Search results

Meta reviews are central for mapping the state of the field, consolidating the heterogeneous public relations body of knowledge, and pointing to new potential research directions. Habermas is one of the most influential contemporary social theorists and his work has repeatedly been used in public relations scholarship. While some have maintained that his work has been most influential in the development of public relations theory, this stream of research has never been reviewed empirically.

In this paper, the authors present a bibliometric literature review of 263 public relations research articles published between 1980 and 2016 that cite and use Habermas’ work. A network analysis of these publications based on the technique of bibliographic coupling was used to identify common forms of application, research themes, as well as patterns of impact.

Results show that the use of Habermas has grown significantly, specifically in the recent decade. At the same time, researchers have a narrow focus specifically on earlier developments in the theory. Finally, we discover three main topical research clusters that have been influenced by the theory: public relations and the public sphere, dialogic stakeholder relationships, as well as public relations and communication ethics.

The findings map out an important stream of scholarship in the field by showing where public relations scholars have been and where the research community has not ventured yet. Based on the results of our analysis, the authors propose directions for research to advance future theory development in public relations using Habermas’ work.

There is a great potential in pulling together science communication and strategic communication, especially given how the former has gained importance in organizational contexts. Strategic communication, including rhetorical theory, can offer insights that are invaluable to understand the contests over what “truth” is and how different political perspectives influence such debates. The case of vaccine hesitancy is used as an illustration of the challenges posed to organizations and organizational communication around science-related issues today. There is a need to understand the audience in order to build credibility, or ethos, while at the same time recognizing the contingent and situational character of this endeavor.

Rhetoric and strategic communication can offer science communication the essential knowledge to strengthen credibility. While much attention has been geared toward understanding the audience, strategic communication and rhetoric in particular go further and also spell out the strategic implications for communication that is intended to strengthen credibility. Additionally, rhetoric alerts us to how credibility, or ethos, is not a fixed quality in a sender or a text but is situational and constantly negotiated. While the case of vaccine hesitancy and health authorities is used as an illustration, all organizations share the need to somehow have others believe in what they are saying. The toolboxes of strategic communication and rhetoric hold a number of insights and approaches that could benefit science communication.

The study pulls together insights from rhetoric and strategic communication that can inform science communication.

The paper aims to analyze the contribution of young academics to the field of public relations (PR) and shows which authors exert most influence on them. The study thereby contributes to the assessment of the state of the art of theory building in the field. The authors analyzed the study data against the background of two approaches on progress in the field: Nothhaft et al.’s (2018) idea of strategic communication as an elusive concept and Winkler et al.’s (2021) narrative approach.

The study comprises two parts. First, the authors conducted a survey among participants of the EUPRERA PhD-workshops between 2007 and 2019, asking respondents about their perception of the state of the field. Second, the authors performed a bibliometric (co-)citation analysis of the young scholars’ most important works.

Results indicate that though the field has progressed in terms of quantity and diversified with regard to established paradigms, it has not matured in a sense that it has settled on a generally accepted theoretical underpinning. However, the data show how the dominant paradigms in the field map onto the co-citation networks that emerged out of the works of young scholars. The authors’ findings imply that this new generation might signal their allegiance to a paradigm by citing the works of its emblematic authors.

Unlike most bibliometric studies, this one uses an author-centered approach, thus studying works that matter most to young academics themselves. Not only do the authors thereby contribute to the analysis of the state of theory building in PR research, but also expand the scope in looking at research as a social system, in which young researchers need to position themselves.

This article seeks to analyse the skills and knowledge that have a positive impact on the reproduction of the core frames of social actors in the mass media.

The theoretical discussion is accompanied by a cross‐cultural case study of the debate surrounding the leaked e‐mail correspondence between climate researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009. First, the authors analysed the framing work of the three main actors with their respective views, namely UEA and the blogs “Real climate”, “Climate audit” and “The air vent”. Second, they conducted an analysis of the media coverage of the issue in the UK, the USA, Germany and Norway, focusing on the importance of cultural factors, psychological biases and conformity to journalistic needs.

The literature review came to the conclusion that public relations practitioners stand good chances to succeed with their framing when they are able to conceive a message in a way that: is resonant with the underlying culture; appeals to psychological biases; and conforms to journalistic needs. The authors use “framing expertise” as an umbrella term for the knowledge and the skills related to these aspects when designing and promoting frames. In the case study, these theoretical assumptions were tested. While three different frames dominated the discourse, no clear winner of the framing contest was observed. Though qualitative differences in their framing expertise were noted, the frames of all of the strategic actors were accepted in the media, perhaps due to the norms of journalistic balance.

