Utilising Socom’s award winning campaign as a guide, the following article details the ideas and ideals that govern the cocreational (two-way symmetrical/excellence) approach to public relations. Tracing the perspectives historical development, the article connects examples from the case study to the theoretical underpinnings of the cocreational perspective, highlighting how the approach can be implemented in the practical world of the public relations profession. It includes a critique of the cocreational perspectives strengths and shortcomings, before concluding with a hypothesis of its future direction in the public relations field.
With an overarching aim to “produce better long-term relationships with publics than other models of public relations” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, p. 47), “the cocreational perspective sees publics as cocreators of meaning and communication as what makes it possible to agree to shared meanings, interpretations, and goals (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 652). “Rooted in symbolic interactionism” (van Ruler 2005, p. 136) Gower (2006) notes that while public relations “began around the beginning of the 20th century” (Gower 2006, p. 181), the cocreational approach was not formed until far more recently. “Two-way symmetrical communication as a theoretical approach has its roots in the 1976 work by J.E. Grunig in which he identified two patterns of public relations practice – synchronic and diachronic.” (Gower 2006, p. 178) Indeed, Botan and Taylor (2004) recognise that the inclusion of the perspective at the forefront of public relations thinking is due to a transition in concentration from functional perspectives to cocreational approaches over the past 20 years. Acknowledging the contributions of numerous scholars over that period – including Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997), Pearson (1989), and Kent and Taylor (1998) – Botan and Taylor (2004) note that the theoretical base supporting the cocreational approach has been significantly strengthened. So while “the exact starting date of public relations practices is unclear” (Pierson-Smith 2002, p. 165), the “ideal”, “mutual understanding” (Kirby 2009, p. 42) model that is the cocreational perspective can be conceptualised as a relatively recent phenomenon, and one that has become central to the public relations discipline. Over recent years, research has begun to extend “beyond the three English-speaking countries in which it was [initially] conducted” (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier 2006, pp. 54-55), with Lane (2007) adding “the early work of public relations pioneers such as Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays” was crucial in “developing approaches that take into account the feelings and attitudes of receiver publics” (Lane 2007, p. 73).
With this historical context in mind, it is crucial to delve deeper into the two-way symmetrical, cocreational perspective in order to understand how Socom’s campaign characterises the application of the meaning making approach. van Ruler (2005) recognises that from a cocreational perspective, a meaning “is not an attribute of a message or a recipient but of the interaction itself” (van Ruler 2005, p. 136). Pieczka (2008) supports this idea by outlining that there are a number of presuppositions inherent with the symmetrical model which affects the perspectives power and potential to create meaning. These include – but are not limited to – a “free exchange of information”, “equal opportunities and respect”, “innovation”, “conflict resolution (through negotiation, communication, and compromise)” and the liberation of interest groups (Pieczka 2008, pp. 352-353). These presuppositions aim to unite in order to solve “the problem of unequal power in social relationships” (Pieczka 2008, p. 353), contributing “to informed debate about issues in society” (Grunig 1992, cited in Pieczka 2008, p. 354).
To this end, it becomes recognisable that Socom’s campaign embodies how the inherent presuppositions of the cocreational perspective can be applied to the real world of public relations. As part of their communication strategy, Socom opened the information exchange by providing “a friendly and non-threatening environment for people to openly present their views” (Socom 2008). In order to provide equality and awareness of differing opinions, Socom addressed cultural sensitivities by providing Indigenous people with multiple channel options to ensure that “people had a choice in how they wished to participate” (Socom 2008). Furthermore, interpreters were used to ensure the voice of the Indigenous people was accurately captured (Socom 2008). To tackle the innovation aspect, Socom formed a ‘citizens panel’, “creating broad ownership of the problems and solutions” (Socom 2008). As there was a “widening division in the community”, Socom tackled the potential for conflict head on, enabling the sharing of views consistently via “reports from each stakeholder forum”. This alleviated cynicism that the forums were “yet another talkfest”, building trust “amongst community in a way that was respectful, open and inclusive” (Socom 2008). Liberating each stakeholder group prior to the final summit, “a panel of 15 community leaders was formed. Each speaker was allocated the same amount of time to speak on a nominated topic [and] members of the public also had the opportunity to comment” (Socom 2008).
