Public Relations Theory:

Past, Present and Future

Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

Public relations is one of the fastest growing – and fastest changing – professional prac-
tices, with jobs expanding in many countries. For example, on the corporate side in the
United States, » employment of public relations specialists (non-managers) is expected
to grow 24 percent from 2008 to 2018, much faster than the average for all occupations
(U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011). Corporate public relations trends in most of the
EU have followed the same course as in the U. S. over the last few decades.
Governments all over the free world run public relations campaigns within their
own as well as other countries in attempts to inluence the governments of those coun-
tries (called public diplomacy), to try to attract investment dollars (called development
public relations) and even to attract tourists (marketing public relations). Large corpo-
rations, activist groups, local theater troupes, political parties, the EU, terrorists, com-
edy clubs, neo-Nazis, and religious groups all depend on public relations to communi-
cate with their internal – oten for fundraising – and external publics.
Public relations practitioners work on both sides of every major economic, social,
political and religious issue. his is because public relations is neither inherently good
or bad but it is powerful; so people on one side of an issue cannot aford to let the other
side be the only ones using it. Terrorists use public relations to push their views and
those they seek to hurt turn right around and use it to ight back. For example, the irst
author has been involved in research projects studying both how terrorist websites seek
to present their arguments to mostly younger audiences and how social media are some-
times used in campaigns to slip pro-terrorism arguments into public discourse, again
focusing on mostly younger audiences. Companies use public relations to enhance their
marketing function, and consumer groups use it to expose excesses or wrongdoing by
those same companies. Christians use public relations to advocate Christianity, Mos-
lems to advocate for Islam, and atheists to advocate that both are wrong.
It is little wonder, then, that public relations theory is not only fast growing but that
it is used for diferent tasks at diferent levels, from the smallest neighborhood shop to
world-spanning political and economic issues. Who, for example, could argue that the

R. Fröhlich et al. (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Public Relations,

DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-18917-8_22, © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015
358 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

budget protests by Greek citizens in late 2011 were not public communication attempts
to inluence both EU policy and internal policies in Germany, France and other coun-
tries; or that the aborted call for a national referendum in Greece on the bail-out pack-
age being ofered that nation was not a counter-public relations efort by the then Greek
political leadership ?
hese are the irst two steps in understanding public relations theory. First, public
relations theory is like public relations practice in that it is growing at a great rate, so
an article like this one will be slightly behind the times before it can get into print. See
Botan and Hazleton (1989; 2006) for examples of how much the focus of public relations
theory has changed. Second, public relations is used at many levels by all kinds of orga-
nizations and for all kinds of purposes, so it is unlikely that one or two theories will ever
cover all aspects of public relations. In fact, the search for a single, overarching theory of
public relations is the search for a chimera – an imaginary creature made up of several
parts that do not it together reasonably.
One of the problems with the search for theory is that researchers oten look in the
wrong places and for the wrong thing, hoping to ind that one generalizable theory that
covers all instances of public relations. his is a little like being jealous of physicists who
have the theory of gravity that applies nicely in many contexts. Gravity, however, is a
theory about materials that do not have wills of their own. Public relations theory, on
the other hand, is about individuals and groups that have their own wills, interests and
goals. It is unlikely there will be a single theory of public relations. Rather, there are sev-
eral important theories. Wehmeier (2009: 267) notes that this should be no surprise
to us » taking into account that cultural and societal diferences have a great impact on
communication and the way organizations and publics act «. hose new to the study of
public relations research and theory will thus be struck by the fact that the landscape
looks a bit like a large jumble of sometimes unrelated ideas and contexts. he purpose
of this article is to organize and summarize that body of theory in a way that will help
students and practitioners understand public relations theory and, hopefully, to be able
to apply it in useful ways.

Relationship of Theory and Practice

Before explaining how the chapter is organized, a brief reminder about the relation-
ship of theory and practice is in order. heory and practice have something in common
with other dualities like, young and old or male and female – the one makes little sense
without the other. What would being young mean if there was no getting old ? Or, what
would being female mean if there was nothing but females ? Similarly, theory without
concern for practice or practice without regard for theory are pretty silly ideas.
Just as some argue passionately about the merits of being young or old, or of being fe-
male or male, public relations practitioners can argue for the value of theory or practice,
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 359

sometimes without noticing that their adopted position becomes mostly meaningless
without the other. heory without practice lacks substance. It usually feeds no one, ixes
nothing and leads nowhere except possibly to more theory. Practice without theory, on
the other hand, lacks utility for other situations. Even the ability to apply one’s own past
experience to a new situation (exactly why employers want to hire experienced people)
requires low level theorizing about how and why something worked in the past and why
it might or might not work in a new situation. Practitioners who truly eschew theory
are doomed to a lifetime of trial and error – successful ones use theory all the time even
though they may not call it that.
Accordingly, this chapter will not take time to argue why we need to study public re-
lations theory but, instead, will move right to describing the general status of public re-
lations theory in two sections. First, a very short historical summary of early public
relations theory will attempt to provide a very general sense of how it has evolved to its
current state. Second, public relations and mass communication theories will be dis-
cussed on the basis of a framework addressing increasingly broader levels. hese levels
include practitioner role theories, message or channel-centered theories, organization-
centered theories, publics-centered theories, and theories centered on the role of the or-
ganization in society. his approach should help in understanding that the current state
of public relations theory is not just an accident but represents our evolution from one
level of theory to the next. his by no means signiies that public relations theory has
inished its evolution but rather that it is at a diferent point in its journey than it was
20 years ago.

