Download 1 Trends in Public Relations and Communication Management

Trends in Public Relations and Communication Management Research
A comparison between Germany and The Netherlands
Abstract
Public relations is without doubt an expanding and diversifying discipline, not only in the USA but
also in other parts of the world. An organized body of knowledge is seen as a major prerequisite for
professionalization of public relations practice. That is why we conducted a research project within
two countries in Europe, Germany and The Netherlands to analyze the state of the art of and the trends
in public relations research in these two countries. These countries have a well-established public
relations practice and since about half a century also a growing amount of professors in public
relations. By comparing the development of and current trends in PR-research in these countries, we
provide a context for a trans-national reflection of the relationship between PR-research and the
professional development of public relations as a field of occupation.
For this research project we analyzed all PhD dissertations concerned with public relations from 19952000 (Germany) and 1990-2000 (The Netherlands). The variation of disciplines from which public
relations is studied is enormous and there is hardly any exchange of knowledge. Most dissertations
start from zero, assuming that there is nearly no other relevant research on which the project can
proceed. This fragmentation of research hinders the development of public relations as a theoretically
sound and empirically grounded academic discipline.
1. Introduction
Though many scholars claim that public relations has not reached the status of a profession in
academic terms, it is without doubt an expanding and diversifying discipline, not only in the USA but
also in other parts of the world. An organized body of knowledge is seen as a major prerequisite for
professionalization of public relations practice (Cutlip et al. 2000). Most codified research comes from
USA. In order to codify the present status of public relations knowledge in Europe, Van Ruler et al.
(2000) completed a Delphi-study on a Pan-European group of public relations academics and
practitioners. The results were sobering: a common body of knowledge on public relations is missing
throughout Europe. There is not even an agreement on how to name the field in practice and in
research: Is it public relations, communication management, corporate communication, information,
reputation management, relationships, or something else? The terms-in-use in public relations practice
and in academia varies, and on top of this there are also profound differences among nations in the
way of naming the field. Not surprisingly, different ideas exist about what the key concepts of public
relations should be. A research agenda could not be developed; some participants claimed that they did
1
not know what was going on in other nations, some participants concluded that there was hardly any
authentic research to build on (see also Van Ruler & Vercic 2002).
At the same time, we observe that public relations in Europe is a quickly changing and expanding field
which is on its way to globalization in the sense of internationalization of ownership of companies and
agencies, in the sense of internationalization of markets and publics and last but not least also in the
sense of internationalization of education and research. With regard to these developments several
questions raise: Is there any cumulation of research based knowledge within certain specific countries
which helps to grasp the complexity of PR-related processes? Does public relations research reflects
the processes of internationalization? Does it reflect any differences because of the naming of the
field?
The Delphi Research project was a Europe-wide project and therefore necessarily rough. That is why
we conducted a research project within two countries in Europe, Germany and The Netherlands. These
countries have a well established public relations practice and since about half a century also a
growing amount of professors in public relations. By comparing the development of and current trends
in PR-research in Germany and in the Netherlands we provide a context for a trans-national reflection
of the relationship between PR-research and the professional development of public relations as a field
of occupation. Although the cultures of these countries differ in a certain way, they have a lot in
common as well (see Sriramesh & Vercic 2003).
First, we will give a brief overview of PR-practice in the two countries. Based on literature review and
on an analysis of recent surveys we will outline the roots and lines of development of public relations
in both countries. After discussing the differences and similarities we will present the results of a
primary research we did on recent trends in PR-research. In both countries the university system
provokes that basic research is most of all done via doctoral dissertations. In order to manage this
research project, we limited our study to PhD theses on PR-related topics over the period of 19952000. Since the amount of dissertations in the Netherlands was extremely low over this period, we
decided to analyze Dutch dissertations from 1990 onwards; and we questioned what the characteristics
of doctoral PR-research in the two countries are, what the common ground could be and what the
differences are.
2. PR-practice in Germany and The Netherlands
Today, both the Netherlands and Germany are democratic welfare states and members of the European
Union. They share a common (European) history of enlightenment and industrialization. But in the
20th century the two neighbor states took very different ways. Although the Netherlands was occupied
by the Germans during 1940-1945, it developed further as a democracy, and can be seen as a typical
2
example of a neo-corporatist state (Kickert 1996). This (European) model emphasizes the interests
represented by a small, fixed number of internally coherent and well-organized interest groups that are
recognized by the state and have privileged or even monopolized access to the state. The most
important groups in a corporatist society are employers, employees and the state. However, in the
Netherlands all kinds of single-issue pressure groups also are involved in the system.
The atrocities of national-socialist Germany, the separation of the nation in 1948 (which was
reinforced in 1961) and its re-unification are unique occurrences in European history. In the following
chapter we will explore how these specific historical experiences influenced the formation of the
public relations field and we will take a look on the current situation of the field.
2.1. Roots and development of public relations in Germany
A central question of German public relations-historiography is when exactly the “big bang” of Public
relations has occurred (Fröhlich 1997). Not surprisingly the opinions differ on that matter and it is
even doubtful whether there has been something like a “big bang” at all. This discussion refers to the
difficulty of determining what precisely is meant by the term Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit or public relations.
If public relations is seen as a distinct communicative function, then the emergence of mass media,
industrialization and the increased rate of literacy in the late 18th century could be marked out as a
point of departure.
According to this perspective early evidence of Public relations has been found in the realm of
political communication. Indications for industrial public relations can be traced back into the 19th
century. During World War I public communication was controlled by the state by installing official
public relations offices and information departments, thereby pushing public relations in a
propagandistic direction. But in the Weimar Republic many new state and private owned information
offices were founded and competed with each other.
