In recently reading, Heath, R. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations' research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18 (2), 93-114; I gleamed the following:
In the article, Heath uses dependency theory, systems theory, rhetorical traditions and social exchange theory, as a basis of fully functioning society theory (FST) of public relations that moves the study of teaching and practice forward. A paradigm of public relations that features adding value and conducting research, as well as creating strategic programs so as to conceptualize public relations as providing a service to society. This is in direct opposition to the poor reputation Heath claims public relations has earned; an anti-FST that communicates asymmetrically, even when giving other pretenses. The article goes on to embrace the principles of FST and explain its fundamental premises, which include corporate responsibility (CR) and power resource management.
A premise of FST is that society consists of multiple collectives, (Heath, 2006, p. 96) that require a shared identification to coordinate activities. Therefore, society is defined through "identification, relationships, communication, decision-making infrastructures, and control coupled with power and buffered with trust, and myriad decisions made under varying degrees of uncertainty," (Heath, 2006, p. 97).
Heath also takes a rhetorical approach to issues management in Public Relations Theory II, where he defines it as:
• Engaging in strategic planning
• Embracing and implementing the highest standards of CR
• Identifying, analyzing, and monitoring issues
• Voicing facts and opinions that support collaborative decision-making.
I completely agree with Heath's assessment of the practice of issues management "entails coupling issues analysis, a continually refined sense of corporate responsibility, and communicative strategies – directed internally and externally – to achieve each organization's strategic business plan," (Heath, p. 92). The success of this planning, according to Heath, is determined by the practitioners' ability to reduce "the legitimacy gap." I would like to know how Heath and other researchers measure this legitimacy gap. Is there a standard metric or process?
****
Much thanks to Lan Ni, PhD at University of Houston, who offered enlightenment in her Public Relations Theory seminar course.
1 comment:
Karen, is Heath's article a multi-syllabic version of "The cobbler's children never have shoes?" I do agree that PR could use better press, though. Thanks for sharing this.
Post a Comment