Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•108 views
This presentation explores a model for undertaking a positioning discourse analysis (PDA) for examining public relations texts.The framework was used to examine the discursive strategies and discourses at play in the speeches of the Australian Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Liberal/National Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott. The framework consists of four core domains and can be used as both a “heuristic for analysis of public relations activities and…a practical framework for designing positioning strategies in public relations programs and campaigns” (James, 2011, p. 112).
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations
Similar to Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations
- 1. Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations Deborah Wise and Melanie James, School of Design, Communication and Information Technology, University of Newcastle, Australia
- 2. ∗ The study used a new conceptual framework developed by James (2010, 2011) ∗ James built on the social psychology positioning theory of Harre & van Langenhove (1999) to propose an ‘Intentional Positioning Framework’ for use in public relations ∗ The framework is both a “heuristic for analysis of public relations activities and…a practical framework for designing positioning strategies in public relations programs and campaigns” (James, 2011, p. 112) ∗ This study further tested this framework and asked: What positioning intentions and supporting discourses are evident in the speeches of the Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and the Liberal/National Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, in relation to the introduction of an Australian carbon tax? Intentional Positioning Framework
- 3. ∗ Only speeches delivered between 9 July 2011 (when PM Gillard formally announced her government’s intention to put a price on carbon), and 13 September 2011 (when PM Gillard introduced the Clean Energy Bill 2011 to the Federal Parliament) were included in the study. ∗ Fourteen speeches (n=14) were downloaded from Tony Abbott’s website (http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/), and eight speeches (n=8) were downloaded from Julia Gillard’s website (http://www.pm.gov.au/) Study sample
- 4. ∗ Australia’s per capita carbon emissions are the highest in the OECD and amongst the highest in the world (Garnaut, 2008). ∗ Both the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and the Liberal National Party (LNP), have each committed themselves to reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 2020 by at least 5 per cent (Garnaut, 2011) ∗ But both have taken opposite positions on how to achieve this target ∗ PM Gillard made a pre-election promise not to introduce a carbon tax ∗ But in July 2011 PM Gillard announced that “for the first time in Australian history, we will put a price on carbon pollution” Australian political context
- 5. ∗ In public relations the research paradigm has been the examination of public relations from an instrumentalist managerial perspective (Ihlen & Van Ruler, 2007). ∗ The Excellence theory is a general theory of public relations that resulted from a fifteen year study of ‘excellent’ communication departments (Grunig, Grunig & Dozier, 2006) ∗ This functionalist and normative focus has led to calls for other approaches to researching the public relations field Public relations research
- 6. ∗ Critical/cultural approaches to discourse analysis provide “a more complex model of the way that discourse functions and the effects it has on participants” (Mills, 2004, p. 9)- an approach particularly relevant to PR ∗ CDA permits “the role of public relations practitioners as they attempt to establish particular truths and alter power/knowledge relations” to be problematised (Motion and Leitch, 2007, p. 266). ∗ PR practitioners are ‘discourse technologists’ because of their role in maintaining and transforming sociocultural practices through the strategic deployment of public relations texts (Motion & Leitch, 1996, p. 298). PR and critical discourse analysis