These activities came to a halt after 1933. Under the new National Socialist regime the pre-conditions
for public relations were hardly given any more. Censorship, the forced registration of journalists by
the “Reichschriftleitergesetz” and the ideological penetration of the media system constituted a
restrictive framework for PR-activities. PR-pioneer Albert Oeckl writes on this period as follows: “For
the period of the ‘Third Reich’ (...) the field of communication was determined by a nearly overall
blackout. (...) ‘Real’ public relations only began in the Federal Republic of Germany after the currency
reform in 1948 (...).” (Oeckl 1993: 19; translation by the author).
When in 1958 the German Public Relations Association (Deutsche Public Relations Gesellschaft,
DPRG) was founded Oeckl was one of the founding fathers. He defined Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit as
“(t)he planned and continuous attempt to establish and maintain mutual understanding and trust in
public” (Oeckl 1964: 43; translation by the author). This definition stands for the way the developing
field of public relations has seen itself in the Federal Republic of Germany. While public relations as a
3
field of occupation established itself in the 1950s, the academic treatment of public relations started
much later: in the 1970s/80s.
In the German Democratic Republic the term “sozialistische Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit” (“socialist public
relations”) was coined. Whether this activity also includes “Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit” in a westerndemocratic sense provoked a controversial discussion in the early 1990s. This controversy was
complicated by the different use of the terms propaganda, public relations and Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit.
One way to avoid the fruitless discussion about the correctness of terms is to reflect on Public
Relations from a functionalist perspective (cf. Bentele 1999). Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit in the German
Democratic Republic has had an ideological function for sure, but also some fundamental
communicative functions like information, persuasion and the establishment of trust. Seen on an
organizational level some of the methods and instruments that were used were identical with
instruments and methods of public relations as practiced in Western Germany. But one cannot speak
of a branch of public relations as for example there existed no public relations agencies at all.
Today, public relations in Germany is a field of occupation with no defined edges. Therefore it is
problematic to get a clear picture of its size and quality. Figures provided by the official Bureau of
Statistics are of little help because no distinction is made between public relations, advertisement and
(graphic) design. Likewise, PR-consultancies are difficult to distinguish from advertisement and
management consultancies. Some 20.000 persons are estimated to work as communication consultants
in-house or in agencies (Merten 2000: 27). As it is difficult to get precise figures, it is even harder to
get to know what PR-practitioners are actually doing. According to the definition of the German
Public Relations Association (DPRG) the task of PR is to “plan and manage communication processes
for persons or organizations with their publics in public. (...). Public relations is a management
function.” (DPRG 2003; translation by the author)
This normative view on public relations is challenged partly by recent research results. A survey by
Röttger (2000) on PR-practice in all public and private organizations in the region of Hamburg
provides a somber picture: It is not specialized PR managers who dominate the field but laymen. Little
money and little personal resources are available for PR-tasks. Also, public relations is not practiced
on an advanced level; often, it covers only information providing and the handling of communicative
relationships on an instrumental level. Interpreting these findings Röttger concludes that – seen from
the perspective of the organization – public relations is not a function which requires special skills and
knowledge. On the opposite, it is assumed that in principle anybody is able to do public relations.
Obviously, the practitioners fail in demonstrating their specific competences and problem-solving
potential. Röttger concludes: “The basic conditions for professionalization of public relations are not
met.” (Röttger 2000: 328; translation by the author)
Slightly more optimistic conclusions can be drawn from surveys which are based on specific PRsamples. Merten (1997) concludes on the basis of his research that the professionalization of public
relations is in progress. According to his survey of senior PR-practitioners more and more
4
practitioners do have an academic background and have followed further education in public relations.
Also, they spend more and more time on strategic PR-functions.
2.2. Roots and development of public relations in the Netherlands
The beginning of public relations in the Netherlands can be found in the period of Enlightenment. In
the eighteenth century, science and knowledge were no longer seen as being relevant only for the elite,
but had to be diffused. Besides ‘education’, voorlichting was seen as the main instrument to help
people get informed. ‘Voorlichting’ is a literal Dutch translation of ‘enlightenment’. The idea of
voorlichting is based on an expression of Kant: sapere aude (literally, ‘dare to know’) and which was
meant as “all people must have the intention to be informed on what is going on and must be
enlightened, so that they can take part in the ongoing debate about and development of society”(Van
Gent 1995). This is equivalent to what Habermas (1962) means by the “open bourgeois debate”, but
not limited to an elite. In the nineteenth century the concept of voorlichting developed into “giving full
information to all people to mature and emancipate”. Governmental as well as civil society
organizations started to introduce voorlichters, specialists who traveled around to give information
about health, good farming, housekeeping, education, politics, sexuality, etc. At the same time, the
elite remained sceptic about this full enlightening of ordinary people. That is why voorlichting was on
and off also used to show people how to conduct themselves as good citizens and to control them. The
history of public relations in the Netherlands can therefore be seen as a history of the battle between
information and emancipation on the one hand, and education in a certain way on the other hand. In all
theories of voorlichting the rather pedantic premise is, that it is given for the benefit of the person or
group to be enlightened, even when the “victims” did not want to be enlightened at all—or at least not
in that way.
