Digital Public Relations in the Swedish

Cultural Sector
A Study of Effective PR and Two-Way Communication

Ylva Arwidson

Department of ALM
Theses within Digital Humanities
Master’s degree project (one year), 15 credits, 2020, no. 1
Author
Ylva Arwidson

Title
Digital Public Relations in the Swedish Cultural Sector, A Study of Effective PR and Two-Way Communication.

Supervisor
Olle Sköld

Abstract
This research is about Swedish cultural institutions’ digital public relations work, with the purpose of investigat-
ing what the digital coordinators at the institutions consider to be essential skills in their work and how they
define and implement effective and successful communication online. Communicating about culture and cultural
heritage is essential and a key priority in order to ensure that the public is educated about the past as well as the
present. Through analysing data from interviews conducted with professionals working within communications
at Swedish cultural institutions, the study investigates what the main difficulties, similarities and dissimilarities
are in digital public relations today and why. The results show that the professionals’ main areas of difficulty lay
within conciseness and correctness, these could be attributed to lesser constraints in the digital setting, inatten-
tion, the faster pace of working online as well as a higher tolerance for errors. The interviewees showed a de-
pendence on adding links to their digital content, expressing different opinions regarding what purpose linking
serves. There is a common trend within the professionals’ work in favour of democratisation of the dynamics
between the institution and the public – two-way communication through adapted and personalised dialogue
(community management) and valorisation of feedback. The study provides first-hand insight into the strengths
and weaknesses of digital public relations actors working within Swedish cultural institutions.

Key words
Digital Public Relations, Effective Public Relations, Effective Communications, Cultural Heritage, Two-Way
Communication, Digital Media

2
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
Previous Research ............................................................................................. 7
Public Relations ............................................................................................ 7
Public Relations in the Age of Digital Media ............................................... 8
Communicating about Culture and Cultural Heritage ................................ 10
Methodology and Materials ............................................................................ 11
Sampling ..................................................................................................... 11
Interviews.................................................................................................... 12
Analysing and Interpreting the Data ........................................................... 13
Ethics .............................................................................................................. 14
Theories .......................................................................................................... 15
Introduction ................................................................................................. 15
Mixed-Motive Theory................................................................................. 16
Cutlip and Center’s “Seven Cs of Communication” .................................. 17
Empirical Findings and Analysis .................................................................... 20
The Completeness Criterion ....................................................................... 20
The Conciseness Criterion .......................................................................... 21
The Consideration Criterion ....................................................................... 21
The Concreteness Criterion ........................................................................ 22
The Courtesy Criterion ............................................................................... 22
The Clearness Criterion .............................................................................. 23
The Correctness Criterion ........................................................................... 23
Discussion ....................................................................................................... 25
Results and Main Findings ......................................................................... 25
Democratic Dynamic Change in Public Relations ..................................... 27
Differences in the Perception of Completeness .......................................... 29
Conflicts in Synchronisation ....................................................................... 30
Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 31
Bibliography and List of References .............................................................. 33
Literature ..................................................................................................... 33

3
4
Introduction

In 2016 the Swedish government released a study about media politics, addressing
the current issue of a rapid change in digital media use (Statens Offentliga Utred-
ningar, 2016). After conducting extensive research and analysis of the public use
of media, it could be concluded that Swedish citizens no longer only are receivers
of information, but are becoming distributors of information. Digital platforms
allow for a revolutionary change in knowledge sharing, and the role of public rela-
tions is more important than ever before. With a continuous democratisation of
information distribution, effective public relations, trustworthy sources and quali-
tative news distribution remain highly relevant topics. Official organisations now
have a much-increased responsibility to be reliable sources of information in soci-
ety, and cultural institutions are in an important position in today’s digital revolu-
tion.
Cultural institutions are responsible for providing society with correct infor-
mation, not only about the present, but also about the past as well as for the fu-
ture. Cultural heritage is the source for much of the knowledge we have today,
and it plays a key part in the development of society (Brown, 2006). I argue that it
is to everyone’s advantage that cultural institutions continue to claim the role as
primary sources of information in our digital society, and that they implement
effective public relations strategies in their digital work. The public relations in-
dustry and the digital coordinators at each and every institution are responsible for
ensuring that the communication about culture is correct and accessible. Culture is
important to public relations since history and culture are the foundations on
which we create and develop new theories about all areas of society, including
public relations and communications; one is dependent on the other (Brown,
2006).
Humanistic scholars have stressed the importance of ensuring that communi-
ties understand and are well informed about the culture and cultural heritage
around them (Gabriel 2018; Chiaparini 2012) and although articles have been
written about communications and public relations both historically and in the
digital society, little has been written about digital public relations within the cul-
tural sector. The topic has so far been underrepresented in scholarly work in the
field of Digital Humanities.
This research is about Swedish cultural institutions’ digital public relations
strategies, with the purpose of investigating what the digital coordinators at the
institutions consider to be essential skills in their work and how they define and
implement efficient and successful communication online.

