PR Toward Theory Dialogue PR
PR Toward Theory Dialogue PR
PR Toward Theory Dialogue PR
Abstract
This essay clarifies the concept of dialogue in public relations. As public relations theory and research move toward a two-way relational communication model, many scholars and practitioners are
increasingly using the terms dialogic and dialogue to describe ethical and practical approaches to
public relations. The concept of dialogue is deeply rooted in philosophy and relational communication
theory. Its inclusion in the public relations vocabulary is an important step toward understanding how
organizations can build relationships that serve both organizational and public interests. This essay traces
the roots of dialogue, identifies several over-arching tenets, and provides three ways that organizations
can incorporate dialogue into their communication with publics. 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights
reserved.
0363-8111/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 6 3 - 8 1 1 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - X
22
theory development in public relations, this essay seeks to make the concept of dialogue more
accessible for scholars and practitioners interested in relationship building. This definitional
task is important because as Gordon observed, definitions play crucial roles both in societal
processes and in the minds of those who study and practice public relations.2 To explicate
the concept of dialogue, this article first traces the origins of dialogue through philosophy,
psychology, relational communication, and public relations. The second section of the article
details some of the specific features and basic tenets that underlie dialogue. The final section
of the article explores pragmatic ways that dialogic communication can be incorporated into
everyday public relations practices.
23
Sadly, Pearsons research agenda synthesizing public relations ethics and dialogue was cut
short by his untimely death in 1989. Almost a decade after Pearsons first articles on dialogue
appeared, Botan suggested that dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, orientation, or
bearing in communication rather than as a specific method, technique, or format.19 Kent and
Taylor addressed dialogic relationship building on the Internet and argued that dialogue is
product rather than process.20 They viewed the symmetrical model as a procedural way to
listen or solicit feedback. Symmetrical communication is more similar to systems theory, than
dialogue.21
24
Some public relations scholars have described dialogue as more moral than monological,
manipulative, models of communication.22 As Botan explains, Traditional approaches to
public relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them instruments for meeting
organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of
communication equal with the organization.23 What has been missing from the discussion
of dialogue in the public relations literature until now has been a coherent discussion of the
principles of dialogue themselves and how dialogic approaches might actually be used by public
relations practitioners and scholars. This essay fills in this gap by discussing dialogic theory
and explaining how some features of dialogue might be applied to organizational contexts.
However, at this stage of theory development our taxonomy can only be tentative because very
little research actually documents the use of dialogic communication principles.
25
risk, or the willingness to interact with individuals and publics on their own terms; and finally,
commitment, or the extent to which an organization gives itself over to dialogue, interpretation,
and understanding in its interactions with publics. These tenets encompass the implicit and
explicit assumptions that underlie the concept of dialogue. In the next section, each dialogic
tenet and its value for public relations is expanded upon. Before continuing however, it is
important to note that this list is not exhaustive and some overlap naturally occurs between
concepts. Since dialogue is a communicative orientation and not a set of rules, some overlap
is expected.
2.1. Mutuality
Mutuality refers to an acknowledgment that organizations and publics are inextricably
tied together. Mutuality is characterized by an inclusion or collaborative orientation and
a spirit of mutual equality. Today, with globalization, what happens in one nation may affect
organizationpublic relations in other nations. Thus, organizations must extend the communication perspectives that they take when they plan, conduct and evaluate the effectiveness of
their communication efforts. A much broader framework, accounting for culture and ideology,
is needed. A collaborative orientation is one of the central features of mutuality.
