Advance Search

A metaphorical application of the concept ‘paradigm’ to the public relations domain

Benita Steyn
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
Keywords:
Copyright and Licensing:
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Share:

How to Cite

A metaphorical application of the concept ‘paradigm’ to the public relations domain. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 23(1), 54-78. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v23i1.1782
  • Articles
  • Submited: October 21, 2022
  • Published: October 24, 2022

Abstract

The aim of this conceptual analysis of Kuhn’s paradigm theory was to explore whether
the concept of paradigm could be applied to the public relations domain—specifically
with regard to concepts such as dominant paradigm, paradigm debate, paradigm struggle
and scientific revolution. Based on the findings, the author suggests that the first three models of public relations
are the theory that represents the origins of public relations as a (social) science; that
the dominant paradigm of normal science practice in public relations is persuasion; and
that alternative paradigms debated are about inter alia professionalism, ethical
performance, conflict, chaos and pluralism. Furthermore, an important paradigm debate
is currently taking place between eminent US scholars (relationships) and European
scholars (reflection). However, the real paradigm struggle is seen to be between
persuasion and two-way symmetrical communication (regarded by some as a struggle
between symbolic and behavioural relationships). The author’s conclusion is that public
relations is currently suffering an identity crisis which could, with a number of alternative
paradigms available, lead to a scientific revolution in the discipline.

