Reading Instagram Posts of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in the Context of Dialogic Principles and Public Relations Models

Öz

The Web 2.0 technology structure that activates users paved the way for the “direction of communication, interaction, dialogue” of discussions in the public relations literature. Examining the concept of dialogue specifically for NGOs may be important in terms of developing social media usage. As a social media platform, Instagram is not adequately addressed in the literature in terms of dialogic principles. For this reason, the aim of this study is to determine how environmental NGOs use the principles of dialogic communication, public relations models, and interactivity in their Instagram posts. It is found that the most popular environmental NGOs are TEMA, Greenpeace, and WWF, and their posts have been evaluated through content analysis. In the process, their posts have been examined according to Kent & Taylor’s dialogic principles. In addition, the categorization and ratio calculations have been made according to Grunig & Hunt’s four models of public relations, and interaction rates have been calculated according to Avidar’s responsiveness pyramid. Findings suggest that environmental NGOs use Instagram by reflecting dialogic communication principles. For public relations models, being asymmetrical with a high frequency and weakness of interaction ratios begs the question: can dialogic principles be performed by a one-sided information flow and low interaction?

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public relations models
• dialogic communication
• interaction
• social media
• Instagram

Çevreci Sivil Toplum Kuruluşlarının Instagram Paylaşımlarını Diyalogsal İlkeler ve Halkla İlişkiler Modelleri Bağlamında Okumak

Öz

Web 2.0 teknolojisinin kullanıcıları aktifleştiren yapısı halkla ilişkiler alan yazınında “iletişimin yönü, etkileşim, diyalog” tartışmalarına zemin hazırlamıştır. Diyalog kavramının STK’lar özelinde incelenmesi ise sosyal medya kullanımlarını geliştirme noktasında önemlidir. Sosyal medya platformu Instagram, alan yazında diyalogsal ilkeler özelinde yeterince ele alınmamaktadır. Bu nedenle çalışma, çevreci STK’ların Instagram içeriklerindeki diyalogsal iletişim ilkelerini, halkla ilişkiler modellerini ve etkileşimi anlama çabasındadır. Instagram üzerinde en fazla takipçiye sahip üç çevreci STK olan; TEMA, Greenpeace ve WWF’nin paylaşımları; içerik analizi tekniği ile değerlendirilmektedir. Bu süreçte paylaşımlar; Kent ve Taylor tarafından belirlenen diyologsal ilkeler ışığında irdelenmekte, Grunig ve Hunt tarafından sunulan halkla ilişkilerin 4 modeline göre kategorileştirilmekte ve Avidar’ın yanıt piramidine göre etkileşim oranları hesaplanmaktadır. Bulgular, çevreci STK’ların Instagramı diyalogsal iletişim ilkelerini yansıtacak şekilde kullandığı yönündedir. Halkla ilişkiler modelleri açısından değerlendirildiğinde ise en çok kamuoyu bilgilendirme modeli kullanılmştır. Halkla ilişkiler modelleri arasından asimetrik bir modelin en yüksek frekansa sahip olması, ayrıca etkileşim oranlarının zayıflığı, bilgi akışının yönüne (STK’lardan kullanıcılara yönelik) ilişkin “tek yönlü bilgi akışı ve zayıf etkileşim ile diyalogsal ilkeler yerine getirilebilir mi?” sorusunun düşünülmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Halkla ilişkiler modelleri
• diyalogsal iletişim
• etkileşim
• sosyal medya
• Instagram

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, A. N., Husain, K., & Mohin, M. (2013). Environmental online campaigns through website interactivity: The case of Malaysia environmental NGOs (MENGO). Journal of Human Capital Development (JHCD), 6(2), 81-98.
2. Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 440-450.
3. Alemdar, M. Y., Elgün, A., & Maden, D. (2018). Türkiye’deki kadın sivil toplum kuruşlarının twitter kullanımına yönelik bir araştırma. Bilge Kağan 1. Uluslarası Bilim Kongresi (pp. 251-261). Amsterdam: İdea Modern Eğitim Danışmanlık.
4. Armstrong, C., & Butcher, C. (2018). Digital civil society: How Nigerian NGOs utilize social media platforms. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 31(3), 251-273.
5. Arslan, C. (2019). An analysis of Instagram’s dialogical communication building potential in Turkish theater institutions, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 9(1), 84-98.
6. Askanius, T., & Uldam, J. (2011). Online social media for radical politics: Climate change activism on YouTube. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(1-2), 69-84.
7. Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322(7294), 1115-1117.
8. Beverly, J. A. (2013). Public relations models and dialogic communication in the twitterverse: an analysis of how colleges and universities are engaging their publics through Twitter (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi, School of Communication, Mississippi, USA.

9. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317-319.
10. Campbell, D. A., Lambright, K. T., & Wells, C. J. (2014). Looking for friends, fans, and followers? Social media use in public and nonprofit human services. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 655-663.
11. Cho, M., Schweickart, T. & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008.
12. Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90-92.
13. Diyalog. (2020). In Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükleri. Retrieved from https://sozluk.gov.tr/
14. Eray, T. E. (2016). Utilization of corporate websites as a dialogic public relations tool in Turkey. Global Media Journal TR Edition, 6(12), 201-213.
15. Evans, A., Twomey, J., & Talan, S. (2011). Twitter as a public relations tool. Public Relations Journal, 5(1), 1-20.
16. Goodell, L. S., Stage, V. C., & Cooke, N. K. (2016). Practical qualitative research strategies: Training interviewers and coders. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(8), 578-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.06.001.
17. Grunig, J. E. (1993). Implications of public relations for other domains of communication. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 164-173.
18. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1991). Conceptual differences in public relations and marketing: The case of health-care organizations. Public Relations Review, 17(3), 257-278.
19. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y.-H., & Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(3), 163-186.
20. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21. Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.
22. Ihator, A. S. (2001). Communication style in the information age. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 199-204.
23. Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity. Nordicom Review, Nordic Research on Media and Comunication Review, 19(2), 191.
24. Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 199-223.
25. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172-188.
26. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334.
27. Kim, D., Chun, H., Kwak, Y., & Nam, Y. (2014). The employment of dialogic principles in website, Facebook, and Twitter platforms of environmental nonprofit organizations. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 590-605.
28. Kim, J., & Lee, K. H. (2019). Influence of integration on interactivity in social media luxury brand communities. Journal of Business Research, 99, 422-429.
29. Köseoğlu, Ö., & Köker, N. E. (2014). Türk üniversiteleri Twitter'ı diyalogsal iletişim açısından nasıl kullanıyor: Beş Türk üniversitesi üzerine bir içerik analizi. Global Media Journal: TR Edition, 4(8), 213-239.
30. Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636-638.
31. Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
32. Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353.
33. McAllister, S. M. (2013). Toward a dialogic theory of fundraising. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(4), 262-277.
34. McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-42.
35. Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351-358.
36. Muckensturm, E. (2013). Using dialogic principles on Facebook: How the accommodation sector is communicating with its' consumers. (Unpublished master's thesis). Clemson University, College of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences, South Carolina, USA.
37. Newhagen, J. E., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 1(4), JCMC145.
38. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13.
39. Özdemir, B. P., & Yamanoğlu, M. A. (2010). Türkiye'deki sivil toplum kuruluşları web sitelerinin diyalojik iletişim kapasiteleri üzerine bir inceleme. Ankyra: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2), 3-36.
40. Özoran, B. A. (2017). Bir halkla ilişkiler ütopyası: Diyalojik halkla ilişkiler. İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 53, 1-30.
41. Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. HSR: Health Service Research, 34(5) Part II.
42. Rafaeli, S & Ariel, Y. (2007). Assessind interactivity in computer mediated research. pp.71-88. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp.71-88). UK: Oxford University Press.
43. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1998). Interactivity on the Nets. In S. Rafaeli, M. L. McLaughlin, & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Network and Netplay: Virtual Groups on the Internet (pp. 173-189). USA: The MIT Press.
44. Raja-Yusof, R. J., Norman, A. A., Abdul-Rahman, S. S., & Mohd-Yusoff, Z. (2016). Cyber-volunteering: Social media affordances in fulfilling NGO social missions. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 388-397.
45. Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York, USA: The Free Press.
46. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336-341.
47. Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 213-215.
48. Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2014). Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 365-378.
49. Seo, H., Kim, J. Y., & Yang, S. U. (2009). Global activism and new media: A study of transnational NGOs’ online public relations. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 123-126.
50. Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 329-335.
51. Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20(5), 391-394.
52. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the ınternet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 263-284.
53. Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2014). “Te value of social media for pushing activist organizations social agendas: Implications for public relations theory and practice”. Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines, 1(1), 76–87.
54. TUİK. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2019 from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1028
55. Türkal, İ., & Güllüpunar, H. (2017). Diyalogsal halkla ilişkiler bağlamında sosyal medya kullanımı: Türkiye’de ilk 100’de yer alan şirketler üzerine bir inceleme. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 5(2), 591-618.
56. Uzunoğlu, E., & Kip, S. M. (2014). Building relationships through websites: A content analysis of Turkish environmental non-profit organizations’ (NPO) websites. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 113-115.
57. 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), 1.
58. Waters, R. D. (2010). The use of social media by nonprofit organizations: An examination from the diffusion of innovations perspective. In S. Dasgupta (Eds.), Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1420-1432). IGI Global, 02-106.
59. Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37, 321-324.
60. We Are Social & Hootsuite. (2019). Digital in 2018 in Western Asia essential insights into internet, social media, mobile, and ecommerce use across the region.
61. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara, Turkey: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
62. Zollet, R., & Back, A. (2015). Critical factors influencing diffusion of interactivity innovations on corporate websites. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(1), 2-19.