The characteristics of the practice of voorlichting can still be seen in the daily practice of public
relations departments and consultancies. The evolution of public relations in the Netherlands cannot
therefore be captured in terms of “publicity” or “press agentry” but all the more in terms of “public
information” and well-meant (but patronizing) “education”. Due to changing management styles, this
is, nowadays, blurring with publicity and imagery. At the same time, dialogue, negotiation and
consensus-building are natural exponents of Dutch culture, which for centuries has relied on the
practice of consultation and the involvement of as many people as possible in decision-making
(Hofstede 1987). Every issue bearing even the remotest risk of disagreement has a forum of its own in
which all interested parties are represented, whether it be traffic issues, defense matters, salaries, or
education affairs, or simply the playing fields for children in a certain neighborhood. The symmetrical
model is, so to speak, “the” model by which the Dutch have done business for ages. Civil society is
seen as the basis of society-building in the Netherlands and pressure groups are a natural part of life.
Pressure groups have been allowed great involvement in decision-making, in politics and nowadays
5
also in the corporate arena, as long as they are not too violent in their approach. That is why
cooperation is an important strategy of Dutch pressure groups. Van Luijk, a professor in business
ethics in the Netherlands, calls it “democratization of moral authority” and sees it as a trend (Luijk &
Schilder 1997). As a result, aggressive persuasion is not an acceptable communication strategy. What
the public relations sector has added to this cooperation model are the idiosyncrasies of voorlichting.
As in Germany, Dutch public relations is a field of occupation with no defined edges. Therefore it is
problematic to get a clear picture of its size, parameters and quality. Likewise, PR-consultancies are
difficult to distinguish from advertisement and management consultancies. What one calls
communication management could be understood as public relations, publicity, voorlichting,
advertising, public affairs and the like, all under the same name of communication management and
consultancy. As in many European countries, Dutch public relations is not called “public relations”
anymore (if it ever had been). This is because of the negative connotations of the term, but also
because of its image of one-way practice. Nowadays, the term is only used in a negative way, to define
what can be seen as bad for one’s image (“This is bad PR for you”), and by some consultancies which
work for US enterprises and are oriented at publicity seeking. Currently, the most common names for
the field are “corporate communication”, “communication management”, or just “communication”.
Van Riel (1995) provided the theoretical foundations of existing ideas, and showed the need for
coordinated and integrated communications. This broadening goes hand in hand with the growing
discussion in the profession on what management of communication entails. Research shows that it is
impossible to divide public relations and voorlichting from marketing communication and advertising
(Ruler & Lange 2000; Körver & Ruler 2003). Integration of these two concepts can be seen as the
upcoming norm, under the heading of the management of all organizational and strategic
communications, including communication with customers.
The field of what is now called “communication management” is widely accepted. Almost all
organizations have “communication employees” or at least structural contacts with communication
consultancies. Managers see communication as an important or even as a critical factor for success.
Recently, an official commission advised the prime minister on how to cope with communication in
the new information age and was very positive about the necessity of good communication
management in the public sector (Commissie Toekomst Overheidscommunicatie 2001).
A large representative survey (Ruler & Lange 2000) on the structural representation of communication
in organizations with more than fifty staff showed that almost all these organizations have
communication employees and that the responsibility for communication activities is placed at a high
level. However, the internal visibility of the profession is rather low. Of those responsible for
communication activities, less than half (42 per cent) reported to have a job title that relates to
communication in one way or another (including external communication, voorlichting, public
relations and advertising). Unsurprisingly, communication-related job titles correspond with the
6
presence of single departments coordinating different communication activities (though this
correspondence is not complete). Many respondents indicated that there is one special department in
which communication activities are coordinated, but that these departments are not always headed by
a “real” communication manager—that is, a departmental head who is named as such. In such cases,
the management of communication activities is obviously “encroached” by another department. Single
communication departments participate less in the board of directors. It is clear that communication
management is seen as important within organizations, but seldom via a visible and specialized
department at the managerial level.
Another indication of internal visibility is budget. Almost half the respondents in the study indicated
that there was no structural budget for communication activities (40 per cent) or that they did not
know what this budget was (9 per cent). Communication management is apparently given a position at
a higher staff or management level of responsibility, but this is far from being translated yet into a
structural communication budget. All in all, communication management is a normal part of job
differentiation, but it definitely cannot yet be regarded as being fully established in the hierarchy of
organizations – at least not at managerial and strategic levels, as normative theory presumes.
There are several indications that Dutch public relations will change enormously in the next few years.
In the larger corporations strategic communication management is becoming the norm nowadays, and
most of these have corporate communication departments on a managerial level (Körver & Ruler
2003; Van Riel 2001). It is striking that there is a structural decline in campaigning and image building
in favor of identity building, with a strong emphasis on internal communication. Internal
communication is said to become the or at least an important service supply of the consultancy sector
and communication departments. A recent search for the most compelling themes in the profession
showed top priority for “the increasing demands on the profession to give advice on the role of
communication in organizational change” (Lebbing 2002). The government commission on the future
of governmental communication management stated in 2001 that “communication belongs to the heart
of decision-making and communication specialists have to support this communication” (Commissie
Toekomst Overheidscommunicatie 2001).This favors the counseling and coaching roles that were
identified in the European Delphi study as upcoming roles for communication management (Ruler &
Vercic 2002). Moreover, trend watchers point out the trend of increased accountability of general
management. This will give room to planning and evaluation and well-defined communication
programs. Last but not least, there is an upcoming orientation in the public sphere on norms and values
in society and social responsibility of corporations. Public moral is becoming rather strong in this
matter nowadays and law becomes more restrictive in this respect.