History of Public Relations Theory

Like many ields, public relations is evolving from a purely applied, and largely techni-
cal, practice into a ield of practice with its own unique body of knowledge. Early in its
development, throughout all but the last two decades of the 20th century, public relations
was basically a set of practical skills that were learned through experience and practice,
as the authors of this article did. Common backgrounds for public relations practitio-
ners included the media, particularly print journalism, political campaigning, and mar-
keting. In these early days almost anyone could claim to be a public relations practitio-
ner and many did – when it was convenient.
hese early practitioners transferred the simple mechanical-technical skills of other
ields onto the practice of publics relations based on supericial sensory similarities be-
tween the ields. Most commonly, this meant that those who had writing skills from
journalism or language composition (e. g., English, German writing, etc.) would claim
to be public relations practitioners on the basis of the fact both ields used writing and
they had proved themselves to be successful writers. his, of course, ignored the fact
that writing for public relations requires a whole diferent set of strategies, ethical re-
360 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

sponsibilities and sensitivity to publics than either journalism or writing short stories.
But because public relations had not identiied and staked out its own unique body
of knowledge, writing technicians could get away with such supericial qualiications
in less sophisticated organizations. It was let to theory and research to develop and
popularize a scientiically based body of knowledge so that public relations could fol-
low the well-proven path of other ields from a mere set of practical skills to a whole
ield.
Many ields have traveled this same road before public relations, maybe all ields. he
total knowledge of the ield of agriculture was not so diferent from the knowledge base
of one experienced farmer at one time but today no one farmer would claim to know
all there is to know about agriculture. Likewise, until the advent of business schools and
business management majors in colleges, the knowledge base of business managers was
largely deined by what could be learned in a lifetime of experience or the institutional
memory of a particular company. Today, almost no large company hires potential man-
agers that do not come with several years of formal training under their belts. Public re-
lations is no diferent. he kinds of simple technical skills that one could build a career
on throughout much of the last century oten do not even constitute a complete set of
entry-level skills today.
What has changed in the public relations ield is the depth and breadth of our un-
derstanding. he ield has seen the development of a unique body of theory and related
knowledge that can be scientiically tested and refuted or supported independent of the
experience of any one practitioner. It is that body of knowledge – built around theory –
that is the primary thing distinguishing today’s ield of public relations from yesterday’s
practice of public relations. he period extending from roughly the creation of the U. S.
Government’s Creel Committee to inluence U. S. public opinion regarding American
participation in the First World War to the mid-1980’s was dominated by naked func-
tional models that were not yet real theories. hese included » hired gun « and the » law-
yer in the court of public opinion, « which will be discussed in a subsequent section. As
Botan says in a forthcoming book, Public relations theory has its own history. Public re-
lations theory began to come into its own in the U. S. in the late 1970s and early-to-mid
1980s, sparked in part by the work of Scott Cutlip and his students coming out of the
University of Wisconsin. hese scholars produced some of the irst real theory work in
public relations and contributed to overthrowing the technical approach which had, up
to that time, largely dominated college campuses, as well as the practitioner community.
Drawing mostly on existing social science and mass communication theories, these and
other scholars began to develop a recognized area of theoretic work in public relations
in the 1980s and 1990s. hey also identiied some of the major questions the ield is still
wrestling with today, including whether public relations should be focused on relation-
ship building (Ferguson 1984), whether it should be practiced from a symmetrical or
asymmetrical model (Grunig & Hunt 1984) and what roles public relations practitioners
play and should play in the workplace (Broom & Smith 1979).
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 361

Botan and Taylor (2004) looked back on the evolution of public relations theory and
said it could best be summarized as representing two very diferent views of what the
ield is and what it should be. he irst of these, the functional, was based in the tech-
nician view discussed above. he second, the co-creational, represented a sea change
from the old message and organization focus of the technical view. It adopted a new and
much more humanistic focus on the role of publics – particularly the role of publics as
co-creators of meaning. hus, a co-creational view sees publics not just as groups that
react to what an organization does, but as equal players in deining the environment in
which they and the organization interact as equals. Today we would add that a similar
evolution of public relations theory has developed in Europe where early academics and
practitioners focused on technical skills while today both are much more attuned to a
critical perspective that helps raise issues of ethicality, power and humanism.

Contemporary Theories/Approaches

As noted in the introductory section, we address public relations theories and ap-
proaches at increasingly broader levels moving from; 1) the individual practitioner role,
2) the message or channel, 3) the organizational level, 4) publics and up to the level of,
5) organizational responsibilities in society. Not only does this approach roughly follow
the development of public relations theory over the last several decades, it also suggests
growth within each of the levels. Such a ive-step approach does not mean that these
are ive distinct levels of public relations theory or ive distinct time periods. In fact, not
only do these ive levels overlap, but many of the theories discussed below contribute to
more than one such category.
For the purposes of this chapter, we use the terms » practitioner « and » organization «
as essentially interchangeable whether the practitioner is an organizational staf mem-
ber or external consultant. We also recognize that the practitioner-organization-public
relationship can be very complex. For example, an organization can have multiple prac-
titioners addressing multiple publics as in the case of a multinational corporation using
multiple practitioners in multiple countries to seek acceptance from multiple publics at
the same time. A single practitioner can also represent multiple organizations to multi-
ple publics such as trade associations to national development authorities. It is also pos-
sible for a single public to seek to address multiple organizations and practitioners as
in the case of a social movement such as the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa
in the latter part of the last century. hese matters appear much less confusing when we
keep our focus on the campaign – where it typically should be in public relations.

Lay theories. Hazleton and Botan (1989: 7) said that at the bare minimum, » a theory
consists of at least two concepts and a statement explaining or predicting the relation-
ship between those concepts «. Lay theories, then, would be beliefs that meet this min-
362 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

ima and are held by lay publics, oten below the threshold or a formal statement labeled
as a theory.
Such theories can grow out of years of practice and become treated as assumptions
about what public relations practitioners are or ought to be. For example, for many years
public relations practitioners needed to have some background in journalism and were
hired as a kind of journalist in residence (that is, turncoat or sell-out journalists) or
writing technician because it was believed that the best way to get your story out was to
hire an ex-journalist who had contacts in the media and knew how to write in ways ap-
pealing to the media. his did constitute a minimal lay theory with two primary con-
cepts and a predicted relationship between those concepts;

• Concept 1: Media coverage about a story is necessary

• Concept 2: Media prefer dealing with those who write in certain ways and share their
values and relationships.
• Relationship: Probability of coverage is increased with journalism-style writers who
are personally acquainted with reporters.

Botan (forthcoming) refers to such lay theories as » naive public relations « because they
provide justiication for certain public relations practices based on unsophisticated
knowledge that may not even rise to the conscious level. He cites three such lay theories
in addition to the journalist in residence, 1) hired gun, 2) » if they only knew what I/we
know they would make the same decision « and, 3) analogy to a court of public opinion.

