Luoma-Aho 2020 Introductionto Public Sector Communication

Introduction to
Public Sector
Communication
Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel
Public sector organizations exist to make society function effectively. These organizations
govern, serve citizens, and run the public sector and its services according to principles set by
the government. In their communication, public sector organizations must balance the demo-
cratic communication aims of engaging citizens with organizational and institutional goals, as
well as with survival in the midst of budget restrictions. The ultimate goal of public sector
communication is to enable citizen welfare, but how this can be achieved in practice is both
academically and professionally debated. In fact, public sector organizations’ communication
reflects the cultural and historical heritage of the society around them, and as such there is no
one universal model of “good public sector communication.” Models and practices that are
effective in one societal setting may actually be detrimental in another.
Despite this diversity, there appear to be similar challenges emerging for public sector
organizations globally, and there is thus a need for a deeper understanding of how com-
munication might be used to address these challenges. The aim of this handbook is to
provide a comprehensive look at public sector communication. It describes and analyzes
the contexts, policies, aims, issues, questions, and practices that shape public sector com-
munication in order to understand the complex communication environment as well as the
changing citizen and stakeholder expectations that public sector organizations are facing
today. These chapters provide a comprehensive overview of current public sector commu-
nication research.
The structure of this introductory chapter is as follows. We first consider the relevance of
the topic, discussing the specificities, relative to the conditions found in the private and third
sectors, of the public sector as a subject of communication. We then introduce the issue of
publicness in order to clarify and define public sector communication. Next, we position
contributions from different research areas and disciplines to describe what we know so far
about the topic. And finally, we explore the various changes that are affecting contexts
and citizens, as well as how these shape public sector communication today, and present the
structure of this handbook.
The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel
Why Is Public Sector Communication Special?

Public sector organizations are also known as public authority organizations. Authority can be
characterized as legitimated power, and public sector organizations require public consent in
democratic settings (or coercion in totalitarian regimes) to operate. Public sector organizations
operate on several levels—national, regional, and municipal—and they have both politically
elected and appointed officials and volunteers as public servants. Public sector organizations
often provide public services funded by taxes or other forms of public funding.
What makes public sector organizations’ communication special? Though there is much
discussion of how the public sector is becoming more and more businesslike with its increased
competition and satisfaction measures, there remain eight distinct traits of public sector
communication:
1 The environment within which public sector organizations communicate is political, which
affects resources, timing, personnel, and goals (Liu & Horsley, 2007).
2 As there is more public pressure for transparency, public sector organizations often have a
symbiotic relationship with the media (Fredriksson, Schillemans, & Pallas, 2015), in which
organizational actions and decisions are combined with negative media coverage (Liu,
Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010), narrowing the options for actions.
3 Public sector structures are more complex, diverse, and uncertain in terms of objectives and
decision‐making criteria (Bjornholt & Houlberg Salomonsen, 2015; Canel & Luoma‐aho,
2015; Canel & Sanders, 2012). Moreover, the public sector is less open to market competi-
tion than the private sector is, and it has fewer incentives to reduce costs and exhibits less
concern about consumer preferences (Thijs & Staes, 2008).
4 Public sector organizations are more constrained by legal and regulatory frameworks than
corporations are; they are subject to a greater level of public scrutiny and are required to
have a high degree of accountability to their constituencies. Public sector organizations
cannot choose whom they serve, and nor can they tailor their services to meet the needs of
their favored customers (Luoma‐aho, 2008).
5 As their legitimacy depends on citizen approval, public sector organizations understand
the important role of listening to citizens and how their success in listening can affect this
legitimacy (Macnamara, 2016).
6 The diversity and multiplicity of publics and stakeholders exceed that of corporations
(Sanders & Canel, 2013; Wæraas & Maor, 2015).
7 As the services that public sector organizations provide are mostly intangible, measuring
their success and the impact of their final products is particularly challenging (Cinca,
Molinero, & Queiroz, 2003).
8 The speed at which decision‐making occurs is slower for public sector organizations than it
is for businesses.
This difference is due to public procedures and bureaucracy, as public sector organizations
often have limited budgets that are influenced by multiple stakeholders. Public sector organiza-
tions have to operate under a variety of constraints and are required to balance political guide-
lines, national guidelines, international cooperation, ideologies management, the bureaucratic
culture of administration, and ongoing citizen and customer feedback.
Communication has always been important, but public sector organizations have only begun
to hire communication professionals in recent decades. These professionals operate in a dynamic
and unpredictable environment, and they must combine organizational responsibilities with
emerging citizen and employee needs: “As the end‐users represent a wide variety of individual
needs and expectations, public sector organizations are often specialized into regions or areas of
expertise, and must balance multiple goals” (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016, p. 598). Their vast
Introduction to Public Sector Communication 3
responsibilities cover diverse fields, such as infrastructure, livelihood, transportation, education,

and health care. Priorities are constantly renegotiated in public sector communication, as
unexpected issues may lead to the emergence of new and unexpected stakeholder groups
(Luoma‐aho & Paloviita, 2010).
It is possible to argue that public opinion and citizens’ views are more important for public sector
organizations than they are for corporations, as they serve as distributors of democracy in practice.
Despite the complex operating environment, almost all citizens have an opinion about public sector
organizations or their reputation. These opinions are formed through the interplay of public organi-
zations’ communication, achievements, expectations, and trust, and they are shaped by both the
media and the cultural settings in which they emerge (James & Moseley, 2014; Liu et al., 2010).
Moreover, although citizens may be able to assess services that they receive directly (Laing, 2003),
several types of public services that produce social benefits require an understanding of complex
interactions as well as professional knowledge, such as that held by analysts. Direct contact with
public services and products helps citizens to evaluate these entities, but intangible products or
services remain extremely challenging to understand (Van Der Hart, 1991).
Defining Public Sector Communication

In order to understand the topic of this handbook, we first need to explore the meaning of
“public” and examine how various scholarly definitions of “communication” help to delineate
the meaning of the “public sector communication” binomial.
Degrees of Publicness: The Publicness Fan and Its Implications