5
 The study provides first-hand insight into the strengths and weaknesses of
digital public relations actors working within Swedish cultural institutions, and
the research questions I seek to answer are:

1. Which parts of Cutlip and Center’s model for Effective Public Rela-
tions do professionals in the field find difficult to implement in their
digital work and why?
2. What are the significant similarities and dissimilarities in the Swedish
cultural sector’s digital public relations work?

All the institutions in the study are members of the cultural heritage organisation
Digisam, an umbrella organisation that works towards creating coordination and
collaboration between cultural actors in Sweden with the aim of strengthening and
optimising their work with digitising cultural heritage. Twenty-two of the largest
cultural institutions in Sweden are part of Digisam, including museums, libraries,
archives and ministries.
In order to answer the research questions, the digital coordinators at five of
the institutions have been interviewed and asked questions in relation to the seven
elements of Cutlip and Center’s Seven Cs of Communication model. The collected
data has been merged and analysed with a two-way-communicative approach,
using the Mixed-Motive Theory. In this study, effective public relations is defined
as a communication strategy respecting all seven Cs in Cutlip and Center’s model
for effective public relations.

6
Previous Research

Public Relations

Public relations as we know it today is the product of decades and decades of

moulding and reshaping of a practice that did not always have a name, nor was
always considered to be an established practice. There are different definitions of
the term ‘public relations’, but the majority of them collectively create two differ-
ent branches; i. Public relations as a practice belonging to the marketing industry,
where companies try to control the mind of the public to the (often economical)
benefit of their company. Words such as ‘propaganda’, ‘publicity’ and ‘persua-
sion’ are often used in these definitions. ii. Public relations as a practice where
organisations actively manage the communication between the organisations and
the public with the goal of creating mutual understanding, to the benefit of both
the organisation and the stakeholders (the public) (Cutlip, Center and Broom
2006). The latter branch of definitions is the one that this research is based on.
According to the Museum of Public Relations in New York City, the practice
that we have come to call ‘public relations’ begun at the beginning of time. They
argue that public relations was born within the earliest practice of visual commu-
nication; cave drawings in 37000-17000 BC, often portraying hands or animals.
Communication has since evolved and changed shapes. It has gone from being
static and immovable (cave drawings and hieroglyphs), to flexible and portable
objects (scrolls, movable paintings, etc.). At an early stage in time, at the Age of
Empires, public relations also began to take an abstract shape, namely through
rhetoric. In the Greek and Roman Empires, rhetoric and public opinion were of
high importance (Museum of Public Relations, ND; Simonson 2016). Philosophes
such as Plato and Aristotle conceptualised “the power of persuasion” (Simonson,
2016, p. 2) and their rhetoriké is what we today refer to as Ancient Communica-
tion (Simonson, 2016).
Some scholars regard the history of public relations as being separate from the
history of communications. They claim that the historical arrival of public rela-
tions as a practice begun in ancient Iraq around 3,000 years ago, after the archaeo-
logical finding of a message scribbled on a mud-wall telling farmers how to take
care of their animals and farms (Cutlip, Center and Broom 2006; Watson 2012).
Watson refers to this as the ‘proto-PR’ of “public relations-like activities” (Wat-
son, 2012, p. 43). Although this is the first (that we know of) action of public rela-

7
tions, they agree that the real beginnings of modern public relations was in the
early 19th century America. This was the time when the world went from being
horse-and-carriage bound, to people being able to travel more freely. The popular
entertainment businesses (notably the circuses), the oil companies and the railroad
industry were the biggest public relations practitioners at the time.
Other scholars consider it to be much more relevant to talk about the emer-
gence of public relations as a development of a social institution rather than a
“historical inquiry into the who, what, when, where, and how of public relations
history” (Vos, 2011, p. 120). Vos argues that the most meaningful area of focus
when discussing the history of public relations should be to look at what the logi-
cal explanations are for the development of the practice. It is irrelevant and fruit-
less to look at the emergence of public relations through a linear timeline marking
out historical explanations (Broom 2006; Vos 2011). In order to really understand
the history of public relations, we should instead seek to identify social mecha-
nisms and through looking at social sciences theories (Vos, 2011).
Scholars seem to disagree on close to everything concerning the public rela-
tions practice, from its origins to its current definition. Here, I will be content to
accept their disagreeing. The practice has changed throughout times, and the time-
line can take different shapes. But what all the timelines have in common is that
the current practice of public relations is taking place in the Age of Digital Media.