Hired gun. With this approach, the practitioner’s role entails subordinating any ethical
judgments of their own to the orders of an employer. In efect, the public relations prac-
titioner becomes a-ethical, feeling that they are relieved of any ethical responsibility for
their practice because they are just following orders. heir only responsibility is to be
loyal to the employer and being good at the technical aspects of their crat, much like
the stereotypical gunighters of the old American west whose only » ethics « involved be-
ing loyal to whomever they sold their gun to. Hired guns have some things in common
with journalists in residence in that they sell their services to the highest bidder, but the
latter are typically hired in part because they are thought to be familiar with, or even to
share some of, ethical standards of journalism.
he hired gun model operates with a diferent second concept than the journalist in
residence model above. While the journalist in residence model assumes that a jour-
nalism background is necessary for both technical and relational/ethical reasons, the
hired gun model assumes that the media need to be manipulated or controlled and that
the most efective way to do that is to hire someone unencumbered by their own ethics,
views or those of the media.
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 363

» If they only knew what we know. « his approach relects the management assumption
that they know more than publics do, that their interests are the most legitimate, and
that the company has already looked at all aspects of a problem. hus, they assume
that if the publics only knew these truths they would come to the same decision. With
this assumption they feel that all public relations practitioners have to do is get their
story out efectively and everyone will fall in line. his lay theory is inherently paternal-
ist and assumes that publics need only to be taught about how smart management de-
cision making really is in order to be convinced to buy the product, vote for the candi-
date, quit smoking, or the like. Gaudino et al. (1989) dedicated a whole chapter to this
lay theory.

Court of public opinion. Public relations practitioners are sometimes cast as the hired ad-
vocates of a company that merely deserves its day in court. he job of a public relations
practitioner is, therefore, to pull out all the stops to get their client of just as television
lawyers do for their clients. his model of public relations shares some of the elements
of the hired gun model just discussed because the only ethical responsibility of the prac-
titioner is to protect their client’s right to have their case presented in the most efective
way possible, much as defense lawyers in criminal trials are oten thought to do.
Of course, this analogy between a courtroom of law and a court of public opinion
falls down when examined closely. First, in a court of law both sides are nominally equal
because a trained attorney can represent both. In the public domain, on the other hand,
single individuals or small groups of citizens and activists typically do not have the same
access to trained presenters as do large corporations and government bodies. hey also
typically do not have equal access to the media that relies on large organizations or gov-
ernments for stories. Second, there is no assurance of a trained, objective and disinter-
ested authority like a judge that can see through two one-sided presentations in a court
of public opinion.
he old mass communication theory of the silver bullet, while not actually a public
relations theory so not a part of this chapter, contributes to some common lay theories.
he silver bullet view suggests that in each situation, a single mass media message ex-
ists that can shape how people think. hose who argue that television or particular mu-
sic causes violence and leads our youth astray are essentially arguing this view. hus, if
a silver bullet exists it only makes sense to hire the technically most proicient public re-
lations practitioner available and assign him or her the task of inding and using it. Real
public relations professionals reject this belief but hired guns and technicians oten sell
themselves on the job market as knowledgeable in identifying and using magic bullets.

Practitioner roles theories. Public relation roles research and theory is important because
it represents one of the earliest points at which widely held lay theories come face to
face with solid scholarship. Roles research addresses lay theories because the central
theme in public relations roles scholarship has been the tension between the technician
364 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

role, emphasized in some lay theories, and the managerial role emphasized in scholar-
ship on roles. Launched by Glen Broom in the 1970s (Broom & Smith 1978; 1979) early
roles research resulted in a 24-item typology and has been the basis for subsequent stud-
ies on the myriad day-to-day activities of public relations and associated professionals.
Recently, scholars and practitioners have emphasized the importance of the practitio-
ner’s managerial role and of having a seat at the table with the organization’s key deci-
sion makers.
Roles research has been criticized, however, in terms of its theoretical presupposi-
tions. For example, liberal and radical feminist theory asserts that much of the research
on roles places greater normative value on the manager role than the technician role, de-
valuing the work that most women do in public relations (Dozier & Broom 2006). Ac-
cording to Sebastian (2011) estimates of the percentage of public relations practitioners
that are women range from 73 to 85 percent. hus, the normative preference for man-
ager role enactment implicitly denigrates the work of a large number of practitioners
enacting the technician role predominantly, the majority of whom happen to be women
(Dozier & Broom 2006).
Dozier and Broom (2006) propose that the problem can be resolved if the role of
public relations is addressed at the organizational rather than the individual level of
analysis. » Diversity within the public relations department, with regard to both gender
and manager/technician roles, is more easily recognized as strengths when managerial
deinitions of the public relations function are not applied inappropriately to the indi-
vidual « (ibid.: 162). his issue will be addressed in more detail in the section on organi-
zation-centered communication.

Message/Channel-Centered heories. Although overlapping somewhat with practitioner-

centered theories, particularly the journalist in residence model, message-centered the-
ories switch the focus to how public relations messages are constructed and the chan-
nels used to carry them. A non-exhaustive list of such theories would begin with 1) press
agentry and media relations and include, 2) framing, 3) agenda setting, 4) rhetoric and,
(5) persuasion. his section concludes with a short section on emerging theories related
to information technology.

Press agentry and media relations. Both press agentry and media relations focus on de-
veloping the kinds of messages needed to get coverage in the mass media. But the simi-
larity ends there. Press agentry emphasizes developing the messages needed to gain me-
dia coverage and has been an identiiable theory since at least 1984 when Grunig and
Hunt included as part of their discussion of the evolution of public relations theory.
Press agents are usually thought of as practitioners who promote their client’s name rec-
ognition without regard for truthfulness (note the overlap with the hired gun lay the-
ory). Important in the careers of some early practitioners such as Ivy Lee, this model has
evolved into media relations and publicist specializations. Although the term publicist
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 365