pdf
pdf

Article Metrics Graph

Article Views | PDF Downloads
Chart Graph | Range Graph

References

  1. BABBIE, E.P. 2001. The practice of social research. Belmont, California : Wadsworth.
  2. BOTAN, C.H. 1989. (In Botan, C.H. & Hazelton, V. eds. Public relations theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum).
  3. BOTAN, C.H. 1993. Introduction to the paradigm struggle in public relations. Public Relations Review, 19(2):107-110.
  4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90001-S DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90001-S
  5. BRUNING, S.D. & LEDINGHAM, J.A. 2000. Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1):85-95.
  6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00032-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00032-1
  7. COLLINS, D. 1996. New paradigms for change? Theories of organization and the organization of theories. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(4):9-23.
  8. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819610124025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819610124025
  9. COOMBS, W.T. 1993. Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist paradigm. Public Relations Review, 19(2):111-119.
  10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90002-T
  11. COTTONE, L.P. 1993. The perturbing worldview of chaos: Implications for public relations. Public Relations Review, 19(2):167-176.
  12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90006-X
  13. DEETZ, S. 2001. Conceptual foundations. (In Jablin, F.M. & Putnam, L.L. eds. The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage).
  14. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986243.n1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986243.n1
  15. DU PLOOY, G.M. 2001. Communication research. Techniques, methods and applications. Cape : Juta & Co.
  16. FERGUSON, M.A. 1984. Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, Florida.
  17. GRUNIG, J.E. 1989. (In Botan, C.H. & Hazelton, V. eds. Public relations theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. GRUNIG, J.E. 1990. The development of public relations research in the United States and its status in communication science. Paper presented to the Professional Conference of the Herbert Quandt Foundation Communication Group, Salzburg, Austria.
  19. GRUNIG, J.E. 1992. Communication, public relations and effective organisations: An overview of the book. (In Grunig, J.E. ed. Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
  20. GRUNIG, J.E. 1993. Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioural relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2):121-139.
  21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90003-U
  22. GRUNIG, J.E. 2000. (In Sharpe, M.L. Developing a behavioural paradigm for the performance of public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(3):345-361).
  23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00052-7
  24. GRUNIG, J.E. & HUNT, T. 1984. Managing public relations. New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  25. GRUNIG, J.E. & WHITE, J. 1992. The effect of world-views on public relations theory and practice. (In
  26. Grunig, J.E. ed. Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
  27. GRUNIG, L.A. & GRUNIG, J.E. 2002. The Bled Manifesto on public relations: One North American perspective. (In Vercic, D., Van Ruler, B., Jensen, I., Moss, D. & White, J. eds. The status of public relations knowledge in Europe and around the world. Proceedings of BledCom 2002 in conjunction with 2002 Euprera Annual Congress, held at the Golf Hotel, Bled, Slovenia from 4-7 July).
  28. HALLAHAN, K. 1993. The paradigm struggle and public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 19(2):197-205.
  29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90009-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90009-2
  30. HARLOW, R.F. 1975. Management, public relations, and the social sciences. Public Relations Review, 1(1):5-13.
  31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(75)80012-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(75)80012-9
  32. HAZELTON, V. & BOTAN, C.H. 1989. (In Botan, C.H. & Hazelton, V. eds. Public relations theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum).
  33. HEATH, R.L. 1992. The wrangle in the marketplace: A rhetorical perspective of public relations. (In Toth, E.L. & Heath, R.L. eds. Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
  34. HOLSTRöM, S. 1996. An intersubjective and a social systemic public relations paradigm. Masters dissertation at the University of Roskilde, Denmark.
  35. HOLSTRöM, S. 2000. The reflective paradigm turning into ceremony? Three phases for public relations - strategic, normative and cognitive - in the institutionalisation of a new business paradigm leading to three scenarios. (In Vercic, D., White, J. & Moss, D. eds. Public relations, public affairs and corporate communications in the New Millennium: The future. Proceedings of the 7th International Public Relations Research Symposium, 7-8 July, Lake Bled, Slovenia).
  36. HOLTZHAUZEN, D.R. 1995. The role of public relations theory and research in a post-modern approach to communication management in the organisation. Doctoral thesis, Rand Afrikaans University, South Africa.
  37. HUTTON, J.G. 1999. The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2):199-214.
  38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80162-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80162-3
  39. INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS. 2002. King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa. Parktown, Johannesburg, March.
  40. JACKSON, P. 1993. (In Grunig, J.E., Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioural relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2):121-139).
  41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90003-U DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90003-U
  42. JANSEN, N. & STEINBERG, S. 1991. Theoretical approaches to communication. Kenwyn, Cape : Juta & Co.
  43. KEARNEY, M. 1984. World view. Novato, California : Chandler & Sharp.
  44. KRUCKEBERG, D. 1998. The future of PR education: Some recommendations. Public Relations Review, 24(2):235-248.
  45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80053-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80053-8
  46. KUHN, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  47. KUHN, T.S. 1969. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  48. KUHN, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second enlarged edition. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  49. KUHN, T.S. 1992. (In Mouton, J. & Marais, H.C. Basiese begrippe: Metodologie van die geesteswetenskappe. Hersiene uitgawe, derde druk. RGN Uitgewers : Pretoria).