- 7. ∗ In Australia, public relations specialists play a key role in managing and shaping political debates (Young, 2007). ∗ Public relations practitioners draw on social science research data “to strategically modify the discourse practices of targeted discourse consumers” (Roper, 2005, p. 141). ∗ Political rhetoric attempts to persuade or influence the thoughts and/or actions of others (Ihlen, 2010). ∗ Framing techniques are used in an attempt to get “an audience to automatically respond to a given issue in a certain way by creating a dominant framework of understanding” (Glover, 2007, p. 154). PR & the construction of political discourses
- 8. ∗ Discourses are in a continuous state of flux with “other discourses and other social practices” (Mills, 2002, p. 19). ∗ Therefore much PR work consists of contesting, resisting, or transforming sociocultural discourses (Motion & Leitch, 2007). ∗ Positioning in PR is: “The strategic attempt to stake out and occupy a site of intentional representation in the contested space where meanings are constructed, contested, and reconstructed” (James, 2011, p. 98). Positioning in public relations
- 9. 1. Positioning goal domain (positioning is done to help achieve a goal) 2. Positioning purpose domain (positioning is done for a strategic purpose i.e. ingratiation, supplication, intimidation, exemplification, self promotion, or facilitation) 3. Positioning type domain (positioning is of a particular type i.e. an entity may self position, be forced into self-positioning; engage in deliberate positioning; or may be forced into positioning others ) 4. Positioning triangle domain i) the desired position is determined by the entity commissioning the public relations ii) Speech/Act Action: the language or action enacted to establish the desired position iii) Storylines: a style of narrative that the entity has chosen to promulgate to support the desired positioning Intentional Positioning Framework
- 10. Each corner must align… if one changes all must change to re-align “dynamic stability” Positioning Triangle Determine the goal, purpose and type of positioning Enact the positioning e.g. launch; announcement; stunt; event Support the positioning through storylines/messages that chosen position permits and requires External forces External forces
- 11. 1. Positioning Goal Domain ∗ “This carbon tax is a bad idea… Australia needs a new plan, not a new tax. Australians want less tax… there should be no carbon tax” (Abbott, 10 July 2011) ∗ A “bad tax based on a lie” (Abbott, 10 July 2011; 20 August 2011; 22 August 2011; 27 August 2011; 14 September 2011) ∗ “We will put a price on carbon pollution…as we set Australia on the path to a clean energy future” (Gillard, 9 July 2011) ∗ “This decision, to put a price on carbon, is a major reform to build a clean energy future” (Gillard, 14 July 2011)
- 12. ∗ “Let us be the party of reform in all that we do. A party always determined to be its best self” (Gillard, 9 July 2011) (Exemplification) ∗ “Let us be the party of reform in all that we do. A party always determined to be its best self” (Gillard, 9 July 2011) (Exemplification) ∗ “Our democracy will be in safe hands as long as the people of this country continue to care about it and you care about it” (Abbott, 22 August 2011) (Ingratiation) ∗ “Not only did we deliver fiscal responsibility in government but we have been promoting fiscal responsibility in Opposition” (Abbott, 13 September 2011) (self-promotion) ∗ “We are building a dynamic, high-income modern economy…driven by…clean energy” (Gillard, 31 September 2011) (Self-promotion) 2. Positioning Purpose Domain Purpose Self- promotion Exemplifica tion Ingratiation Intimidation Supplication Facilitation Gillard (n=8) 5 8 5 0 0 0 Abbott (n-14) 7 8 11 1 0 14
- 13. 3. Positioning Type Domain Positioning type domain Gillard Abbot t Situations of self- positioning 8 14 Situations of forced self- positioning 4 6 Situations of deliberate positioning of others 6 14 Situations of forced positioning of others 0 0
- 14. 3. Positioning Type Domain Self & forced positioning Deliberate positioning Gillard We are doing what is right for Australia/ we are the party of reform You are threatening our children’s future Abbott We want a better future for children You are untrustworthy /lied Gillard We are doing what is right for Australia You agreed to a carbon tax Changed your mind over the GST Abbott We took the GST to an election You should do the same with the carbon tax Gillard We are doing what is right for Australia Your plan pays polluters to do the right thing Abbott We can change our mind if we are doing what is right for Australia/ we are the party of reform You are untrustworthy, incompetent, lacking legitimacy etc.