Public Relations in the Age of Digital Media

Something happened to the public relations practice with the birth of the Internet,
and later with the emergence of the Web 2.0 or ‘new media’. It is widely agreed
upon that communication technologies introduced in the last decades have had an
enormous impact on the communication dynamics between institutions and the
public (Wolf and Archer, 2018; Verčič, Verčič and Sriramesh, 2014; Brown,
2009). Public relations were previously based on one-way communication from
the institutions to the people, and the public had little to no chance to speak back
to the institutions. Most of the time they had to trust what they were being told
(Brown, 2009). Brown claims that the communication practice is going through a
radical change and is greatly impacted by the technological revolution, “every
aspect of how we exchange information is feeling the impact of the technological
revolution” (Brown, 2009, p. 4). The biggest change is within the core of the pub-
lic relations practice and within the infrastructure of communications; voluntarily
renouncing control and giving way for information democratisation. Although
there are more factors than media technology involved in the process, one way to
describe it from a public relations point of view is that the digitalisation of society
and digital media within the public relations practice have resulted in the relin-
quishing of top-down communications, and led to the birth of two-way communi-

8
cation. Thanks to media technologies, the public in public relations have become
users (Verčič, Verčič and Sriramesh, 2014).

Figure 1: One-way communication and two-way communication (Simonson, 2016)

Simonson (2016) explains that through adding digital dialogic communication

tools (ex. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) to public relations strategies, institutions
move beyond solely informing (one-way communication) the people, and do in-
stead consult and empower (two-way communication) the stakeholders. The ‘in-
form’ versus ‘consult and empower’ model is represented in a triangle diagram in
Figure 1 above. This can also be referred to as an information-communicative
society (Shabanova, 2019), who further concludes that online communication
speeds up information distribution through media democratisation on a global
scale, and allows for more voices of society to be audible.
The real change that many scholars point to in digital public relations, com-
pared to ‘traditional’ public relations, is the democratisation of communications.
But there are others that highlight that although there are new forms of communi-
cations and public relations taking shape and dominating the market, the old
forms of the practice do not necessarily disappear (Brown, 2009; Wolf and Arch-
er, 2018). According to Wolf and Archer, the core premises and basics of public
relations have not changed with the use of new technologies within the field. It
can even be stated that many practitioners simply copy-paste their communication
methods to the digital environment, which undermines the true potentials and ca-
pabilities of digital public relations. Due to this, one can argue that public rela-
tions have not changed as much by the digital revolution as we might think
(Grunig, 2009).

9
Communicating about Culture and Cultural Heritage

The grounds for this research are within a Swedish cultural setting, and when re-
ferring to the notions of ‘culture’ and ‘cultural heritage’ it is important to under-
stand what these notions connote, but also why it is important to speak and com-
municate about culture and cultural heritage.
According to UNESCO, culture can be spiritual, material, intellectual or emo-
tional (society or a social group), art, literature, ways of living (lifestyle or togeth-
er), value systems, traditions and beliefs (UNESCO, 2001). In other words, cul-
ture and its heritage can be either tangible or intangible (UNESCO, 2017). Culture
and cultural heritage (tangible or intangible) are dynamic rather than static no-
tions, and their denotations are suspects to destruction or to be forgotten by the
generations to come. It is important to preserve culture in order for future genera-
tions to understand their history (Digisam, 2018) and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (1948) states, “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific ad-
vancement and its benefits.” Humanistic scholars have stressed the importance of
ensuring that communities understand and are well informed about the culture and
cultural heritage around them. The goal is that the public is educated about the
past and appreciates its relevance (Gabriel 2018; Chiaparini 2012). Chiaparini
argues that public access to culture is “a key priority for ensuring equity and cul-
tural, social and economic development for all” (Chiaparini, 2012, p. 26). Com-
municating properly about culture is thus essential for the public access criterion,
and the cultural institutions carry the responsibility of communicating in a way
that is understandable to the extended mass. Public relations are important in cul-
tural heritage and vice versa. The public relations industry and the digital coordi-
nators of each and every institution are responsible for ensuring that that the
communication about culture is correct, accessible and respecting the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Culture is important to the public relations
since history and culture are the foundations on which we create and develop new
theories about all areas of society, including public relations and communications.
One is dependent on the other (Brown, 2006).