for Public Sector Communication
As the environment around public sector organizations changes, one may question what
counts as public within today’s hybrid forms of organization and collaboration. If services are
outsourced, or if organizations are more project based and funding is only temporary, who is
ultimately responsible for their success? And what exactly defines whether an organization is
actually considered public?
Elsewhere, we have discussed the issue of publicness (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019), reviewing
scholarly contributions from political science and public administration studies about what has
been called the “public puzzle” (Antonsen & Jørgensen, 1997; Bozeman & Bretschneider,
1994). The focus of the debate is the blurring boundaries between the private and public
sectors, a process that further accelerated owing to the global economic and financial crisis,
through which patterns of publicness have changed in unanticipated ways (Meier & O’Toole,
2011, p. 284). Publicness is relevant to the extent that differentiating the public from the private
helps to establish criteria with which to conceptualize communication, as well as with which to
compare and analyze its practice.
The most commonly accepted criteria to define publicness include ownership (private firms
are owned by shareholders, whereas public agencies are owned collectively by the state), sources
of financial resources (public agencies are funded by taxation rather than by fees paid directly by
customers), and control (political forces versus market forces) (Andrews, Boyne, & Walker,
2011; Rainey, 2011; Walker, Brewer, Boyne, & Avellaneda, 2011). Scholars have introduced the
“public purpose” criteria to measure the degree to which organizations adhere to public sector
values (democratic accountability, production of collective goods, compliance with due process,
and so forth), and in doing so they have highlighted not only the tasks performed but the values
that organizations feel obligated to uphold. Thus “publicness” is indicative of a process of public
values as inputs, which results in public values as outcomes (Antonsen & Jørgensen, 1997;
Bozeman & Moulton, 2011; Meier & O’Toole, 2011).
con ndently
Ind
cted
gai
ivid
n
stru
pe
ual
Inde
rs,
PU
Pr ne ers
RP
w
UES
iva O old
te h
OS
re
ha
VAL
E
OW T- s
NE O UN
RS C Y
AC ILIT
Com good
HI
P
soc y
AB
iety
b
nd civil
mo
Non nts
Set
Inde
pend te a ities r va
n
ent St a se
CON ate St thor EE S
TRO au LOY
L EMP
Gove
rnme Civil ns
nt a
Public serv
(State, Government)
Taxes, Nonprofit,
Private FUNDING PROFIT For profit
public funding self-sustaining
Figure I.1 The publicness fan (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019, p. 29) showing the continuums of what is
considered public.
We have illustrated the publicness of public sector organizations through the image of a fan
(see Figure I.1), which shows a continuum of various degrees of publicness that are subject to
change during the lifespan and evolution of a given public sector organization. The fan structure
implies that actors involved in a specific communication situation or action can have different
degrees of publicness. The center of the fan represents the “purely public” organizations, such
as states or governments. The degree of publicness diminishes toward the outskirts of the fan.
We suggest that publicness consists of several variables: funding, control, ownership, purpose,
values, accountability, employees, and profit. We are aware that there is some overlap between
these variables: for instance, “employees” (whether civil servants or otherwise) could arguably be
considered a feature of “ownership”; “profit” (nonprofit versus for profit) is related to “funding”;
and “accountability” relates to the “control” that an organization is subject to. The publicness
fan separates these variables in order to give this tool the most analytical power possible. Finally,
the variable “purpose” measures how oriented an organization or service is to the common
good as opposed to individual gain. “Values” measures to what extent the values that guide an
organization are set by society as opposed to their being independently constructed.
This fan is a tool that facilitates investigation of the way in which communication is concep-
tualized and practiced in organizations, and it provides assistance in establishing cross‐sector
research questions and hypotheses to explore whether publicness makes a difference. For
instance, following Walker and Bozeman’s approach to cross‐sector comparative analysis
(Walker et al., 2011, pp. 1–2), specific research questions about communication could include
the following:
• What are the specific constraints (in terms of strategies, structures, processes, and values) that
affect the public sector’s communication management?
• How do these compare with the private sector’s communication management?
• Are achievements in terms of communication performance affected by these management
differences?
• What problems, challenges, and opportunities do these comparisons highlight?
An organization’s degree of publicness influences its communication. For instance, Gelders,

Bouckaert, and Van Ruler argue that the greater the level of public funding that is available,
the more uncertain public policies are, and in turn, the less certain the schedule for dissemina-
tion of public information becomes (Gelders, Bouckaert, & Van Ruler, 2007). Moreover, the
more government control is exercised over an organization, the greater the extent to which
effective communication is needed in order to overcome stakeholders’ negative judgments
(Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012, pp. 186–187), the more public the organization’s ownership is,
and the shorter term the basis for positioning the organization’s brand promise becomes
(Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). In terms of personnel, the larger the proportion of permanent
civil servants among its employees is, the more rigid the legal framework in which the organi-
zation operates will be (Gelders et al., 2007). Finally, in the case of more public organizations,
more specific criteria are set for recruitment, training, and promotion, as well as for the
formulation of the values and principles that should prevail in government communication
(Sanders & Canel, 2013).
An organization’s degree of publicness is related to its degree of accountability, and this
relationship has implications on communication. On the one hand, when organizations are
more public, they are more accountable owing to stringent transparency demands (Sanders &
Canel, 2013), a phenomenon that most democratic countries are experiencing through the
development of transparency and freedom of information laws. These experiences may foster
public sector communicators to look for new and innovative ways of establishing relations
with citizens. On the other hand, and precisely because of these laws, organizations might
become too rigid and thus less creative in their communication (Gelders et al., 2007; Graber,
2003; Liu et al., 2010). This ongoing accountability is also present in the media, and it
constrains communication strategies—for example, the timing and content of messages and
the information released (Gelders et al., 2007). Negative media coverage might block govern-
mental programs in practice, and in seeking positive news, public sector communicators run
the risk of making their messages too technical or emotionless (Fredriksson et al., 2015).
Continuous public scrutiny can weaken the success of communication strategies (Vos &
Schoemaker, 2006) and increase cynicism, regardless of how honest governmental messages
might be in practice (Liu & Horsley, 2007). This scrutiny can also engender suspicions about
governments’ intentions when they professionalize their communication (Sanders & Canel,
2013). Finally, the more an organization serves the common good, the more it has to deal with
complex, multifaceted, and conflicting goals. Multipurpose organizations often have multiple
publics, each of which places demands and constraints on managers (Gelders et al., 2007;
Luoma‐aho, 2008).
In sum, the degree of publicness implies different specificities, constraints, and challenges for
communication. These include:
• Segmentation of messages according to different publics (Carpenter & Krause, 2012);

• Implementation of internal communication programs with changing authorities (Canel,
2007; Garnett, 1992; Sanders & Canel, 2013) and organizational culture programs (Gelders
et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2010);
• The building of intangible assets such as reputation (Wæraas & Sataøen, 2015), brand,
institutional social responsibility, and social capital;
• Identification of the best formulae, methods, and techniques for measuring these intangible
assets’ effects (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015).
This handbook is concerned with these challenges, but before we examine the current contexts
in which they should be addressed and how different research fields contribute to the study of
them, we will provide a definition of public sector communication.
In Search of a Definition
The first in its field, this handbook of public sector communication builds on previous work
from organizational and administration studies, political communication, public relations, and
organizational communication. Table I.1 summarizes the definitions of public sector communi-
cation from various fields. From these definitions, we can ask some critical questions.
All of the definitions begin by asking who the subjects involved in public sector communication
are. Most definitions mention only governments or public sector authorities and organizations,
and they exclude other types of actors. Although public sector communication traditionally
relates to governments and public agencies, today its scope also encompasses nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and companies that work together to cocreate public services—for exam-
ple, through outsourcing. The subjects of public sector communication thus include not only
governments, public foundations, agencies, authorities, and regulators but also any organizations
involved in public–private joint operations, such as state monopolies and businesses. What they
all have in common is their service to citizens, whether directly or indirectly (Canel & Luoma‐
aho, 2019).
A second question is how communication is understood. Traditionally, communication is
either seen as a management process or as the dissemination of information. These definitions
are currently giving way to a more citizen‐oriented view, in which communication is seen as a
vital process of building intangible assets for the public good (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).
Although citizens’ engagement with the public sector is central for public sector organizations,
it is merely one part of citizens’ networks of societal relationships (Lay‐Hwa Bowden, Luoma‐
aho, & Naumann, 2016), and it should be approached as a more holistic structure through
individual experiences instead of organizational control (Bourgon, 2009).
What kind of impact does communication have on public sector management? In the previous
definitions, communication is often understood as a management tool for successfully executing
organizational functions. However, we suggest that communication plays a larger role; commu-
nication is about leadership and influence. It shapes and enables public sector management
through intangible assets and cocreation (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015).
What is the rationale behind public sector communication? Many previous definitions
explicitly or implicitly highlight a political rationale, which includes political purposes. We
acknowledge that public sector communication’s scope extends beyond the political sphere,
and it has an entwined political/public dimension. We propose that public sector communica-
tion includes both a political rationale and a policy one.
Another question is what public sector communication’s relationship with the media is. Most
of the existing definitions do not mention media use (Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997), and those
that do refer to the categories of “legacy media” and “mass media.” Today, the mass media is
not a monolithic entity; myriad media forms can be used to reach citizens. These outlets range
from paid media formats to owned, earned, searched, shared, mined, borrowed, and even hacked
ones.
What is the direction of communication in the public sector? In our view, one‐way com-
munication has been associated with an organizational gain in the definition of “political
public relations” (Froehlich & Rüdiger, 2006) and of “government news management”
(Pfetsch, 2008, p. 90). Interestingly, these definitions come from the political communication
research field and highlight the purpose of influencing public opinion for organizational
benefit (e.g., to gain or maintain political power). References to two‐way communication are
rare (Canel, 2007; Lee, 2007). One such reference appears in Garnett’s definition of “adminis-
trative communication,” which explicitly includes both one‐way and two‐way communication
(Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997).
What are the goals of public sector communication? Allusion to the purpose of communica-
tion is found in the most thorough definitions of public sector communication, and they reflect
Table I.1 Definitions of Public Sector Communication and Related Terms.
Impact on Public
Sector Directionality of Goals and Purpose
Source Term Definition Subjects Process Management Rationale Media Use Communication of Communication
Graber Public sector The use of symbols in public Only and purely To coordinate Apolitical To achieve
1992, communication organizations to coordinate public work organizational
2003 work in order to achieve organizations goals
goals (elaborated from
Graber’s texts)
Garnett Administrative The communication taken by Only and purely Intentionally or Can be functional Can be one‐way
(1997) communication public organizations, which public unintentionally or dysfunctional or two‐way
can be one‐way or two‐way, organizations for the
intentional or unintentional, management
and can be functional or process
dysfunctional in impact in
the management process
(elaborated from Garnett’s
text)
Pfetsch Government news A strategic variant of public Governments Strategic variant News media Unidirectional To influence public
(2008), management information whereby of public opinion
p. 90 governments manage information
communication in order to
influence public opinion by
controlling the news media
agenda
Froehlich Political public The use of media outlets to Political Media outlets Unidirectional To gain public
and relations communicate specific support for
Rudiger political interpretations of political
(2006) issues in the hope of purposes
garnering public support for
political purposes
(Continued)
0004486657.INDD 7 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

