Kamuların Durumsal Kuramına Genel Bakış: 1992-2019 Arası Araştırma Makaleleri

Year 2020, Volume: 24 Issue: 4, 1841 - 1860, 31.12.2020

Esra Bozkanat

Abstract

Kamuların durumsal kuramı (KDK) James Grunig’in 1988 (Grunig ve Childers) yılında temellerini attığı ve halkla ilişkiler literatürüne kazandırdığı önemli bir kuramdır. Araştırmanın amacı bu literatürde sıklıkla çalışılan ve alan için önemli olan kuramı kullanan araştırmaların bir içerik ve bibliyometrik analizini yapmaktır. Bu amaçla son 27 yıllık zaman zarfında yazılmış makaleler incelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, kuramın en çok kriz ve risk konulu sorunların tespitinde kullanıldığı, en çok ABD’de uygulandığı, nicel yöntemlerle sınandığı ve farklı modellerle bir arada kullanıldığı ortaya konmuştur. Irkçılık, aktivizm, iletişim kampanya mesajları, seçmen davranışları gibi konular ise çalışılan diğer sorunlardır. Araştırma KDK’nın pratik değerini ortaya koymak için değişkenler arası ilişkileri vermekte ve kuramı uygulayıcılar için tartışmaya açmaktadır.

