On the definition of public relations: a European view

On the definition of public relations: a European view

Dejan Vercic*, Betteke van Ruler, Gerhard Butschi, Bertil Flodin

Pristop Communications, Trubarjeva 79, SVN-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Received 1 April 2000; received in revised form 1 May 2001; accepted 1 July 2001

Abstract

The article confronts a U.S.-based definition of public relations as relationship management witha European view that besides a relational, argues also for a reflective paradigm that is concerned withpublics and the public sphere; not only with relational (which can in principle be private), but also withpublic consequences of organizational behavior. The article is based on a three year research projecton the European Public Relations Body of Knowledge and it reflects on the consequence of thatproject for definitional activities in the US practitioner and academic communities. © 2001 ElsevierScience Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In a recent article Hutton1 reopened a debate on the definition of public relations with thepurpose “to propose a definition of public relations; explore some of the implications of thatdefinition, in terms of the domain of public relations; propose a three-dimensional frameworkby which to analyze public relations theories and practice; and encourage the process ofintegration, rather than disintegration, of the field.”2 We find his endeavor commendable, yeta bit flawed: as many authors before him Hutton approached the field of public relations asbeing a solely North American theory and practice. By reading his article a reader gets theimpression that the conceptual issues Hutton discussed using solely sources from the U.S.equally apply around the globe and that the definition based solely on U.S. theory andpractice has a global validity. In this article we would like to question this based on ourthree-year research program on public relations in Europe. At least from a Europeanperspective we find Hutton’s definition, dimensions and the domain of public relations being

* Corresponding author. Tel.: �386-1-23-91-200; fax: �386-1-23-91-210.E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Vercic).

Pergamon

Public Relations Review 27 (2001) 373–387

0363-8111/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII: S0363-8111(01)00095-9

inadequate; yet we don’t claim that our proposals have a global reach—we think that furtherwork still needs to be done in Europe, but we also need a better understanding of the currentsituations in public relations theory and practice on other continents. It is only after we areable to take into consideration the full richness of the present state of thinking and practicingpublic relations around the globe that we will be able to draw conclusions towards what thepublic relations profession is in the world at the beginning of the 21st century.

In what follows we first introduce the reader into our project on the European publicrelations body of knowledge (EBOK). This is the fourth part of a still incomplete presen-tation of the results of that study.3 Then we review Hutton’s proposals on the definition,dimensions, and domain of public relations. These will be confronted with the findings fromour research. After that we present some ideas on how we could bridge the differences weencounter. In the final section we propose the areas for further investigation and explainwhere we intend to lead our research next.

2. The Delphi research in public relations in 25 European countries

2.1. Background

Twentieth century public relations was dominated by North American scholars andpractitioners. By its end, the U.S. had more than 3,000 universities teaching publicrelations—more than the rest of the world. The two U.S.-based practitioner organizations(PRSA—Public Relations Society of America, and IABC—International Public Rela-tions Association) each had more members than the International Public RelationsAssociation (IPRA). The major textbooks from both the practitioner and academic pressoriginated in the U.S. The global marketplace for public relations services was servedprimarily by U.S. agencies/networks.4 While all the above is witnessing the strength andvitality of U.S. academia and practice as compared to the rest of the world it seemed tohave produced a lack of interest on the part of U.S. scholars and practitioners for anytheoretical and practical work in public relations on other continents. This attitudesometimes turned into arrogance. Between 1988 and 1995 the Public Relations Societyof America was publishing a bibliography for public relations professionals entitled“Public Relations Body of Knowledge”—without noticing non American authors andpublications. Even the authors of the chapter on Europe in a major book on InternationalPublic Relations were Americans.5 Partly as a reaction to this ignorance in 1998 theEuropean Association of Public Relations Education and Research (CERP Education andResearch; in January 2001 the organization changed its name to EUPRERA—EuropeanPublic Relations Education and Research Association) mandated a task force to producethe European Public Relations Body of Knowledge—EBOK (with the authors of thisarticle being its members).

The EBOK was originally conceived as an electronic database accessible via the Internet.Its purpose was to codify the existing body of public relations literature in Europe and toenable its fuller use and affirmation. This bibliography was to include all public relations

374 D. Vercic et al. / Public Relations Review 27 (2001) 373–387

publications in all European languages published since 1990, with abstracts and theirtranslations in as many European languages as possible. By December 1998, nationalcoordinators (members of CERP Education and Research) were identified in 25 countries,but this task proved to be more complicated than initially thought because the task forcefound itself confronted with the question: What qualifies as a public relations literature item?It became clear that coordinators in different countries had different views on what is publicrelations and that before a bibliography could be produced common ground on which to buildit was needed. For that reason the EBOK project got a second component: a Delphi study onpublic relations in Europe.