2.1.1. Collaboration
Unlike bargaining/negotiation, dialogue is not about winning, losing, or compromising. All
individuals engaged in a dialogue should have positions of their own, and should advocate for
those positions vigorously. Dialogue is premised on intersubjectivity. It seeks to understand the
positions of others and how people reached those positions.27 Reality must be accepted by all
parties involved as a socially constructed and perspectival process. No single individual or group
involved in a dialogic exchange can be said to possess absolute truth. As Gadamer explained,
conversation is a process of two people understanding each other. Thus, is characteristic of
every true conversation that each opens himself to the other person, truly accepts his point
of view as worthy of consideration.28 Collaboration is becoming an important area in public
relations research. It provides a framework that will help professionalize public relations, help
organizations (including activist groups) serve their self-interest, and help move our democratic
societies away from confrontation and divisiveness to more collaborative cultures.29
2.1.2. Spirit of mutual equality
Just as participants in dialogic exchanges must strive for humility, so too must dialogic
participants work to maintain relationships of equality.30 Participants in dialogue should be
viewed as persons and not as objects. This is not a new idea in philosophy; Emmanuel Kant
spoke to this exact issue with the categorical imperative. In dialogue, the exercise of power
or superiority should be avoided. Participants should feel comfortable discussing any topic
free of ridicule or contempt. Although the partners in exchanges are often of differing status,
discussants should consciously avoid the dynamics and trappings of power to manipulate
or otherwise control the flow or direction of conversation.31 Ethical dialogue necessitates
acknowledgment of the other. Indeed, the mutual inter-relatedness of dialogic participants must
be part of all exchanges. That is, even when one speaks for ones self, or for ones organization,
26
the needs, desires, and views of other dialogic partners should not only be acknowledged and
recognized, but should also be apparent.32
From a public relations standpoint, mutuality is already an accepted practice. The idea
of the information subsidy is based on the recognition of mutuality between the media and
public relations practitioners.33 It is also the reasoning behind collaborative marketing, sharing customer/client lists, trade organizations, coalitions, and dialogic engagement with those
who oppose an organizations actions. Related to mutuality is the second tenet of dialogue:
propinquity.
2.2. Propinquity
At the most basic level, propinquity advocates for a type of rhetorical exchange. It is an
orientation to a relationship. For organizations, dialogic propinquity means that publics are
consulted in matters that influence them, and for publics, it means that they are willing and
able to articulate their demands to organizations. Propinquity is created by three features of
dialogic relationships: immediacy of presence, temporal flow, and engagement. These
features of dialogue clarify the process of dialogic exchanges.
2.2.1. Immediacy of presence
The feature of immediacy of presence suggests that parties involved are communicating in
the present about issues, rather than after decisions have been made. Immediacy of presence
also suggests that parties are communicating in a shared space (or place).34 Another feature of
propinquity is temporal flow.
2.2.2. Temporal flow
Dialogic communication is relational. It involves an understanding of the past and the
present, and has an eye toward future relationships. Dialogue is not rooted only in the present;
rather, its focus is on a continued and shared future for all participants. Dialogue is deliberative
and seeks to construct a future for participants that is both equitable and acceptable to all
involved.35 The Public Relations Society of Americas Code of Ethics embodies this temporal
flow in the two articles addressing practitioners relationships with past, present, and future
clients and publics.
2.2.3. Engagement
Engagement is the third feature of dialogic propinquity. Dialogic participants must be willing
to give their whole selves to encounters. Dialogue is not something that can take place in ones
spare time or in the periphery. Dialogic participants must be accessible. All parties should
respect their discussant(s) and risk attachment and fondness rather than maintaining positions
of neutrality or observer status.36 When an organization is fully engaged in its community
(local or global) it will have broader contexts and wider perspectives to draw upon in its
decision-making. Engagement benefits all parties involved because decisions serve multiple
publics.
The implications for public relations are clear. At the very least, successful organizations
consider the needs of publics. Day et al. noted that dialogic communication would be helpful
27
to build organizationcommunity relations, engage in philanthropy, and help organizations understand international and intercultural situations.37 However, Day et al., warn that contrived
dialogic encounters will yield no benefit for organizations and, in the end, deceptive communication will hurt the organizationpublic relationship. Dialogic propinquity means that publics
are consulted and considered on matters that affect them. Propinquity illustrates that there
are some very positive outcomes for organizations that embrace dialogic relationships with
publics. First, organizations will be able to know in advance of public disagreement on issues.
