A Search For The Role of Public Relations Activist in The Background of Postmodernizim

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 17, 973 - 1001, 31.03.2019

Aslı İcil Tuncer

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.522169

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In the postmodern world, this study in the search
for the activist role of public relations seeks to trace the differences in
public relations, an agent of change, that explores differences and strengths
the weak sounds. Postmodernism offers a ground where it can produce new
meanings through differences and oppositions. Public relations on this ground
challenge the goals and practices set out in a functionalist approach, which
represent a largely organizational-centered approach. In this study, the
perspectives of the participants were tried to be modeled with Q-sampling
systematically. The data were analyzed with PQMethod 2.35. Public relations
practitioners of 20 organizations included in BIST Corporate Governance Index
were included in the study. Organizational directives have led to a suspicious
view of the existence of the activist role of public relations practitioners.
Because, it is not possible for practitioners to follow the policies of the
organization when establishing a relationship with the society and the role of
persuading the public in convincing the decisions of the organization,
searching for change and strengthening the weak voices. The search for the
activist role of public relations remains an expectation due to the results of
this research. Nevertheless, the presence of evidence may be considered as a
starting point for an activist public relations.

Keywords

Activism, public relations, practitioner roles

Postmodernizm Ardalanında Halkla İlişkilerin Aktivist Rolüne Yönelik Bir Arayış

Abstract

Postmodern dünyada halkla ilişkilerin aktivist
rolünün arayışındaki bu çalışma, farklılıkları keşfederek cılız seslere güç
veren ve değişimin ajanı olan halkla ilişkilerin izini aramaktadır.
Postmodernizm, halkla ilişkilere farklılıklar, karşıtlıklar yoluyla yeni
anlamları üretebileceği bir zemin sunar. Bu zeminde halkla ilişkiler,
işlevselci bir yaklaşımla ortaya konan amaçlara ve uygulamalara –ki bunlar
büyük ölçüde örgüt merkezli bir yaklaşımı temsil eder- meydan okur. Bu
araştırmada katılımcıların bakış açıları, Q-örneklemede sistematik sıralar ile
modellenmeye çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler PQMethod 2.35 programı ile
analiz edilmiştir. BİST Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi’ne dahil olan 20 örgütün
halkla ilişkiler uygulayıcıları araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Örgüt yönlü
kararlar, halkla ilişkiler uygulayıcılarının aktivist rolünün varlığına ilişkin
şüpheli bir bakışa neden olmuştur. Zira uygulayıcıların toplumla ilişki
kurarken örgütün politikalarını takip etmesi ve kamuları örgütün kararlarına
ikna etmedeki rolleri, değişim arayışı ve zayıf sesleri güçlendirme ile aynı
yerde işleyemez. Halkla ilişkilerin aktivist rolüne ilişkin arayış bu
araştırmanın sonuçlarına bağlı olarak şimdilik bir beklenti olarak durmaktadır.
Yine de zayıf da olsa kanıtların varlığı aktivist bir halkla ilişkiler için
başlangıç noktası olarak sayılabilir.