- 15. Position Gillard Abbott Goal To position a price on carbon as being good for Australia To position a price on carbon as being bad for Australia Purpose Exemplification/self-promotion Facilitation/ingratiation Type Self-positioning/forced positioning Self-positioning/forced positioning 4. Positioning triangle domain: i) position determined pole
- 16. 4. Positioning triangle domain: ii) Position enacted - speech/act action Discourse is enacted in the Speech/Act action pole and refers to the language and/or actions used to achieve a specific consequence or outcome and to bring the position to life (Julia Gillard, Speech to the NSW Branch of the ALP State Conference, Sydney, 9 July 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBOhUTAn5_s&feature=BFa&list=FL93yQ6pLp-9ovtSdn-6vpEg&lf=mh_lolz (Tony Abbott, Address to the Nation, 10 July 2011) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkNSSCgeUE (Tony Abbott, Address to the ‘No carbon tax rally’, Canberra, 16 August 2011) http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalPartyTV#p/search/0/Wfhn6YyJdQY
- 17. 4. Positioning triangle domain: iii) Position supported - storylines ∗ We will introduce a carbon tax because it is the ‘Labor way’ to what is right for Australia ∗ Our plan for a clean energy future will look after the battlers while managing the economy ∗ We will invest in new technologies ∗ A carbon tax is unnecessary ∗ The Coalition’s ‘better way’ will support Australian innovation ∗ The Coalition will look after working families because it understands their concerns about rising prices ∗ Labor’s carbon tax is an unnecessary ‘bad idea’ that will cost jobs and cause prices to rise & any monetary compensation will be inadequate
- 18. Discussion If Tony Abbott wins the next election, in your opinion, would this give him a mandate to abolish the carbon tax? Mandate to abolish the tax Total ALP Supporters Coalition Supporters Yes 60% 41% 73% No 29% 48% 13% Uncommitted 11% 11% 9% (http://www.galaxyresearch.com.au/index.php)
- 19. Primary vote Election Aug 2010 14-16 Oct 2011 ALP 38% 29% The Coalition 43.6% 51% The Greens 11.8% 12% Another party or independent 6.6% 8% Discussion Thinking about federal politics, if a federal election for the house of representatives was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? (6% uncommitted or refused excluded) (http://www.galaxyresearch.com.au/index.php) Two party preferred Election Aug 2010 14-16 Oct 2011 ALP 50.1% 42% Coalition 49.9% 58%
- 20. ∗ The framework approach demonstrated the dynamism of positioning efforts as each side of the debate sought to strengthen its own position and to destabilise the other’s position. From a public relations /strategic communication theoretical perspective, the framework offers a new method of mapping the discourses used in a public policy debate. Conclusion
Editor's Notes
- Good morning my name is Deborah Wise and I am PhD student at the University of Newcastle, Australia, My study is titled: Positioning a price on carbon: testing a model of positioning discourse analysis in public relations.
- This study used a new conceptual framework developed by James (2010, 2011) who built on the social psychology positioning theory of Harre & Langenhove (2003) to propose an ‘Intentional Positioning Framework’ for use in public relations The framework is both a “heuristic for analysis of public relations activities and…a practical framework for designing positioning strategies in public relations programs and campaigns” This study further tested this framework and asked: What positioning intentions and supporting discourses are evident in the speeches of the Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and the Liberal/National Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, in relation to the introduction of an Australian carbon tax?
- Speeches were selected for analysis on the basis that it was probable someone working in a public relations capacity had constructed them. Only speeches delivered between 9 July 2011 when Prime Minister Gillard formally announced her government’s intention to put a price on carbon, and 13 September 2011 when PM Gillard introduced the Clean Energy Bill 2011 to the Federal Parliament, were included because it was during this period that both parties publicly established their respective positions regarding the introduction of a carbon price/tax. Each speech was downloaded from the respective politician’s website, and the term ‘carbon’ was also entered into each site’s search engine to filter out any speeches that were not relevant to the study. In total fourteen speeches were downloaded from Tony Abbott’s website and eight speeches were downloaded from Julia Gillard’s website. I will now briefly outline the political context against which this study is set, and the role of public relations in constructing sociocultural discourses. I will then discuss the study’s findings, and will conclude with a discussion about the frameworks potential for examining discursive practices from a public relations perspsective.
- As it stands Australia’s per capita carbon emissions are the highest in the OECD and amongst the highest in the world. As a result of this high rate, both the Australian Labor Party, and the Liberal National Party, have each committed themselves to reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020. However, despite this apparent shared commitment, both parties have engaged in an extended debate over how best to achieve this aim. Crucially, throughout the lead-up to the 2010 Federal election, the then Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard made a commitment that she would not introduce a carbon tax if re-elected. PM Gillard was re-elected, but contrary to her prior commitment she nonetheless announced in July of this year that, For the first time in Australian history, her Government would put a price on carbon pollution”. The following day the Liberal Opposition leader Tony Abbott stated his party’s opposing position and proclaimed that a carbon tax was a ‘bad idea’. This study is set against this contextual backdrop of contemporary Australian politics and examines, through the speeches of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, how the carbon tax is being positioned and communicated.