2.3. Differences and similarities
7
Looking at the development and practice of public relations in Germany and the Netherlands, we have
to conclude that public relations is a heterogeneous field in both countries. On the one hand the
importance of strategic communication management is growing. But on the other hand, there is also a
growing demand for operative PR-related tasks. It could very well be that this diversity of public
relations is typical for modern industrialized societies.
It is striking that in both countries, the practice of public relations is not defined from advertising and
the like. There is even a strong trend towards integration of all communications under one heading,
e.g. communication management. In both countries, Enlightenment was the seed by which public
relations could grow as “Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit” in Germany and as “voorlichting” in the Netherlands.
The main object was the development of the public discourse and democracy. In Germany this
development had been stopped in the period of Nazi-Socialism, and was hindered in the German
Democratic Republic, but is nowadays perceived as a communication function which serves the
democratic play of forces (cf. DPRG 2003). In both countries public relations is seen from an
anthropocentric perspective (Bentele 2004) and questioned from the role of organizational
communication and its management in an open and informed society (Ruler & Vercic, 2004).
Although there are differences with regard to the historical development of public relations – the
tradition of voorlichting in the Netherlands, the various state interventions in public communication in
Germany – public relations practice in the two countries is rather similar. Obviously, history and
development of public relations does not play a role in the development of PR-practice. Like in other
countries, the debate on the historical roots of public relations is an academic one. In both countries
the concept of public relations is taken seriously and practice is flourishing in its own way. In both
countries, however, in a very practical and technical way. This goes hand in hand with a rather
underdeveloped research field.
3. Trends in recent research
3.1. Methodology
One way to identify recent trends in public relations is to analyze research on PR-related issues done
in order to gain a doctoral degree. By analyzing doctoral theses trends in the scholarly treatment of
public relations can be identified. In order to identify relevant PhD theses we were looking for certain
terms of expression which are commonly used to circumscribe PR-related functions. These words had
to appear in the title or subtitle of the publication, or in the bibliographical index. For the Netherlands
these keywords were: public relations, corporate communication, communication management,
organizational communication, voorlichting, marketing communication, bedrijfscommunicatie
8
[company’s communication], interactive communication policy. For Germany, the keywords were:
public relations, corporate communication, Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit, Unternehmenskommunikation
[company’s communication], Organisationskommunikation [organizational communication]. In order
to find the relevant dissertations several electronic databases were searched. All PhD theses which
were published in the before mentioned period and which contained one of the key words in the title or
index have been selected. For the German sample the following databases have been searched:
www.ub.fu-berlin.de/datenbanken/fub/hss/html (this database contains a list of university publications
(Hochschulschriften) from 1945 to 1997); www.ub-fu-berlin.de/datenbanken/fub/dnb_ica.html (the
German National Bibliography); www.educat.hu-berlin.de/diss_online/biblio.html (a collection of
online dissertations); www.iwi-iuk.org/dienste/TheO (a metasearch-database).1 For the Dutch sample
we searched through: www.ubvu.vu.nl; www.picarta.nl; www.siswo.nl; www.uba.uva.nl. Since the
Dutch sample appeared to be extremely small, we asked Dutch professors to add dissertations they had
advised or they knew of.
We combined various methods of systematizing the doctoral theses. First of all, we arranged the
dissertations by year of publication and by academic discipline. Related to this we ascertained the
main schools of research on which the theses are based and the methodological design of the research.
Inspired by Signitzer’s (1992: 174-177) research on students’ final papers we used his scheme and
classified the PhD theses according to the following (non exclusive) categories:
1) Fundamental principles of PR (historical and societal context, ethics, juridical context of PR,
PR-profession)
2) Organizational or managerial context (organizational structure, management theories, PRmanagement (theories), PR roles)
3) Communications aspect (communication processes, theories on (cognitive) impact of
communication activities, theories on attitudes, theories on behavioral changes, relational
change)
4) PR-process (applied PR-research, situation analysis, problem definition, planning and
strategy, realization, evaluation)
5) Specific PR-practices (media relations, community relations, financial relations, internal
relations, public affairs, marketing, sponsoring)
6) Organizational framework of PR-practice (commercial enterprises, governmental
organizations, educational organizations, health sector, religious organizations, cultural
organizations, social movements, lobby groups and associations, international PR)2.
1
All publications which were selected according to the search criteria have been found in the first two databases.
The other databases did not deliver any relevant titles.
2
Some of the categories have been re-formulated or summarized.
9
Next to this we used the categorization of Van Ruler and Vercic, stemming from the EBOK-project
(Van Ruler et al. 2000). Here, four characteristics of (European) public relations have been identified:
1. Managerial: to maintain relationships/manage communication processes with publics in order to
gain public trust and/or mutual understanding. This aspect has to do with organizational strategies
and is aimed at commercial and other (internal and external) public groups. In research terms this
has to do with planning.
2. Operational: to prepare a means of communication. This aspect simply has to do with execution.
It is not supported as a view on communication management, but mentioned as a common role. In
research terms this has to do with communication means.
3. Reflective: to talk about the organization in society as a whole, to become responsible. This aspect
is influencing organizational values and norms. It can be seen as a developing aspect of
communication management, as part of the discussion on the socially responsible behavior of
organizations. In research terms this has to do with communication in strategic decision making.
4. Educational: to help the members of the organization become communicatively competent in
order to respond to societal demands. In fact this aspect is related to both the mentality and, for
many, the behavior of the organization’s members. In research terms this has to do with
communicative competence.
These four aspects could very well serve to structure most of the theses. However, it was impossible to
include the dissertations that were oriented at reflection on the professional development of the
practice itself. Therefore we decide to add that aspect:
5. Professional development of the practice itself. In research terms this has to do with professional
standards, description of practice, ethics, PR-roles).