2.2. Method

A Delphi study is a research method used in social sciences, including public relations, forassessing future, complex and ambiguous subjects.6 It is based on the techniques of iterativeand anonymous group interviewing. A group of respondents is typically composed of expertswho are asked to clarify muddled issues descriptively (e.g., “What is public relations?”)and/or normatively (e.g., “What ought to be public relations?”). The premise of the methodis that iterative questioning will either cause the range of answers to converge on themidrange of the distribution or will show a clear and reasoned dichotomy. The essence of themethod is to use participants’ answers in the following rounds. The usual iteration numberis three “rounds” or “waves”.

The critical element of a Delphi study is the quality of the respondents. The research teambased its selection of the respondents on the following criteria: (1) respondents shouldrepresent as many European countries as possible, (2) from each country there should be oneacademic and one practitioner, and (3) respondents should be knowledgeable in publicrelations in their country. In reality, 37 participants from 25 countries7 were involved in therealization of the study and the majority of the countries were represented only by anacademic. Questionnaires were distributed and answers received electronically (via e-mail)in three rounds between January 1999 and March 2000. The correspondence was carried outin English.

The first questionnaire had open and quite general questions on the public relationssituation in the respondent’s country. The answers to it alerted researchers to the issue oflanguages: it seemed that the respondent’s mother tongues and the labeling of “publicrelations” (since the study was done in English, the original term was used in the question-naire) were affecting responses. For that reason the second questionnaire was accompaniedwith a small supplemental questionnaire researchers called “Country Cards” in whichquestions on the original terminology were explored. Responses to these “Country Cards”revealed that all included languages (except the original, English, used in the UnitedKingdom and Ireland) have tremendous problems with the translation of the English term“public relations”: terms used as a translation of the English term “public relations” on thewhole European continent (except the British Isles) simply mean something significantlydifferent than in the original.

375D. Vercic et al. / Public Relations Review 27 (2001) 373–387

2.3. Meanings of public relations

Names for “public relations” in Germanic and Slavonic languages mean “relations withthe public” where “the public” itself denotes a slightly different phenomenon to the one it isgenerally assumed to mean in the public relations discipline in English. Here we take theGerman term for “public relations” as an example, but similar explanations apply to otherGermanic and Slavonic languages (thus covering the whole of Northern, Central and EasternEurope)—with the exception of the Slovenian language.8 The German term for “publicrelations” is “Offentlichkeitsarbeit,” which literally means “public work” and is explained as“working in public, with the public and for the public.”9 This denomination contradicts themainstream (U.S.) understanding of public relations as management of relationships betweenan organization and its publics.10 Yet, it also needs to be recognized that at least one Britishauthor defined public relations as “relations with the public”11 and that Olasky12 proposed analternative approach to the history of public relations as being differentiated from “privaterelations” (thus giving us also an alternative current meaning of public relations as somethingdifferent from just “relations with publics”).

Ever since these Germanic and Slavonic translations of the term public relations had beenintroduced to these languages it was obvious to the native speakers of those languages thattheir terms mean something different than the original (U.S. English) term.13 One conse-quence of this terminological discrimination is a parallel use of the original term in Englishand its translation in all Germanic and Slavonic languages. But as we have learned throughour Country Cards there was a strong reaction in many countries against the use of theAmerican expression which together with a recognition of the inadequacy of its translationcaused several European public relations associations to rename themselves in their lan-guages into some kind of “communication” associations (although they still define them-selves as public relations associations in English). This has, so far, happened in Denmark,The Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While Hutton14 sees derogatory connota-tions of the term public relations causing its decline as the field’s guiding descriptive term,15

in Europe problems with its translation seem to be guiding the same process.However, it would be wrong to just stop here with the recognition of this terminological

problem as being a matter of language(s) only. There is also a deeper-rooted cultural issueat stake here.16 “Offentlichkeit” does not mean “public”—it means “public sphere”17 and byequating “public” with “Offentlichkeit” “an analytic dimension is lost, namely that anessential aspect of public relations is that it is concerned with issues and values that areconsidered publicly relevant which means relating to the public sphere.”18 This line ofthought was developed in Germany by Oeckl19 and in the Netherlands by Van der Meiden.20