Table I.1 (Continued)
Impact on Public
Canel Public institutions Transactional process of Only and purely Transactional Political and Two‐way
(2007) communication symbols exchange between public process of policy (transactional)
public institutions and their organizations symbols
stakeholders exchange
Glenny Communication in Apolitical or nonpartisan Executive arm of Only
(2008) the public sector communication activities of government apolitical
the executive arm of and non
government (distinguished partisan
from the communication
activities that serve the
purpose of promoting a
political party and/or
politician in order to win
electoral support)
Lee Government Managing different kinds of Governments and Communication Acts Two‐way
(2007), public relations communication different kinds relationships (relationships)
p. 6 relationships with different of publics
kinds of publics
Strömbäck Political public The management process by Organization or Management Helps achieving Political Two‐way Political purposes
and relations which an organization or individual process, goals (mutuality) to help support
Kiousis individual actor for political actor purposeful, its mission and
(2011), purposes, through purposeful achieve its goals
p. 8 communication and action,
seeks to influence and to
establish, build, and maintain
beneficial relationships and
reputations with its key publics
to help support its mission and
achieve its goals
0004486657.INDD 8 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

Impact on Public
Howlett Government Policy tool or instrument to Government Provision or Helps achieving Policy Unidirectional To gain public
(2009), communication give effect to policy goals; withholding of goals and support for
p. 24 to influence and direct information or influences policy actions
policy actions through the knowledge policies
provision or withholding of
information or knowledge
from societal actors
Canel and Government Communication directed and Executive Management Political and Using the tools Both Political and civic
Sanders communication seeking to influence key politicians and policy and strategies of unidirectional purposes,
(2013); publics, in the pursuit of officials and public relations and two‐way beneficial
Sanders both political and civic key publics and corporate relationships to
and purposes, carried out by communication build
Canel executive politicians and reputation, to
(2014) officials, usually in a gain support
managed way, to establish
and maintain beneficial
relationships to build
reputation, to gain support
from and interact with
citizens, using the tools and
strategies of PR and
corporate communication
0004486657.INDD 9 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

the evolution of communication that has taken place in tandem with the rise of a more multidis-
ciplinary understanding. Thus, Strömbäck and Kiousis’s definition of “political public relations”
introduces the idea of two‐way relationships, which involve establishing, building, and maintain-
ing beneficial relationships. These relations also include the building of intangible assets. These
relationships provide a vital benefit to the organization, as they “help support its mission and
achieve its goals” (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011, p. 8). This idea of mutual benefit is perhaps best
captured in Canel and Sanders’s definition of “government communication” (Canel & Sanders,
2010; Sanders & Canel, 2013) as:
Communication directed and seeking to influence key publics, in the pursuit of both political and
civic purposes, carried out by executive politicians and officials, usually in a managed way, to establish
and maintain beneficial relationships to build reputation, to gain support from and interact with citizens,
using the tools and strategies of PR and corporate communication. (Canel & Sanders, 2015)
We argue that the ultimate purpose and goal of public sector communication should be to
maintain the public good (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).
We understand “public sector communication” to be a broader term than “administrative
communication,” “government public relations,” or “government communication.” In previ-
ous research (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019, p. 33), we proposed public sector communication be
defined as follows:
goal‐oriented communication inside organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders
that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, with the purpose
of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizens and authorities.
This definition depicts a multipurpose public sector with multiple stakeholders and organiza-
tions (including nonstate organizations), and it is open to descriptive, prescriptive, and normative
approaches.
What Is Our Current Understanding of Public

Sector Communication?
The earliest sources that we could find regarding public sector communication go back to
McCamy’s book chapter published in 1939, which focused on external communications
(McCamy, 1939). Other early sources use the term “administrative communication” (Dorsey
Jr., 1957; Redfield, 1958; Thayer, 1961), but here administrative refers to processes of decision‐
making and is not necessarily confined to political contexts. Highsaw and Bowen provide
the first discussion that focuses specifically on public sector communication in their book
Communication in Public Administration, published in 1965 (Highsaw & Bowen, 1965).
In this book, they describe the problems, potentialities, and areas of development for com-
munication in the public sector at the time when they wrote their work.
On the whole, research on public sector communication is still limited. Despite the key role
that communication might play in the provision of public services and goods, communication
has not yet been thoroughly analyzed, and more research is needed to address the challenges
that public sector organizations face in reaching and engaging citizens, as well as in maintaining
their trust (Bourgon, 2009; Garnett, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2008; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Glenny,
2008; Grunig, 1992; Lay‐Hwa Bowden et al., 2016; Lee, 2010; Lee, Fairhurst, & Wesley, 2009;
Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011;
Valentini, 2013; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). In fact, the term “public sector communication”
has rarely been used, and there was only one book (Graber & Doris, 1992) that specifically dealt
with this topic until the year 2018, when Canel and Luoma‐aho published the first monograph
specifically focused on how intangible assets help to rebuild and maintain trust in the public
sector (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).
Research on public sector communication can be found under several different names, titles,
and topics. Elsewhere, we map these according to the different levels of organization that are
examined: the government, the public administration, and the public sector as a whole (Canel &
Luoma‐aho, 2019). Under the umbrella of government, most of the studies use the term
“government communication” (We elaborate on this below.) A limited numbers of studies use
the terms “government information management/provision” (Andersen & Dawes, 1991;
Gelders & Van de Walle, 2005), “government public relations” (Grunig & Jaatinen, 1999; Hong,
2013; Lee, 2010; Sanders, 2011), “government policy communication” (Gelders & Ihlen,
2010), and “government news management” (Pfetsch, 2008).
The label “public administration” is rarely used to refer to public sector communication.
There is a small selection of studies on communication and public administration, most of which
date back to the mid‐twentieth century (Bacharach & Aiken, 1977; Dorsey Jr., 1957; Highsaw
& Bowen, 1965) or later (Canel, 2014; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Garnett et al., 2008). The
term “administrative communication” appears frequently (Garnett, 2009; Garnett et al., 2008),
and it is used in studies that have looked at communication that extends beyond the unit of
government. Interestingly, there are almost no studies on “public administration public rela-
tions” (named as much).
Finally, the broader term “public sector” has been used to refer to its reputation (Luoma‐aho,
2008; Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016), branding (Wæraas, 2008), public relations (Valentini, 2013),
communication management (Gelders et al., 2007), and mediatization (Fredriksson et al., 2015;
Schillemans, 2012; Thorbjornsrud, Ustad Figenschou, & Ihlen, 2014). The term “public sector
communication” has only been used by Graber (1992), Pandey and Garnett (2006), Glenny
(2008), and Canel and Luoma‐aho (2015, 2019).
Next we will examine the major contributions from different research disciplines that contrib-
ute to public sector communication, specifically those found in political communication; public
relations and strategic communication; corporate communication; government communication;
and public administration and public management. Figure I.2 illustrates these fields. We also
acknowledge that there are other areas—such as political marketing—that have contributed to
understandings of public sector communication. However, these are not the most central or
relevant disciplines for the purposes of this book.
Political Communication
The most relevant review of this field is the exploration conducted by Canel and Sanders (2010,
2012) (Sanders & Canel, 2013), in which they elucidate the concepts, theories, and approaches
available for government communication research. These authors identify several areas of con-
tribution, including “chief executive communication,” a fertile field of studies on presidential
communication; the development of the “permanent campaign” (Blumenthal, 1980), an
approach that has stressed the competitive and adversarial nature of communication relation-
ships and of the politics of government communication; the logistical and operational issues of
how governments organize their communication, as well as the examination of government
communication practices associated with the development of electronic technology; the study of
the news media/government nexus, which has generated a rich body of concepts and theories
such as the indexing hypothesis, primary definition, agenda setting, priming, and framing
(Sanders & Canel, 2013, p. 6); the changing media environment and its implications for politi-
cians’ performance and presentation and their effects (Brants & Voltmer, 2011; Williams & Delli
Carpini, 2011); and finally, citizens’ interactions and civic culture (Dahlgren, 2009; Ekman &
Amnå, 2012; Milner, 2010).
Public Relations and