- As an academic discipline public relations scholarship has borrowed from various disciplinary fields and schools of thought. However, despite these influences, the overriding research paradigm has largely been the examination of public relations from an instrumentalist managerial perspective. These studies have chiefly explored the role of public relations in assisting an organisation to achieve its goals, with the most notable being the excellence theory –a general theory of public relations that resulted from a fifteen year study of ‘excellent’ communication departments More recently the dominance of this normative and functionalist perspective has led to theorists arguing for other approaches to public relations scholarship. One diametrically opposed and relatively underutilised approach to researching public relations practices are critical discursive approaches.
- Critical discourse approaches are particularly relevant to researching public relations since they arguably provide a more complex model of the way that discourse functions and the effects it has on participants. This is because PR texts, implicitly or otherwise, are tactical discourse conventions that embody strategic imperatives and applying a critical discourse framework allows the role of public relations practitioners -as they attempt to establish particular truths and alter power/knowledge relations -to be problematised. As Motion and Leitch insightfully argued, public relations practitioners are essentially ‘discourse technologists’ because of the central role they play in maintaining and transforming sociocultural practices through the strategic deployment of public relations texts.
- In Australia, as in most westernised democracies, all of the political parties fully understand the importance of effective public relations strategies in gaining acceptance of their policies, with public relations specialists playing a key role in managing and shaping political debates. PR practitioners, through the use of social science research data, attempt to strategically modify the discourse practices of targeted discourse consumers. Political speechwriters, in particular, are especially adept at using political rhetoric to persuade or influence the thoughts or the actions of others… And through the use of framing techniques attempt to get an audience to automatically respond to a given issue in a certain way by creating a dominant framework of understanding.
- Nevertheless discourses are in a state of continuous flux with other discourses and other social practices and therefore much of the work of public relations practitioners consists of contesting, resisting, or transforming these sociocultural discourses. It is in this contested space that the positioning theory proposed by James sits. According to James positioning in public relations refers to “the strategic attempt to stake out and occupy a site of intentional representation in the contested space where meanings are constructed, contested, and reconstructed.
- The intentional positioning framework is also outlined in the handout I have given you The first domain is the Positioning goal domain in which positioning is done to help achieve a goal The secondi is the Positioning purpose domain when positioning is done for a strategic purpose i.e. ingratiation, supplication, intimidation, exemplification, self promotion, or facilitation Third is the Positioning type domain and this refers to positioning of a particular type i.e. an entity may self position, be forced into self-positioning; engage in deliberate positioning; or may be forced into positioning others) Fourth is the Positioning triangle domain that consists of three poles:The Position pole is the desired position as articulated by the entity commissioning the public relationsThe Speech/Act Action pole is the language or action enacted to establish the desired positionAnd the Storylines pole is the style of narrative that the entity has chosen to promulgate to support the desired positioning
- In the positioning triangle domain all of the poles of the triangle need to align for positioning to be effective, and if one pole changes all of the poles must adjust to accommodate the change.
- When using the positioning framework analyse a PR campaign the first core domain is the ‘goal domain and in the speeches of Tony Abbott the goal consistently and intentionally suggested was that a carbon was bad for Australia. This was expressed through comments such as, “This carbon tax is a bad idea… Australia needs a new plan, not a new tax. This is a bad tax based on a lie. The speeches of Julia Gillard suggested an opposing goal of positioning a price on carbon as being good for Australia- for example she stated “We will put a price on carbon pollution…as we set Australia on the path to a clean energy future- These examples also demonstrate the discursive use of ‘tax’ by Tony Abbott, and the use of ‘price’ by Julia Gillard in relation to placing a value on carbon. Abbott almost exclusively refers to carbon in terms of a tax, and Gillard mostly refers to carbon in terms of a price.