10
Methodology and Materials

Sampling

This is an interview study that investigates Swedish cultural institutions’ digital

public relations strategies, and focuses on the work of some of the members of the
cultural heritage organisation Digisam – an umbrella organisation that works to-
wards creating coordination and collaboration between cultural actors in Sweden,
with the aim of strengthening and optimising their work with digitising cultural
heritage. Twenty-two of the largest cultural institutions in Sweden are part of
Digisam, including museums, libraries, archives and ministries. Therefore, focus-
ing on the members of Digisam gives a broad insight into the work of different
kinds of cultural actors.
Since the interviews have been conducted with professionals working within
digital communications in the cultural sector, the sampling is of a homogenous
nature. This type of sampling is particularly useful when studying a specific group
where the individuals have similar characteristics (Daymon and Holloway, 2011),
here being that the professionals work within the same sector (Swedish cultural
institutions) and all have similar job descriptions (within digital communications).
After approval and support from my contact person at Digisam, all of the digital
coordinators at the institutions were contacted via email and asked if they were
willing to participate in the study. Only the institutions that wanted to participate
are part of the research. The data sampling strategy as well as the size of the study
has been naturally determined based upon the number of participants wanting to
part-take in the research. All of the members of Digisam are of equal interest in
this study, so the question of whom to sample and why is not relevant. The inter-
views were conducted online and the data sampling is grounded in convenience,
partly because the targeted group of institutions was easy to approach with the
help of Digisam and partly because the interviews were conducted in the midst of
the Covid-19 virus outbreak, which made it difficult to meet physically. With re-
spect to the professionals’ anonymity, they are in this research referred to as “digi-
tal coordinator”, “professional” or “participant”.
With research comes potential issues that cannot be overlooked. In this study,
the main concern is the potential limitations of the 7 C’s of Communication mod-
el, which is an important part of this study’s theory and methodology. The model
was first published in 1952, and there has since been several suggested additions,

11
such as the criteria of Channels, Credibility, Context and Content (Murphy et al.,
2000). I am aware of these suggested additions and am not dismissing them, but I
have actively chosen to use the original model. The reason for this is foremost the
fact that it is an established, well used and proven to be effective model (Romih,
2016; Broom and Sha, 2012; Mulder, 2012). Secondly, it has been argued that
although there has been development within the public relations sector on most
levels, the core premises of the field have not changed with the digital revolution
(Wolf and Archer, 2018). This being said, although the model has a few decades
on its neck it is still a relevant model in 2020.

Interviews

Researchers, especially within the field of public relations and communication,

have previously voiced different opinions about the nature and purpose of qualita-
tive interviews. Some have considered these interviews to be ‘talking question-
naires’, where the answers are angled to favour the researcher. Others have called
it ‘conversation with purpose’, suggesting that the interview method has more to
do with a collaborative exploration of a specific topic area (Daymon and Hol-
loway, 2011).
In this research, one of the objectives of the study is to develop an understand-
ing of the participants’ digital public relations work, encouraging them to give
spontaneous and honest answers (to the advantage or the disadvantage of this re-
search) (Daymon and Holloway, 2011). What is of interest is the professionals’
view of reality in regards to their field of work, and therefor interviews as a meth-
od was the most fitting choice. Interviewing the participants in a study is the most
efficient way to understand their experiences, since they get to describe and ex-
plain using their own words (Hedin, 1996).
Six institutions replied to the email sent out, of which one replied that they did
not want to part-take in the study. The remaining five, that were happy to contri-
bute, are Nationalmuseum, Kungliga Biblioteket, Historiska, Statens Konstråd and
Myndigheten för Tillgängliga Medier. It is a small number of participants, but the
aim of qualitative research is not to generalise a phenomenon but rather to explore
the qualities of the collected data (Hedin 1996; Martin, 2011). Interviews were
scheduled with the participants one by one, and they were conducted online via
Zoom or Skype. The interviews are of a semi-structured format, which often is
used in qualitative research, notably in the field of communications and public
relations (Daymon and Holloway, 2011). The aim of this type of interview is to
learn about the interviewee’s way of thinking, and here also their way of working.
The interviews were conducted in Swedish, since the interviewees all have Swe-
dish as their first language. The interview questions were prepared and structured

