1. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE
Communication as a Discipline and as a Field:
Sharing Experiences to Construct a Dialogue
"Global Public Relations as a Communication Subfield"
By
Dean Kruckeberg, Ph.D., APR, Fellow PRSA
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
And
Katerina Tsetsura, Ph.D.
University of Oklahoma
In the Plenary Session:
The Development of the Communication Discipline Field:
Challenges, Tensions, Traditions, and Achievements
10 to 11 a.m., Friday, July 10, 2015
Department of Integrated Communications
National Research University — Higher School of Economics
Moscow, Russia
July 9 through 11, 2015

2. The next decade will bring unprecedented challenges to global
society, including the uncertainties of social, political, economic and
cultural sustainability in a world that is experiencing tremendous
changes within an incredibly compressed timeframe.
Today’s rapidly and chaotically evolving communication technology is the primary
intervening variable that is creating
1. globalism, as well as its obverse,
2. Multiculturalism — together with the latter’s accompanying tensions and
conflicts within a global environment that is replete with a host of critically
important issues that beg resolution.
These immense changes have societal implications that are:
1. inadequately understood, let alone sufficiently pondered, and
2. their profound impact on individuals remains insufficiently measured.

3. Seeking regress to a pastoral and isolationist existence can be
likened to a Canutian attempt to hold back the tides,
recognizing that:
– there can be no return to a pre-global and pre-technological society,
– nor is there any desire to do so by most people who readily embrace the
advantages and conveniences of contemporary communication technology.
But truly we are sailing in uncharted waters, which offer:
– little forgiveness for navigational errors—digital or otherwise—but suggest
– the possibility, if not the likelihood, of unintended consequences for society
both locally and globally!

4. A wide range of global issues remain unresolved today, including
questions about:
• Free trade
• Emerging democracies
• Transnational corporations
• Public distrust
• A rapidly changing media environment
• Corporate megamergers and globalization
• Harmful — perhaps irreversible — changes
in the physical environment
• Issues related to population growth,
poverty, hunger and war
• Questions about the management of
change
• Global class stratification
• Tensions resulting from the confluence of
technology, globalism and multiculturalism
• Fundamental changes in the relationships
among governments, corporations and
private citizens
• The tensions between nationalism and
globalism
• The tensions between modern and
traditional societies, including within
traditional societies, themselves, as they
face overwhelming pressures to modernize
• Tensions among what were once labeled
the First, Second and Third Worlds
• The control and direction of technology,
itself.

5. This list of threats must also include what Kruckeberg and Tsetsura
(2008, March) identify as contemporary “tribalism,”
which is a rebellion against:
– modern mass-mediated society
– nationalism and secularism by those seeking to re-established traditional
unmediated societies (who, ironically, are enabled in this quest for
traditionalism by the communication technology that is available to them
through modernity).

6. Tribalism is occurring within a global population that is:
– quite young
– with immense numbers of these young people having little or no education
and few prospects for employment that would lead to personal
sustainability,
– but who have technological proficiency and the wherewithal to use it —
resulting in:
– public relations problems for organizations, but also in
– civil unrest that is alarming and difficult to predict, let alone to control or even
to attempt to manage.

7. Communication technology is fundamentally changing us in at least
four dimensions:
1) socially, in which electronic channels of communication are replacing face-to-face
communication;
2) politically, in which power differentials are being flattened and sometimes
juxtaposed, with unpredictable power emanating quickly from unrecognized and
unseen sources;
3) economically, in which information that may appear inexpensive to send and to
receive results in a greed for this information that, ironically, can enslave consumers
both financially and through inordinate demands on their time; and
4) culturally, in which a global culture is emerging, not only in consumer tastes for
products and services, but also in in a melding of traditions and values.

8. Of particular significance is the question of power
— whether social, political, economic or cultural —
as public relations scholars and practitioners ponder these challenges during this
contemporary era that Debeljak (2012) identifies as the:
– third globalization in world history, that is, a corporate 21st Century, which
was preceded by the
– second globalization of the colonial 19th Century and the
– first globalization of the imperial 16th Century.
Today, power exists everywhere, yet it exists nowhere!

9. Globalization has resulted in changing differentials of relative
power and influence among governments, civil society
organizations (nongovernmental organizations) and corporations.
For good or for ill, traditional stabilizing forces have been greatly diminished, and
sometimes marginalized, through communication technology that provides
unprecedented digital opportunities to challenge and to defeat traditional institutions
and loci of power and influence.
Today, an infinite number of highly volatile publics worldwide can form:
– Immediately
– Unpredictably
– and with unforeseen power
in response to readily and inexpensively available information and opinion.