A further classification offers van Riel (1995), who discriminates between internal, external and
corporate communications.
The analysis of the doctoral theses according to these schemes helps to grasp trends in recent scholarly
PR research from different perspectives.
3.2. PhD theses in Germany
(1) Numbers of theses per year
In total, 43 theses have been analyzed for Germany.3 The distribution by year of publication shows a
continuous increase of doctoral research (see Figure 1).
3
Initially, 49 titles have been found in the databases, but a closer look revealed that in 6 cases the degreegranting university was in Switzerland.
10
Figure 1: Number of theses per year (N=43)
10
9
8
7
5
4
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
19 out of the 43 theses were written by female authors which seems to be an indication of the so-called
“feminization” of PR in the academic field, too.4
(2) Academic discipline and theoretical approach
In order to assign the theses to academic disciplines, we registered the academic field of the professor
who was in charge of the doctorate (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Distribution of theses by disciplines (N=43)
14
10
9
O
th
s
ic
om
cs
n
io
at
ic
er
w
La
iti
un
m
5
on
Ec
l
Po
m
Co
5
Most of the analyzed theses (14) were written in communication studies, followed by political science
(9). Five theses were delivered in economics, and five juridical theses deal with questions of PR. The
rest of the theses were written in various academic disciplines: history (3), educational science (2),
linguistics (2), business information studies (1), didactics of geography (1) and Anglo-American
Economics (1). Obviously, communication studies cannot require an exclusive competence in dealing
with PR problems. But it seems to be a discipline which stimulates research of PR-related phenomena.
4
In PR practice the fact that more and more women are working in public relations is called feminization.
Apparently, women are found more often than men in the “technician’s role” which has provoked a controversial
discussion.
11
A closer look on the main authors and the sort of literature which has been used reveals an
interdisciplinary diffusion of PR theory especially in the social sciences.5 12 out of the 14 theses
written in communication studies refer to academic PR-literature. Most often, PR-theory from German
speaking authors is used. Systems theory in its different varieties is the predominant theoretical
perspective. Depending on the research question also PR-literature on image, corporate
communications, crisis communications, press relations, internal communications and human
resources is included. From the US-literature, Grunig resp. Grunig & Hunt are cited most frequently.
In contrast to the frequent use of specific PR-literature, most of these studies do not refer to the core
literature of communication science (which deals with the processes and structures of mass
communication).
Seven out of the nine theses PhD theses in political science are mainly based on literature from
political scientists. But next to this, in five of the theses specific PR-literature has been used as well.
All PhD theses in economics refer to economical literature (surprisingly not to marketing; this applies
only to two theses). In the juridical theses no specific PR-theory or even PR-literature was referred to.6
Only in one out of the five theses other than juridical literature was used (in this case theological
literature). The application of theories varies a lot in the dissertations from the other disciplines. No
dominant theoretical perspective could be singled out.
The analysis of the use of theoretical approaches by discipline shows that specific PR-theories or
approaches are referred to mainly in the social sciences. While PR-literature is used extensively in
communication studies, it seems to be of little importance in political or economic research. Here, PRapproaches offer additional points of view. This finding provokes the question whether PR approaches
are genuinely communication science approaches, or whether communication science does not has an
equally obligatory body of literature as the other social sciences. In any case, the PR-theories which
are used in the dissertations in communication studies are not linked to classical mass communication
research, although most PR professors have a link with journalism and mass communication or even a
combined chair.
(3) Methodological design and level of analysis
A common distinction of (social) research is the level of analysis: micro (case study), meso
(organizations or branch) and macro (institutional or societal level). Most of the theses are based on
cases: 23 in total. Obviously, a micro-analytical perspective on PR phenomena is predominant. But
none of these dissertations is an in-depth micro-analytical case-study as described in methodological
literature. Instead, the expression “case study” stands for uncontrolled empirical procedures. This
finding corresponds to the methodological designs which were applied. 11 out of the 43 theses could
5
It should be noted though that not all theses are engaged in theory building or theory testing as part of the
research. This holds especially true for the juridical and the historical PhD-theses.
6
The mentioning of one or the other PR-definition is not meant here.
12
be classified explorative-qualitative. But this does not imply that all of them meet the standards for
qualitative research. In fact, “explorative-qualitative” research often stands for unsystematic and
arbitrarily research.
15 theses can be classified as empirical-analytical. But again, this does not imply that all of these
projects are involved in testing hypotheses. Less than half of the theses included empirical methods
which are open to critical re-examination.
Most of the empirical projects combined different methods (like interview and survey). However, the
amount of methods applied must not hide the fact that the majority of the analyzed theses are designed
poorly with respect to methodological standards. Considering this result against the background of the
findings on the use of theories, the picture becomes even worse. Empirical based analysis of PR
phenomena combined with the examination or the development of theory is extremely rare: only three
theses correspond to this classical research design.
An explanation for the absence of this classical type of social studies can be found when we take a
look on the results of the PhD theses. Here, we see a broad orientation towards practical questions and
not towards scientific problems. Most of the dissertations are practical oriented or applied research in
the sense that they lead to recommendations for specific practical situations. Nearly a quarter of all
projects are purely descriptive. Only five theses aim mainly on scientific advancement. This could be a
reason for the relative weak theoretical basis of PR research.