Strategic Communication
Stakeholder relationship
management, strategic
aims, and messages
Political Corporate
Communication Communication
Political influence, Intangible assets and
systems, power, and organizational reputation
democracy Public sector
communication
Government
Public Administration Communication &
& Public Management Public Affairs
Organizational performance, Political messages and
citizen satisfaction, and citizen engagement
citizen interaction
Figure I.2 Major fields contributing to the understanding of public sector communication.
Canel and Sanders conclude this review by stating that political communication research
focuses more on theoretical concerns regarding relations between communication and democ-
racy, emphasizing the exploration of institutional and social contexts as well as normative
concerns about the role that communication plays in society (Canel & Sanders, 2012; Sanders
& Canel, 2013). To the extent that public sector organizations and public services are led by
politicians within an ongoing mediated environment, political communication research aids in
addressing the various political constraints within public sector communication. Some scholars
attempt to establish boundaries between what is political/party‐political communication and
the more apolitical and apartisan communication utilized by civil servants when they provide
public services (Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Glenny, 2008). This issue becomes more complex
when one applies the definition of public sector communication provided above, which
demands concepts and approaches that better help to capture different degrees of publicness
in relation to different variables and thus to observe complex relations generated among
multipurpose, multiorganizations that operate in the public sector and within mixed public‐
private categorizations.
Public Relations and Strategic Communication

In a more up‐to‐date review of public relations research, Heath (2010) highlights different sub-
fields (communication studies, rhetoric, persuasion, and strategic management) from which the
following key concepts are identified: meaning, discourse, dialogue, sensemaking, cocreation,
complexity, relations, crisis communication, symmetry, reputation, and corporate branding.
Public relations has also been associated with providing societal value and contributing to the
common good (Ihlen, van Ruler, & Fredriksson, 2009), making studies on this field of particu-
lar value for public sector communication.
One of the key points raised in the field of public relations that is valuable in public sector com-
munication research is that communication should be oriented toward establish long‐standing rela-
tionships between the organization and its stakeholders. Relational theory takes the view that
organization–public relationships are represented by patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange,
and linkage between an organization and its publics (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Broom,
Casey, Ritchey, 2000). Under this approach, notions of stakeholder loyalty, the impact of time on
the quality of the relationship, trust, openness, involvement, satisfaction, commitment, mutuality
(mutual understanding), and symmetry become more significant (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000).
(For further discussion of these points, see Sanders & Canel, 2013 or Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011.)
It is from this perspective that Liu and Horsley (2007) propose a model for analyzing the
relationship between governments and publics via a process that compares government com-
munication practices and corporate ones (Horsley, Liu, & Levenshus, 2010; Liu, Horsley, &
Yang, 2012). Hong, Park, Lee, and Park (2012) focus on the segmentation of publics for the
purpose of building government public relations, while Gelders and Ihlen (2010) have provided
a “gap analysis” framework to analyze possible gaps between governments and citizens in com-
municating public policies. However, other authors, such as Waymer (2013), have warned that
relationship management research should take into account that there are publics with no desire
for a relationship (particularly governments’ publics) and argue for a broader understanding of
what constitutes democratic public relations. We propose that this suggestion should be consid-
ered in public sector communication research as well.
In their cross‐disciplinary comparative analysis on the meaning of “professional government
communication,” Canel and Sanders (Canel, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013) posit that public
relations research tends to stress the effective practice of communication. In attempting to iden-
tify and establish professional standards and values, public relations scholarship is engaged in
seeking out precise and tangible measures of internal efficiency and external effectiveness that
will help to consolidate the identity and legitimacy of public relations. Several studies support
this focus through their consideration of what government communication is. For example,
Gregory (2006) provides a competencies framework for government communicators, which is
designed to improve performance and the consistency of the communications function across
government; Luoma‐aho promotes a barometer for public sector stakeholder experiences and
reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2007); and Vos (2006) develops a model to measure the efficiency of
government communication and, together with Westerhoudt, applies it to the Netherlands in
order to develop a picture of the practice of government communication (Vos & Westerhoudt,
2008). Krey (2000), Hong (2013), and Lee (2007) discuss the tools that are available to
improve the practice of government public relations.
Corporate Communication
The key element of the field of corporate communication that appears to offer new perspectives
for public sector communication research is the area of intangible assets and the ways in which
these are developed and measured. This is a neglected area in public sector communication
research if one makes a comparison with the attention paid to it in private sector communication
research (Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014), despite the fact that there may be a greater level of
intangibility in the public sector (Queiroz, Callén, & Cinca, 2005). The changes that we under-
stand to be shaping public sector communication today demand new inspirations about the
value provided by the public sector for society.
Orienting public sector communication to the development of intangible assets implies
important transformations in the way communication is managed—in terms, for example, of
determination of quality criteria, joint public–private partnerships, management of objectives,
communication of results, and assessment of the quality of relations (Canel & Luoma‐aho,
2015; Dahlberg & Holmberg, 2013; Garnett et al., 2008; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Luoma‐aho
& Makikangas, 2014; Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Wæraas, 2014; Wæraas
& Byrkjeflot, 2012).
The most developed intangible assets in the public sector are intellectual capital, social capital
(Burgman & Roos, 2004; Cinca et al., 2003; Luoma‐aho, 2005; Ramirez, 2010; Wall, 2005),
and reputation (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016; Wæraas & Maor, 2015). With regard to reputation,
some works focus on specific areas within the public sector. For instance, Carpenter (2014)
examines the significance of reputation for the US Federal Drug Administration, while Evans
and Hastings (2008) address the branding of public health messages and campaigns.
In her comparison of corporate reputation and public sector reputation, Luoma‐aho (2007)
distinguishes an additional element that shapes the reputation of public sector organizations but
is not evident in corporations. She calls this element the “authority functions‐factor,” and it
consists of views on how open an organization is to citizen engagement; how well it listens to
citizen needs; how dynamic, conversation‐oriented, and flexible (or alternatively, how closed,
dictating, and bureaucratic) it is; and how citizen‐oriented the organization is. All of these
elements are believed to contribute to a public sector organization’s reputation.
There appears to be a strong sector reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2008) attached to public sector
organizations, and this reputation follows them even as organizations make improvements or
positive changes (Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014). In the public sector, organizations
cannot build unique reputations, as they feel their legitimacy might suffer if they do so (Wæraas
& Sataøen, 2015). Moreover, it has been argued that the ideals espoused in relation to
public sector organizations’ reputations differ from those connected with corporations. It has
been suggested that neutral reputational levels are ideal for organizations that cannot over-
promise when it comes to performance and that have limited resources for managing reputa-
tion (Luoma‐aho, 2007). As reputation is an indicator of future behavior, public sector
organizations’ reputations should be maintained at a sustainable level. Previous research has
also underscored several challenges for reputation management in the public sector environ-
ment, such as the need to satisfy multiple stakeholders and the multitude of constituencies
(Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012).
In order to import the notion of intangible assets from the private sector to the public
sector, we require new understandings about the conceptualization, classification, develop-
ment, and evaluation of intangibility. These understandings include adjusting concepts and
practices to public sector settings (for instance, moving from the notion of corporate social
responsibility to that of institutional social responsibility); developing research on already
imported assets, such as ideas about branding (Scammell, 2014; Wæraas, 2008); and opening
lines of research to establish, coin, and build new intangible assets that better respond to the
changing environments in which public sector communication operates today. Canel and
Luoma‐aho build on an initial systematization (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015) in their attempt
to provide a systematic and thorough approach in order to focus critically on public sector
organizations’ intangible assets, and in doing so they place emphasis on how these assets can
help to close gaps between public sector organizations and their publics in order to rebuild
trust (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).
The Field of Government Communication Research