10. Communication technology, through which organizations and
citizens can communicate:
– instantaneously and inexpensively with one another
– In which transparency exists as never before
has tremendous implications in relative power in public opinion formation and
influence.
Communication barriers today are more ideological than physical, creating
dramatically changing social relationships.
Control and authority, whether by
– rule-of-law within discrete nation-states or by
– cultural traditions,
are being challenged and threatened, including by those beyond the increasingly
porous borders of these nation-states.

11. The dynamics and relativity of power and influence among
corporations, civil society organizations and governments are
changing rapidly, creating dramatic changes in the relationships
among these three social actors and in their relative power and
influence over one another.
Most significant is the empowerment of private citizens worldwide.
However, this perceived citizen power may be at least partly illusory.
Communication technology upon which people are dependent consumers:
– is neither fully understood nor controlled by them
– its withdrawal and/or failure would result in mass helplessness because of the
social, political, economic and cultural infrastructures that have been built
around this communication technology
One indicator of a revolution is an individual’s inability to ignore it.

12. We must continually question whether the existing role and function
of public relations is most appropriate and whether public relations
must be more encompassing in its service to its clients and to
society-at-large.
Public relations practice commonly focuses on organization-public relationship
management, in most instances with the goal of influencing public opinion of those
who have power or who are perceived to have potential power.
Such organization-public relationship management role and function assuredly will
remain of critical importance.
However, professional strategies must embrace a wider range of goals, together
with far more scholarly and practitioner introspection that must include continuing re-
examination and relentless attempts at criticism of predominant theoretical
paradigms.
Rather than placidly building on existing literature and assumptions on which it is
based, and on a reliance on the ostensible best practices of public relations as they
have evolved historically, scholars and practitioners must identify the most critical
and pressing public relations problems, which extend beyond a pre-occupation with
organizations as units of analysis and with organization-public relationships.

13. Kruckeberg questioned whether existing public relations theories
and best practices are sufficiently heuristic to address the needs of
a 21st Century global society.
Public relations scholars and practitioners must fully participate in policy
deliberations that attempt to reconcile
– cultural
– ideological
– historical
tensions throughout the world.
A paradigmatic shift in public relations may not be exclusively or primarily Western
in perspective, but
– must consider changes occurring in 21st Century global society and
– should provide a normative direction for practicing public relations globally.

14. We are long overdue in questioning 20th Century theories of public
relations and the base assumptions supporting them.
Interrogation must include the public relations literature’s:
– concepts and those concepts’ dimensions
– empirical generalizations/propositions
– theories and meta-theories
– resulting paradigms that have grounded 20th Century professional practice.

15. Kuhn said new paradigms gain prominence by being more
successful than are their competitors in solving acute problems.
When existing paradigms:
– cease to function adequately and
– crises result,
scientific revolutions occur and scientists respond to a different world.
Equally importantly, public relations scholarship must extend its theoretical boundaries beyond
that of communication science.
We must invite those in other disciplines and professionalized
occupations to help us to address questions about the role and
function of public relations in contemporary global society.

16. An examination of the role and function of public relations must
begin with a normative theory of society.
20th Century public relations paradigms must be challenged, with critical inquiry
beginning with an examination of fundamental assumptions about an ideal society
upon which 20th Century public relations paradigms have been predicated.
Public relations has evolved for:
– different reasons
– at different times
– in different places
Contemporary practice, despite its increasing globalization in its theory and best
practices, has been—and to a great extent remains—influenced by culture, ideology
and history.
Public relations has evolved throughout time to align itself to its
environment.

17. Practitioners must also contextualize this latitudinal knowledge,
which includes that of:
– Culture
– Ideology
with longitudinal understanding, that is:
an historical knowledge of the practitioner’s:
– Clients
– those clients’ publics
– indigenous societies-at-large.

18. For cultural, ideological and historical reasons, different societies
may have:
• different stakeholders who are more powerful than are others
• different speakers and agenda-setters who dominate the discussion on
issue arenas
• different social, political, economic and cultural contexts
that can either propel or impede public relations goals.
An environment’s history affect organizations and their publics.
Public relations practitioners must be able to “hypothesize” and “theorize” based on
far more than what a “snapshot” public opinion survey may reveal;
Rather, public relations practitioners must contextualize research findings from a
knowledge base that includes, not only cultural and ideological knowledge, but also
an understanding of an environment’s history.