(4) Theoretical approach according to Signitzer (1992)
In order to structure PR as a field of research we rely partly on Signitzer’s (1992) distinction of PRknowledge. We classify the following categories: 1) Fundamental principles of PR 2) Organizational
or managerial context 3) Communications aspect 4) PR-process 5) Specific PR-practices 6)
Organizational framework of PR-practice. This categorization serves as a framework to systematize
research questions and dominant research perspectives. The categories are not mutually exclusive; a
thesis could be assigned to more than one category: For example, the subject of a research project can
be PR-activities within a certain branch, while at the same time the thesis can concentrate on the PRprocess. We decided to choose for the categories that were most well-fitting (see Table 1).
Table 1: Classification according to Signitzer (1992)
Field of knowledge:
theses which are dealing with this aspect
Fundamental principles of PR
19
Organizational or managerial context
9
Communications aspect
6
PR-process
13
Specific PR-practices
10
Organizational framework of PR-practice
22
13
From the 19 cases dealing with fundamental principles of PR ten were examining historical aspects of
PR, five juridical aspects and four theses deal with PR-practice under the angle of professionalization.
The organizational context of PR was explicitly dealt with in only nine theses. Six of them were based
on management theories, and three on specific PR-theories. Even fewer theses are based explicitly on
communication theories: this was the case in six dissertations. 13 theses concentrate on aspects of the
PR-process, while a specific task of PR was dealt with in ten dissertations. 22 dissertations treat PR
within an organizational framework. Interestingly, slightly more non-profit or public institutions have
been examined (12) than enterprises (10).
This result refers again to the weak theoretical basis of PR-research. Only theses which deal explicitly
with organizational or communication aspects of PR-phenomena draw on social theories and thus have
the potential to add relevant research based knowledge to the existing body of knowledge of PR.
(5) Characteristics of PR-research according to Van Ruler and Vercic (2002)
Based according to their interpretations of the outcome of the Delphi study Van Ruler and Vercic
identified four characteristics of European Public relations: managerial (deals with commercial and
other public groups and with the execution of the organizational mission), reflective (dealing with
communication in strategic decision making), educational (deals with the behavior of the members of
an organization and with the learning organization) and operational (deals with means of
communication and with communication tactics). These four dimensions correspond to roles a
researcher can explicitly or implicitly assign to PR. For the purpose of this study, we add a fifth
dimension: professional development (deals with the development of public relations a a professional
occupation) According to this distinction we get the following result (see table 2).
Table 2: Structuring public relations research into fives aspects
Aspects of Public Relations
theses which are dealing with this aspect
Planning and management
14
Communication in decision making
7
Professional development
8
Communicative competence
2
Communication means
4
Planning and management of communication is subject in most dissertations (14), but not when it
comes to reflecting the role of communication in strategic decision making (7). Eight dissertations are
dealing with the development of PR-practice, often from a historical perspective. Preparing effective
means of communication is a topic in four theses, while the educational aspect of public relations is
dealt with in only two dissertation projects.
14
(6) Categorization according to van Riel
Cees van Riel (1995) distinguishes three aspects of strategic corporate communication: 1) marketing
communication and advertising, external organizational communication / public relations and internal
communication. Corporate communication deals with all aspects. According to this classification only
three PhD theses are concerned with issues of internal communication, i.e. employee magazines.
Another 11 theses deal explicitly with aspects of external communication like media relations.
Marketing and advertising was the subject of two dissertations. The remaining dissertations could not
be classified into this scheme.
3.3. PhD theses in The Netherlands
(1) Number of theses per year
In total, the Dutch sample yielded 37 dissertations. Since public relations can be seen as a developing
field in academia, the expectation was that the amount of dissertations is growing. This is not the case:
19 out of 37 dissertations were produced between 1995-1998. After 1997 the production decrease with
an ever low average of zero dissertations in 2001 (see Figure 4). Only 9 dissertations have been
written by women.
Figure 3: Number of theses per year (N=37)
8
6
4
2
1
2
2
3
3
5
4
6
4
3
4
0
0
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
(2) Academic discipline and theoretical approach
In order to assign the theses to academic disciplines, we registered the academic field of the professor
who was in charge of the doctorate. Economics and management studies delivered most dissertations
in the Netherlands (8), while communication studies and linguistics delivered both 5 dissertations in
the research period, and sociology 4. Besides we found dissertations in all kinds of academic
disciplines: psychology, administrative science, law, engineering, landscape architecture, agriculture,
etc. It is obvious that communication studies is not the only place where public relations problems are
15
to be studied. Seemingly, it can be researched everywhere, and economics seem most interested in the
research field.
A closer look at the dissertation advisers shows the same fragmentation. Cees van Woerkum
(Sociology, University of Agriculture) delivered 4 theses, Cees van Riel (Corporate Communication,
management studies) and James Stappers (retired from communication science) both delivered 3 in the
research period. The other dissertations were each advised by another professor. This means that we
can hardly speak of research programs in this field.
It is striking that the theses hardly refer to each other, and that there is hardly any reference to public
relations or communication science researchers at all. All authors used their own economic, linguistic,
agricultural, engineering, psychology, management, or law theories, depending on their specific
background without reference to theories on the theme (communication in the context of public
relations and the like) they were researching.
Looking at the use of communication theory, we found out that only 9 out of 37 dissertations used
more than one communication theory, while 19 used no communication theory at all. 9 dissertations
used only one communication theory, most often a Shannon and Weaver (1949) oriented linear oneway communication theory, also when talking about interactive communication. One author even
claimed to give a profound analysis of communication processes in interactive policy making (a big
topic in the Netherlands), gave no definition of communication at all and had no references to any
communication science literature. We therefore have to conclude that no dominant theoretical
perspective could be singled out, and, moreover that there is hardly any real knowledge development
in this field. PR-approaches are hardly used, not even as additional points of view.