has been used mostly in the entertainment industry, it has a sordid past and is closely
linked by many to press agentry.
On the other hand, media or press relations experts focus on building ongoing rela-
tions with the media and are generally committed to truthfulness. According to Zoch
and Molleda (2006: 279), media relations involves » the vision of the practitioner as the
mouthpiece who tells the organization’s good news-only story «. he public relations
ield has grown beyond deining handling such purely one-way positive messages as
synonymous with the whole ield of public relations as it once was, but media relations
is still considered a critical aspect of the practice and an important part of being a prac-
titioner.
Framing. Framing has its origins in the works of sociologists Erving Gofman (1974)
and anthropologist Gregory Bateson (1955) and has been elaborated in scholarship in
a wide variety of disciplines. Entman’s (1993) frequently cited deinition explains that
» frames select and call attention to particular aspects of the reality described, which
logically means that frames simultaneously direct attention away from other aspects «
(ibid.: 54). Zoch and Molleda (2006: 283) use the metaphor of a window frame: » he
message framer has the choice of what to emphasize in the message, as the view through
a window is emphasized by where the carpenter frames, or places, the window. «
he public relations practitioner can contribute to how the media frame a story by
highlighting or withholding speciic information about a subject or issues from those
covering the story. In order to accomplish this goal, practitioners engaged in media re-
lations must daily construct and process information about their organization before
releasing that information to the media (Zoch & Molleda 2006). Moreover, media rela-
tions practitioners generate prepackaged information, called information subsidies, to
promote their organizations’ viewpoints on issues and to highlight aspects of interest
within those issues to their internal and external publics.
Agenda setting. According to Botan (forthcoming), a complementary concept to
framing is agenda setting. his theory, associated with Maxwell McCombs and his col-
leagues (cf. McCombs & Shaw 1972) asserts that media coverage of issues sets the public
agenda. hat is, media coverage determines what publics will be thinking about because
matters that get a lot of media attention are thought to be important. Agenda setting
does not say that media coverage tells us what to think about an issue, only what we will
think about.
From a public relations perspective, agenda setting is about how the public agenda
is inluenced by professional communicators and especially about the relationship be-
tween public relations and journalism (e. g., Bentele & Nothhat 2008). Taken to its logi-
cal conclusion, agenda setting would say that it is possible to manage what issues pub-
lics will think about by inluencing what gets media coverage. Scholars have come to
view the development of agenda building as a series of interrelated processes or stages
(Zoch & Molleda 2006). For example, Johnson et al. (1996) explain that the collective
and reciprocal agenda-building process means that the press, the public, and public of-
366 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

icials inluence one another and at the same time are inluenced by one another. Zoch
and Molleda conclude that framing is a tool that the practitioner can use to participate
in the process of media agenda building.
Rhetoric. Rhetoric is the oldest body of scholarship used in public relations. Dating
back to classical Greece and it great thinkers, like Aristotle, the rhetorical tradition is
about 2 400 years old and embraces the symbol-using (i. e., language) capacity of hu-
mans as well as the special human ability to use such symbols persuasively to organize,
cooperate, plan and bind knowledge over time through writing. Rhetoric can be used
to advance the cause of reasoned and free decision-making but as able opponents such
as Socrates said, rhetoric can also be used to promote baser instincts and, thus, possibly
spoil its constructive potential. For example, one of the things the study of rhetoric has
traditionally included is how to speak efectively in public. Yet many famous speeches
have had as their purpose the constraint of choices and rationality through appeals to
emotion and not the expansion of perceived options or the use of rationality.
Rhetorical studies are oten limited by a focus on the message and its efectiveness
measured only in terms of serving the corporation’s interests. Rhetorical studies typi-
cally lack the voice of the other party in the public debate. For example, individuals with
diferent interpretations of corporate message or diferent perspectives on ethical values
and what is socially responsible are oten excluded from a rhetorical analysis. Neverthe-
less, as the art of inding all the available means of persuasion in a situation, rhetoric has
been practiced by public relations practitioners as long as there have been such practi-
tioners, even though most of them have not realized that they have been practicing as
rhetoricians. he fact that the vast majority of these practitioners have not been formally
trained in rhetoric and its 2 400-year ethical tradition may explain some of the more
egregious practices in public relations history.
Persuasion. As we noted just above, classical rhetoric has usually been deined as the
art of inding all the available means of persuasion in a situation. he body of public re-
lations theory that seeks to ind available means of persuasion without using a rhetorical
framework is persuasion theory. Public relations shares an interest in persuasion theory
with the rest of communication, social psychology, marketing, political science and host
of other ields.
Persuasive communication in » an attempt to shape, change and/or reinforce percep-
tion, afect (feelings), cognition (thinking), and/or behavior, plays a pivotal role in many
public relations activities… « (Pfau & Wan 2006: 102). Unlike rhetoric, persuasion is dis-
tinctly rooted in social psychology and communication. Pfau and Wan (2006) propose
that application of persuasion theories such as involvement and information process-
ing inform public relations theory. One example is inoculation theory, which was irst
popularized by William McGuire (1964) as a means of building resistance to persuasion.
In the public relations context, the inoculation practitioner communicates with publics
before they hear some other persuasive message in order to inoculate them against the
impact of the coming message (Pfau & Wan 2006). In supportive inoculation a public
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 367

that already agrees with the organization is given additional arguments supporting that
position. In refutational inoculation publics irst hear counter-arguments from the other
side then hear refutation of those arguments.
he role of persuasion has sparked controversy in public relations over whether the
ield should operate from a persuasive, one-way asymmetrical model or a non-persua-
sive two-way symmetrical model. For example, Grunig and Grunig (1992) argue that
their symmetrical model of communication is inherently superior because it is not ma-
nipulative. For these authors, the principal objective of public relations is understand-
ing not persuasion. Pfau and Wan (2006) countered that regardless of which model a
practitioner likes, persuasion is intrinsic to public relations activities aimed at external
publics. It plays an implicit role in core functions of public relations, such as commu-
nity relations, media relations, and crisis communication. Persuasion is explicit in such
endeavors as fundraising, lobbying, and commercial and social marketing (Pfau & Wan
2006) as well as social movements, religious public relations, and political campaigning.

Emerging theories of information technology. Public relations literature related to infor-

mation technology is growing at a fantastic rate and rapidly moving in several direc-
tions. hese works are largely outside the purview of this chapter, however, because
most of it is noticeably atheoretic and has not focused on testing theories or contribut-
ing to theory building. here are exceptions, such as Vorvoreaunu (2008), who devel-
oped and tested a conceptual framework on the experience of visiting public relations
(or other) websites based on user experience, organization-public relationship build-
ing and maintenance, as well as message-centered approaches. Other scholars, such as
Phillips (2009), have sought to apply existing public relations models and theories to
practices involving social media.
For some scholars and practitioners, new technologies are a blessing in that they
make it increasingly possible to develop direct relationships with more people and at a
faster speed than in the past (Botan, forthcoming). Others see technology as a mixed
blessing for public relations in part because of increased stakeholder expectations of the
organization’s ability to communicate openly and deliver goods and services (Kazoleas
& Teigen 2006).

