The role of research methods in corporate communication ee Gary P. Radford and Stuart Z, Goldstein Gary P. Radford is based at Faitigh Dickinson University, Madison, New Jevsey, USA, Stuart Z. Goldstein, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, New York, New York, USA. —— Research, Corporate communications, Roles [avstoct Posts that, wile research i acknowledged by Proctiones, a way of integrating the value of research mathe into the dao practice of cmporate onerunications has not been found. Test ths by wing appropiate research methodologies. Looks at therle of fesearch and then examines research methods and Corporate communication stategy, Condes that communication s becoming a knowledge-based profession and the tne between corporate Communicationpublic afoisdspines are converging, therefore mada tlation, sues management, acertsng and the rest ofthe dspines wil be more closely negate. oa The research register for this journal is availabe at httpsivww.emeraldinsight.comiresearchregisters The curent issue and ful ext archive of this journal is available at httpsiiwonn.emeraldinsight.con/1356-3289.htm Comat Communion: An ital Jounal Volure 7+ Wanker 4 202 «pp. 252-256 10 MCE UP Lined SSN 1356328 or vost 38632607 049831 Formalized research methodology serves two purposes. The frst is to Keep us, as researchers, hhonest and able to control our biases and reduce ur errors. The second is to enable us to convince a skeptical audience that what we have found is valid and accurate (Sumset, 2001) ‘The terms “research” and “research, methods” typically provoke a variety of interpretations in those who hear them. Students usually equate research with the writing of research papers, and the hours of toil and frustration they expect to experience lost in the labyrinths of the library or the World Wide Web. Practitioners typically think of the mechanics of information gathering: how is the research to be done and What instruments need to be employed? Certain images come to mind: the Questionnaire, survey, attitude scales, focus sroups, and so on. A common conception is to think of research methods as being like the contents of a tool box. You have problem, Research methods become relevant as tools t0 address that problem. The point of leaning about research methods is, first, to understand the growing importance and value in using these methods as a foundation for communication strategy and, second, to know which method to choose in order to carry out @ particular task, to lear how to use those methods effectively, and to know the limitations of each, In our view, while research is acknowledged by practitioners, they have not found a way to integrate the value of research methods into the day-to-day practice of corporate communications. As Deacon et al. (1999, p. 5) point our, “research methods are not just tools of the trade. They are ways of gathering evidence required by competing definitions of what counts as a legitimate and worthwhile approach to the investigation of social and cultural life.” Research is first and foremost « Way of articulating and supporting knowledge claims, but it is also an important means of adjudicating between competing knowledge claims. The corporate communicator has her view of a particular situation, you have yours, the public has theirs. How do we know that what's intuitive to the practitioner will be bore out by the perceptions of the general Public or by powerful segments of your stakeholders? We can test this by using ‘appropriate research methodologies. The difference, of course, is that the corporate communicator has access to research 252expertise and instruments that the public, typically, does not. The corporate communicator is in a position to back up his! her view of the situation with data collected by valid, reliable, and pre-tested instruments and checked by the rigor of statistical testing. ‘The public tend to act on their “opinions” or what they “feel”, The corporate ‘communicator has a tougher burden to try and influence these perceptions. And in @ real-time information age environment, the window of influence is narcower than in the past. The communicator can no longer simply rely on instinct, but needs to act on the basis of what he or she knows to be true as revealed and tested through the logic of scientific method, Knowledge claims based on research methodologies are very powerful claims because they draw upon the legitimacy of a particular common sense view of science and scientific knowledge. As Hesse (1981, p. 11) points out, science is viewed as “a linguistic system in which true propositions are in one- to-one relation to facts.” Van Fraassen (1980, . 12) describes this orientation as assuming that “the picture which science gives us of the world is a true one, faithful in its details, and the entities postulated in science really exist: the advances of science are discoveries, not inventions.” Research methods undertaken in support of scientific work thus have a Powerful claim to truth and a relation to the real world, to facts. ‘The question is why hasn’t che use of research methodologies to assert knowledge claims been embraced more readily by the corporate communications function? Without doubt, the advertising function has been ‘quicker to see this value and, as a result, has mistakenly gained greater status in influencing strategic messaging. We'd assert “mistakenly,” only because product-driven sloganeering is not a substitute for well-reasoned and broadly based communication strategy. Goodman (2000, p. 1) defines corporate communication