And second, organizations can use the open, two-way relationships with publics to improve
organizational effectiveness. A third dialogic principle is the concept of empathy.
2.3. Empathy
Empathy, also called sympathy in the literature, refers to the atmosphere of support and
trust that must exist if dialogue is to succeed.38 This feature of dialogue is characterized by
supportiveness, a communal orientation, and confirmation or acknowledgment of others.
Empathetic communication is important because practitioners can improve their communication by walking in the shoes of their publics.
2.3.1. Supportiveness
Dialogue involves creating a climate in which others are not only encouraged to participate
but their participation is facilitated. That is, meetings are open to all interested participants,
conversations are held in easily accessible locations, materials are made available to all, and
efforts are made to facilitate mutual understanding. Participants demonstrate the capacity to
listen without anticipating, interfering, competing, refuting, or warping meanings into preconceived interpretations.39 Dialogue is not synonymous with debatewhich is about the clash
of ideasbut rather, dialogue is more akin to a conversation between lovers where each has
his or her own desires but seeks the others good.40 A second feature of dialogic empathy is
the communal orientation whereby organizations and public relations practitioners try to treat
individuals and publics as colleagues rather than outsiders.
2.3.2. Communal orientation
Dialogue presupposes a communal orientation between interactants, whether they are individuals, organizations or publics. It is clear with each passing day that the citizens of the
world are becoming inextricably linked through new communication technologies. With this
globalization comes the recognition that organizations must engage in local as well as international relationships. A communal orientation is not new in public relations theory building. It
is based on Kruckeberg and Starks41 and Stark and Kruckebergs42 continuing development
of public relations as a community building function. Stark and Kruckeberg argue that public
relations communication can create, rebuild, and change local and global communities.43
2.3.3. Confirmation
Laing argues that acknowledgment or confirmation of the value of others is one of the
essential features of humanity.44 The practice of confirmation refers to acknowledging the
voice of the other in spite of ones ability to ignore it. Confirmation is a necessary precondition
28
of dialogue if discussants are to build trust with others.45 As Laing explains, confirmation
varies in degree from a smile or a handshake to an evocative action.46 Organizations need to
acknowledge that individuals and groups who do not agree with the organization need to be
heard. Indeed, Taylor found that publics who feel ignored by an organization are less willing
to engage in any further relationship with such an organization.47 As is well known in public
relations, once public trust has been lost it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to regain it.
Empathetic organizationpublic relationships have characterized the communication practices of many successful organizations for years. The reasoning behind organization-sponsored
childcare, partner benefits, and corporate philanthropy, acknowledges the organizations role in
local, regional, national, and international communities. A sympathetic orientation to publics
may help the organization improve relationships with external groups. However, within any
dialogic relationship lies potential risksfinanical, psychological and relationalto the organization and to the public.
2.4. Risk
Leitch and Neilson noted that, genuine dialogue is a problematic concept for system[s] public relations because it has the potential to produce unpredictable and dangerous outcomes.48
Although parties who engage in dialogue take relational risks, dialogic participants also risk
great rewards. Implicit in all organizational and interpersonal relationships is some risk. The
assumption of risk is characterized by three features in dialogic exchanges: vulnerability,
emergent unanticipated consequences, and a recognition of strange otherness.