(3) Methodological design and level of analysis
The methodological designs that are used differ to a large extent. Experiments are only used in some
of the psychology and persuasion oriented theses, the Delphi-method is used once, observation is not a
method that is used at all in this field. Especially, surveys and interviews are popular. Many
researchers used more than one method and combined interview and survey or content-analysis and
survey. All dissertations can be seen as qualifying according to methodological standards within their
own field. The non-historical dissertations all combine theory and research, corresponding social and
economic research traditions. The non-historical dissertations are all aimed at theory building,
ignoring practical recommendations.
Most theses (23) are concerned with explorative research, only 7 are hypothesis-testing, 3 are
historical document analysis, 4 are concerned with development of a measurement instrument. It is
said that a mature field is most of all concerned with hypothesis-testing. If this is true, then the
outcome of this research confirms the immaturation of the field of public relations research in The
Netherlands.
16
Most research is comparative research in a certain branch or comparing certain organizations/cases.
Only 3 dissertations are typical case studies. No dissertation was oriented at international comparative
research, one dissertation was oriented at comparing German and Dutch actors in a certain Dutch case.
We may conclude that the internationalization of the field can not be found in the dissertations.
(4) Theoretical approach according to Signitzer (1992)
Following the structuring of the research field of public relations according to Signitzer (1992), we
found that most Dutch dissertations are on the PR-process itself and the communication aspects.
Perhaps it is good to mention once more that in this research project we defined public relations in a
very broad sense, e.g. “the organization of the communication of the organization” (Grunig, 1992),
including communication with commercial publics and internal communication (see Tabel 2).
Table 3: Classification according to Signitzer (1992)
Field of knowledge:
theses which are dealing with this aspect
Fundamental principles of PR
6
Organizational or managerial context
7
Communications aspect
10
PR-process
10
Specific PR-practices
2
Organizational framework of PR-practice
2
(5) Aspects of Public Relations according to Van Ruler and Vercic (2000)
If we look at the aspects of public relations as defined in the European Body of Knowledge project, we
find that most dissertations are concerned with planning and management of communication (13), but
communication in strategic decision making is a second big theme with 11 dissertations. Preparing
effective means is hardly a topic (3) nor is communicative competence (4). Six dissertations are
concerned with the development of the practice. The figures are in Table 4.
Table 4: Structuring public research into fives aspects
Aspects of Public Relations
theses which are dealing with this aspect
Planning and management
13
Communication in decision making
11
Professional development
6
Communicative competence
4
Communication means
3
17
(6) Aspects of Public Relations according to van Riel (1995)
In his theory of corporate communication, Cees van Riel explained that corporate communication is
the management function by which all utterances of an organization are coordinated (Van Riel 1995).
He structures the utterances into three aspects: marketing communication / advertising, external
organizational communication / public relations and internal communication. Of all dissertations 15
were oriented at aspects of internal communication and 15 at aspects of external communication.
Although we expected that advertising was a better researched field than classical public relations and
internal communication, this was not the case. Only 3 dissertations were explicitly related to
advertising; some of the other external communication oriented dissertations were aimed at persuasive
communication, which can somehow be equated with advertising. On public relations meant as press
relations we found no dissertations at all. Seven dissertations were aimed at corporate communication
policy, management and coordination. That seems to be an upcoming field.
4. Conclusion and further research questions
Looking at the results of our research project we have to conclude that public relations research is not
very well developed, nor in The Netherlands, nor in Germany.
For Germany, the good news is that the interest in studying PR-phenomena within doctoral research is
growing. But the bad news is that because of the disciplinary variation there is only little exchange of
knowledge. The majority of the PhD theses which have been analyzed for Germany start from zero,
assuming that there is nearly no other relevant research on which the project can proceed. This
fragmentation of research hinders the development of PR as a theoretically sound and empirically
grounded academic discipline.
The situation in the Netherlands is even worse. We found an enormous variation in disciplines and
hardly any exchange of knowledge. We also found that the amount of dissertations is declining, with
an ever low average of zero dissertations in 2001. This could very well have to do with the bad
financial situation of the departments that are concerned with social sciences and arts, which is
reflected in the amount of research projects. It could also be a consequence of the fact that the branch
of public relations itself is not interested in any research development. The professional associations
are not interested in funding, neither are the (big) consultancies or departments of communication
management.
Practice is flourishing in both countries. It is still practiced at a rather practical and technical level, but
the demand of a strategic function of public relations is coming up. It is striking that the research in
public relations that has been done, will not be of help to develop the strategic function of public
relations very much.
18
The results of our research stress the need to overcome the poor research situation in our countries. In
order to improve the quality of PR research, two things are important in our opinion: In the first place,
a stronger cooperation between senior researchers is needed. Beginnings have been made in the field
of communication studies, but surely these efforts should be increased. Secondly, PR practice should
be more included in research activities. It is very important that practice shows its willingness to
cooperate in research projects by generating research questions and by providing research funds for
knowledge production.
References
Bentele, G. & Junghamel, I. (2004) Germany, in: B.van Ruler & D. Vercic (eds.) Public Relations in Europe. A
nation-by nation introduction to public relations theory and practice. Berlin/New York: Mouton
DeGruyter.
Bentele, G. (1999). Sozialistische Öffentlichkeitsstrukturen und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in der DDR [Structures of a
socialist public sphere and socialist Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit in the GDR], in: P. Szyszka (ed.)