Their reasoning was that public relations is not only about relations with the public, but it isrelations in the public (sphere) and for the public (sphere). Furthermore, as Ronneberger andRuhl theoretically argued, public relations is to be measured by quality and quantity of thepublic sphere (it coproduces through its activities).21 Quality and quantity of the public(sphere) have to do with “offentliche Meinung”—which is to be translated as ‘publicopinion’. But this public opinion is not an aggregation of individual opinions as conceivedin public opinion polling.22 This public opinion as a benchmark for public relations is a typeof political authority that developed in the nineteenth century in opposition to monarchic


rulers and was the foundation on which democracies were built.23 Here public relationsserves a democratic function like journalism and they are both contributing to a free flow ofinformation and to the development of the public sphere both in size (“How many people areinvolved in public life?”) and in level (“What is the level at which we are discussing publicmatters?”). In this respect ‘public’ and ‘public relations’ in Europe can mean somethingdifferent to that in the United States. This concern with “the public sphere” highlights theissue of legitimacy and legitimation as one of the central concepts of public relations inEurope24 and in the Delphi study emerged as a specific dimension and/or role of Europeanpublic relations—a reflective dimension of public relations.25

Here we can see that attention to linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies has direct relevancefor the definition, dimensions and domain of public relations. As long as the U.S. Englishlanguage, U.S. practice and U.S. theory are the sole sources of conceptual work in the fieldpublic relations will be short of global inclusiveness and the validity it needs to become a trueacademic discipline and profession.26 This attention to non-U.S. sources of public relationsthinking and practice is needed not only to enable non-U.S.-based practitioners and academ-ics who are a part of the same field of theory and practice, but also for U.S.-based publicrelations as well. Globalization as “the frontier of multinationalism and cultural diversity”27

is not something going on “out there” beyond a country’s border, but is a complex ofinter-related processes of “globalizing ” forces that are at work not only “abroad,” but equallyaffect also one’s “home”.28 A global approach to the definition, dimensions and domain ofpublic relations is needed because wherever one lives his home base is globalizing and forthat reason “localized” (even if U.S.-based) approaches to public relations are simplyinadequate and out-of-synch with the times we live in.

But before we confront our European perspective to the definition, dimensions and domainof public relations based on our three-year research project we need to clarify why weselected Hutton’s article29 as our reference point and present his position.

Hutton’s article is only the most recent expression of the U.S. public relations concernwith the identity of the field. It is very valuable because it gives a broad exposition of theproblems involved and different positions articulated in both the past and the present. Wetake it, therefore, as a paradigmatical explanation of what public relations (in the U.S.) is andhow it should (or ought to) understand itself. We also want to refer to the new book ofLedingham and Bruning, which was edited last year in the United States and seen by manyas “a new paradigm” for public relations.30 So, although we refer in the rest of our article toHutton, we discuss (through him) the general mainstream understanding of US. publicrelations.

3. Hutton’s definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations

In this section we briefly summarize Hutton’s definition, dimensions and domain of publicrelations. In the next section we confront the theses from this section with the findings fromour own research in Europe. Then we propose how we could approach bridging the identifieddifferences.

Hutton proposed public relations to be defined as “managing strategic relationships”: “If


the field of public relations wishes to be master of its own destiny, it must settle on adefinition. Each of the alternative metaphors—public relations as (1) persuader, (2) advocate,(3) educator or dispenser of information, (4) crusader, (5) image-maker or reputationmanager, or (6) relationship builder/manager—has strengths, proponents, and practitioners.Only one, however, has the power to both define and serve as a paradigm (organizingphilosophy or model) for the field: relationship management.”31 He presented a hypothesisthat there are three dimensions which are “most likely to explain substantive differencesamong the various orientations or definitions of public relations. For the sake of simplicityand memorability the dimensions may be referred to as the ”3 I’s“: interest, initiative, andimage.”32 The first dimension answers the question: “To what degree is the public relationsfunction focused on client interests versus the public interest?” The second dimensionanswers the question: “To what extent is the public relations function reactive versuspro-active?” And the third dimension answers the question: “To what extent is the organi-zation focused on perception versus reality (or image vs. substance)?”

Hutton in the article does not specify what he meant with the term “domain,” but it canbe deduced that he presented its content with “a hierarchy of public relations’ primary roles,functions and tactics”:33

Definition“managing strategic relationships”

Situational rolespersuader, advocate, educator, crusader, information provider, reputation manager

Primary functions performedresearch, image making, counseling, managing, early warning, interpreting, communicat-ing, negotiating

Tactics/tools usedpublicity, product placement, news releases, speeches, interpersonal communication, websites, publications, trade shows, corporate identity programs, corporate advertising pro-grams, etc.