  50. KUHN, T.S. 1993. (In Cottone, L.P. The perturbing worldview of chaos: Implications for public relations. Public Relations Review, 19(2):167-176).
  51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90006-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90006-X
  52. KUHN, T.S. 1999. (In Stacks, D.W. & Hocking, J.E. Communication research. New York : Longman).
  53. LEDINGHAM, J.A. & BRUNING, S.D. 1998. Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1):55-66).
  54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9
  55. LITTLEJOHN, S.E. 1992. Theories of human communication. Belmont, California : Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  56. MARKUS, M. & ZAJONC, R.B. 1985. The cognitive perspective in social psychology. (In Lindsey, G. & Andersen, E. eds. Handbook of social psychology. New York : Random House).
  57. MILLER, G.R. 1989. Persuasion and public relations: Two p's in a pod. (In Botan, C.H. & Hazelton, V. Public relations theory. Hillside, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc).
  58. MOUTON, J. 2001. How to succeed in your master's and doctoral studies. A South African guide and resource book. Pretoria : Van Schaik.
  59. MOUTON, J. & MARAIS, H.C. 1992. Basiese begrippe: Metodologie van die geesteswetenskappe. Pretoria: RGN Uitgewers.
  60. OLASKY, M.N. 1987. Corporate public relations: A new historical perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum.
  61. PEARSON, R. 1989. Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. (In Botan, C.H. & Hazleton, V. Public relations theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum).
  62. RENSBURG, R.S. 2002. The Bled Manifesto on public relations: An African perspective and vision. (In Vercic, D., Van Ruler, B., Jensen, I., Moss, D. & White, J. eds. The status of public relations knowledge in Europe and around the world. Proceedings of BledCom 2002 in conjunction with 2002 Euprera Annual Congress, held at the Golf Hotel, Bled, Slovenia from 4-7 July). RSA Inquiry. 1996. Tomorrow's company. London : RSA.
  63. SALLOT, L., CAMERON, G. & LARISCY, R. 1998. Pluralistic ignorance and professional standards. Public Relations Review, 24(1):1-19.
  64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80017-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80017-9
  65. SHARPE, M.L. 2000. Developing a behavioural paradigm for the performance of public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(3):345-361.
  66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00052-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00052-7
  67. SHARPE, M.L. & SIMOES, R.P. 1996. Public relations performance in South and Central America. (In Culbertson, H.M. & Chen, N. eds. International public relations. Mahwah, New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum).
  68. SIGNITZER, B. 1998. (In Groenewald, J.M. Die ontwikkeling van 'n model vir kommunikasiebestuursopleiding. Unpublished research script submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Coursework Masters degree in Communication Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa).
  69. SMITH, M.J. 1993. (In Coombs, W.T. Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist paradigm. Public Relations Review, 19(2):111-119).
  70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90002-T DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(93)90002-T
  71. STEINER, C.J. 2001. How important is professionalism to corporate communication? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(3):150-156.
  72. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005739 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005739
  73. STEYN, B. 2000. CEO expectations in terms of PR roles. Communicare, 19(1):20-43.
  74. STEYN, B. 2002. From 'strategy' to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation. (In Vercic, D., Van Ruler, B., Jensen, I., Moss, D. & White, J. eds. The status of public relations knowledge in Europe and around the world. Proceedings of BledCom 2002 in conjunction with 2002 Euprera Annual Congress, held at the Golf Hotel, Bled, Slovenia from 4-7 July).
  75. STEYN, B. 2003. A conceptualisation and empirical verification of the 'strategist', (redefined) 'manager' and 'technician' roles of public relations. Paper delivered at the 10th International Public Relations Research Symposium, held at Lake Bled from 3-6 July. (Available online at: www.bledcom.com)
  76. STEYN, B. & BüTSCHI, G. 2003. Reflective public relations: A commentary on conceptual and empirical similarities and differences between South African roles research and European reflective research. Paper delivered at the 10th International Public Relations Research Symposium, held at Lake Bled from 3-6 July. (Available online at: www.bledcom.com)
  77. STEYN, B. & PUTH, G. 2000. Corporate communication strategy. Sandown, South Africa : Heinemann Publishers.
  78. STROH, U. & LEONARD, A. 1999. Communication management research in South Africa: An exploratory study of the current state of affairs. Communicare, 18(2):1-31.
  79. SUPPE, F. 1977. The structure of scientific theories. Urbana : Illinois University Press.
  80. VERCIC, D., VAN RULER, B., BüRSCHI, G. & FLODIN, B. 2001. On the definition of public relations: A European view. Public Relations Review, 27:373-387.
  81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00095-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00095-9
  82. VERCIC, D., VAN RULER, B., JENSEN, I., MOSS, D. & WHITE, J. 2002. The status of public relations knowledge in Europe and around the world. Proceedings of BledCom 2002 in conjunction with 2002 Euprera Annual Congress, held at the Golf Hotel, Bled, Slovenia from 4-7 July.
  83. VERWEY, S. 1998. The age of communication: A new organisational paradigm for the new millennium. Communicare, 17(2):1-15.
  84. WIEBE, G.D. 1963. The social dynamics of corporation-public relationships: A model and a parable. (In Riley, J.W. Jr. ed.The corporation and its publics: Essays on the corporate image. New York : John Wiley & Sons).
How to Cite
A metaphorical application of the concept ‘paradigm’ to the public relations domain. (2022). Communicare: Journal for Communication Studies in Africa, 23(1), 54-78. https://doi.org/10.36615/jcsa.v23i1.1782

Send mail to Author

Send Cancel

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Custom technologies based on your needs

  • ORCID
  • Crossref
  • PubMed
    • Clarivate