Having examined how Socom brought to life many of the presuppositions Pieczka (2008) recognises as integral to the cocreational perspective, it is from here that an acknowledgment of the strengths of the two-way symmetrical model of communication can transpire. Bowen (2005) highlights that for any organisation, a cocreational approach is paramount to “building effective relationships with publics”, and indeed “is crucial to the long-term survival and profitability of an organisation” (Bowen 2005, p. 838). Socom’s results state that the summit concluded with a strong sense of shared ownership of the problems and the solutions by the community and the Government” (Socom 2008), and this reinforces Bowen’s (2005) contestation that “through mutual understanding and collaboration, trust and credibility can be built between an organisation and publics” (Bowen 2005, p. 838). Furthermore, having utilised a cocreational approach, Socom can now expect that “in times of decision making and crisis [for their client], publics are less likely to jump to hasty conclusions”. They’re also less likely to be the target of activist groups since they’ve shown a “willingness to listen, understand, and incorporate the ideas” (Bowen 2005, p. 838) of their publics. The “boundary-spanning” role Socom fulfilled on behalf of their client means the client now holds the knowledge of their publics, ensuring “the public’s ideas can be incorporated into organisational policy” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). The fact that “an accurate report detailing all 28 community suggestions was presented to the Government” (Socom 2008) by Socom reiterates the positive outcomes that can transpire from utilising a symmetrical public relations plan. Moreover, “scholars such as Jürgen Habermas (1984) and Ron Pearson (1989) asserted that organisations have a moral obligation to engage in dialogue with publics” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). The cocreational perspective fulfils this duty, greasing “the wheels of society, developing mutual understand through dialogue and informed debate” (Bowen 2005, p. 839). Grunig, Grunig and Dozier (2006, p. 35) add to the strengths outlined by Bowen (2005) by noting employing a cocreational perspective can ultimately save an organisation money, however the return on a relationship can be delayed.
Yet despite the cocreational approach exhibiting a vast array of strengths which organisations ought to be both aware and excited by the potential of, it is not without its criticisms. Indeed, Gower (2006) writes that “international scholars are critical of not just two-way symmetrical [communication], but of all the existing public relations theories because of their Western, ethnocentric worldview” (Gower 2006, p. 179). Considered in many quarters to be too ‘idealistic’, Lane (2007) recognises the “model’s critics seem to have particular problems seeing its relevance to commercial situations, suggesting its usefulness might, at best, be limited to the area of not-for-profit organisations only. At worst, it is perceived as an impractical, unrealistic, and ultimately unattainable ‘Holy Grail’ for practitioners” (Lane 2007, p. 73). Lane (2007) also cites the individualised corporate culture of organisations as playing a pivotal role in the potential for a cocreational approach to succeed, while Durham (2005, in Gower 2006, p. 179) notes two-way symmetry is in fact a functional approach to public relation in that it focuses on how public relations functions in organisations. Indeed, elements of functionalism can still be seen to be evident in heavily slanted cocreational campaigns, such as Socom’s. For Socom, “the media was a powerful tool to generate public interest in the consultation, encouraging members of the public to participate. It also communicated important messages by the Government” (Socom 2008). Media relations remain a key facet of the functionalist approach.
Taking into account both the inherent strengths and shortcomings of the cocreational perspective – and the aspirations of the model itself – ensures it is difficult to predict a future for the approach. Probably the main dilemma stems from the fact “two-way symmetrical communication is a proscription for how we ought to practice public relations, but it does not provide a rationale for why an organisation engages” (Gower 2006, p. 179) in the function. While Botan and Taylor (2004) have penned that “the future state of the field of public relations lies with whichever cocreationist model emerges as the most useful, the most theoretically valuable” (Botan & Taylor 2004, p. 659), others such as James (2009) have called for functionalist approaches to be reconsidered due to the “idealistic nature of ‘symmetrical’ communication” (James 2009, p. 111). With opposing viewpoints being contested, it seems the cocreational perspective will remain in a ‘trial and error’ phase until the debates go significantly forward (Gower 2006, p. 367). Following – and, possibly, even during this – public relations will take quantum leaps forward in further establishing itself as a key component of any organisation serious about earning relationships, and certainly results.
References:
Botan, C & Taylor, M 2004, ‘Public Relations: State of the Field’, Journal of Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 645-661.
Bowen, S 2005, ‘Symmetry’, in R Heath (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public Relations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, California, p.. 837-839.
Gower, K 2006, ‘Public Relations Research at the Crossroads’, Journal of Public Relations Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 177-190
Grunig, J, Grunig, L, & Dozier, D 2006, ‘The Excellence Theory’, in C Botan & V Hazleton (eds), Public Relations Theory II, Lawrence Erlbaum, Marwah, New Jersey, pp. 21-62.
James, M 2009, ‘Getting to the heart of public relations: the concept of strategic intent’, Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, vol. 10, pp. 109-122.
Kirby, B 2009, ‘Overview of Contemporary Public Relations Theory’, in B Sheehan & R Xavier (eds), Public Relations Campaigns, Oxford, South Melbourne, pp. 31-52.
Lane, A 2007, ‘Empowering publics: the potential and challenge for public relations practitioners in creative approaches to two-way symmetric public relations’, Australian Journal of Communication, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 71-86.
Pieczka, M 2008, ‘Paradigms, Systems Theory and Public Relations, in J L’Etang & M Pieczka (eds), Public Relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice, Lawrence Erlbaum, Marwah, New Jersey, pp. 331-358.
Pierson-Smith, A 2002, ‘An overview of public relations: what it is, when it is needed, why it is used and how to analyse it, Perspectives: working papers in English and communication, vol. 14, no. 2.
Socom Public Relations (Socom) 2008, ‘There’s no grey. It has to be black and white’, PRIA Golden Targets Award Database – UTS Library, viewed 21 October 2010,
van Ruler, B 2005, ‘Co-creational of Meaning Theory’, in R Heath (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public Relations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 135-137.
No comments:
Post a Comment