Keywords

Kamuların durumsal kuramı, kamu türleri, bibliyometrik analiz, halkla ilişkiler

References

• Aldoory, L. (2001). “Making health communications meaningful for women: Factors that influence involvement”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 163-185.
• Aldoory, L., ve Van Dyke, M. A. (2006). “The Roles of Perceived “Shared” Involvement and Information Overload in Understanding How Audiences make Meaning of News about Bioterrorism”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 346–361. doi:10.1177/107769900608300208
• Aldoory, L., Kim, J. N., ve Tindall, N. (2010). “The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elaborating the situational theory of publics”. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 134-140.
• Blumer, H. (1946). Collective behavior. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), New outlines of the principle of sociology, 167-222. New York, NY: Barnes ve Noble
• Bozkanat, E. (2018). Sağlık İletişiminde Kamu Segmentasyonu, (Doktora Tezi). İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi
• Bravo, V. (2015). “Applying the Situational Theory of Publics to the first external voting process for Costa Ricans abroad: Lessons for international public relations and public diplomacy”. Revista Internacional De Relaciones Públicas, Nº 10, VOL. V [Páginas 125-140]
• Briones, R. L. (2010). “The targeted speak: Exploring young women’s perceptions of sexual assault using the situational theory of publics”. PRism 7(4): http://www.prismjournal.org
• Cameron, G. T. (1992). “Memory for investor relations messages: An information-processing study of Grunig's situational theory”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(1), 45-60.
• Chen, Z. (2019). “Who becomes an online activist and why: Understanding the publics in politicized consumer activism”. Public Relations Review, 101854. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101854
• Chung, W., Choi, J., Woo, C. W., Lee, S., ve Saindon, C. E. (2016). “Community relations dealing with a not in my back yard (NIMBY) context”. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(3), 424–452. doi:10.1108/ijcma-09-2014-0069
• Clarke, P., ve Kline, F. G. (1974). “Media effects reconsidered: Some new strategies for communication research”. Communication research, 1(2), 224-240.
• Demir, Z. G., ve Şatır, Ç. K. “Kamuların Durumsal Kuramı Bağlamında Stratejik Halkla İlişkilerde Kamu Segmentleri: Türkiye’deki Aktif, Uyanmış Ve Gizli Kamuların Profili”. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6(2), 1073-1105.
• Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago, IL: Swallow
• Grunig, J. E. (1976). “Communication behaviors occurring in decision and non-decision situations”. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 252-286.
• Grunig, J. E. (1983). “Communication behaviors and attitudes of environmental publics: Two studies”, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
• Grunig, J. E. (1997). “A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research”. In D. Moss, T. MacManus ve D. Veri (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London: International Thomson Business.
• Grunig, J. E., ve Childers, L. (1988, Ağustos). “Reconstraction of situational theory of communicotion: Internal ond aternol concepts as identifiers of publics for AIDS”. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Portland, OR.
• Grunig, J. E., ve Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.
• Grunig, J. E., ve Repper, F. C. (1992). “Strategic management, publics, and issues”. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 117-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Grunig, J. E., ve Repper, F. C. (2005). Halkla ilişkiler ve iletişim yönetiminde mükemmellik içinde Stratejik yönetim, kamular ve gündemler. Rota yayınları, 131-172.
• Grunig, J., ve J. Disbrow (1977). “Developing a probabilistic model for communications decision making”. Communication Research, 4, 145–168.
• Hallahan, K. (2000), “Inactive publics: the forgotten publics in public relations”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 499-515.
• Hamilton, P. K. (1992). “Grunig's situational theory: A replication, application, and extension”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(3), 123-149.
• Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., ve Park, J. (2012). “Public segmentation and government–public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European countries”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 37-68
• Illia, L., Lurati, F., ve Casalaz, R. (2013). “Situational theory of publics: Exploring a cultural ethnocentric bias”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(2), 93-122.
• Ji, Y., ve Kim, S. (2019). “Communication-mediated psychological mechanisms of Chinese publics’ post-crisis corporate associations and government associations”. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12255
• Kim, J. (2018). “Why do people take to the streets? Understanding the multidimensional motivations of protesting publics”. Public Relations Review. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.05.002
• Kruger-Ross, M. J., ve Waters, R. D. (2013). “Predicting online learning success: Applying the situational theory of publics to the virtual classroom”. Computers & Education, 61, 176-184.
• Lee, S., ve Rodriguez, L. (2008). “Four publics of anti-bioterrorism information campaigns: A test of the situational theory”. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 60-62.
• Lee, Y. (2019). “Crisis perceptions, relationship, and communicative behaviors of employees: Internal public segmentation approach”. Public Relations Review, 101832. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101832
• Major, A. M. (1998). “The utility of situational theory of publics for assessing public response to a disaster prediction”. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 489-508.
• Meng, J., Pan, P.-L., ve Reber, B. H. (2016). “Identify excellent features and situational factors in public health communication”. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 366–368. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.001
• Míguez-González, M. I. (2006). “Teoría situacional de los públicos: las nuevas aportaciones desde la década de los noventa”. Communication & Society, 19(2), 133-162.
• Overton, H. K. (2018). “Examining the impact of message frames on information seeking and processing”. Journal of Communication Management, 22(3), 327–345. doi:10.1108/jcom-10-2017-0114
• Park, N., ve Jeong, J. (2011). “Finding publics within the blogosphere: the blogger public segmentation model”. Asian journal of communication, 21(4), 389-408.
• Roser, C., ve Thompson, M. (1995). “Fear Appeals and the Formation of Active Publics”. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 103–121. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00717.x
• Sha, B. L. (2006). “Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An emerging theory of intercultural public relations”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 45-65.
• Slater, M. D., Chipman, H., Auld, G., Keefe, T., ve Kendall, P. (1992). “Information Processing and Situational Theory: A Cognitive Response Analysis”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(4), 189–203. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0404_1
• Sriramesh, K., Moghan, S., ve Kwok Wei, D. L. (2007). “The situational theory of publics in a different cultural setting: Consumer publics in Singapore”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 307-332.
• Tkalac A. ve Pavicic J., (2002). “How Global Is The Situational Theory Of Publics: The Case Of Croatia”, 9th International Public Relations Research Symposium in Conjuction With 2002 Euprera Annual Congress:The Status of Public Relations Knowledge in Europe, and Around the World, Bled, Slovenia, Pristop Communications, Ljubljana,
• Vardeman, J. E., ve Aldoory, L. (2008). “A Qualitative Study of How Women Make Meaning of Contradictory Media Messages About the Risks of Eating Fish”. Health Communication, 23(3), 282–291. doi:10.1080/10410230802056396
• Vasquez, G. M. (1993). “A homo narrans paradigm for public relations: Combining Bormann's symbolic convergence theory and Grunig's situational theory of publics”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 201-216.
• Werder, K. P. (2005). “An empirical analysis of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 217-266.
• Xifra, J. (2015). “Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy”. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(3), 276–287. doi:10.1177/0002764215613403