as “the total of a corporation's efforts to communicate cffectively and profitably.” Argenti (1998, p. 31) remarks that corporate communication is “the way organizations communicate with various groups of people.” Argenti (1998) argues that while the term “corporate communication” is not new, the idea of corporate communication as a functional area of management equal in importance to finance, marketing, and production is very new. Historically, the role of communication, hhas been seen as adjunct to the business. ‘Communicators were tacticians, called in to vite press releases, speeches, annual reports, and marketing brochures. In the contemporary corporate environment, companies are looking for communicators who can integrate their activities with the firm’s business strategy and external positioning. Advertising, alone, is too narrow a discipline with its emphasis on product differentiation, Corporate communicators are increasingly required to have experience across the communication diseiplines so they know how to develop strategic and broadly based strategies that can influence outcomes and affect results. More and more companies are beginning to realize the importance of a unified approach to the communication function. As Goodman (2000) describes, corporate communication now describes & variety of management functions related to an organization’s external and internal communications, including a corporation's relations with the public, the community, investors, employees, the media, and local, state, and national governments. ‘The foundation of corporate ‘communicators’ role in the modem organization is their expertise in the use of communication as a tool that can be used to “lead, motivate, persuade, and inform” (Goodman, 2000, p. 69) in the interests of gaining a competitive advantage for the corporation. This is not a new idea by any ‘means, but the paradigm has been redefined in the “information age” so much so that the very survival of communicators requires them to see themselves as a catalyst for change. ‘This view dovetails with the principles of the seminal researchers who founded the field of communication science in the 1950s and 1960s. For example, Shannon and Weaver (1949, p. 3), in their seminal The ‘Mathematical Theory of Commumication remark that: “The word communication will be used here in a very broad sense to include all the procedures by which one mind may affect another.” A central problem of early communication research was “how effectively does the teceived meaning affect conduct in the desired way” (Shannon and Weaver, 1949, p. 4). Issues in communication effectiveness were identified from the ‘beginning as @ central part of communication 253theory in terms of the success with which the meaning conveyed by the sender leads to the desired conduct on the part of the receiver. Rogers and Valente (1993, p. 51) suggest that the role of communication in terms of its impact on potential receivers and sudiences “became the dominant paradigm for the field of communication research” and has remained so ever since. Corporate ‘communication practitioners are increasingly pressured by the needs of senior management to see communication as inherently strategic, not only because such a view enhances the goals of the organization, but because they are involved in helping to shape corporate strategy and lead the process of creating brand identity and reputation management, ‘The success of the communications practitioners in this role, however, will be increasingly dependent on their embrace of a ‘whole tradition of US research and theorizing that underpins and legitimizes their efforts ‘The preeminent communication scholar Carey (1979, p. 412) summarizes this as follows: ‘American studies are grounded in a transmission ‘or transportation view of communication. They see communication, therefore, as a process of ‘transmitting messages at a distance for the purpose of control. The archetypal case of ‘communication then is persuasion, attieude change, behavior modification, socialization through the transmission of information, influence, or conditioning ... It is also related strongly to the nineteenth-century desire to use ‘communication and transportation to extend influence, control, and power over wider distances and over greater populations ‘The academic study of communication in the USA is uniquely geared to educate students in the tactical nature and practice of strategic ‘communication. Working within this dominant paradigm, the corporate communicator faces essentially the same scenario as a public speaker preparing to give 4 persuasive speech. As Lucas (1995, p. 90) makes quite clear: “Good speakers are audience centered. They know the primary purpose of speech making is not to display one’s learning or demonstrate one’s superiority or blow off steam. Rather, itis to gain a desired response from listeners.” Lucas (1995, p. 91) offers the following framework for the development of persuasive messages: “To whom am I speaking? What do I want them to know, believe, or do as a result of my speech? What is the most effective way of composing and presenting my speech to ‘accomplish that aim?” ‘The place of corporate communication ‘within this paradigm of communication is clear from Argenti’s (1998, p. 45) “Expanded Corporate Communication Strategy Model”, According to Argenti, the driving principle of corporate communication is the question: “what does the organization want each constituency to do?”