There are several contradictions in the use of concepts and in relations among them inHutton’s scheme. The most obvious one is that he did not propose a single situational rolethat would fit his definition of public relations. Next, he first defines “persuader”, “advocate”,“educator or dispenser of information”, “crusader”, “image-maker or reputation manager”and “relationship-builder/manager” as metaphors (of which the last one becomes a para-digm),34 but later these same become “situational roles” (with “relationship builder/man-ager” mysteriously disappearing).35 “Primary functions performed” are described at thedifferent levels of abstraction (“research” and “image making” are not the terms of the same levelof analysis, since research can well be a part of image making)36 and it is far from clear whatcould make them “primary” functions (of public relations?). Furthermore, “tactics/tools utilized”as listed in Hutton’s hierarchy all belong to the toolbox of publicity and symbolic (not behavioral)relationship management—which again violates the content of the definition proposed.

Notwithstanding the above contradictions (which may or may not be paradigmatic to the


state of affairs in the U.S. self-understanding of public relations—which is a question thatmerits a separate study) we use the presented definition as a benchmark to which we comparethe results of our study in Europe. This will enable us to identify the difference between theU.S. and Europe.

There is one more point in Hutton’s conclusions, contributions, and implications sectionthat is worth mentioning. In the concluding paragraphs the proposed definition of publicrelations (“managing strategic relationships”) is said to be breaking with “some long-standing ideas” that communication is the bedrock of public relations and that “communi-cation is a necessary but no longer sufficient foundation for public relations; training in socialpsychology, anthropology, and other social sciences (not to mention new technologies) isnecessary, in addition to business, management and perhaps industry-specific training.”37 Aswill become clear in our next paragraph, we believe that it is no use making a distinctionbetween communication and relationships. From our research it is obvious that—at least inEurope—even public relations researchers cannot make any clear difference between com-munication and relationships.38 What one sees as communication is what another used theword relationships for.

4. European dimensions of public relations

Before we proceed with our confrontation of a European with the U.S. perspective of publicrelations we need to qualify what we mean by “European.” Firstly, it covers the administrativeterritory of 43 countries.39 It thus relates to the geographic and physical location of publicrelations within Europe. Secondly, what we are more interested in is the social meaning of theterm “European” which could be seen as pertaining to the whole region of Europe and asdifferentiating it from other (social) spaces—in this article, from the U.S. As we have alreadyidentified earlier, language is such a differentiating device. In many European languages there issimply no adequate translation for the U.S. term “public relations” and for that reason in manyEuropean countries the public relations profession defines itself as “communication manage-ment”, “corporate communication” or as some other denomination of applied communication.The reason public relations identifies itself with some form of communication is thereforedifferent to the one presented by Hutton for the U.S.40

When ranking the key concepts for building a definition of public relations the EBOKDelphi study produced the following results:

Communication 21 Stakeholders 11Relationships 21 Environment 11Publics 20 Integrity/ethics 10Mutual understanding 20 Activity 10Management 18 Society 9Public trust 16 Information 8Organization 15 Philosophy 8Profession 14 Promotion 7Mutually beneficial 14 Informing people/society 7Building consensus 12 Avoiding conflicts 7Strategy 12 Engineering public support 5


To our list the notion of legitimacy was added.In the ranking list communication and relationships have the same number of sup-

porters. When we tried to make our respondents choose between a definition of publicrelations as “managing communication” and as “managing relationships” many of themrefused to make a selection as not being substantiated. Communication as a socialprocess is fundamental to any definition of a relationship and vice versa. It is thereforehighly questionable if a debate—whether public relations is about management ofcommunication or management of relations—is productive at all. A confrontation ofcommunication with behavior is nonsense in the light of the major part of the Europeansocial-scientific tradition— communication itself being a form of behavior and at thesame time the essence of any kind of relation. An interesting point of discussion seemsto be, however, what is meant by behavior. A common approach of European publicrelations scholars is to talk about communication as a specific kind of behavior, namelybehavior with signs and symbols.41

There are two easily identifiable differences of the European approach to publicrelations as compared to the U.S. that we have already mentioned: one is the lack of aconceptual dualism between communication and relationships and the other is demon-strated in various strategies adopted as a solution to the problem of a translation of theU.S. term “public relations.” A more salient difference, hidden in what we labeled fourdimensions or roles of European public relations, we identified as:

1. Managerial: to develop strategies to maintain relations with public groups in order togain public trust and/or mutual understanding. This role is concerned with the organiza-tional mission and strategy and is aimed at commercial or other (internal and external)public groups.2. Operational: to prepare a means of communication for the organization (and itsmembers) in order to help the organization formulate its communications. This role isconcerned with the communication plans developed by others and is aimed only at theimplementation and evaluation of the communication processes.3. Reflective: to analyze changing standards and values in society and discuss thesewith the members of the organization, in order to adjust the standards and values ofthe organization regarding social responsibility and legitimacy. This role is concernedwith organizational standards and values and aimed at the dominant coalition in theorganization.4. Educational: to help all the members of the organization to become communica-tively competent, in order to respond to social demands. This role is concerned withthe mentality and behavior of the members of the organization and is aimed at internalpublic groups.