2.4.1. Vulnerability
As critical theory suggests, information is power. Dialogue, by necessity, involves the sharing
of information, individual beliefs, and desires, with others. Because dialogue involves risk, it
also, necessarily, makes participants vulnerable to manipulation or ridicule by other parties
involved. Vulnerability in dialogue, however, should not be viewed pejoratively. It is through
self-disclosure and risk that relationships are built and the possibility for change on the part of
participants exists. Dialogic participants have to be willing to emerge from exchanges as new,
changed, and reborn. Each encounter offers the possibility of growth.49
2.4.2. Unanticipated consequences
Dialogic communication is unrehearsed and spontaneous. Dialogic exchanges are not
scripted nor are they predictable. This spontaneity emerges in the interaction of participants
and their individual beliefs, values and attitudes. Indeed, it is the presence of an interpersonal
relationship (although not necessarily face-to-face) between participants that facilitates
dialogue.50 While dialogic interactants all have positions on issues, the urge to manipulate
others through scripted exchanges is avoided in an effort to minimize coercion.
2.4.3. Recognition of strange otherness
This feature of risk is the unconditional acceptance of the uniqueness and individuality of
ones interlocutor. Recognition of strange otherness is not limited to the interaction of strangers
or acquaintances but also includes exchanges with those who are well known. Recognition of
29
strange otherness also includes a consciousness of the fact that the other is not the same as
oneselfnor should they be. Individuals are accepted as unique and valuable in their own right
and because of the differences that they bring to dialogic exchanges.51
From a public relations standpoint, intentional, or relational, risk is a difficult concept to
accept. Indeed, public relations is largely about reducing environmental risks in order to maximize stability, predictability, and profits. And yet, dialogic risk offers the reward of stronger
organizationpublic relationships. Thus, dialogic risk makes organizational sense; it can
create understanding to minimize uncertainty and misunderstandings. And, in cases where
uncertainty exists, dialogue offers a means to share information. Taken as a core set of assumptions, the previous four tenets: mutuality, propinquity, empathy and risk create the foundation
for the final tenetcommitment.
2.5. Commitment
Commitment is the final principle of dialogue to be discussed. Commitment describes three
characteristics of dialogic encounters: genuineness and authenticity, commitment to the
conversation, and a commitment to interpretation.
2.5.1. Genuineness
Dialogue is honest and forthright. It involves revealing ones positionshooting from the
hip in spite of the possible value that deception or nondisclosure might have. This is not to
say that interlocutors are indiscreet, but rather that they endeavor to place the good of the
relationship above the good of the self (or the client/organization).52 Indeed, organizations and
publics that deal truthfully with one another are much more able to come to mutually beneficial
solutions.
2.5.2. Commitment to conversation
The second feature of commitment is commitment to the conversation. Conversations are
held for the purposes of mutual benefit and understanding and not to defeat the other or to
exploit their weaknesses.53 This assumption most accurately reflects Heaths long-time call
for organizations and publics to communicate in zones of meaning.54 Indeed, sharing the same
meanings or working toward common understandings is crucial to dialogic relationships.
2.5.3. Commitment to interpretation
Since dialogue is intersubjective, it necessitates interpretation and understanding by all
parties involved. Dialogue necessitates that all participants are willing to work at dialogue
to understand often-diverse positions. As Ellul explains, Discourse is ambiguous; it is never
clear . . . . Meaning is uncertain; therefore I must constantly fine-tune my language and work
at reinterpreting the words I hear. I try to understand what the other person says to me.55 But
commitment to interpretation also means that efforts are made to grasp the positions, beliefs,
and values of others before their positions can be equitably evaluated.56
Genuine dialogue, involves more than just a commitment to a relationship. Dialogue occurs
when individuals (and sometimes groups) agree to set aside their differences long enough to
come to an understanding of the others positions. Dialogue is not equivalent to agreement.
30
Rather, dialogue is more akin to intersubjectivity where both parties attempt to understand
and appreciate the values and interests of the other. Dialogue is both Socratic and Kantian.
Dialogue rests on a willingness to continue the conversationnot for purposes of swaying
the other with the strength of ones erudition, but as a means of understanding the other and
reaching mutually satisfying positions.
Dialogic commitment, again, as with the other dialogic principles noted, is not new to public
relations. Public relations often has to negotiate relationships with publics holding diverse
positions. Indeed, for organizations to build community relations requires commitment to
conversations and relationships, genuineness and authenticityall strengths in ethical public
relations.