- In each of Julia Gillard’s speeches positioning for the purposes of exemplification- in which the desire was for her and her Government to be seen as going “above and beyond the normal call of duty, to appear dedicated, upstanding, and highly moral -was significant. The quote -“Let us be the party of reform in all that we do. A party always determined to be its best self - sums up this exemplary positioning strategy. Contrastingly many of the speeches of Tony Abbott used positioning for the purposes of ingratiation, in which the desire was for him to be perceived as likeable and agreeable, and willing to do favours for, compliment, or flatter others and the statement “Our democracy will be in safe hands as long as the people of this country continue to care about it and you care about it” typifies ingratiation positioning. Both politicians also used positioning for the purposes of self-promotion, in which the desire was to be seen as competent, and this was achieved by placing emphasis on their abilities and accomplishments as these next quotes demonstrate. There was also some slippage between classifications for example when either politician positioned themselves for the purposes of self-promotion, they often supported this with positioning for the purposes of exemplification. There was no evidence of positioning for the purposes of supplication (in which the desire is to be seen as weak and/or dependent) however there was one incidence where Tony Abbott arguably positioned himself for the purposes of intimidation and this is when he told the Parliament that he wanted the carbon tax go to the public for a vote, and if they didn’t agree it would lead to a change of Government. Tony Abbott also repeatedly positioned the Government in a way that could not be categorised as anything other than positioning for the purposes of facilitation or, in other words, his purpose for delivering the speech appeared to be to facilitate the downfall of the Labor Government.
- In terms of the positioning type domain each of the speeches of both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott showed no evidence of forced positioning of others, however there was ample evidence of both deliberately self-positioning, and of being forced into self positioning because of the deliberate positioning attempts of the other.
- Positioning Type Domain In the first of speech PM Gillard’s speeches analysed in this study the PM self positioned herself as doing what is right for Australia by introducing a carbon tax, and deliberately positioned the Coalition as, amongst other things, using stunts and gimmicks…Lies and distortion” running “A cynical campaign of fear designed to scare Australian families”; and inferred that the Coalition’s opposition to a carbon tax amounted to not caring about carbon pollution while “threatening our children’s future. On the following day, and as a result of this forced positioning, Tony Abbott was positioned himself as a family man wanting a better future for children. However Abbott did not engage with PM Gillard’s other deliberate positioning attempts, and retaliated by deliberately positioning her as being untrustworthy and a liar because of her broken election promise not to introduce a carbon tax. It is probable that it was this positioning strategy that gained the most traction in the minds of voters over the following weeks because PM Gillard, in turn, was then forced into explaining why she had broken her promise. She did this by reiterating her self-positioning strategy of doing what is right for Australia, and in turn positioned the Coalition as having once being in agreement about the necessity of a carbon tax. She also deliberately positioned the former Coalition Government (of which Tony Abbott was a member) of having similarly changed their mind when they introduced a Goods and Services Tax (GST). In his next speech Tony Abbott not only positioned the former Coalition government as taking the moral higher ground by taking the GST to an election, he also positioned the Prime Minister as less than moral because she had not done the same over the carbon tax Despite this deliberate positioning, PM Gillard nonetheless maintained her self-positioning strategy of doing what is right for Australia while also attempting to position the Coalition as being on the side of big business. Undeterred Abbott ignored this positioning attempt and instead built on his former moral higher ground self-positioning strategy by claiming the Coalition, rather than Labor, was the party of reform. Moreover, he also adopted PM Gillard’s self-same positioning strategy of a leader being entitled to change their mind if they believe what they are doing is right for Australia. Also contained in this speech, as in the seven speeches that followed, were repeated deliberate positioning of PM Gillard and the Labor Party as variously: lacking legitimacy, being untrustworthy and incompetent, lacking a democratic mandate and lacking in integrity.
- The position pole is the first pole of the positioning triangle and from a public relations perspective this pole is about PR strategy and determining the goal, purpose and type positions discussed previously and summarised in this table.