Organization-Centered Approaches. Organization-centered approaches focus primar-

ily, if not solely, on the wishes and needs of the organization. Some scholars call them
» functional « because they are concerned with public relations functioning as an instru-
ment to accomplish only organizational goals (Botan & Taylor 2004). Although iden-
tiiable with an earlier period in management science, when publics were oten treated
as if they existed only to meet the needs of the organization, functional approaches are
still quite common in public relations consulting and corporate work. From the orga-
nizational-centered approach it stands to reason that a corporation needs a motive for
spending money on public relations practice and, therefore, that the results of a cam-
368 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

paign should be evaluated by the return on that investment rather than on ethical or so-
cial grounds.
Wehmeier’s (2009) study revealed that selected international scholars and practitio-
ners anticipate a decline in the importance of the marketing approach to public relations
practice. When it comes to the concept of management, the picture is diferent. Strategic
management and issues management (discussed below) are seen as the most important
concepts in the future. An earlier study concluded that European scholars and practitio-
ners view the management function at the core of the discipline (van Ruler et al. 2004).
On the other hand, the tendency to bind public relations to a management framework
fostering a doctrine of quantiication, measurement, and control has been widely criti-
cized. For example, critical theory scholars such as Dutta (2009) argue that these ap-
proaches privilege management discourse at the expense of employee discourse. In the
same way, one could argue that managerial approaches privilege the organization at
the expense of its publics. he three theories described below, issues management, crisis
management, and two-way symmetrical/excellence, illustrate primarily organization-
centered approaches. he irst, issues management, has a largely rhetorical foundation
and one could argue that the last, symmetrical/excellence, might also have signiicant
aspects of message-centeredness.
Issues management. his theory is based on work done by Crable and Vibbert (1985)
on how issues come to be, evolve, and are resolved. hough issues management includes
the term » management «, Botan’s (2006) elaboration on the term emphasizes that pub-
lics deine issues and publics play the central role in public relations. hus, it is impor-
tant for the practitioner to understand the lifecycle of an issue from the publics’ perspec-
tive, moving through pre-, potential, public, critical and dormant stages. At the same
time, the practitioner should be able to assess the organization’s archetypal grand strat-
egies — intransigent, resistant, cooperative, or integrative — that constrain the strate-
gies and tactics available in campaigns. hus Botan’s (2006) elaboration of Crable and
Vibbert (1985) is descriptive (as opposed to normative) and is transitional between or-
ganization-oriented and publics-oriented theories. Other authors, notably Heath (1997)
and Heath and Palenchar (2009) have done extensive work in developing models of is-
sues management.
Crisis management. Crisis response research is a vibrant and growing area in the
public relations literature although it remains in an early stage of theoretical develop-
ment (Coombs 2006). Coombs divides this literature into two categories. Form is what
crisis managers should do, and content is what is actually said in messages. Coombs pro-
poses a prescriptive theory called the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT).
SCCT attempts to provide three central elements for crisis management: (1) a list of crisis
response strategies, (2) a framework for categorizing crisis situations, and (3) a method
for matching the crisis response strategies to the situation. Major crisis response strate-
gies include: corporate apologia or self-defense responses to attacks against the organi-
zation’s character, impression management or the re-establishment of corporate legiti-
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 369

macy (cf., Allen & Caillouet 1994), and image restoration theory or strategies to address
accusations of bad behavior (cf., Benoit 1995). Coombs categorizes crisis situations by
level of responsibility acceptance and level of crisis responsibility. As public attributions
of an organization’s responsibility for a crisis intensify, Coombs says, crisis managers
should use strategies that relect a greater acceptance of responsibility for their behavior.
Crisis management is a major area of public relations consulting, and other authors have
done extensive work in it, notably Millar and Heath (2004) and Janis (1989).

Symmetrical theory

Another transitional theory is the two-way symmetrical approach to public relations.

First promoted by Grunig and Hunt in their textbook Managing Public Relations (1984),
this prescriptive theory has its roots in the writings of Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, John
Hill, and Scoot Cutlip. Grunig and Hunt deined public relations as » the management
of communication between an organization and its publics, best accomplished through
two-way communication « (ibid.: 7). hey developed a typology of four models; press
agentry, public information, two-way asymmetrical, and two-way symmetrical. Two-
way asymmetrical public relations programs use research, according to the authors, to
identify the messages most likely to produce the behavior change that beneits the or-
ganization but not necessarily publics. Two-way symmetrical communication, they say,
should be about building relationships with publics and about balancing the organiza-
tion’s and the public’s interests. But two-way symmetrical should not involve persuasion.
his approach was thought to contribute to relationship building and maintenance, or-
ganizational efectiveness, and to a more ethical approach to public relations in society
(Bowen 2001).
Identiied primarily as Grunig’s theory due to several later writings by that author,
this theory has been the most inluential theory in public relations for some years, but it
has not been without its critics. For example, Botan and Taylor (2004) contend that real
dialogical public relations does not fall within this deinition and Pfau and Wan (2006)
criticized its anti-persuasion arguments that appear even in later works.

Excellence theory

In later works by Grunig (1992), symmetrical theory formed the foundation for excel-
lence theory which extended the symmetrical approach by arguing that public relations
contributes to the efectiveness of organizations when it helps them build quality, long-
term relationships with strategic publics. his goal can only be achieved if the organi-
zation is willing to change its behavior and if the public relations manager takes part in
organizational decision making. As a normative theory, it tells public relations practitio-
370 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

ners how to do their jobs and seeks to explain the relationship between certain kinds of
practices and the likelihood of success.
he symmetrical and excellence approach is largely functional in emphasis because it
speciies that certain kinds of practices should be undertaken by the organization in the
interest of meeting the organization’s long-term goals. hus, we see symmetrical theory
as transitional between organization-centered and publics-centered with emphasis on
the former.