As the principles illustrate, dialogue is not an easy outcome of communication and relationships. It requires the commitment on the part of individuals and organizations of resources,
person hours, training, and evaluation. Having outlined some of the characteristics of what
a dialogic approach to public relations must entail, the next section of this essay focuses on
the incorporation of dialogue into the day-to-day public relations activities. While it is clear
that dialogue is a highly desired product of public relations communication, it also needs to
be pragmatic and accessible to the people who practice it. From an organizational perspective,
dialogue means a greater commitment of resources on the part of the organization to train its
representatives to communicate dialogically. Dialogue involves work and involves risk; however, dialogue can also lead to greater organizational rewards in the form of increased public
support, enhanced image/reputation, and decreased governmental interference. For publics,
dialogue can mean increased organizational accountability, a greater say in organizational
operations, and increased public satisfaction.57
3. Incorporating dialogue into public relations practice
Ethical public relations is based on sound communication systems. Pearson explains that
ethical public relations practice is more fundamentally a question of implementing and maintaining inter-organizational communication systems which question, discuss and validate these
and other substantive ethical claims.58 As Anderson, Cissna, and Arnett explain:
Human dialogue does not just happen . . . neither can dialogue be planned, pronounced, or
willed. Where we find dialogue, we find people who are open to it . . . Dialogue is a dimension of
communication quality that keeps communicators more focused on mutuality and relationship
than on self interest, more concerned with discovering than disclosing, more interested in access
than in domination.59
31
leadership will be defined by the public relations professionals ability to integrate at several
levels of business and society and to create more integrated management processes.60 Just
as many organizations offer training in crisis management, conflict management, and public
speaking, organizational members must be trained in dialogue.
Skills that are necessary include: listening, empathy, being able to contextualize issues
within local, national and international frameworks, being able to identify common ground
between parties, thinking about long-term rather than short-term objectives, seeking out groups/
individuals with opposing viewpoints, and soliciting a variety of internal and external opinions
on policy issues. These interpersonal skills can be extended into public relations contexts.
They can ground communication internal to the organization with superiors, subordinates, and
peers. Moreover, these skills will also help in building external relationships. Public relations
professionals engage in relationships with media, community leaders, and other individuals
on a daily basis. A consideration of these factors will no-doubt strengthen the communication
relations with external constituencies as well. A second way that an organization might employ
dialogue is through its mediated communication channels.
3.2. Building mediated dialogic relationships
Organizations can reinforce their commitment to dialogue and foster more interaction with
publics by using mass mediated channels to communicate with publics. That is, organizations
that are making a commitment to dialogue must place e-mail, Web addresses, 800 telephone
numbers, and organizational addresses prominently in advertisements, on organizational literature and on all correspondence.61 For these communication channels to facilitate dialogue,
they cannot simply connect publics to the Web address for sales on the corporate Web site, or
provide recorded greetings/announcements to callers. Rather, organizations must create Web
site locations, telephone access, and public forums where the public can actually engage other
human beings in discussions about organizational issues.
As Newsom, Turk, and Kruckeberg tell future practitioners, it is virtually impossible to
practice effective public relations today without using the Internet.62 The Internet is one place
in particular where dialogue can inform relationship building. Indeed, of all of the mediated
communication channels available to the public relations practitioner, the World Wide Web
comes closest to the interpersonal ideal.63 Heath and Coombs discussed how organizations and
opponents can use the Internet as a place to come together for debates.64 Through cyber town
meetings organizations can listen to publics.
The Web incorporates text, sound, image, movement, and the potential for real-time interaction all in one package. Books, magazines, and newspapers cannot do this, they have no
capacity for sound, movement, or real-time interaction. Similarly, neither radio nor television
possess the capacity for real-time interaction. With the possible exception of call-in shows,
radio and television are not interactive, in the sense that face-to-face or Webbed dialogue
can be.65 The Web can be used to communicate directly with publics by offering real time
discussions, feedback loops, places to post-comments, sources for organizational information,
and postings of organizational member biographies and contact information. Through the commitment of organizational resources and training, the Web can function dialogically rather than
monologically.