12
in advance, but there was room for development, follow-up questions and re-
sequencing of the questions during the interview. The interview template consists
of eleven questions, where four are ‘warm-up’ questions and the remaining seven
are questions that one by one relate to the Seven Cs of Communication model. The
questions are of a contrastive nature. The length and time of each interview
spanned between twenty-seven minutes and fifty minutes, and all five interviews
were audio recorded directly through the computer after permission was given
from the interviewee.

Analysing and Interpreting the Data

The interviews were transcribed using www.otranscribe.com and stored on the

computer hard drive as well as printed in several paper copies. The parts of the
interviews that are out of topic were not transcribed, nor were repetitions or
sounds of hesitation. There are different ways to go about analysing transcribed
data, but according to Hedin (1996) and Daymon and Holloway (2011) the most
straightforward way is a three-step model: code and categorise, then find patterns
and themes and finally, evaluate and analyse the data. This is the model I have
used. I started with coding the transcriptions, highlighting the key words, concepts
and ideas. I then categorised the main ideas in the answers to each question one by
one in an Excel sheet and looked for patterns and themes. Once I had discovered
the common threads, I started writing the ‘Empirical Findings and Analysis’ chap-
ter followed by the ‘Discussion’ chapter.

13
Ethics

There are ethical aspects to take into consideration when conducting any kind of
research. According to Markham and Buchanan, the fundaments in general ethical
guidelines are “the fundamental rights of human dignity, autonomy, protection,
safety, maximization of benefits and minimization of harms, or, in the most recent
accepted phrasing, respect for persons, justice, and beneficence” (Markham and
Buchanan, p. 4, 2012). In this research I judge that it is the ethical treatment of the
stakeholders (i.e. Digisam, the cultural institutions within Digisam and the digital
coordinators at these institution) that poses the biggest threat to potentially break-
ing the promise of protection, safety and minimization of harms. This study is
largely and primarily based on interview results, and is dependent on the partici-
pation of digital coordinators at cultural institutions. The professionals were ap-
proached via email and asked to part-take, and were free to accept or decline the
proposal. The ones who accepted were voluntarily putting themselves in potential
danger since the results of the research might affect their professional life. If the
results of the study turn out to be unsatisfactory, it might be seen as criticism of
institutions’ digital public relations strategies, and therefore have a negative im-
pact on the digital coordinators that accepted to be part of the research.
In order to avoid breaking the general ethical guidelines, the professionals
remain anonymous and are not mentioned by name in the research paper. I have
asked the interviewees for approval to mention their institution by name, but I
have not mentioned a specific institution when referring to an answer given by
one of the professionals. This way, none of the participants will be put in a vul-
nerable position or run the risk of being negatively impacted by this research.
The main materials of analysis consist of interviews that have been tran-
scribed. The transcriptions do not include any names, not of the interviewee them-
self nor of any colleague in the circumstances where they have been mentioned by
name. All the files containing the interview recordings have been deleted from my
computer hard drive as well as from the backup hard drive. By doing so, none of
the interviewees can be tied to their answers and risk being put in a compromising
position.