Major scholarly contributions to public sector communication research at the level of government
use the label “government communication.” This use is in fact a recent development, as until
2010 there was a dearth of empirical data on and little theoretical development of government
communication. However, the situation improved in the following 5 years (Canel, 2014; Sanders
& Canel, 2013).
The most up‐to‐date source that provides a thorough and systematic analysis of government
communication research is a book by Sanders and Canel (2013), in which government com-
munication is taken as an object of study located at the crossroads of different areas and fields of
research. The book includes a comparative analysis of communication research across 16 countries
and highlights common trends as well as issues and challenges facing government communication
worldwide. Its findings indicate that governments around the world are adopting new formulas
and spending more resources on communication, suggesting an implicit recognition of the

importance of communication within their work. Governments are also being challenged to
respond more rapidly to the development of digital media; to find adequate organizational
charts to give communication more institutional weight; and to shift from a craft approach
(which is more focused on the formal presentation) toward a strategic management function
that aims to provide knowledge and skills for successful interaction between governments
and stakeholders and that includes other activities such as reputation and relationship build-
ing, issues management, strategic communication planning, crisis communication, and public
opinion research. Further challenges relate to a need to balance the work of policy and political
communicators—a balance that should be reflected in institutional arrangements—and to
define education and training programs that empower government communicators so that
their work is oriented toward transparency, openness, participation, and trust building (Sanders
& Canel, 2013).
This work shows how interdisciplinary research involving political communication, pub-
lic relations, and corporate and organizational communication research can produce both
contrasting and complementary approaches that enrich the field of vision for the object of
study. More specifically, while political communication research has quite rightly highlighted
the political purposes of government communication, concepts developed within other
research disciplines complement this perspective by providing new avenues of study directed
toward what they have called the civic purposes of government communication: “Building
long‐term relationships, mutual understanding and citizen engagement become part of
what is understood to be government communication and understanding how they are
helped and hindered then becomes part of the research agenda” (Canel & Sanders, 2014,
p. 101). Thus, the systemic approach of political communication, which emphasizes systems
and power, should incorporate a public relations approach, which throws the spotlight on
practice, values, and occupational legitimacy to examine professionalism as an institutional
process or as a dynamic “community of practice.” In this book, “communities of practice”
were cross‐nationally compared to ascertain how the practice of central government com-
munication is institutionally registered in structures at a mesolevel. A key conclusion was
that the professionalization of government communication and government communica-
tion as a professional practice both involve an increase in strategic and civic capacities (Canel
& Sanders, 2014).
Public Management and Public Administration Studies

The most prolific author within public administration studies to develop a communication‐
oriented approach to the public sector is James L. Garnett. In 1992, he published Communicating
for Results in Government: A Strategic Approach for Public Managers, a systematic work that
provides interesting insights regarding both prescriptive and descriptive accounts of US public
agencies’ communication. Together with Kouzmin, Garnett also edited the Handbook of
Administrative Communication (Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997), an inspiring multidisciplinary
handbook that encompasses organizational and public management theory and practice and
explores the field of “administrative communication” research. This book remains the first and
only of its kind to date.
One of Garnett’s key assertions is that public administration studies have not yet fully reviewed
the proposal endorsed in Osborne and Gaebler’s work Reinventing Government (Osborne &
Gaebler, 1992) (and the related new public management [NPM] current), or what that pro-
posal’s bearing on communication theory and practice is (Garnett, 2009, p. 245). NPM is a set
of assumptions and value statements about public management that incorporates trends from
the private sector, such as a focus on performance and efficiency, quality criteria, greater auton-
omy, deregulation, outsourced public services, private–public partnerships, fiscal‐transparency
mechanisms, increased use of competitive mechanisms, management by objectives, results

reporting, and technological modernization. Despite criticism about the achievements of NPM
(Diefenbach, 2009; Goldfinch & Wallis, 2010; Luke, Kearins, & Verreynne, 2011), this field has
several implications for public sector communication research and practice.
The first implication is that NPM’s approaches to organizational structures and processes
imply a more managerial focus on the communication function and emphasize the pervasiveness
of communication within public administrators’ daily work duties. Scholars claim the need to
rediscover the rigor, complexity, salience, diversity, richness, and centrality of communication
(Garnett, 2009), and to present evidence about communication’s role in achieving organiza-
tional performance (Garnett et al. 2008), as well as in building public sector organizational
identities, culture, and leadership (Hansen, 2011; Horton, 2006).
The second implication is that NPM’s approach also means conceptualizing the outcomes
of public management as services rather than as products. This conceptualization in turn leads
to challenges for researching citizens’ experiences and levels of satisfaction, as well as for
understanding the attitude citizens have toward public sector communication (Bouckaert & Van
de Walle, 2003; James & Moseley, 2014).
The third implication for public sector communication research is the conceptualization of
civil servants’ role and of their related responsibility to keep the public informed as well as to be
informed by their publics (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Preston &
Donaldson, 1999). Scholars have introduced the concept of communication ethics for civil servants
and have stressed the obligation of public administrators to be provided with insight relating to
how publics think and react to government decisions in order to enhance democratic account-
ability, thus providing a counterbalance to the pejorative understanding of the “going public”
strategy of public leaders (Kernell, 1986).
Perhaps the furthest‐reaching implication of NPM for public sector communication pertains
to the conceptualization of members of the public and leads to debates about whether they
should be viewed as customers, taxpayers, partners, or citizens (Da Silva & Batista, 2007;
Thomas, 2013). This debate will be further discussed in this volume, but here we wish to men-
tion that major challenges for communication include determining new ways of interacting with
citizens, sharing authority (Thomas, 2013, p. 794), establishing relations (Bell, Hindmoor, &
Mols, 2010; Grunig, 1992), and conducting processes of dialogue in order to find the best way
to process publics’ feedback (Garnett, 2009).
Finally, a vital area of research relates to measurements and indicators and to finding the best
ways of monitoring and assessing aspects of organizational and individual communication per-
formance, as well as to measuring the impact of public programs on citizenship. The importance
of measuring values such as transparency, trust, accessibility, and responsiveness is stressed in the
literature (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007; Greiling &
Spraul, 2010; Kim, Park, & Wertz, 2010; Pandey & Garnett, 2006; Roosbroek, 2006; Spencer
& McGrath, 2006).
In a recent appraisal of the current state of the science of public administration, Wright (2015)
draws on three issues identified by Robert Dahl: the establishment—that is, definition, identifi-
cation, and prioritization—of normative values; the development of a multidisciplinary under-
standing (drawn from psychology and sociology) of human behavior to better understand how
public organizations perform and how citizens assess these performances; and a need to embrace
various social and/or cultural settings. Wright concludes that although there have been advances
in these three areas, there are further possibilities for progress and challenges to overcome in
order to advance the science of public administration. In view of the fact that these three areas
are crucially interconnected with communication developments, we end this section by conclud-
ing that the development of the science of public administration needs to integrate communica-
tion research as much as public sector communication research needs to build on the science of
public administration.
Studying Public Sector Communication in Times of Change