. The problem facing the corporate communicator isto craft a particular message to be delivered in an appropriate ‘medium such that the desired response is elicited from the constituency of interest. When we talk about strategic, we mean influencing outcomes and affecting results by: + quantifying perceptions of various audiences through research; + using these perceptions in developing targeted messages to distinct groups; + creating the capacity to reach large, diverse ‘constituencies with precision and speeds + managing communication messages through pre-emptive activities to influence news and views on various corporate issues; and + verifying results based on action taken or by quantifying shifts in public opinion, To reach this strategic level of influence, corporate communication departments in the future will have to function like a war room in 4 political campaign headquarters. As in a campaign, sophisticated research on perceptions of various publics and grassroots techniques will become standard practice (e.g. overnight polling). And technology will be used to reach those constituencies, once identified. Given this shifting paradigm, we heed to reconsider the role of research methods within such a framework. The role of research We consider the role of research in the context of Lucas’s model of persuasive speaking and Argenti’s model of corporate communication, According to Sumser (2001, p. 69), the purpose of research is “is to enable us to convince a skeptical audience that what we hhave found is valid and accurate.” Research is part of an overall strategy for persuasion. As Lucas (1995, pp. 337-8) argues, “persuasion isa strategic activity. Just as @ business woman ‘or military commander plots a strategy to gain 254oa Jee neritic tase 1 big sale or to be victorious in battle, so a persuasive speaker must have a strategy to win the audience to his or her side.” Research. methods are not only tools for collecting, information, they also form the basis of strategic decisions in the ereation of persuasive ‘messages. The invocation of research methods is not simply adding statistics as ‘ornamentation to a message. It is not simply conducting a survey and reporting the results. As Reinard (2001, p. 11) states, “research is an argument” (emphasis ours). It is a way of articulating and supporting particular knowledge claims. It is a way of making an argument effective and for gaining a desired response from a constituency, We invoke and describe our research methods in order to let ‘our audience know how much they can trust what we are telling them. Research methods, then, are part of an overall rhetorical and communication strategy that gives the audience the impression that it is not being thetotical, Conclusions derived from research, as opposed to speculation or opinion, are perceived as being objective and factual. They are associated with the sciemtitic ideals of facts, proof, and the truth. Sumser (2001, p. 71) summarizes this view as follows: Research methodology is an antirhetorical strategy ~ which is itself a rhetorical strategy. As researchers, we are saying, in effect, “You should not believe what I am saying because I can wrap ivup in fine flowery phrases. You should not believe what I tell you because T can bamboozle ‘you with subtly shifting definitions and overly ‘convoluted terminology. Instead, you should believe whar [say because I can show you, plainly and clearly, what I have done and the basis from which my conclusions follow.” The idea of plain, clear reasoning on the basis of evidence is @ ehetorial strategy. Corporate knowledge claims based on information derived from research methods can offer the following benefits: ‘They articulate and support knowledge claims through the use of a systematic method. + They posit an appropriate research question or problem. They state clearly and precisely “what do we want to know?” + They include a thorough and systematic review of existing research on the problem. + They generate an appropriate hypothesis that is testable against experience and which is firmly based in the information and conclusions derived from the literature review. + They test hypotheses against real world experience through the collection of data by pre-tested instruments which display appropriate levels of reliability and validity. + They present conclusions using appropriate statistical tests to determine if the results obtained are the result of error or chance. Research methods and corporate communication strategy Our contention is that corporate communicators have not done a very good job of using research as a foundation for strategy, Instead, they too often rely on intuition. But now, because of the instant flow of ‘communication, they will need something ‘more than intuition to assess and impact perceptions, While survey research has long been used to gauge public perceptions on ‘goues, we are entering an era where increasingly sophisticated techniques of marketing segmentation analysis and message distribution will be used to guide communication strategy. Instead of broad- brush strategies drawn from a large general sampling of opinion, technology supported research techniques will provide laser beam targeting capabilities, At Citicorp in the late 1980s, outside research firms were used to measure public awareness about banking reform. The costs for this type of research were high, which restricted the number of questions one could ask, As a result, the information was very general and had limited use. Let us contrast, that with today’s environment, where a ‘company can take its own national survey on a range of critical