14
Theories

Introduction

Within the premises of this research, several different communication theories are
of interest and could be applied. I was primarily considering using the Open Sys-
tem Theory, which emphasises the idea that an organisation needs to be in contact
with its environment and use feedback and public opinion in their input, in order
to create valuable and meaningful output (Sundarasaradula and Hasan, 2005).
Another interesting and relevant theory is the Interpersonal Communication Theo-
ry which is grounded in the concept of interaction, either person-to-person interac-
tion or group interaction (Van Ruler, 2018). Although both theories are applicable
to this research, I found them to be too specified on business development (Open
System Theory) or too focused on close interaction rather than mass communica-
tion (Interpersonal Communication Theory).
I have chosen to use two theoretical tools in this essay, the first one being the
Seven Cs of Communication and the second one being the Mixed-Motive Theory.
The first model (Seven Cs of Communication) is a model used for creating effec-
tive public relations and ensures that the message one wishes to communicate is as
powerful and as easy to understand as possible. The second model (Mixed-Motive
Theory), when applied, ensures that the public relations work within an organisa-
tion is two-way rather than top-down, i.e. that there is a dialogue between the pub-
lic and the institution with the aim of improving something to the benefit of both
parts. Both models are well known and well established within the public relations
sector (Wolf and Archer, 2018; Broom and Sha, 2012) and combining the two
theories gives a much fuller and broader view and understanding of what digital
public relations work is like today. The core values of public relations are the
same today as they were in 1952 (Wolf and Archer, 2018), and it is therefor inter-
esting to use the Seven Cs of Communication. But digital media has opened up for
two-way communication, which has impacted the way in which we exchange in-
formation (Brown, 2009). It is therefor beneficial to use both theories in this re-
search since the aim is to get an as deep understanding as possible of not just pub-
lic relations within the cultural sector, but of digital public relations.
The two theories used in combination with each other when analysing the data
in this research provide results and information concerning the cultural institu-
tions’ effective public relations strategies in a digital setting, as well as infor-

15
mation about how and to what extent they make use of the two-way communica-
tion that digital media make possible.

Mixed-Motive Theory

The Mixed-Motive Theory was developed by Murphy in 1991. The theory is a

combination and further development of J. E. Grunig’s two-way asymmetrical and
two-way symmetrical public relations models presented in 1984 and is said to be
“the most realistic and effective model for public relations” (Kalbfleisch, 2003, p.
235). When applied, this model will in almost all cases increase the effectiveness
of public relations work within an organisation (Grunig, 2001).
In order to understand the mixed-motive theory, one has to be familiar with
Grunig’s models. The two-way asymmetrical communication model is applied
when an institution listens to the public and their opinions, and then uses the gath-
ered information to persuade the public to behave in a desired way i.e. the organi-
sation uses the information in their own favour. The model is two-way in commu-
nication flow, but one-way in purpose. The two-way symmetrical communication
model on the other hand is two-way in both communication flow and in purpose.
The effects of the communication between the organisation and the public are that
both sides are impacted and suspect to change in some way (attitude, ideas, behav-
iour). Both sides are affected by the communication, in contrast to the two-way
asymmetrical model (Kalbfleisch, 2003; Grunig, 2001). The models have been
criticised on their own ends of being either too much in favour of the organisation
taking advantage of the public (two-way asymmetrical model) or too unrealistic
by suggesting that the organisation looks beyond their own interest in favour of
the public (two-way symmetrical model) (Grunig, 2001).

16
 Figure 2: The Mixed Motive model (Grunig, 2001)

In-between the two-way symmetrical model and two-way asymmetrical model is

the mixed-motive model, also referred to as the “Win-Win Zone” (Grunig, 2001),
see Figure 2. Grunig argues that both the symmetrical and the asymmetrical mod-
els in reality are asymmetrical since they favour one side (organisation or public)
more than the other. “Unsatisfactory and unstable relationships exist on either side
of the win-win zone, with one party exploiting the other” (Grunig, 2001, p. 25)
and that a “win-lose” dynamic happens when one side uses communication with
the aim of manipulating the other (Grunig, 2001, p. 26).
In the “Win-Win Zone”, i.e. by using the mixed-motive model, one opens up
for negotiation and collaboration between the two sides. The model is “win-win”
since it is beneficial to both parts. The organisation listens to the public, and
works towards creating a more satisfactory product for their own winning but also
to the benefit of the public. Grunig (2009) explains that within this model there is
a “dialogue to manage conflict and to cultivate relationships with both internal
and external strategic publics more than one-way … communication” (Grunig,
2009, p. 2). In other words, the Mixed-Motive model is implemented to achieve
an effective win-win situation for an institution and the public through mixed-
motive public relations. In order to reach the “Win-Win Zone”, the two parts in-
teract and use dialogue to reach mutual satisfaction for the benefit of both stake-
holders.

Cutlip and Center’s “Seven Cs of Communication”

The 7 Cs of Communication is a communication model for effective public rela-

tions first published in 1952 by Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center. The model is
built on the concepts of completeness, conciseness, consideration, concreteness,

17
courtesy, clearness and correctness (Cutlip and Center, 1952), and is an important
and historical communication model that has become the ‘gold standard’ in public
relations (Broom and Sha, 2012). By applying each of the seven Cs to a message,
one ensures that the ”message will be in sync with the recipient’s understanding
and free from ballast” (Romih, 2016). Implementing all seven criteria results in
effective communication, see Figure 3.