Öffentlichkeit. Diskurs zu einem Schlüsselbegriff der Organisationskommunikation [Public sphere.
Discourse on a key term of organizational communication]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 157-164.
Commissie Toekomst Overheidscommunicatie (2001). In dienst van de democratie. Het rapport van de
Commissie Toekomst Overheidscommunicatie (In service of democracy. The report of the Commission
on the Future of Public Communication]. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H., and Broom, G.M. (2000). Effective Public Relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall (8th edition).
DPRG (2003) Berufsbild Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/Public Relations [Job outline of the Public Relations Profession].
Bonn (www.dprg.de).
Fröhlich, Romy (1997) Auf der Suche nach dem "Urknall". Missverständnisse und Defizite in der PR
Geschichtsschreibung [Looking for the “big bang”. Misunderstandings and shortfalls in Public
Relations History description], in: Szyszka, Peter (ed.) (1997) Auf der Suche nach Identität. PRGeschichte als Theoriebaustein [Looking for Identity. History of Public Relations as Theoretical
building blocks]. Berlin: Vistas, 69-78.
Gent, B. van (1995). Voorlichting in vogelvlucht; bij wijze van inleiding [Enlightenment in a nutshell; as an
introduction], in: B.van Gent * J. Katus (eds.). Voorlichting, theorieën, werkwijzen en terreinen
[Voorlichting, theories, methods and fields]. Houten, the Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
Grunig, J.E. (1992). Communication, Public Relations, and Effective Organizations: An Overview of the Book,
in: J.E. Grunig (ed.). Excellence in Public Relations and Communciation Management, pp. 1-28.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Oeffentlichkeit [Change of the structure of the public sphere].
Darmstadt, Germany: Luchterhand.
Hofstede, G. (1987). Gevolgen van het Nederlanderschap. Gezondheid, recht en economie. [Consequences of
being Dutch. Health, law and economy]. Inaugural lecture, University of Maastricht.
Kickert, W.J.M. (1996). Expansion and Diversification of Public Administration in the Postwar Welfare State:
The Case of the Netherlands, Public Administration Review, (56), no. 1.
Körver, F. & Ruler, B.van (2003). The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication
structures, Journal of Communication Management, (7), nr. 3, pp. 197-206.
Lebbing, T. (2002). Onzekerder dan ooit? Communicatiemens: nog meer manusje van alles [More insecure than
ever? The communication person: more a jack-of-all-trades than ever before], Dialoog, (7), nr. 54,
nov/dec, pp. 4-6.
19
Luijk, H. van & Schilder, A. (1997). Patronen van verantwoordelijkheid: ethiek en corporate governance
[Patterns of responsibility: ethics and corporate governance]. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.
Merten, Klaus (1997) PR als Beruf. Anforderungsprofile und Trends für die PR-Ausbildung [PR as a profession.
Competencies and trends in public relations education], PR magazin 1/97, 43-50.
Merten, Klaus (2000) Das Handwörterbuch der PR. [The Dictionary of Public Relations]. Frankfurt/Main: FAZVerlag.
Oeckl, Albert (1964) Handbuch der Public Relations [Handbook of Public Relations]. München: Sueddeutscher
Verlag.
Oeckl, Albert (1997).Die historische Entwicklung der PR in Deutschland [The historical development of public
relations in Germany]. In: Kalt, Gero (ed.) Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit und Werbung. Instrumente,
Perspektiven, Strategien [Public Relations and Advertising. Instruments, perspectives, strategies].
Frankfurt/Main: IMK, 13-16.
Riel, C.B.M. van (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice Hall.
Riel, C.B.M. van (ed.) (2001). Corporate Communication. Het managen van reputatie [Corporate
Communication. The management of reputation]. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Röttger, Ulrike (2000) Public Relations – Organisation und Profession. Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit als
Organisationsfunktion. Eine Berufsfeldstudie [Public Relations –Organization and Profession. Public
Relations as a function of Organizations. A study of the professional field]. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Ruler, Betteke van & Lange, Rob de (2000). Monitor communicatiemanagement en –advies 1999: de stand van
zaken in de Nederlandse beroepspraktijk [Monitor Communication Management and Consultancy, state
of the art of the Dutch profession], (28) Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, nr. 2, pp.103-124.
st
Ruler, Betteke van & Vercic, Dejan (2002). 21 Century communication management – the people, the
organization. In: Peggy Simcic Bronn & Roberta Wiig (eds.). Corporate Communication. A strategic
approach to building reputation, pp.277-294. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Ruler, B. van, Vercic, D., Buetschi, G., Flodin, B. (2000). European Body of Knowledge on Public Relations /
Communication Management. Report of the Delphi Research Project 2000. Ghent/Ljubljana: European
Association for Public Relations Education and Research.
Ruler, B. van, Vercic, D., Buetschi, G., Flodin, B. (2004). A First Look for Parameters for Public Relations in
Europe, (16) Journal of Public Relations Research, nr. 1 (in press).
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Signitzer, Benno (1992) Aspekte der Produktion von PR-Wissen. PR-Forschung in studentischen
Abschlussarbeiten [Aspects of the Production of Public Relations Knowledge. PR Research in Master
and Doctoral dissertations]. In: Avenarius, Horst; Wolfgang Armbrecht (ed.) Ist PR eine Wissenschaft?
[Is Public Relations a Science?]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 171-206.
Sriramesh, K. & Vercic, D. (Eds.) (2003). The Global Public Relations Handbook. Theory, Research and
Practice. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
20