- The second speech act/action pole is where discourses are enacted and refers to the language and/or actions “used to achieve a specific consequence or outcome” PM Gillard, having determined the position the government would take on carbon pricing, enacted this discursive position by delivering this speech to the NSW Branch of the ALP-. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBOhUTAn5_s&feature=BFa&list=FL93yQ6pLp-9ovtSdn-6vpEg&lf=mh_lolz Tony Abbott used his “Address to the Nation” (10 July 2011) to enact the Opposition’s position http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkNSSCgeUE This final video further demonstrates Tony Abbott’s ability to enact different discourses depending on whom he is addressing- in this instance he was speaking to the no carbon tax rally in Canberra on 16 Ausgust 2011- http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalPartyTV#p/search/0/Wfhn6YyJdQY
- Once the Gillard Govenrment’s position was enacted, what followed was a series of speeches that contained the same or similar storylines to support a positioning goal of doing what is right for Australia. These were about the Labor way of doing reform, looking after battlers, her plan for a clean energy future, and the success to date of the Labor party in managing the economy. Tony Abbott’s storylines supported the Opposition’s central positioning goal of a carbon tax being bad for Australia, and were largely about the Coalition’s ‘better way’ of supporting existing Australian innovation, how the Coalition understands the pressure working families face in terms of rising prices, and how the Coalition will look after these working families. However the undoubted majority of Abbott’s storylines were about the negative impact of a carbon tax, and these were varied depending on whom he was addressing – for example his storyline about the negative impact on steel workers differed from a storyline about the impact of the carbon tax on Australian families, the economy, or small businesses.
- Taking the approach of using the positioning framework for discourse analysis indicates that both Gillard and Abbott held fast to their parties’ positions on carbon pricing throughout the lead-up period to the legislation’s introduction to Parliament. There was little evidence of straying from the basic premise that carbon pricing was good for the nation on one side, and that a carbon tax was bad for families and business on the other. The framework approach was also useful for mapping the efforts of each side to destabilise the position of the other. It showed how the storylines further developed from the positioning enactment points through the subsequent campaign in an effort to strengthen their own position and weaken that of the opponent. Accordingly this Galaxy Poll taken in October 2011 supports one of the key premises of this study and that is that throughout the period of this research project the Australian public were “against” a price on carbon and indeed, if Tony Abbott were to win the next election he would have a mandate to repeal the carbon tax legislation. One possible reason for this is that PM Gillard’s primary position that linked the carbon price to a “clean energy future” may well have been too abstract when compared to Abbott’s position that a carbon tax would be a “great big new tax on everything”. Each side used discourse to enact and support these positions but Gillard was cornered into linking all messages to investment in new technologies, leading the way forward on clean energy and so forth. Abbott, on the other hand, has literally everything at his disposal – he could talk about everything costing more and how this would make imported goods cheaper for consumers thus undermining Australia jobs.
- The evidence therefore strongly suggests that the Gillard Government’s decision to position a price on carbon in the way they did was ill-considered. This study suggests that the positioning framework could be useful when planning a positioning campaign as once a position has been determined, the way it will be enacted and supported through the campaign period can be mapped. In this process the likely arguments and attempts to destabilise the position could be anticipated and a decision made as to the likelihood of the positioning to hold against such efforts. The available discourses open to the Gillard Government once they had taken their position were extremely limited and one could argue that this could have been anticipated. Had the Government linked their plan to introduce a price on carbon to a different position that opened up the possibilities of different discourses, their efforts may have found more success in terms of public opinion. Abbott’s positioning was much more strategic in terms of opening up a myriad of discourses about increased costs and the impact of this on everything and everyone in Australia. Abbott’s team had the advantage of being able to position in relation to the stance taken by the Government but it could be argued that the Gillard team should have been able to predict such a response.
- The framework approach demonstrated the dynamism of positioning efforts as each side of the debate sought to strengthen its own position and to destabilise the other’s position. From a public relations /strategic communication theoretical perspective, the framework offers a new method of mapping the discourses used in a public policy debate.
- This slide of the positioning triangle domain demonstrates how all of the poles of the triangle need to align for positioning to be effective, and if one pole changes all of the poles must adjust to accommodate the change.