We end this introductory chapter by emphasizing that public sector communication is more vital
than ever for public sector organizations due to changes in both the operating environment and
society around public sector organizations, as well as to changes in individual citizens.
There is a global expectation that public sector organizations will change from having power
over citizens to sharing power with them (Thomas, 2013). A new focus on relationships is
urgently required, as the previous focus on productivity has made public sector organizations
increasingly dependent on the scientific management paradigm. Public sector organizations
remain fragile as long as the following illusions persist: that their operating environment is pre-
dictable; that change can be controlled; and that ex post adaptations are sufficient (Bourgon,
2009; Bourgon, 2011). Change and reforms have become the new normal for public sector
organizations (Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011). Many of these reforms focus on savings and efficiency
(Kuipers et al., 2014). However, a better understanding of the values that citizens hold to be
important is now required (Andrews, 2012; White, 2000).
As citizens put it, “Public administrators need to know how to interact with the public”
(Thomas, 2013, 786). The public sector’s dynamic of interaction is changing from one‐way
feedback to real‐time dialogue within a variety of arenas. This and other factors, such as rise of
private‐sector standards, have contributed to citizens’ increased expectations of service quality
(Thijs & Staes, 2008). These expectations, in turn, are empowered by new technological devel-
opments and the rise of mass self‐communication (Castells, 2009), through which individual
citizens are equipped to voice their personal experiences and opinions in real time to mass
audiences and to do so without journalism’s traditional processes of fact checking, editing, or
gatekeeping. This possibility of sharing experiences has potential to cause harm not only to
individual organizations but also to entire sectors or cities.
Public sector organizations’ values set the tone of communication within these organizations
(Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011). As can be seen in Figure I.3, a recent study covering 34 countries
Public Sector Communication
PART I: SOCIETY
- Democracy
- Legitimacy
- Trust and fairness
- Transparency
Public - Politics and policy
sector Citizens
PART II: ORGANIZATIONS,

STAKEHOLDERS AND EMPLOYEES PART IV: CITIZENS
PART III: PRACTICES - Intangible public value AND STAKEHOLDERS
- Performance management - Bureaucracy - Citizen engagement
- Change management - Social exchange - Dialogue
- Reputation management - Co-creation - Expectations and satisfaction
- Risk and crises communication - Change and sensemaking - Social media interaction
- Strategic communication campaigns - Mediatization - High-reliablity organizations
- NGO collaboration - Diversity and inclusion
PART V: COMMUNICATION
MEASUREMENT
- Fundamentals
- Media measurement
- Audience attitudes
- Goal alignment
- Best practice development
Figure I.3 The topics covered in this handbook of public sector communication.
suggests that when it comes to citizen satisfaction, the ways in which government and public
sector services operate in practice are more important than the quality of democracy (Dahlberg
& Holmberg, 2013). This finding highlights the role of public sector organizations, as they have
the power to affect this satisfaction; citizen experiences are shaped by how these organizations
communicate and function. Although there is a range of influences that shape citizens’ perceptions
and experiences (Thijs & Staes, 2008), the role played by individual public sector organizations’
communication is central.
Despite the fundamental public value of providing public services, citizens’, and public
servants’ experiences and expectations are often overlooked in public sector development
(Pekkarinen, Hennala, Harmaakorpi, & Tura, 2011), and change management continues to be
a topic of interest in this field. In fact, within earlier literature on public sector change, the
microview of individuals has been overshadowed by the overwhelming attention paid to change
outcomes and processes (Kuipers et al., 2014). There is common agreement that public sector
organizations and services should be “more responsive to society’s needs and demands” (Thijs
& Staes, 2008, p. 8), yet simultaneously the publics that they serve are more complex than ever
(Thomas, 2013).
Public sector organizations are often a target of citizen criticism. There is currently a sense of
citizen dissatisfaction throughout the Western world, which is causing a global trend of down-
sizing of public sector organizations and moves toward privatized service provision. Moreover,
many public sector organizations are products of the time when they were established. As time
goes by, they undergo constant political and organizational reforms and mergers to better meet
citizens’ changing needs. Behind the demand for better service and for active public sector
organizations is a shift in citizens’ self‐perceptions; they now see themselves as “customers” and
“stakeholders” who expect to be involved and to get value for their money. The role and title
that citizens receive are of central importance, as they shape public sector organizations’ strate-
gies for communicating with this group. Today, there are new roles that citizens fulfill beyond
that of traditional citizen. When they receive information about a benefit or a public sector
service, for example, they are often termed “beneficiaries,” “clients,” or “customers.” These
roles give a voice to citizens, but they also serve to overemphasize the role of active citizens as
mere receivers of public goods. These roles emphasize demands for exchange and quality: citizens
now tend to take the view that if they contribute money to a service, its quality should be higher
(Thijs & Staes, 2008). Citizens are also often considered “users” and “producers” of public
services, and they at times contribute to their own services and goods. Despite these new roles,
many public sector communication plans merely focus on communication devices associated
with legacy media—for example, press releases and information campaigns—and in doing so,
they miss out on the potential for reaching citizens on their own terms and in other arenas
(Luoma‐aho, Tirkkonen, & Vos, 2013).
There is an urgent need to shift from a “culture of controls” toward citizen‐centered engage-
ment (Bourgon, 2011; Lay‐Hwa Bowden et al., 2016). Citizen‐centered engagement refers to
participation and to the intensity of interaction and experiences on emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral levels (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). It has both scientific and societal value,
as engaged individuals contribute to democracy and to the innovation of public services. However,
citizen‐centered engagement does not only manifest itself in positive forms; there are negative
forms of citizen engagement, and levels of disengagement are also increasing (Lay‐Hwa Bowden
et al., 2016). Previous research suggests that citizen expectations are formed based on a combina-
tion of previous experiences, personal needs, word of mouth, and both implicit and explicit public
service communication (Thijs & Staes, 2008). However, more research is needed to better under-
stand the complex dynamic that results from an absence of direct causal relationships between citi-
zens’ expectations, public organizations’ achievements, public policy results, communication
performance, and citizens’ satisfaction and trust (James, 2009, 2011; James & Moseley, 2014).
Moreover, communication itself is changing. As traditional mass communication is becoming

outdated (Castells, 2009), organizations face the challenge of reaching individual citizens within
their cultural bubbles (Sloterdijk, 2011). These bubbles let in the communication that citizens
actively choose for themselves, and instead of traditional mass media content, that communication
consists of streams and feeds that citizens select from an array of potential messages. Moreover,
as citizens are able to communicate their needs and experiences online and in real time to mass
audiences, individual experiences are considered to be of increased importance. There is no
longer a mass audience, but rather a “superdiversity” of citizens (Vertovec, 2007). “Superdiversity”
in this context refers to the wide scale of variance available in today’s multigroup relationships
(Vertovec, 2007). Public sector organizations and their stakeholders are globally interconnected,
and single policies or actions may result in new and unexpected multicultural impacts (Luoma‐
aho & Paloviita, 2010). A shift is taking place from citizen categorization to temporal and
dynamic citizen roles and identities, as well as to the profiling of citizens in terms of their being
different types of service users.
Outline of This Handbook