There were four respondents who opposed the above identification of the four roles, whilethe rest of them agreed. Now, if we confront this with the definition, dimensions and domainof public relations as presented by Hutton, we clearly loose the reflective and educationalroles (which we use differently than Hutton). Yet, it is precisely these two roles that in somecountries, in particularly in Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, arebecoming the core of advanced public relations capability. One of our respondents suggested


that managerial, educational and operational roles cannot make a contribution to the orga-nization without the reflective role: “It therefore follows that the reflective role is the onlytrue role, at the very least it is the main one. ” For our European respondents these fourdimensions or roles define the domain of public relations, with public relations definitionsthat highlight “communication management” or “relationship management” having no sub-stantial distinction.

With the differences between the results of our Delphi study on public relations inEurope and Hutton’s definition, dimensions and domain of public relations (in the U.S.)a question emerges: So what? What does this tell us and what can we do with thesedifferences? In general there are three strategies to overcome the disparity between thetwo findings. Firstly, we could start arguing about who is right and who is wrong withthe intention for one of the proposed approaches to public relations to win over the other.Secondly, we could try to compromise the two approaches seeking common denomina-tors—which would probably make the result void of any meaningful content. Andthirdly, we may question our (both the one adopted by us in the EBOK Delphi study andthe one adopted by Hutton) approaches to the definition of public relations.

In the next section we will explore this third possibility, the reason being that wedoubt that the first two possibilities could give us any mutually acceptable results. Andwith this article presenting a debate between the U.S. and Europe we need to adopt astrategy that would allow practitioners and academics from other continents to jointheorizing on public relations. In the last quarter of the past century a great deal of workon and in public relations was done in Asia (including Australia and New Zealand),Central and South America, and Africa—the majority of which is unknown to themainstream, U.S.-originating theory of public relations.

5. How to start bridging the differences in public relations definitions?

All the disciplines and professions we know struggle with the multiplicity of oftencontradicting definitions. This multiplicity is sometimes explained away as a result ofinfancy and sometimes as a result of maturity of a field.42 In that respect, public relationsis not different from any other academic social discipline or from any profession inpractice. In The New Handbook of Organizational Communication that has just beenpublished, Stanley Deetz43 approached the question “What is organizational communi-cation?” by explicating three different ways that are available for conceptualization. Bytransposing his presentation to the question “What is public relations?” we can do oneof the following three things.

First, we can focus on the development of public relations as a speciality in publicrelations departments and public relations associations. As Deetz expects for his field ofinterest, we can also expect for public relations that adopting this approach would bring usto a classic complaint that there are as many public relations definitions as there are peoplepracticing and teaching it: “It is not surprising that these reviews often contain laments aboutthe disunity of the field. This may well be an artifact of the organizing principle used.”44

A second approach to conceptualizing public relations focuses on a phenomenon that


exists out there. This was the approach adopted by both Hutton in his article and by us in ourEBOK Delphi research. But by confronting our results in the previous section, we have toadmit that there is no unified phenomenon out there and that public relations “is not onephenomenon with many explanations; each form of explanation may conceptualize andexplain different phenomenon. Fixed subdivisions are always a kind of theoretical hegemo-ny.”45 Public relations as a phenomenon may indeed differ between social spaces (e.g.,continents), so looking for the lowest common denominator is pointless.

A third way Deetz proposes is to approach the issue of public relations as a way todescribe and explain organization. That is exactly what other managerial disciplines andprofessions are doing: financiers describe and explain organizations from a financialperspective, lawyers from a legal perspective, marketing from a market perspective.What we need to find for public relations is “a distinct mode of explanation or way ofthinking about organizations.”46 What we need to develop is a public relations theory oforganizing and organization.

What is the specific characteristic of the public relations approach to organizing andorganization? Relationships are not, since they are claimed by general management,47

marketing,48 social49 and organizational50 psychology and many other disciplines. Whatdistinguishes the public relations manager when he sits down at a table with othermanagers is that he brings to the table a special concern for broader societal issues andapproaches to any problem with a concern for implications of organizational behaviortowards and in the public sphere. It is precisely this concern that is implicit in definitionsof public relations as “relationships management” and as “communication management,”in both “image management” and “reputation management,” and is fundamental for theunderstanding of some of the fundamental concepts like “stakeholders”, “public(s)” and “activ-ists.” In Europe this is specially contained in the reflective and educational dimensions of publicrelations (the latter pertaining to the development of social and communicative competence ofand in an organization and not to a dissemination of information), but in the U.S. it has specialfeatures in situations concerned with “nondiscrimination”, “nonharassment” and different kindsof “nonisms” (like “nonageism”), which all seem very different to how the underlying similarproblems are dealt with in Europe.