Publics-Centered Theories

Publics-centered models focus not on the organization’s wishes or on how to crat mes-
sages but on how publics make use of the eforts of practitioners (Botan, forthcoming).
Among publics-centered theories are co-orientation, dialogic, situational, relational and
co-creational approaches.
Co-orientation. Co-orientation is a transitional theory that straddles organization-
centered and publics-centered approaches but focuses more on the latter. he theory ex-
amines how groups see each other and what they believe the other group thinks about
them (Taylor & Kent 2006). hat is, in any interaction individuals and groups have at
least three relational issues to consider: (1) how they think about themselves (as hon-
est, strategic, powerful, etc.), (2) how they view other individuals or groups (as honest or
self-serving, cooperative or self-serving, etc.), and (3) how they think other individuals
and groups view them. When (or if) both parties in an exchange share the same view(s)
of the other, intersubjectivity is achieved.
Co-orientation is not a public relations theory per se (cf. Chafee & McLeod 1968;
McLeod & Chafee 1973) but it has been applied to public relations (Johnson 1989). he
literature is broad enough to be applied to many areas of public relations (Whitcomb
1976), and it is particularly useful in a negotiating approach because of three basic con-
cepts: agreement, congruency, and accuracy. For example, suppose your organization
(A) supports some new piece of legislation (X). Your publics (B) also have an orienta-
tion toward that piece of legislation, as well as a relationship with your organization. he
term agreement refers to how much A and B are in agreement about the legislation. If
there is agreement in a situation, messages designed to facilitate supportive inoculation
(see the previous section on persuasion) would be a good idea. hose intended to facili-
tate refutational inoculation would not be. Congruency refers to the client’s (A) inter-
pretation of how publics (B) feel, that is, their evaluation of how close they are to agree-
ment. If they think they are in agreement with the publics they believe congruence is
high and this would lead them to do a diferent public relations campaign than if they
did not feel congruence. Accuracy refers to how well clients estimate how publics (B) ac-
tually feel about the legislation.
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 371

Dialogic models of public relations

Dialogue is at the heart of consensus-oriented theories. Using Pearson’s (1989) earlier ar-
guments, Botan (1997: 192) suggested that dialogue manifests itself more as a stance, ori-
entation, or bearing in communication rather than as a speciic method, technique, or
format. He went on to explain that » traditional approaches to public relations relegate
publics to a secondary role, making them instruments for meeting organizational policy
or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication
equal with the organization « (ibid.: 196).
heory of communicative action. he leading contemporary representative of dialog
communication as it would apply to public relations might be Jürgen Habermas, who
has had more impact on public relations thinking than other continental philosophers.
he core of his concept of communicative relations lies in the » unconstrained, unifying,
consensus bringing the force of argumentative speech « (Keenan & Hazleton 2006: 318).
His associated promulgation of the ideal speech situation, whereby all stakeholders par-
ticipate equally in dialogue which is resolved in favor of the best argument, has ainities
with and elaborates on ideal practitioner goals.
Dialogic theory. Like co-orientation theory, dialogic theory suggests that under-
standing and tolerance of others is central to efective organization-publics relationships
(Taylor & Kent 2006). Unlike co-orientation theory, however, dialogue is about foster-
ing honest and mutually beneicial relationships with individuals rather than groups. As
Kent and Taylor (2002: 32) explain, » Dialogue is not about the › process ‹ used, it is about
the products that emerge—trust, satisfaction, and sympathy «.

Situational theory of publics

Elaborated by Grunig and Hunt (1984) and Grunig (1997) – this theory was unique in
that it sought to analyze publics primarily based on responses to public relations situa-
tions. he theory identiied three independent attributes of publics, (1) problem recog-
nition, (2) constraint recognition, and (3) level of involvement, as predictors of certain
communication behaviors by both individuals and publics. It allowed for the deinition
of four diferent types of publics: Non-publics (not linked to the organization); latent
publics (linked to the organization but haven’t realized it yet); aware publics (linked to
the organization and have realized it); and active publics (linked to the organization,
and have organized themselves to handle this linkage). But it did not acknowledge any
role for communication and like earlier theories, it accepted the assumption that publics
exist and act only in reaction to organizations (Botan, forthcoming).
372 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

Relationship building

Although many theories and practices in public relations claim relationship building
as their desired outcome, only a few have made relationships the actual content of the
theory until recently. Public relations research in the latter part of the last century and
the early part of this century has focused on relationship building (Botan, forthcoming).
Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997) situated public relations research within relational
communication theory when they explicated the concept of relationship. Ledingham
and Bruning (1998; 2000) extended it again when they examined the theoretic evolu-
tion of symmetrical communication as a normative model of public relations practice.
hey argued that J. Grunig’s (1992) concept of public relations as » building relationships
with publics that constrain or enhance the ability of the organization to meet its mis-
sion « was instrumental in shiting the emphasis in public relations from managing pub-
lics and public opinion to a new emphasis on building, nurturing and maintaining rela-
tionships (ibid.: 55).
Relationship management theory focuses on mutually beneicial nurturing relation-
ships that can generate economic, societal and political gain for organizations and pub-
lics, while responding to ethical considerations (Ledingham 2006). It includes symbolic
and behavioral relationships, as well as personal, professional, and community-related
relationships. Moreover, organization-public relationships involve an ongoing exchange
of needs, expectations, and fulillment that must be sustained over time, while taking
into account that they can and will change (Ledingham 2003; 2006).

Co-creational model

he shit away from an instrumental approach to relational communication and dia-

logue as frameworks for public relations relects the transition to a co-creational per-
spective according to Botan and Taylor (2004). Botan also argues that, although there
are many relationships of interest to public relations, the relationship of central impor-
tance is that of the shared creation of meaning between groups and organizations (forth-
coming). he goal is not instrumentalizing publics (treating them merely as a means
to an organizational end) in this approach. Instead publics are seen as partners in the
meaning-making process. Communication functions to negotiate changes in these rela-
tionships by making it possible to agree to shared meanings, interpretations, and goals.
he co-creational approach embraces theories that either explicitly share these val-
ues (e. g., relational approaches or community) or can be used to advance them. he
assumptions and ideals of the co-creational model are far from new because they de-
rive from decades of work by legions of critical, cultural and interpretivist scholars. he
foundation of a co-creational perspective in public relations, however, harkens back only
to Ferguson’s (1984) call for relationships to be at the center of public relations research.
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 373