This book provides a thorough account of the theories, concepts, fields, problems, and challenges
that converge in public sector communication research, and it takes into account the changing
environments of the world. The volume features five parts, which cover different aspects of
public sector communication: society, organizations, practices, citizens, and measurements.
A cross‐chapter concern is to explore how a specific concept is both affected by and shapes
public sector communication. Figure I.3 illustrates how the chapters of this handbook cut across
the different “bubbles” of public sector organizations and citizens.
Part 1 of this book introduces an overall perspective on the relationship between public
sector communication and society, and it examines the following concepts: democracy, legiti-
macy, trust, transparency, politics, and policy. Part 2 delves into specific organizational issues,
such as intangible value, bureaucracy, employee–organization relations, coproduction,
organizational change, and mediatization. Part 3 reviews a number of ways in which public
sector communication is seen in the context of performance, change, and reputation man-
agement, and it discusses risks, crises, campaigns, and NGO collaboration. Part 4 centers on
citizens and stakeholders by focusing on the following topics: engagement, expectations,
satisfaction, dialogue, citizen empowerment and engagement, social media interactions,
high‐reliability organizations, and diversity. Finally, Part 5 addresses questions of evaluation
and valuation. The fundamentals of evaluation (concepts, frameworks, and models), evalua-
tion of traditional and digital media content, evaluation of audiences (awareness, attitudes,
and responses), evaluation of outcomes, and finally, new best‐practice developments for eval-
uations are presented.
The chapters follow a common structure and attempt to cover the following considerations.
In discussing why the specific topic is of central importance for public sector communication
today, each chapter defines the topic (and its development over time and across disciplines) and
describes current theories, frameworks, conceptual tools, and research methods. Each chapter
also looks at how the specific topic shapes and views the relationship between citizens and the
public sector within different national contexts and cultures. Communication is thus explored
(with its various prerequisites, constraints, practices, outcomes, and examples) from different
perspectives throughout the chapters. Finally, each chapter highlights debates, controversies,
and challenges, and each one indicates new directions and uncharted territory for public sector
communication research and practice. The concluding chapter attempts to plot out a future
research agenda for what we consider to be an emerging and challenging topic for the develop-
ment of society.
References
Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management: A primer and casebook.
Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Andrews, R. (2012). Social capital and public service performance: A review of the evidence. Public Policy
and Administration, 27(1), 49–67.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational perfor-
mance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3),
i301–i319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur026
Antonsen, M., & Jørgensen, T. B. (1997). The ’publicness’ of public organizations. Public Administration,
75(2), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9299.00064
Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1977). Communication in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of
Management Journal, 20(3), 265–377.
Bell, S., Hindmoor, A., & Mols, F. (2010). Persuasion as governance: A state‐centric relational perspective.
Public Administration, 88(3), 851–870.
Bjornholt, B., & Houlberg Salomonsen, H. (2015). Contracting and performance in agencies: A question
of control, dialogue or autonomy? Public Organization Review, 15(4), 509–530.
Blumenthal, S. (1980). The permanent campaign: Inside the world of elite political operations. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as
indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International
Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343.
Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy
and Administration, 24(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076709103813
Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century. Washington, DC:
McGill Queen’s Press, MQUP.
Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alter-
native explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–223.
Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy
and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i363–i380.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur031
Brants, K., & Voltmer, K. (2011). Political communication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the pri-
macy of politics. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand com-
munity: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114.
Broom, G., Casey, R., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization‐public relation-
ship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–89.
Broom, G., Casey, R., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization‐public relation-
ships: An update. In J. A. Lendingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship manage-
ment: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burgman, R., & Roos, G. (2004). Measuring, managing and delivering value performance in the public
sector. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 132–149.
Canel, M. (2007). Comunicación de las instituciones públicas. (Communicating public institutions). Madrid,
Spain: Tecnos.
Canel, M. (2014). Reflexiones sobre la reputación ideal de la administración pública (thoughts on the ideal
reputation for the public administration). In M. Herrero, A. Cruz, R. Lázaro, & A. Martínez (Eds.),
Escribir en las almas. Estudios en honor de Rafael Alvira (pp. 69–88). Pamplona, Spain: Eiunsa.
Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2015). Building intangible assets in the public sector: An introduction. In
Introductory Paper for the ICA Preconference “Public Sector Communication – the Challenge of Building
Intangible Assets,” Sponsored by Political Communication Division & Public Relations Division, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, May 21, 2015 (pp. 1–13). Puerto Rico: International Communication Association.
https://www.academia.edu/12432865/Building_Intangible_assets_in_the_public_sector_An_
Introduction_ICA_Preconference_2015_
Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2019). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organi-
zations and citizens. Boston, MA: Wiley.
Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). Para estudiar la comunicación de los gobiernos. un análisis del estado de
la cuestión. Comunicación y Sociedad, 23(1), 7–48.
Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2012). Situating government communication research on the map of political
communication. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), Handbook of political communication
(pp. 85–96). London, UK: Sage.
Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2014). Is it enough to be strategic? Comparing and defining professional govern-
ment communication across disciplinary fields and between countries. In M. Canel & K. Voltmer
(Eds.), Comparing political communication across time and space: New studies in an emerging field
(pp. 98–116). London, UK: Palgrave.
Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2015). Government communication. In G. Mazzoleni, K. Barnhurst, K. Ikeda,
R. Maia, & H. Wessler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of political communication. Boston, MA:
Wiley.
Carpenter, D. (2014). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the
FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration
Review, 72(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2011.02506.x
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Cinca, C. S., Molinero, C. M., & Queiroz, A. B. (2003). The measurement of intangible assets in public
sector using scaling techniques. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 249–275.
Da Silva, R., & Batista, L. (2007). Boosting government reputation through CRM. International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 20(7), 588–607.
Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2013). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular
satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2013.830
468
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Cambridge, UK: University Press Cambridge.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review,
75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347
Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of
managerialistic enlightenment? Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467‐9299.2009.01766.x
Dorsey, J. T., Jr. (1957). A communication model for administration. Administrative Science Quarterly,
2(3), 307–324.
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology.
Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300.
Evans, W. D., & Hastings, G. (2008). Public health branding: Applying marketing for social change. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government communication.
Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.245
Fredriksson, M., Schillemans, T., & Pallas, J. (2015). Determinants of organizational mediatization: An
analysis of the adaptation of Swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration,
93(4), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12184
Froehlich, R., & Rüdiger, B. (2006). Framing political public relations: Measuring success of political com-
munication strategies in Germany. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 18–25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.10.003
Garnett, J. L. (1992). Communicating for results in government. A strategic approach for public managers.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Garnett, J. (1997). Administrative Communication: domains, threats, and legitimacy. In Handbook of Administrative
Communication, Public Administration and Policy (Vol. 63, pp. 1–20, CRC Press). Boca Raton, FL.
Garnett, J. L. (2009). Administrative communication (or how to make all the rest work): The concept
of professional centrality. In R. J. Stillman (Ed.), Public administration: Concepts and cases
(pp. 242–256). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker.
Garnett, J. L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Penetrating the performance predicament: Communication
as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture impact on public organizational performance. Public
Administration Review, 68(2), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2007.00861.x
Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public sector:
Consequences for public communication about policy intentions. Government Information Quarterly,
24(2), 326–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.009
Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations,
propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36(1), 59–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pubrev.2009.08.012
Gelders, D., & Walle, S. V. D. (2005). Marketing government reforms. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 14(1–2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v14n01_09
Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives of communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of Communication
Management, 12(2), 152–168.
Goldfinch, S., & Wallis, J. (2010). Two myths of convergence in public management reform. Public
Administration, 88(4), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2010.01848.x
Graber, D. (1992). Public sector communication: How organizations manage information. Washington, DC:
CQ Press.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication
Management, 10(2), 197–210.
Greiling, D., & Spraul, K. (2010). Accountability and the challenges of information disclosure. Public
Administration Quarterly, 3, 338–377.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J., & Jaatinen, M. (1999). Strategic, symmetrical public relations in government: From pluralism
to societal corporatism. Journal of Communication Management, 3(3), 218–234.
Hansen, M. B. (2011). Antecedents of organizational innovation: The diffusion of new public management
into Danish local government. Public Administration, 89(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467‐9299.2010.01855.x
Heath, R. (2010). Introduction: Mind, self and society. In R. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public
relations (pp. I–XV). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Highsaw, R. B., & Bowen, D. L. (1965). Communication in public administration. Bureau of Public
Administration, University of Alabama.
Hong, H. (2013). Government websites and social media’s influence on government‐public relationships.
Public Relations Review, 39(4), 346–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.007
Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–Public relationship
building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European countries. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 24(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626135
Horsley, J. S., Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Comparisons of U.S. government communication
practices: Expanding the government communication decision wheel. Communication Theory, 20(3),
269–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2010.01363.x
Horton, S. (2006). New public management: Its impact on public servant’s identity: An introduction to
this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6), 533–542. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513550610685970
Howlett, M. (2009). Government Communication as a policy tool: A framework for analysis. Canadian
Political Science Review, 3(2), 23–37.
Ihlen, Ø., van Ruler, B., & Fredriksson, M. (2009). In Ø. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.),
Public relations and social theory (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to
citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1),
107–123.
James, O. (2011). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation
and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435.
James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’
perceptions, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative perfor-
mance information TION. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/
padm.12066
Kernell, S. (1986). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kim, S., Park, J.‐H., & Wertz, E. K. (2010). Expectation gaps between stakeholders and web‐based corpo-
rate public relations efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 corporate web sites. Public Relations Review,
36(3), 215–221.
Krey, D. (2000). Delivering the message: A resource guide for public information officials. Sacramento, CA:
California Association of Public Information Officials.
Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The manage-
ment of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
Laing, A. (2003). Marketing in the public sector: Towards a typology of public services. Marketing Theory,
3(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103042005
Lay‐Hwa Bowden, J., Luoma‐aho, V., & Naumann, K. (2016). Developing a spectrum of positive to negative
citizen engagement. In R. J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, & J. Conduit (Eds.), Customer engagement contempo-
rary issues and challenges (1st ed., pp. 257–277). London, UK: Routledge.
Lee, M. (2007). Government public relations: A reader. Washington, DC: CRC Press.
Ledingham, J., & Bruning, S. (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to
the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, M. (2010). Government public relations during Herbert Hoover’s presidency. Public Relations Review,
36(1), 56–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.009
Lee, M. Y., Fairhurst, A., & Wesley, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: A review of the top 100 US
retailers. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 140.
Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public
relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 377–393. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10627260701402473
Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices:
Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2), 189–213. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00909881003639528
Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Yang, K. (2012). Overcoming negative media coverage: Does government com-
munication matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 597–621. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur078
Luke, B., Kearins, K., & Verreynne, M.‐L. (2011). The risks and returns of new public management:
Political business. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(4), 325–355. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513551111133489
Luoma‐aho, V. (2005). Faith‐holders as social capital of finnish public organisations. Jyväskylä, Finland:
University of Jyväskylä.
Luoma‐aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review,
10(2), 124–143.
Luoma‐aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organisations. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 21(5), 446–467.
Luoma‐aho, V., & Canel, M.‐J. (2016). Public sector reputation. In Sage encyclopedia of corporate commu-
nication (pp. 597–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Luoma‐aho, V. L., & Makikangas, M. E. (2014). Do public sector mergers (re)shape reputation?
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(1), 39–52.
Luoma‐aho, V., & Paloviita, A. (2010). Actor‐networking stakeholder theory for today’s corporate com-
munications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 49–67. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13563281011016831
Luoma‐aho, V., Tirkkonen, P., & Vos, M. (2013). Monitoring the issue arenas of the swine‐flu discussion.
Journal of Communication Management, 17(3), 239–251.
Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
McCamy, J. L. (1939). Public relations in public administration. In C. B. Joeckel (Ed.), Current issues in
library administration (pp. 31–39). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expecta-
tions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i283–i299. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jopart/mur027
Milner, H. (2010). The internet generation: Engaged citizens or political dropouts. Medford, MA: Tufts
University Press.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming
the public sector. New York, NY: Adison‐Wesle.
Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a
model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2006.00554.x
Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., Harmaakorpi, V., & Tura, T. (2011). Clashes as potential for innovation in
public service sector reform. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(6), 507–532.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551111163639
Pfetsch, B. (2008). Government news management: Institutional approaches and strategies in three
western democracies reconsidered. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of
news the news of politics (pp. 71–79). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Pollit, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Preston, L. E., & Donaldson, T. (1999). Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4), 619–620.
Queiroz, A. B., Callén, Y. F., & Cinca, C. S. (2005). Reflexiones en torno a la aplicación del capital intelec-
tual en el sector público. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 34(124), 211–245.
Rainey, H. G. (2011). Sampling designs for analyzing publicness: Alternatives and their strengths and
weaknesses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i321–i345. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur029
Ramirez, Y. (2010). Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
11(2), 248–264.
Redfield, C. E. (1958). Communication in management: The theory and practice of administrative commu-
nication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Roosbroek, S. (2006). Comparing trust in government across countries: What role for public administration?
Leuven, The Netherlands: Public Management Institute.
Sanders, K. (2011). Political public relations and government communication. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis
(Eds.), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sanders, K., & Canel, M. (Eds.) (2013). Government communication cases and challenges (1st ed.). London,
UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
Scammell, M. (2014). Consumer democracy: The marketing of politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University press.
Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services. How organizations adapt to news media. Frankfurt,
Germany: Peter Lang.
Sloterdijk, P. (2011). Bubbles, spheres I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Spencer, T., & McGrath, C. (Eds.) (2006). Challenge and response: Essays on public affairs and transparency.
Brussels, Belgium: Landmarks.
Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2011). Political public relations. Principles and applications. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Thayer, L. O. (1961). Administrative communication. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin.
Thijs, N., & Staes, P. (2008). European primer on customer satisfaction management. (Primer).
The Netherlands: EUPAN/EIPA. Retrieved from http://www.eupan.eu/files/repository/
20101215131727_EU_Primer_English__FINAL_LR.pdf
Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public manage-
ment. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109
Thorbjornsrud, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatization in public bureaucracies:
A typology. Communications ‐ the European Journal of Communication Research, 39(1), 3–22.
Valentini, C. (2013). Public relations in the public sector. The role of strategic communication in the Italian
public administration. Sinergie Rivista Di Studi E Ricerche, 93–113.
Van Der Hart, H. (1991). Government organisations and their customers in the Netherlands: Strategy,
tactics and operations. European Journal of Marketing, 24(7), 31–42.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super‐diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465
Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of Communication
Management, 10(3), 250.
Vos, M., & Schoemaker, H. (2006). Monitoring public perception of organizations. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Boomonderwijs.
Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the Netherlands. Journal of
Communication Management, 12(1), 18–29.
Wæraas, A. (2008). Can public sector organizations be coherent corporate brands? Marketing Theory, 8(2),
205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593108093325
Wæraas, A. (2014). Beauty from within: What bureaucracies stand for. The American Review of Public
Administration, 44(6), 675–692.
Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five
problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206.
Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (Eds.) (2015). Organizational reputation in the public sector. London, UK:
Routledge.
Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. (2015). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutional-
ized field. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 310–326.
Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Boyne, G. A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2011). Market orientation and public
service performance: New public management gone mad? Public Administration Review, 71, 707.
Wall, A. (2005). The measurement and management of intellectual capital in the public sector. Public
Management Review, 7(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500091723
Waymer, D. (2013). Democracy and government public relations: Expanding the scope of “relationship”
in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 320–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.pubrev.2013.07.015
White, L. (2000). Changing the “whole system” in the public sector. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 13(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010321481
Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. (2011). After broadcast news. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Wright, B. E. (2015). The science of public administration: Problems, presumptions, progress, and possi-
bilities. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12468

Luoma-Aho 2020 Introductionto Public Sector Communication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luoma-Aho 2020 Introductionto Public Sector Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to

Why Is Public Sector Communication Special?

responsibilities cover diverse fields, such as infrastructure, livelihood, transportation, education,

Defining Public Sector Communication

Degrees of Publicness: The Publicness Fan and Its Implications

An organization’s degree of publicness influences its communication. For instance, Gelders,

• Segmentation of messages according to different publics (Carpenter & Krause, 2012);

0004486657.INDD 7 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

0004486657.INDD 8 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

0004486657.INDD 9 11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

What Is Our Current Understanding of Public

Public Relations and

Public Relations and Strategic Communication

The Field of Government Communication Research

and spending more resources on communication, suggesting an implicit recognition of the

Public Management and Public Administration Studies

mechanisms, increased use of competitive mechanisms, management by objectives, results

Studying Public Sector Communication in Times of Change

Public Sector Communication

PART II: ORGANIZATIONS,

Moreover, communication itself is changing. As traditional mass communication is becoming

Outline of This Handbook

You might also like