A bridge that may bring us from different approaches to public relations together isour common approach to organizing and organization. In that respect Olasky’s alterna-tive exposition of U.S. public relations history may be a very valuable starting-point— bydifferentiating “public” from “private” relations. Public relations practitioners and aca-demics approach organizing and organizations from a “public” perspective, being con-cerned with phenomena of reflexivity (of organizational behavior) and legitimacy. Seenfrom this standpoint public relations is not just a phenomenon to be described anddefined. It is first of all a strategic process of viewing an organization from an “outside”view. It’s primary concerns are the organization’s inclusiveness and it’s preservation ofthe “license to operate”.51 As marketing is viewing an organization from a market view,public relations is viewing an organization from a public view (meant as “publicsphere”). We therefore like to broaden the relational approach to public relations into apublic or a reflective approach.


6. Implications and conclusions

In this article we have confronted a U.S.-based definition of public relations with the resultsfrom a three-year research project on the European Public Relations Body of Knowledge. Bothapproached the definition of public relations by trying to identify the domain of public relationsand looking for a phenomenon to be described and defined as public relations. But they arrivedat different definitions. For that reason we asked a question on how we could build a bridge toovercome the differences. We found such a bridge in Deetz’s suggestion that a social disciplineshould rather than search for a phenomenon to legitimize its existence, search for a special viewit brings to our understanding of the world. We therefore propose that further work on thedefinition of public relations be done in questioning what viewing organizations from a publicrelations perspective adds to other disciplinary approaches.

We have briefly reported some problems we encountered when exploring public relations inEurope with a Delphi method using English as the language of our correspondence, which causedus to become attentive to the issue of how one’s mother tongue affects one’s understanding ofwhat public relations is and what it does. For that reason we decided to add in 2001 the thirdcomponent to the EBOK project by beginning an ethnographic study on public relations inEurope, exploring its emergence, histories and interrelation through time and space. A new taskforce was formed and it is already preparing a list of correspondents that will help it collectethnographic information on public relations in 28 European countries.52

Dejan Vercic is a founding Partner of Pristop Communications and teaches communi-cation management and public relations at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Betteke van Ruler is an associate professor in communication science and communi-cation management at the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Gerhard Butschi works as a management consultant in Basel, Switzerland, and is anadjunct member of the Graduate Faculty in the Department of Journalism at TheUniversity of Memphis, Tennessee, U.S.A.

Bertil Flodin is an associate professor in Journalism and Mass Communication and afounding partner of Con Brio Communications in Sweden.

References

[1] James G. Hutton, “The Definition, Dimensions, and Domain of Public Relations,” Public Relations Review,2 (1999), pp. 199–214.


[2] Ibid., p. 200.[3] The first three are: Dejan Vercic, “The European Public Relations Body of Knowledge,” Journal of

Communication Management, 4 (2000), pp. 341–354; Betteke van Ruler, “Future Research andPractice of Public Relations, a European Approach,” in Dejan Vercic, Jon White and Danny Moss(eds.), Public Relations, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications in the New Millennium: TheFuture. Proceedings of the 7th International Public Relations Research Symposium, 7th– 8th July 2000,Lake Bled, Slovenia (Ljubljana: Pristop Communications, 2000), pp. 157–163; Betteke van Ruler,Dejan Vercic, Bertil Flodin and Gerhard Butschi, “Public Relations: What is the Matter in Europe?Analysis of a Delphi Research Project,” paper presented at the 51st Annual conference of theInternational Communication Association, May 24 –28, 2001, Washington, DC.

[4] Dejan Vercic, Ales Razpet, Samo Dekleva and Mitja Slenc, “International Public Relations and theInternet: Diffusion and Linkages,” Journal of Communication Management, 2 (2000), pp.125–137.

[5] Vincent Hazleton and Dean Kruckeberg, “European Public Relation Practice: An Evolving Paradigm,”in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 367–377.

[6] As examples of the previous use of the Delphi method in public relations research, see Jon White andJohn Blamphin, “Priorities for research into public relations practice in the United Kingdom: A reportfrom a Delphi study carried out among UK practitioners and public relations academics in May, Juneand July 1994,” unpublished paper, City University, London; Betteke van Ruler, “Communication:Magical Mystery or Scientific Concept? Professional Views of Public Relations Practitioners in theNetherlands,” in Danny Moss, Toby MacManus and Dejan Vercic (eds.), Public Relations Research:An International Prespective (London: International Thomson Business Press, 1997), pp. 247–263;Robert I. Wakefield, “Preliminary Delphi Research on International Public Relations Programming:Initial Data Supports Application of Certain Generic/Specific Concepts,” in Danny Moss, Dejan Vercicand Gary Warnaby (eds.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (London and New York:Routledge), pp. 179 –208.