As this study is based on a single case, more research is needed to back up the findings and elaborate on the knowledge and skills needed when framing an issue.

The article pulls together, discusses and elaborates on a body of literature that thus far has been scattered, and makes contributions towards a better understanding of what it is that public relations practitioners actually do.

The purpose of this paper is to improve upon lobby theory by learning from a failed lobby campaign in which the lobbyist managed to annoy and anger key constituencies.

The paper is a qualitative case study, conducted on attempts made by the Norwegian oil industry in 2002‐2004 to achieve a tax amendment. Qualitative interviews were carried out with oil industry representatives, two former ministers, political advisers, and members of parliament, and with journalists who had followed the campaign.

The main argument being put forward in this paper is that lobbyists should use insights from stakeholder theory.

The paper is a single‐case study and it is difficult to generalise its findings. This invites more research.

The paper combines lobby theory with an approach suggested by stakeholder theory which might temper single‐minded advocacy that is too preoccupied with getting immediate political results, and help organizations to remember that it is important to develop good long‐term relations with stakeholders.

The paper has potential to improve lobby theory and efforts.

The purpose of this paper is to seek to improve how companies map their environment in order to identify the social norms and values that exist in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR).

A theoretical discussion is accompanied by a short case study that includes analysis of ten sustainability reports published by the oil company Shell.

The mapping tools recommended in the literature of management and public relations have limitations. There are also weaknesses in the way that Shell, a supposed leader in the CSR movement, maps its environment. The public sphere concept is suggested as a fruitful supplement.

More in‐depth case studies accompanied with qualitative interviews are needed to back up the conclusions put forward.

The norms, values and expectations regarding CSR are not fixed entities, and it is thus vital for organisations to engage in ongoing listening and dialogue to keep abreast of these changing factors. Companies have to attempt to be well informed and well read participants in civic society. Conceptualizing their environments as made up of stakeholders and a public sphere, can help in this endeavour.

The paper points to the limitation of current environmental mapping tools, and discusses how such mapping exercises can be improved.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of manipulation as a legitimation strategy. Focusing on the role of verbal communication, are integrated insights from rhetorical theory with strategic and institutional approaches to legitimacy in a study of three documents published by the “most admired” companies in the USA in 2007; General Electric (GE), Toyota, and Starbucks.

The research is based on a qualitative analysis of three documents that describe the environmental focus and policies of GE, Toyota, and Starbucks. The approach involves analyzing and synthesizing a large number of environmental claims made by these companies.

The analysis of the texts reveals a constructed organizational ethos that is combined with strong environmental focus to appear trustworthy in environmental matters in the eyes of consumers and stakeholders. Relying on four categories of environmental statements, the companies practice a form of “green” legitimation.

The research is limited by the small number of publications used as data sources, which makes generalizations problematic. It does not investigate the effects of the verbal claims.

The paper adds to the literature on organizational legitimation, providing valuable insights into manipulative legitimation. It demonstrates the need to combine insights from strategic and institutional approaches to legitimacy.

Research on science communication in organizational contexts is scarce – even though many cases can be found where organizations from science and beyond communicate about science-related issues, or where organizational contexts have an impact on the communication of individual scientists and scientific organizations. Therefore, it is time for an “organizational turn” in science communication research, and for more scholarly emphasis on the specific cases that science-related communication in, from and about organizations presents. Such an approximation would benefit both science communication research and analyses of strategic and organizational communication.

This special issue of the “Journal of Communication Management” on “Communicating Science in Organizational Contexts” is a step in this direction: It compiles commentaries from leading scholars in the respective fields as well as research articles coming from various disciplines and conceptual as well as methodological paradigms. In the editorial, we assess overlaps between scholarship on science communication and strategic communication, respectively, based on a meta-analysis of journals in the field(s), develop a guiding heuristic for analyzing science communication in organizational settings, and introduce the contributions to the special issue.

The meta-analysis shows that overlaps between science communication research and scholarship on strategic communication are scarce. While organizations and their communication appear occasionally, and increasingly often, in science communication research, scholars of strategic communication only rarely analyze science communication.

The meta-analysis is limited to the publications of five scholarly journals over ten years. It still demonstrates the lack of research in the intersection of scholarship on science communication and strategic communication.

Scientific organizations are rapidly extending and professionalizing their strategic communication, and an increasing number of organizations beyond science communicate on science or science-related issues. Understanding science communication in organizational settings, therefore, is crucial for practitioners in both areas.

Analyzing science communication in organizational settings is of increasing importance – yet few studies exist that have done it, and the respective research fields devote not much attention to one another. The special issue is a first foray into this new, intersectional field.