19. Critical interrogation of public relations, its literature and
contemporary practice has markedly increased in recent years,
– not only by scholars from other parts of the world
– but also by U.S. public relations scholars.
Alternative models may vary in their perspectives on advocacy, mutual
understanding and relationship management
However, they mostly maintain their organization-centric units of analysis, focusing
on organizations’ relationships with their identified publics.
Goals appear by-and-large to be measured by financial and other tangible Returns
on Investment (ROI) that benefit the self-interest of those paying for the public
relations counsel and services.
we argue that organization-centric units of analysis are heuristically limited, indeed
insufficient.

20. In recent years, provocative and likely heuristic streams of
scholarship have involved an examination and deliberation of who
is the client, expanding from an exclusive or primary focus on
organization-public relationships.
Public relations practitioners are capable of—and must assume—a greater role and
more encompassing responsibilities,:
– in building and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with their
organizations’ primary stakeholders
– in their organizations and professional community’s contributions to society-
at-large.

21. Some scholars have proffered a three-dimensional “organic model”
of public relations, in which each organization is only a part of the
whole social system that public relations practitioners must
consider in its entirety.
In their view, an organization has responsibility to all members of society.
– Thus, public relations practitioners should not view their organizations—
whether these are corporations, civil society organizations or
governments—as hubs having satellites of stakeholders,
– but rather as one part of a three-dimensional social system in which
organizations cooperate with one another in their support of society.
Kruckeberg and Starck argue that a fundamental reason why public relations
practice exists today is the loss of community that has resulted from new means of
communication and transportation. They propose that an appropriate approach to
practicing community (and thus public) relations should be derived through an
active attempt to restore and maintain the sense of community that has been lost in
contemporary society.

22. Botan and Taylor first divided the various approaches toward public
relations into two categories: functional and co-creational.
– A functional approach places the organization at the center of communication,
building on the argument that public relations is a management function.
– the co-creational approach to public relations recognizes, not a managerial,
but a societal, function of public relations. This approach puts publics, not the
organization, at the center of communication and is concentrated around the
idea advanced by Kruckeberg and Stark of community-building.
Heath investigated the centrality of public relations in building a fully functional
society in which all institutions, governments, corporations, and nongovernmental
organizations, have a strong presence and voice and co-exist organically
Importantly, Tsetsura (2011) reminds us that public relations and its function are
socially constructed .

23. The global scholarly and practitioner community must continually
re-examine the role and function of public relations and its
assumptions, in particular to:
– question whether the existing role and function of public relations is most appropriate in
today’s global society and whether public relations must be more encompassing in its
service to its clients and to society-at-large;
– embrace a wider range of goals, together with far more scholarly and practitioner
introspection that must include continuing re-examination and relentless attempts at
criticism of predominant theoretical paradigms;
– identify the most critical and pressing public relations problems, which extend beyond a
pre-occupation with organization-public relationships;
– interrogate the literature’s concepts and those concepts’ dimensions, empirical
generalizations/propositions and theories and meta-theories, as well as the resulting
paradigms that have grounded 20th Century professional practice;
– attempt to reconcile the cultural, ideological and historical variances throughout the world;
– pro-actively and imaginatively extend our theoretical boundaries beyond communication
science, inviting those in other disciplines and professionalized occupations to help us to
address questions about the role and function of public relations in contemporary global
society.

24. Let us begin our exploration with energy and courage.
Thank you!
Dean and Katerina

25. REFERENCES
Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations; State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645-661.
Debeljak, A. (2012). In praise of hybridity. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Eds.), 42-53, Culture and public
relations: Links and implications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as public
relations paradigm. Paper presented to the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication. Gainesville, FL.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: An overview of the book. In
J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 1-28). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hardt, H. (1979). Social theories of the press. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 18(2), 93-114.
Kruckeberg and Tsetsura/10-10-10
Kruckeberg, D. (2013). Interview by The international public relations yearbook of Iran. Tehran: Kavoshgaran
(Researchers) Public Relations.
Kruckeberg, D. (2009). The Center for Global Public Relations. Charlotte, NC: The University of North
Carolina at Charlotte.