[7] Countries represented in the Delphi study are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia,Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.

[8] Until the 1990s, the Slovenian term for public relations was “stiki z javnostjo”—literally meaning“contacts with the public.” In the early 1990s Dejan Vercic proposed a new term—“odnosi zjavnostmi” (literally meaning “relations with publics”), causing a public outcry from the side ofSlovenian language purists who argued that the term “public” cannot form a plural in Slavic languages.The term “odnosi z javnostmi” received its legitimacy when Dejan Vercic completed a Masters Thesison public relations at the University of Ljubljana in which he successfully defended the term: DejanVercic, Odnosi z javnostmi: nastanek, zgodovina in teorije [Public Relations: Origins, History andTheories] (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Social Sciences, unpublished Masters Thesis,May 26, 1995).

[9] Karl Nessmann, “The Origins and Development of Public Relations in Germany and Austria,” inDanny Moss, Dejan Vercic and Gary Warnaby (eds.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research(London and New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 212–225.

[10] Which is the basis for the definition offered by James G. Hutton, op. cit.; see also Edward L. Bernays,The Late Years: Public Relations Insight 1956 –1986 (Rhineback, NY: H&M Publishers, 1986), p. 35;George Cheney and George N. Dionispoulos, “Public Relations? No, Relations with Publics: ARhetorical-Organizational Approach to Contemporary Corporate Communications,” in Carl Botan andVincent Hazleton, Jr. (eds.), Public Relations Theory (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1987), pp. 135–157; Robert S. Cole, The Practical Handbook of Public Relations (Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981), p. 4; James E. Grunig, “A Situational Theory of Publics: Conceptual History,Recent Challenges and New Research,” in Danny Moss, Toby MacManus and Dejan Vercic (eds.),Public Relations Research: An International Perspective (London: International Thomson Business


Press, 1997), pp. 3– 48; Jon White, How to Understand and Manage Public Relations: A Jargon-FreeGuide to Public Relations Management (London: Random, 1991), p. ix.

[11] Frank Jeffkins, Planned Press and Public Relations (London: International Textbook Company, 1977),p. 3.

[12] Marvin N. Olasky, Corporate Public Relations: A New Historical Perspective (Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 1987).

[13] Karl Nessmann, op. cit., p. 220.[14] James G. Hutton, op. cit. pp. 199 –203.[15] For a similar argument from the UK, see: Kevin Moloney, Rethinking Public Relations: Spin and

Substance (London and New York: Routledge, 2000).[16] Toby MacManus, “Public Relations: The Cultural Dimension,” in Danny Moss, Dejan Vercic and Gary

Warnaby (eds.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (London and New York: Routledge, 2000),pp. 159 –178.

[17] Inger Jensen, “Public Relations and the Public Sphere in the Future,” in Dejan Vercic, Jon White andDanny Moss (eds.), Public Relations, Public Affairs and Corporate Communications in the NewMillennium: The Future. Proceedings of the 7th International Public Relations Research Symposium,7th-8th July 2000, Lake Bled, Slovenia (Ljubljana: Pristop Communications, 2000), pp. 64 –71.

[18] Ibid, p. 66; Inger Jensen in the quoted passage confronts the notion of the public sphere to theU.S.-based arguments on the logical impossibility of “the public” or “the general public” as in JamesE. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1984),p.138.

[19] Albert Oeckl, Handbuch der Public Relations: Theorie und Praxis der Offentlichtkeitarbeit in Deut-schland und der Welt. (Munchen: Suddeutscher Verlag, 1976), p.19.

[20] See: Anne van der Meiden in his inaugural speech about views on “public” in the development ofpublic relations in the Netherlands: Anne van der Meiden, Wat zullen de mensen ervan zeggen? Enkelevisies op het publiek in de ontwikkelingsgang van de public relations (Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht,1978).

[21] Franz Ronneberger and Manfred Ruhl, Theorie der Public Relations: Ein Entwurf. (Opladen: West-deutscher Verlag 1992), p.58.

[22] See Vincent Price, Public Opinion. (Newsbury Park: Sage, 1992).[23] See Jurgen Habermas, Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit. (Darmstadt: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag,

1962).[24] See Inger Jensen, “Legitimacy and Strategy of Different Companies: A Perspective of External and

Internal Public Relations,” in Danny Moss, Toby MacManus and Dejan Vercic (eds.), Public RelationsResearch: An International Perspective (London: International Thomson Business Press, 1997), pp.225–246.