Organizational Roles in Society

Public relations scholars are increasingly concerned with the role of the organization in
society. Wehmeier’s (2009) study asked a select group of international experts, scholars
and practitioners to choose among statements of recommended future research direc-
tions. » PR research should henceforth focus on the interactions between organizations
and society « was the most frequently mentioned (ibid.: 278).
Community building. Relational approaches to public relations have become increas-
ingly popular since Ferguson’s (1984) call but they are not without their critics. For ex-
ample, Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) contended that relationship-building models of
public relations might be » noble and ethical and beneicial to organizations and their
stakeholders, but it is through community-building that public relations best serves so-
ciety as well as organizations « (ibid.: 486). In the big picture, the organization is only an
organic part of the whole social system of society and not at the center of a perceived
social system. Its responsibility to society is greater than it would be in an organization-
centered view. he public relations practitioners’ responsibilities likewise dramatically
increased. » Only with a goal of restoration and maintenance of a sense of community
as a primary objective can public relations become a full partner in the information
and communication milieu that has formed the lifeblood of U. S. and global society «
(ibid.: 488).
Socially responsible public relations (SRPR). Corporate social responsibility, the foun-
dation of SRPR, was originally a strictly economic doctrine of proit-making for a irm’s
shareholders (Friedman 1962; 1970). It evolved into corporate social responsiveness and
subsequently into social issues management, issues identiication, and respecting the
need of community or society (Pratt 2006). As a construct it includes the airmation of
society’s well-being by organizations in general, not just by corporations.
According to Botan, Ferguson and Sintay (in press), SRPR is partially characterized
by providing access to the kind of information needed for a society and its members
to govern themselves. In an increasingly information-centered society that obligation
is growing daily. he antithesis of SRPR includes practices that; withhold or obscure
needed information, manipulate or deceive or, inundate publics with information they
do not ind necessary. Spamming, for example, is antithetical to socially responsible
public relations as is withholding part of the information because most recipients do not
need or want it. Spamming is an example of corporate selishness rather than social re-
sponsibility. Botan, Ferguson and Sintay also argue that, in view of the changes brought
by the information society, public relations scholars should increase the attention given
to making the practice more socially responsible. hey should focus not on laundry lists
of do’s and don’ts on uncovering guiding principles that can make what has all too oten
been an irresponsible practice into a more socially responsible one.
374 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

Conclusion

here are emerging areas of public relations theory that have not yet developed past the
level of merely applying theories from outside public relations to the ield, are still repre-
sented by a single author or team or do not it the schema used in this chapter. One such
area of work that holds much promise for the future is international and intercultural
public relations theory. Still most oten just applying non-public relations theories to a
particular area of public relations work, this area can be represented by Sriramesh and
Verčič’s (2009) framework. he model these authors present in chapter one integrates a
country’s infrastructure, media environment, and societal culture inluence with the na-
ture of public relations work. heir framework is based on the assumption that identify-
ing the impact of environmental variables on public relations helps increase the ability
of the practitioner to predict which strategies and techniques are better suited to a par-
ticular organizational environment (ibid.: 3).
Other theories will no doubt be developed in the next few years to more fully address
social media, new information technology, international public relations, intercultural
public relations, and a host of newly emerging areas within the ield. For now, however,
at least one recent study (Wehmeier 2009) revealed that theory-building in public rela-
tions is still somewhat lacking. Pasadeos et al. (2010) however suggested that public re-
lations research has continued to grow and mature in the past decade and that there has
been a sharp rise in the amount of public relations research and an increase in the num-
ber of new research perspectives and topics and of works dedicated to public relations
theory development.
We expect the period starting in the second decade of the 2000s to be characterized
by the emergence of one or more new theories that will lead to one or more new para-
digms for public relations theory work. One possibility is a publics-centered view, such
as the co-creational approach, that sees the organization and its publics as partners in
the creation of shared meaning.

References

Allen, M./Caillouet, R. (1994): Legitimization endeavors: Impression management strategies

used by an organization in crisis. In: Communication Monographs, 61 (pp. 44 – 62)
Bateson, G. (1955/1972): A theory of play and fantasy. A.P.A. Psychiatric Research Reports II.
Report in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York (pp. 177 – 193)
Benoit, W. (1995): Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany, NY
Bentele, G./Nothhat, H. (2008): he intereication model: heoretical discussion and empirical
research. In: Zerfaß/van Ruler/Sriramesh (Eds.): Public relations theory. Wiesbaden
(pp. 341 – 362)
Botan, C. H. (1997): Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: he case for a new approach
to public relations. In: Journal of Business Communication, 34 (pp. 187 – 201)
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 375