Keywords

Aktivizm, halkla ilişkiler, uygulayıcı rolleri

References

• Broom, G. M., ve Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing the practitioner's impact on clients. Public Relations Review, 5(3), 47-59.
• Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 8(3), 17-22.
• Brown, S.R. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In William D. Berry ve Michael S.,Lewis-Beck (Eds.), “New tools for social scientists: Advances and applications in research methods”. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Bourdieu, P., (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Eds), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.
• Bowen, S. A. (2007). The extent of ethics. In E. L. Toth (Eds.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Coombs, W. T., Ve Holladay, S. J. (2007). It’s not just PR: Public relations in society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Curtin, P.A. ve Gaither T.K. (2005). Privileging identity, difference, and power: The circuit of culture as a basis for public relations theory, Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91-115.
• Cutlip, S.M., Center A.H. ve Broom, G.M. (2000). Effective public rela-tions. 8th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
• Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin ve L. L. Put-nam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dhanesh, G.S, (2013) Building communities: The postmodern CSR practitioner as a dialectical activist-agent in India, Public Relations Review, 39, p. 398–402.
• Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitio-ners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13-21.
• Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., ve Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
• Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13-21.
• Dozier, D. M. (1984). Program evaluation and the roles of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 10(2), 13-21.
• Dozier, D. M., ve Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3-26.
• Edwards, L. ve Hodges, C. (2011). Introduction Implacations of a (radical) Socio-Cultural turn İn public relations scholarship. In L.Edwards ve C.E.M. Hodges (Ed.) Public relations, society ve culture. London:Routledge.
• Freeman, R.E., (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance, California Management Review, 25 (3), 88-106.
• Foucault, M. (1988). Power and sex. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Politics, philosophy, culture. New York: Routledge.
• Grunig, J.E. ve Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
• Grunig, J.E., ve Grunig L.A. (1989). Toward a theory of public relations behavior in organizations: review of a program of research, Public Relations Research Annual, 1, p.27-66.
• Grunig J.E (2000). Collectivism, Collaboration, and Societal Corporatism as Core Professional Values in Public Relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, (12)1, 23-48.
• Grunig, J. E., ve White, J. (1992). The effect of worldview on public relations theory and practice. In J. E. Grunig (Eds), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Habermas J. (1997). Bilgi ve insansal ilgiler. (C.A.Kanat Trans) İstanbul, Turkey: Küyerel Yayınları.
• Han, J. (2002). A typological study on the PR practitioners’ perception toward their job roles and functions. Korean J. Mass Commun. Q. 46, 112–249.
• Holtzhausen D.R., ve Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.
• Holtzhausen, D. (2011). The need for a postmodern turn in global public relations. In N. Bardhan, ve C. K. Weaver (Eds.), Public relations in global cultural contexts. Multi-paradigmatic perspectives, New York: Routledge.
• Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 93–114.
• Ihlen, O. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 492–496.
• Ihlen, O. (2007). Building on Bourdieu: A sociological grasp of public relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 269–274.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200.
• Kennedy, A.K. ve Sommerfeldt, E.J (2015). A postmodern turn for social media research: theory and research directions for public relations scholarship. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 31-45.
• Kim, S.Y., ve Kim, Y. (2009). The Influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 485–500.
• Kruckeberg, D., ve Starck, K. (1988). Public Relations and Community: A Reconstructed Theory. New York: Praeger.
• Kruckeberg, D., ve Vujnovic, M. (2006). Toward an “organic model” of public relations in public diplomacy. Paper presented at the 9th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.
• Kruckeberg, D. (2006). An ‘organic model’ of public relations: the role of public relations for governments, civil society organizations (CSOs) and corporations in developing and guiding social and cultural policy to build and maintain community in 21st-century civil society. Keynote speech given at the international conference Municipal Social Policy and Publics: Realities and Perspectives, UlanUde, Buryatia, Russia.
• Kruckeberg, D., ve Vujnovic, M. (2010). The death of the concept of publics (plural) in 21st century public relations, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(2), 117-125.
• Laclau, E., ve Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democratic politics. London: Verso Books.
• Laclau, E. (1988). Politics and the limits of modernity. In Universal abandon A. Ross (Eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Lyotard, J.F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Lyotard, J.F. (1990). Postmodern Durum. (A.Çiğdem Trans) İstanbul, Turkey: Arı Yayınları.
• Lyotard J.F. (1991). The inhuman: Reflections on time. (G. Bennington ve R. Bowlby. trans.) Polity Press, Cambridge.
• McKeown, B., ve Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
• Molleda, J.-C., ve Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Public relations roles in Brazil: Hierarchy eclipses gender differences. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 327-351.
• Motion, J., ve Leitch, J. (1996). A discursive perspective from New Zealand: Another world view. Public Relations Review, 22(3), 297–309.
• Mykkänen, M., ve Vos, M. (2015). The contribution of public relations to organizational decision making: Insights from the literature. Public Relations Journal, 9(2), 1-17.
• Pavlik, J.V. (1987). Public relations: What research tells us. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Pearson, R., (1992). Perspectives on public relations history. In E.L. Toth, R.L.
• Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon and Schuster.
• Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony? Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 69–86.
• Sha, B.L. (2011). Practice Analysis: Professional competencies and work categories in public relations today Public Relations Review, 3, 187–196.
• Simon B., Loewy M., Stürmer S., Weber U., Freytag P., Habig C., Kampmeier, C., P. Spahlinger. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 646-658.
• Sommerfeldt, E. J., ve Taylor, M. (2011). A social capital approach to improving public relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints on external communication. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 197–206.
• Tuncer, A. (2015). Kurumsal yönetim i̇lkeleri ile mükemmel halkla i̇lişkiler bağı üzerine bir analiz, İletişim Kuram Ve Araştırma Dergisi, 40, 2-15.
• Tuncer, M. U. (2018). Historical dimension of international public relations In M.U. Tuncer (Eds.), International Public Relations, Berlin:Peter Lang GmbH
• Verhoeven P., Zerfass, A., Verčic D., Tench, R., ve Moreno, A. (2018). Public relations and the rise of hypermodern values: Exploring the profession in Europe, Public Relations Review, 44, 471–480.
• Vujnovic, M. (2005). The public relations practitioner as ombuds-man—A reconstructed model. Paper presented at the 8th International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.
• Yang, A., ve Taylor, M. (2013). The relationship between the profes-sionalization of public relations, societal social capital, and democracy: Evidence from a cross-national study. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 257–270.
• Waters, E., ve Deane, K. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton ve E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attach-ment theory and research Monographs of the Society for Research in the Child Development, 50 (1–2).
• Wehmeier, S. (2006). Dancers in the dark: The myth of rationality in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 213-220.
• Zhang, W. ve Abitbol, A. (2016). The role of public relations in social capital. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 6(3), 211-233.
• Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod 2.35. Alıntı tarihi: 10.07.2018 http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/