association
• Association Website

Proje Numarası

Destekleyen Kurum

Teşekkür

Teşekkür beyanı bulunmamaktadır.

Türkiye, İran ve Amerikan Halkla İlişkiler Dernekleri web sitelerinin yapısal ve içerik özelliklerinin karşılaştırmalı incelenmesi

Öz

Web siteleri, bilgi, haber ve hizmetlerin hedef kitlelere ve paydaşlara sunulmasında temel araçlar olarak önemli bir rol oynamakta; ayrıca ürün tanıtımı, çevrimiçi satış ve eğitim amaçlarıyla da kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye, İran ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’ndeki halkla ilişkiler derneklerinin web sitelerinin yapısal ve içeriksel özelliklerini incelemek ve karşılaştırmak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini söz konusu üç derneğin web siteleri oluşturmakta olup, analiz birimi her bir web sitesinin tüm sayfaları olarak belirlenmiştir. Veriler, 55 maddeden oluşan standart bir kontrol listesi aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Kodlama güvenirliğini sağlamak amacıyla veriler iki bağımsız araştırmacı tarafından kodlanmış ve kodlayıcılar arası uyum oranı 0%95 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuç, araştırmanın yüksek düzeyde güvenirliğe sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.Araştırma bulgularına göre Türkiye Halkla İlişkiler Derneği web sitesi; yapısal, içeriksel ve genel özellikler açısından sırasıyla %93,75, %100 ve %96,36 oranlarıyla ABD ve İran’daki benzer web sitelerine kıyasla daha yüksek bir düzeyde yer almaktadır. ABD Halkla İlişkiler Derneği web sitesi aynı özellikler bakımından sırasıyla %78,12, %100 ve %87,27 oranlarına sahip olup orta düzeyde değerlendirilmiştir. İran Halkla İlişkiler Derneği web sitesi ise %62,50, %73,91 ve %67,27 oranlarıyla daha düşük bir performans göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, Türkiye Halkla İlişkiler Derneği web sitesinin yapısal ve içeriksel özellikler bakımından en kapsamlı ve standartlara en uygun web sitesi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, halkla ilişkiler alanında dijital stratejilerin geliştirilmesine ve mesleki dernek web sitelerinin iyileştirilmesine katkı sağlayabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Halkla İlişkiler
• Halkla İlişkiler Derneği
• Dernek Web Siteleri

Proje Numarası

Destekleyen Kurum

Kaynakça

1. Asadollahi, Z., ve Nokarizi, M. (2010). İran dergilerinin elektronik bilgi kaynaklarının yapısı ve içeriğinin değerlendirilmesi. Kütüphanecilik ve Bilgi Bilimi, 50, 118–146.
2. Asna, A. (2004). Bir PR'cının meslek anıları. İstanbul: Mediacat.
3. Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.05.004
4. Aydınalp, Ş. G., ve Ilçak, A. (2012). Türkiye Halkla İlişkiler Derneği üyesi 43 halkla ilişkiler ajansının web siteleri üzerine araştırma. Halkla İlişkiler ve Tanıtım Dergisi, 2(3), 44–53.
5. Campbell, D., ve Beck, A. C. (2004). Answering allegations: The use of the corporate website for restorative ethical and social disclosure. Business Ethics: A European Review, 13(2–3), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2004.00357
6. Boynton, L. A. (2002). Professionalism and social responsibility: Foundations of public relations ethics. Annals of the International Communication Association, 26(1), 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2002.11679015
7. Chiang, I. P., ve Hsiao, K. L. (2012). Online content quality and user trust in digital public relations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1281–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.008
8. Cyr, D. (2008). Modeling web site design across cultures: Relationships to trust, satisfaction, and e-loyalty. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00391.x

9. Farajpahlou, A., ve Saberi, M. (2009). Structural and content attributes in designing Iranian university libraries' websites from the perspective of website users and developers. Research on Information Science & Public Libraries, 14(55), 107–126
10. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., ve Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information & Management, 43(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002
11. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., ve Tauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2,500 participants. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for User Experiences, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997097
12. Grunig, J. E. (2009). Excellence in public relations and communication management (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13. Güven, G. S. (2013). Halkla ilişkilerde meslekleşme olgusu: Kamu ve özel sektör karşılaştırmalı bir uygulama [Yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi].
14. Hallin, D. C., ve Mancini, P. (2012). Comparing media systems beyond the western world. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790867
15. Hashemi, Ş., ve Saleki, M. (2018). İran'da kurumsal halkla ilişkilerin rolü. Medya Yönetimi Dergisi, 41.
16. Heath, R. L. (2001). Encyclopedia of public relations. Sage Publications.
17. Harlow, R. F. (1977). Public relations definitions through the years. Public Relations Review, 3(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0363-8111(77)80018-0
18. ISO/IEC. (2015). Information technology — Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Guide to SQuaRE. International Organization for Standardization.
19. Khan, M., et al. (2015). Interactive content and stakeholder engagement in digital PR. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.03.003
20. Kent, M. L., ve Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
21. Kent, M. L., ve Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo Economicus to Homo Dialogicus: Public relations and the ethics of dialogue. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.10.006
22. Kent, M. L., ve Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143
23. Kim, J., ve Stoel, L. (2004). Apparel retailers: Website quality dimensions and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(03)00045-4
24. Krug, S. (2014). Don't make me think, revisited: A common sense approach to web usability (3rd ed.). New Riders.
25. Lazar, J. (2007). Universal usability: Designing computer interfaces for diverse user populations. John Wiley & Sons.
26. Lovejoy, K., ve Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.x
27. Marcotte, E. (2011). Responsive web design. A List Apart. https://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design
28. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
29. Men, L. R., ve Tsai, W. H. S. (2014). How companies cultivate relationships with publics on social network sites: Evidence from China and the United States. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.06.013
30. Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
31. Nielsen, J., & Tahir, M. (2001). Homepage usability: 50 websites deconstructed. New Riders.
32. Park, H. W. (2022). Conversation age: Social media and dialogic public relations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.1994567
33. Qasemzadeh, H., ve Nasiraei, A. (2017). Modern halkla ilişkiler aracılığıyla kriz yönetimi ve kamu düşüncelerine etkisi. Medya Yönetimi, 30.
34. Ristino, R. J. (2008). The strategic communicator's challenge: Linking theory to practice. Public Relations Review, 34(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.03.001
35. Robinson, P. (2006). Effective public relations (10th ed.). Pearson.
36. Rowley, J. (2008). Web content management: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810876436
37. Rubin, J., ve Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Wiley.
38. Ruler, B. V. (2016). Public relations and communication theory: Bridging theory and practice. Routledge.
39. Smith, R. D. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations (4th ed.). Routledge.
40. Rostami Jamil, F. (2015). Tahran Uluslararası Kitap Fuarı’nın ana sayfası ve web sitesinin yapısal ve içeriksel özelliklerinin Frankfurt ile karşılaştırılması. Journal of National Library and Information Organization Quarterly, 27(2).
41. Siavoshi, S. (1997). İslami Cumhuriyet ve kültürel politikalar: Sinema ve kitap yayımcılığı. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 29(4), 509.
42. Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press.
43. Üstüner, Y., ve Yavuz, N. (2017). Turkey’s public administration today: An overview and appraisal. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(10), 820. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1387147
44. Van Dijk, J. (2012). The network society: Social aspects of new media (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
45. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006
46. Wise, K. (2007). Public relations theory and practice. Pearson Education.