[25] Susanne Holmstrom, “The Reflective Paradigm Turning into Ceremony? Three Phases for PublicRelations—Strategic, Normative and Cognitive—in the Institutionalisation of New Business ParadigmLeading to Three Scenarios,” in Dejan Vercic, Jon White and Danny Moss (eds.), Public Relations,Public Affairs and Corporate Communications in the New Millennium: The Future. Proceedings of the7th International Public Relations Research Symposium, 7th-8th July 2000, Lake Bled, Slovenia(Ljubljana: Pristop Communications, 2000), pp. 41– 63; for theoretical foundations of the reflectiveapproach to public relations and its linkages to the fundamental streams of European social sciences,see: Susanne Holmstrom, An Intersubjective and Social Systemic Public Relations Paradigm: PublicRelations Interpreted from Systems Theory (Niklas Luhmann) in Opposition to the Critical Tradition(Jurgen Habermas) (University of Roskilde, Denmark, Public Relations dissertation, 1996; the authorreceived for this dissertation the European Public Relations Educational Award in October 1998).

[26] For a similar line of reasoning from New Zealand, see: Judy Motion and Shirley Leitch, “AgainstGrand Narratives: Localized Knowledges of Public Relations,” Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal,1 (1999), pp.27–38; also: Judy Motion and Shirley Leitch, “New Zealand Perspectives on Public


Relations,” in Robert L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001),pp. 659 – 663.

[27] Robert L. Heath, Globalization—The Frontier of Multinationalism and Cultural Diversity, in Robert L.Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), pp. 625– 628.

[28] Peter Dicken, Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy (London: Paul Chapman Publishing,1998, 3rd ed.), p. 5; see also Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (eds.), ReflexiveModernization: Politics, Tradition and Esthetics in the Modern Social Order (Cambridge, UK: PolityPress, 1994).

[29] James G. Hutton, op. cit.[30] James G. Hutton, op. cit.[31] James G. Hutton, op. cit, pp. 208.[32] Ibid., p. 204.[33] Ibid., p. 211.[34] Ibid., p. 208.[35] Ibid., p. 211.[36] Ibid.[37] Ibid., p. 212.[38] See Betteke van Ruler, Dejan Vercic, Gerhard Butschi and Bertil Flodin, “Dimensions of Public

Relations in Europe: The European Body of Knowledge Project,” Journal of Public Relations Re-search, forthcoming.

[39] Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarussia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,Italy, Latvia, Liechenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,Ukraine, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

[40] We concentrate here on those European countries that use some other language as their primarylanguage of communication and not English (which means that situation is specific in the UK andIreland, which we do not analyze here).

[41] See Betteke van Ruler, Communicatiemanagement in Nederland (Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum,1996), p. 69: “What makes human behavior communication is that it is behavior or interaction withsymbols,” and James E. Stappers, Communicatie en Communicatiemodellen (Nijmegen: KatholiekeUniversiteit Nijmegen, 1966 — dissertation) who on p. 35 refers to the idea that communication is “Ato B re X” instead “A to B � X”.

[42] For the same situation in organizational studies, see: Stewart R. Clegg and Cynthia Hardy, “Introduc-tion: Organizations, Organization and Organizing,” in Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy and Walter R.Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies (London: Sage, 1996), pp.1–28.

[43] Stanley Deetz, “Conceptual Foundations,” in Fredric M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam (eds.), The NewHandbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods (ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 2001), pp. 3– 46.

[44] Ibid., p. 5.[45] Ibid.[46] Ibid.[47] This was the defining characteristic of the management discipline from its very foundations, see:

Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard UniversityPress, 1968; orig. 1938); for a recent exposition of the same argument, see: John Kay, Foundations ofCorporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995).

[48] Regis McKenna, Relationship Marketing: Successful Strategies for the Age of the Customer (Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991)—public relations academics and practitioners are making a seriousmistake when they suppress marketing conceptualizations of their field as relating to all, not onlymarket-oriented relationships, and see this as “encroachment”—it is not on us, public relationsdevotees to define what some other discipline is to think and do.


[49] Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Handbook of Social Psychology (New York: Random Press,1985, 3rd ed.).

[50] Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1978, 2nd ed.); for even a more relationship-oriented approach to organizational psychology, see:Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1979, 2nd ed.).

[51] RSA, Tomorrow’s Company (London: The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures& Commerce, 1995).

[52] After the completion of the EBOK Delphi study, three more countries joined the project: Greece, Maltaand Turkey.


Documents

On the definition of public relations: a European view