Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Public Relations’ response to globalization has prompted criticism from both scholars
and practitioners alike. By asserting its Western-centric principles of scholarship and its
corporate simplification of an organization’s publics, the field of PR has not adapted a global
perspective in view of the complex globalized process. This essay discusses these two main
concerns in public relations in response to globalization, while also shining a light on some
It is first worth highlighting the PR field’s state in relation to the globalized process.
scapes, whereby ideological, financial, technological, media-related, and human resources are
exchanged in the increasingly interconnected global state, crossing defined national borders
and creating/impacting complex flows (or scapes) of influence and power (Dutta & Pal, 2008,
pp.165-168). Globalization is not a recent phenomenon; it has existed ever since people
crossed borders to trade, spread awareness about religion and colonize, among other things.
However, it is evident that due to several recent developments such as the establishment of
the UN after WWII, the elimination of trade barriers and the advancement of the Internet, the
globalized process has intensified into a compression of space and time of immediate
worldwide. The public relations field effects and is affected by such relationships; yet, its
main role in this affair has been to homogenize its Western-centric origins over both its
practice and education/scholarship on a global scale. On the one hand, its theoretical
frameworks come from a set of generic principles that are based on interviews and surveys
with British, American and Canadian practitioners and stem from certain corporate ideals. On
the other, its operations rely on such notions as understanding environmental variables, for
1
instance, the notion of ‘publics’, which are treated as definite exemplars that a given
organization can measure and evaluate to further its goals and objectives (Bardhan et al,
2011; Sriramesh, 2009). These two main concerns create implications for the public relations
For one thing, public relations scholarship and its education around the world is
mainly based on US/UK studies and examples of practice, where in turn any advances to a
Sriramesh (2009) contends that while public relations as a field of study has grew
substantially since the 70s, most of its theorizing is ethnocentric and lacks empirical data
from outside North American and British borders. This fact leads to the more serious concern
of public relations education around the world, where most textbooks come from the US and
UK, and contain little to no examples relevant to other countries. Also, translations of these
textbooks to other languages may impede the transfer of knowledge. Whereas the replication
situations, there is still a need to find and define unique global perspectives due to the
globalized process of PR as a field of study and as a practice among practitioners from the
west and beyond (Sriramesh, 2009, pp. 7-9). To illustrate such a lack of global perspective, a
2005 study in relevance to PR wanted to determine how many U.S. journalism and mass
in the span of their academic years. It was found that among the 76 accredited programs, only
5 had a specific course dedicated to non-western history. The main aim of the study was to
point out how the lack of such a course does not aid students in broadening their educational
outcomes in fields that are very much concerned with cultural and global connections
(Creedon & Al-Khaja, 2005). Similarly, a more recent study on public relations practitioners
2
in Singapore and Perth found that while practitioners felt that inter-cultural and global
understanding is integral, there is a strong need to re-examine the Western ideologies that
underlie their field in the more globalized world today (Fitch, 2012).
corporate business model that dominates most discourses has received criticism when
compared to alternative models, such as PR’s societal functions (Dutta & Pal, 2008) -
illustrated in such examples as the Kaupapa Māori (Tilley & Love, 2010). Most PR discourse
centers on the field’s role in the management function of an organization or furthering the
idea that with certain strategies and tactics, practitioners could maximize the organization’s
bottom line - consolidated in such studies as the Excellence Project by Grunig (1992). This
approach has two evident setbacks. One, practitioners are presumably basing their work on a
set of normative and absolute ‘rules’ that are considered effective and can only be evaluated
in terms of generated capital. Two, public relations as a field is limited to the first setback and
meeting bottom line demands. The second setback, however, has been examined and other
empowerment (Dutta & Pal, 2008, pp. 162-163). For example, the Kaupapa Māori are a set
of protocols developed by Māori scholars to aid in research on their culture and society.
When considered in the context of a communication model, these protocols take the two-way
symmetrical approach – which practitioners seem to view as belonging more to theory than
practice - a step further by reforming the understanding of power and relationships, chiefly
that of an organization and the public. Here, publics are seen as an entity of their own, and
not a reactive responder to what an organization puts forth. They are their own
representatives (of their culture, values, opinions, voices), rather than be part of a discussion
3
dominated by an organization’s research tactics – for instance defining issues and who is
Indeed, the concept of the publics, particularly, has undergone scrutiny, in light of the
complex globalized process. In the collective role of ‘boundary spanning’, practitioners foster
and maintain a bridge between an organization and its environment by relationships – for
example, with the organization’s publics - through key identifiers, such as culture. Most
practice and scholarship in public relations situate that identifying the publics’ culture is key
culture, largely from the work of Holfstede (1997) and his dimensions (Rittenhofer &
Valentini, 2015). However, the notion of a nationally bound, geographically located culture
with predictable, enduring customs and behaviors has deteriorated in today’s globalized
worldwide (Dutta & Pal, 2008; Bardhan et all, 2011, pp. 8-11), and the increased
interconnectivity of people through the impact of new media on cultural identity. Discussed
briefly, this impact involves a 24/7 compression of space and time, new ways of representing
the world, and an overall challenge to traditional aspects of culture, such as face-to-face
2012). Therefore, practitioners that place culture in spatial and temporal bounds not only
work with outdated conceptualizations, but re-enforce Western hegemony in a ‘reductive act
Appadurai’s notion of the scapes and the intertwined nature of flows of resources (mentioned
4
above), the term ‘publics’ with predefined indictors (i.e. culture) is discarded. Instead, people
are understood based on their practices or conducts at different times and spaces interacting
with the scapes in various modes of fluidity, or to put it more simply, understanding human
“routes” rather than their “roots”, which are often arbitrary categories. DDB Signbank is
presented as an example to this approach. For instance, they state that part of their
methodology is the understanding of certain patterns in various local sites around the world
to outline themes of behavior beyond defined borders and cultures. They assert that people
are becoming more intelligent and more selective in the type and/or truthfulness of the
sharing of information, whether virtually or not. In this way, practitioners and scholars
To conclude, the field of public relations should aim at acquiring more empirical data
from non-western countries and implanting global examples of practices and scholarship into
its education. It should also extend its corporate attitudes to become essential to community
environmental variables, such as the concept of ‘publics’, should be scrutinized. Under these
circumstances, public relations as a field not only adapts to the globalized process, but also
5
References
Bardhan, N., Weaver, C. K., 1964, & Ebooks Corporation. (2011). Introduction: Public
relations in global cultural contexts. In Public relations in global cultural contexts:
Multi-paradigmatic perspectives (pp. 1-28). New York, NY: Routledge.
Creedon, P., & Al-Khaja, M. (2005). Public relations and globalization: Building a case for
cultural competency in public relations education. Public Relations Review, 31(3),
344-354. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.021
Dutta, M.J. & Pal, M., (2008). Public relations in a global context:
The relevance of critical modernism as a theoretical lens. Journal of public relations
eesearch, 20(2), 159-179. DOI: 10.1080/10627260801894280
Rittenhofer, I., & Valentini, C. (2015). A “practice turn” for global public relations: An
alternative approach. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 2-19.
doi:10.1108/JCOM-11-2013-008.
Sriramesh, K. (2009). Globalisation and public relations: The past, present, and the future.
PRism 6(2): http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism_on-line_journ.html
Tilley, E., & Love, T. (2010). Learning from Kaupapa Māori: Issues and techniques for
engagement. ANZCA, Canberra. Retrieved from
http://www.canberra.edu.au/anzca2010/attachments/pdf/Learning-from-Kaupapa-
Maori.pdf
6