26. REFERENCES (Cont.)
Kruckeberg, D. (2007). An “organic model” of public relations: The role of public relations for governments, civil
society organizations (CSOs) and corporations in developing and guiding social and cultural policy to build and
maintain community in 21st-Century civil society. In the Administration of Ulan-Ude Committee of Social Politics
Ed.), Municipal social politics and the publics: Realities and perspectives: Materials of the
International/Scientific Conference, (pp. 17-25). Ulan-Ude, Buryatia: Publishing House of Buryatia Scientific
Center of Russian Academy of Science.
Kruckeberg, D. (2002). Global advertising and public relations. In Y. R. Kamalipour (Ed.), Global
communication (pp. 88-206). Belmont, CA. Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Kruckeberg, D. (2000). Public relations: Toward a global professionalism. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning
(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 145-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kruckeberg, D., Creedon, P., Gorpe, S., & Al-Khajha, M. (2014, October). The dynamics of power and influence
among corporations, civil society organizations and governments: Ramifications of the changing social, political,
economic and cultural dimensions of global society in an era of transparency through digital communication.
Paper presented at the Fourth Conference of the Yarmouk University Faculty of Communication in cooperation
with the Arab-U.S. Association for Communication Educators, Irbid, Jordan.
Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory. New York:
Praeger.

27. REFERENCES (Cont.)
Kruckeberg, D., & Tsetsura, K. (2008, March). The “Chicago School” in the global community: Concept
explication for communication theories and practices. Asian Communication Research, 3, 9-30.
Kruckeberg, D., & Valentini, C. (2014, November). Conceptualization of community and community-building in a
globalized world. Paper presented at the 100th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association,
Chicago, IL.
Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2010, June). An “organic model” of public relations. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association pre-conference session, “Global Strategic Thinking—Managing public
Relations in a 21st Century global Society,” Singapore.
Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2007). Global advertising and public relations. In Y. R. Kamalipour (Ed.),
Global communication (pp. 271-292). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.
Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2006, August). Corporate social responsibility within an organic model of public
relations: A normative theory of transparency. Paper presented at the 89th annual conference of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, San Francisco, CA.
Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2006, March). Toward an “organic model” of public relations in public
diplomacy. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.

28. REFERENCES (Cont.)
Kruckeberg, D., & Vujnovic, M. (2003, May). Linking global capitalism with new forms of democracy:
Opportunities in community building. Paper presented in the program, Is Free Enterprise a Prerequisite for
Public Relations: Reflection on the Writings of Hernando DeSoto, at the 53rd Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Price, J. L. (1972). Handbook of organizational measurement. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
Price, J. L. (1968). Organizational effectiveness: An inventory of propositions. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc.
Taylor, M. (2009). Civil society as a rhetorical public relations process. In R. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer
(Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 76-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tsetsura, K. (2011). Is public relations a real job? How female practitioners construct the profession. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 23(1), 1-23.
Valentini, C., & Kruckeberg, D. (2012). “Iran’s Twitter Revolution” from a publics (sic) relations standpoint. In
A. M. George & C. B. Pratt (Eds.), Case studies in crisis communication: International perspectives on hits and
misses (pp. 383-402). London: Routledge.

29. REFERENCES (Cont.)
Valentini, C., & Kruckeberg, D. (2011, Spring). Public relations and trust in contemporary global society: A
Luhmannian perspective of the role of public relations enhancing trust among social systems. Central European
Journal of Communication, 4(1), 91-107.
Valentini, C., Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (2012, April). Ivanna meets Thomas Kuhn: Shifting paradigms in
public relations. Paper presented at the Second Annual Global Research Conference, Center for Global Public
Relations, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.
Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2015). Conceptualization, examination, and recommendations for a normative
model of community-building for organizations managing change using new media. In E-J. Ki, J-N. Kim, & J.
Ledingham, (Eds.). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and
practice of public relations (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.
Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2015, March). In the bind between theory and practice: Public Relations and
Ethics of neoliberal global capitalism. Paper presented at The 17th Annual International Public Relations
Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Vujnovic, M., & Kruckeberg, D. (2014, March). A “meta-strategy” based on an examination of “transparency,”
pseudo-transparency,” “authenticity” and “trust”. Paper presented at the 16th International Public Relations
Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Vujnovic, M., Kumar, A., & Kruckeberg, D. (2007, March). An “organic theory” as a social theory of public
relations: A case study from India. Paper presented at the 10th Annual International Public Relations Research
Conference, Miami, FL.