Botan, C. H. (2006): Grand Strategy, Strategy and Tactics in Public Relations. In: Botan/
Hazelton (Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahway, NJ (pp. 197 – 218).
Botan, C. H. (forthcoming): Strategic communication theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ
Botan, C. H./Ferguson, D./Sintay, G. S. (in press): Humanism as a basis for socially responsible
public relations. In: Chandler (Ed.) Business and corporate integrity
Botan, C. H./Hazleton, V. (Eds.) (1989): Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ
Botan, C. H./Hazleton, V. (Eds.) (2006): Public relations theory II. Mahway, NJ
Botan C. H./Taylor, M. (2004): Public relations: State of the ield. In: Journal of Communication,
54 (pp. 1 – 17)
Bowen, S. (2001): Symmetry. In: Heath. (Ed.): Handbook of Public Relations. housand Oaks,
CA (pp. 386 – 389)
Broom, G. M./Smith, G. D. (1978): Toward an understanding of public relations roles: An
empirical test of ive role models’ impact on clients. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism, Seattle, WA
Broom, G. M./Smith, G. D. (1979): Testing the Practitioner’s Impact on Clients. In: Public Rela-
tions Review 5(3) (pp. 47 – 59)
Broom, G. M./Casey, C./Ritchey, J. (1997): Toward a Concept and heory of Organization-Public
Relationships. In: Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2) (pp. 83 – 98)
Chafee, S. H./McLeod, J. M. (1973): Applying the interpersonal perception model to the real
world. In: American Behavioral Scientist 16 (pp. 465 – 468)
Coombs, W. T. (2006): he Protective Powers of Crisis Response Strategies: Managing Repu-
tational Assets During a Crisis. In: Journal of Promotion Management 12 (pp. 241 – 259)
Crable, R. E./Vibbert, S. L. (1985): Managing Issues and Inluencing Public Policy. In: Public
Relations Review 11 (pp. 3 – 16)
Dozier, D./Broom, G. (2006): he centrality of practitioner roles in public relations theory. In:
Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 137 – 170)
Dutta, M. J. (2009): On Gayatri Spivak: heorizing resistance: Applying Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak in public relations. In: Ihlen/van Ruler/Fredriksson (Eds.): Public relations and social
theory. New York (pp. 278 – 300)
Entman, R. M. (1993): Framing: Toward a clariication of a fractured paradigm. In: Journal of
Communication 43, (pp. 51 – 58)
Ferguson, M. (1984): Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented at the Public Relations Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Gainesville, FL
Friedman, M. (1962): Capitalism and freedom. Chicago
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13): A Friedman doctrine – the social responsibility of business
is to increase its proits. he New York Times Magazine (pp. 32 – 33, 122, 124, 126)
Gaudino, J. L./Fritch, J./Haynes, B. (1989): » If you only knew what I knew, you’d make the same
decision «: A common misperception underlying publics relations campaigns. In: Botan/
Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 299 – 308)
Gofman, E. (1974): Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA
Grunig, J. (1997): A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, and new
research. In: Moss et al. (Eds.): Public relations research. London (pp. 3 – 48)
Grunig, J./Grunig, L. (1992): Models of public relations and communication. In: Grunig (Ed.):
Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 285 – 326)
Grunig, J./Hunt, T. (1984): Managing public relations. New York
Hazleton, V./Botan, C. H. (1989): he role of theory in public relations. In: Botan/Hazleton
(Eds.): Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 1 – 16)
376 Carl H. Botan/Janey G. Trowbridge

Heath, R. L. (1997): Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges.
housand Oaks, CA
Heath, R. L./Palenchar, M. J. (2009): Strategic issues management: Organizations and public
policy challenges. 2nd edition. housand Oaks, CA
Janis, I. L. (1989): Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New
York
Johnson, D. J. (1989): he coorientation model and consultant roles. In: Botan/Hazleton (Eds.):
Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 243 – 264)
Johnson, T./Wanta, W./Boudreau, T./Blank-Libra, J./Schafer, K./Turner, S. (1996): Inluence
dealers: A path analysis model of agenda building during Richard Nixon’s war on drugs. In:
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73 (pp. 181 – 194)
Kazoleas, D./Teigen, L. G. (2006): he technology-image expectancy gap. In: Botan/Hazleton
(Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 137 – 170)
Keenan, W./Hazleton, V. (2006): Internal public relations, social capital, and the role of efec-
tive organizational communication. In: Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory II.
Mahwah, NJ (pp. 137 – 170)
Kent, M./Taylor, M. (2002): Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. In: Public Relations
Review 28 (pp. 21 – 37)
Kruckeberg, D./Starck, K. (1988): Public relations and community: A reconstituted theory. New
York
Ledingham, J. A. (2003): Explicating Relationship Management as a General heory of Public
Relations. In: Journal of Public Relations Research 15(2) (pp. 181 – 198)
Ledingham, J. A. (2006): Relationship management. In: Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations
theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 465 – 484)
Ledingham, J. A./Bruning, S. D. (1998): Relationship Management and Public Relations:
Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship. In: Public Relations Review 24
(pp. 55 – 65)
Ledingham, J. A./Bruning, S. D. (Eds.) (2000): Public relations as relationship management:
A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ
McCombs, M./Shaw, D. (1972): he agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion
Quarterly 36 (pp. 176 – 187)
McGuire, W. (1964): Inducing resistance to persuasion. Some contemporary approaches. In:
Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1. New York (pp. 191 – 229)
McLeod, J. M./Chafee, S. H. (1973): Interpersonal approaches to communication research. In:
American Behavioral Scientist 16 (pp. 496 – 500)
Millar, D. P./Heath, R. L. (2004): Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communi-
cation. Mahwah, NJ
Pasadeos, Y./Berger, B./Renfro, R. B. (2010): Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update
on research networks. In: Journal of Public Relations Research 22(2) (pp. 136 – 158)
Pearson, R. (1989): Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and
the idea of dialogue. In: Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ
(pp. 111 – 131)
Pfau, M./Wan, H. (2006): Persuasion: An intrinsic function of public relations. In: Botan/
Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ. (pp. 101 – 136)
Phillips, D. (2009, January 9): A Grunigian view of modern PR. Blog posting retrieved 11/15/11
from: http://leverwealth.blogspot.com/2009/01/grunigian-view-of-modern-pr.html
Pratt, C. (2006): Reformulating the emerging theory of corporate social responsibility. In:
Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 249 – 277)
Public Relations Theory: Past, Present and Future 377

Sebastian, M. (Ragan’s PR Daily, 2011, March 3): In the PR world, men still earn more than
women. Ragan’s PR Daily. Retrieved from: http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/In_the_
PR_world_men_still_earn_more_than_ women_7411.aspx, November 13, 2011
Sriramesh, K./Verčič, D. (Eds.) (2003): he global public relations handbook. Mahwah, NJ
Taylor, M./Kent, M. (2006): Public relations theory and practice in nation building. In: Botan/
Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 341 – 360)
U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011): Occupational outlook handbook 2010. 11thedition.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos086.htm
van Ruler, B./Verčič, D./Butschi, G./Flodin, B. (2004): A irst look for parameters of public rela-
tions in Europe. In: Journal of Public Relations Research 16(1) (pp. 1 – 34)
Vorvoreanu, M. (2008): Web site public relations: How corporations build and maintain rela-
tionships online. Amherst, NY
Wehmeier, S. (2009): Out of the fog and into the future: Directions of public relations, theory
building, research and practice. In: Canadian Journal of Communication 34 (pp. 265 – 282)
Whitcomb, D. (1976, July/August): A general paradigm for public relations research. Paper
presented to the Public relations Division, Annual convention, Association for Education
in Journalism, College Park, MD
Zoch, L./Molleda, J. C. (2006): Building a theoretic model of media relations using framing,
information subsidies, and agenda-building. In: Botan/Hazleton (Eds.): Public relations
theory II. Mahwah, NJ (pp. 279 – 309)