32
33
34
References
[1] R. Pearson, A Theory of Public Relations Ethics, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1989a,
p. 329.
[2] J.C. Gordon, Interpreting definitions of public relations self-assessment and a symbiotic-interactionist
alternative, Public Relations Review 23(1997), pp. 5766; M.L. Kent, The Rhetoric of Eulogies: A Generic
Critique of Classic and Contemporary Funeral Oratory, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
1997; L. Wisp, The distinction between sympathy and empathy: to call forth a concept, a word is needed,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (2)(1986), pp. 314321.
[3] M. Buber, I and Thou (W. Kaufmann trans.), Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1970; M. Buber, Between
Man and Man (R.G. Smith trans.), Collier Books, New York, 1985.
[4] op. cit., 1970, p. 53.
[5] C. Rogers, The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, in: R. Anderson, K.N.
Cissna, R.C. Arnett (Eds.), The Reach of Dialogue: Confirmation, Voice, and Community, Hampton Press,
Cresskill, NJ, 1994, pp. 126140.
[6] R.D. Laing, Self and Others, 2nd Edition, Pantheon Books, New York, 1969, pp. 8384.
[7] R.L. Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication, 3rd Edition, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL, 1990,
pp. 6364.
[8] J. Stewart, Foundations of dialogic communication, The Quarterly Journal of Speech 64 (1978), pp. 183201,
pp. 197198.
[9] J.E. Grunig, J. White, The effect of worldviews on public relations theory and practice, in: J.E. Grunig (Ed.),
Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992,
pp. 3164, p. 57.
[10] R.L. Heath, A rhetorical perspective on the value of public relations: crossroads and pathways toward
concurrence, Journal of Public Relations Research 12 (1)(2000), pp. 6991.
[11] op. cit., p. 74.
[12] J.E. Grunig, T. Hunt, Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, TX, 1984.
[13] C. Botan, International public relations: critique and reformulation, Public Relations Review 18(1992),
pp. 149159; G.M. Vasquez, Public relations as negotiation: an issue development perspective, Journal of
Public Relations Research 8 (1)(1996), pp. 5777.
[14] J.A. Ledingham, S.D. Bruning, Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the
Study and Practice of Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 2000, p. 55.
[15] G.M. Broom, S. Casey, J. Ritchey, Toward a concept and theory of organizationpublic relationships, Journal
of Public Relations Research 9 (2)(1997), pp. 8398; J.A. Ledingham, S.D. Bruning, Relationship management
in public relations: dimensions of an organizationpublic relationship, Public Relations Review 24 (1)(1998),
pp. 5565; Ledingham, Bruning, 2000, op. cit.; E.L. Toth, From personal influence to interpersonal influence: a
model for relationship management, in: J.A. Ledingham, S.D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship
Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, 2000, pp. 205220.
[16] R. Pearson, 1989a, op. cit.; R. Pearson, Business ethics as communication ethics: public relations practice
and the idea of dialogue, in: C.H. Botan, V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, 1989b, pp. 111131.
[17] R. Pearson, 1989a, op. cit., p. 177.
[18] R. Pearson, 1989a, op. cit., p. 206.
[19] C. Botan, Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: the case for a new approach to public relations,
Journal of Business Communication 34 (1997), pp. 188202, p. 192.
[20] M.L. Kent, M. Taylor, Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web, Public Relations Review
24 (3)(1998), pp. 321334.
[21] S. Leitch, D. Neilson, Bringing publics into public relations: new theoretical frameworks for practice, in: R.L.
Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001, pp. 127138.
[22] C. Botan, 1997, op. cit., R. Pearson, 1989a, op. cit.
35
36
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
37