issues and public perceptions. Ten years ago, pollsters would hhave to reach 1,500 people in order to achieve a three or four percent error margin. Today, most national samples can achieve this error ‘margin with a 550-person sampling. Survey research, focus groups and other perception measurement techniques are becoming more economical and easier to execute. Some service providers are already marketing overnight polling via the Internet, Sophisticated geo-demographic targeting software combined with cognitive modeling (offered by social scientists) will allow communicators to identify by zip code large clusters of people with similar views across the 255“The feof esearch metbodn enprate communication ‘Gry. Bad and San Z Gatien country. This information can then be used to direct your corporate messages into highly specific media markets and to help prioritize hhow you allocate advertising dollars in newspapers, broadcast TV, magazines and even direct mail all with a degree of precision ‘unimaginable just a few years ago. Basy access to, and use of, direct database marketing techniques will significantly redirect how corporate PR professionals inform, influence and generate support among diverse stakeholder groups, e.g. employees, shareholders, customers and others Building on this example, le’s take it one step higher on the ladder of sophisticated ‘communication strategy. A consumer goods or ‘consumer services company today, like @ large bank or retail company, maintains large customer databases. You could take the analysis of the 10 key issues in your survey for supporters and break the group down by zip code. These zip codes could then be put back {nto the company’s large customer databases, ‘The information technology will then permit you to selectively insert issue-oriented material into customer statements and to send separate direct mail. Ifthe company does not have its ‘own customer database, it can contract out these services to a telemarketing/database ‘marketing company. Some of these larger ‘companies may have as many ¢s 100 million names and addresses in a database, drawn from available public sources of information (usually catalogue sales). None of the ideas will bbogele anyone's mind. The capabilites are not five or ten years off; many exist today. And in fact, there are companies experimenting with some of these research-driven strategies. ‘The twenty-first century is here and the communication support required by business is evolving rapidly. Communication is becoming a knowledge-based profession, and the lines between corporate communication’ public affairs disciplines are converging. In this new era, media relations, issues management, advertising and the rest of the disciplines will be more closely integrated to ensure clear, consistent and constant emphasis on key messages. This integration, moreover, will offer the capacity to change advertising messages, sometimes overnight, to address the changing perceptions of various ‘constituencies, We believe the dynamic forces reshaping business will lead communicators to understand the critical importance of Corporate Communists: ko etetion Jour Value 7 Nobar 42002 252-296 research and technology to guide strategy development and to provide implementation tools. It will also require more collaboration between universities and practitioners, as the need to develop laboratories where new thinking can be tested on how to structure the corporate communication function to fully lever these new research methods. In the final analysis, the long-standing question of demonstrating how corporate communication impacts the bottom line can never scientifically be proven and therefore establishes for the profession a false positive, Ironically, it’s a contradiction to the lessons of debate, that “he who defines the argument, ‘wins it.” But if the question at senior levels of corporation is based on, “can we demonstrate we've influenced the various Publics that are strategically essential to the bottom line and our success?” therein lies the answer of your survival and your influence. References Agent, PA. (1998), Corporate Communication, 2nd ed, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Carey, JW. (1979), "Mass communication research and ‘cultural stucies: an American view”, in Curran, J, GGurevteh, M. and Woollacott, J. (Es), Mass Communication and Society, Edward Amol, London, pp. 411-2. Deacon, 0, Pickering, M., Golding, P. and Murdock, (1998), Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Studies, mold, London Goodman, M8. (2000), “Corporate communication: the ‘American picture", Corporate Communications: An Intemational Joural, Vol. § No.2, pp. 69-74 Hesse, M. (1981), Revolutions and Reconstruction inthe Philosophy of Science, Princeton Univesity Press, Princeton, Ni Lucas, SE. (1995), The Art of Public Speaking, Sth ed, ‘McGraw, New York,NY. Reinard,1.C. (2001), Inveduction to Communication Research, (rd ed), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rogers, EM, and Valente, TW. (1993), “A history of information theory in communication research", in Schement, LR, and Ruben, 8.0. (Eds), derween Communication and information. Infomation and Behavior, Transaction Press, Vol. 4 New Brunswick NU, pp. 35:56. Shannon, CE. and Weaver, W, (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of linois Press, Urbana, IL. Sumser J. (2001), A Guide to Empirical Research in Communication: Rules for Looking, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Van Fraassen, 8.C. (1980), The Scientific Image, Clarendon Press, Oxford,