Figure 3: The Seven C’s of Communication (Mulder, 2012)

What at first struck me as fascinating about Cutlip and Center’s model for effec-
tive communication was the fact that it today, sixty-eight years after first being
published, still is considered to be a good rule of thumb in modern communication
and still is taught to communication and business students all over the world. The
model has stood the test of time and survived the change from the Age of Mass
Media (1950-1970s) where the media distribution mainly was analogue and the
communication was one-way, to the Age of Digital Media (today) where most
communication is digital and two-way (The Museum of Public Relations, ND).
The seven criteria of the model can be explained as follows:
Completeness means “the quality of being whole or perfect and having nothing
missing” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It means that all necessary information,
facts and explanations are present in the message, in order for the receiver to un-
derstand what is communicated. Conciseness means “the quality of being short
and clear, and expressing what needs to be said without unnecessary words”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It means that you should keep your message short.
You should exclude unnecessary filler words and repetitions. Consideration
means “the act of thinking about something carefully”. It means that you should
try to relate to the targeted group, you should show that you are involved and have

18
the audience in mind. Concreteness means “clear and certain” (Cambridge Dic-
tionary, 2020). It means that your message should be clear and that the reader
should not have to use their imagination to interpret the message. Courtesy means
“polite behaviour, or a polite action” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It means that
the message should be respectful, friendly and take the receivers’ feelings into
account. Clearness means “the quality of being clear and easy to understand”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It means that you should keep to the point, use
short sentences and try to specify on one message at the time. Correctness means,
“care to behave or speak in a way that is generally accepted or approved of”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). It means that you should use correct language and
make sure that there are no grammatical errors in the text (Mulder 2012; Cutlip
and Center 1952).

19
Empirical Findings and Analysis

In this section I will present the main findings in regards to the conducted inter-
views. The disposition is divided into seven subheadings, each bringing light to
the findings related to one specific criterion of the Seven Cs of Communication.
The interview questions were organised in a similar manner – one question about
each of the C’s at a time. It therefor seems like the most appropriate, natural and
clear structure to also present the findings one by one.

The Completeness Criterion

When asking the five digital coordinators about the completeness of the content
they post on digital platforms, two answered that they find it much easier to create
complete messages online, and three said that they find it more difficult. When
they then explained why they find it easy or difficult, their answers all turned out
to be very similar. The ones that said that they find it more difficult to create
complete content where all necessary information is included argued that they
often do not have enough space to develop the messages in detail, and that they
often have to make several posts and include links in the post in order for the
readers to access more information if they are interested in doing so. One of them
argued, “It is difficult to fit the entire message into one post, most of the time I
have to refer to other sources of information”. The ones that said that they find it
easy to create complete posts online also referred to links. They claimed that it is
easy to write complete messages since there always is the possibility to link to
another medium, let’s say you are writing on digital platforms that do not allow
for a high word-count (for example Instagram or Twitter). One of the interviewees
said, “the digital setting makes this [complete posts] much easier since you can be
short and concise, and then add links”. All five professionals gave similar an-
swers, although they had different understandings of what a complete post or
message is. The ones that found it difficult to respect the completeness criterion
consider one post to be just one webpage, and any linking action means that it is
not the same post. The ones that found the completeness criterion easy to respect

20
meant that linking or referring to another digital platform or website does not
count as a separate post, but rather as an extension of the original content.

The Conciseness Criterion

Four out of five interviewees answered that they find it more difficult to be con-
cise online in comparison to when writing for the printed press. They often find it
challenging to limit the message to only a few sentences and that it is easy to ac-
cidentally digress and lose focus. One of the professionals, while reflecting over
their own communications work lately, answered that “the quality of my content
has declined, and the quantity has increased”. They argue that the challenge lays
in the almost unlimited space on online platforms (expect for the digital platforms
that do not allow for a high word-count, Twitter for example). The fact that it is
cheap to create a lot of digital content is also a factor. The word count is limited in
the printed press due to the cost and space restrictions, and this is no longer an
issue that communications professionals have to take into consideration when
writing content for their institutions. Only one of the five interviewees said that
they have no difficulty keeping their content short and concise. They explained,
“any mass communication needs to be short and concise in order to attract peo-
ple’s attention. The key is to always reduce, reduce and reduce”. They explained
that in their opinion and from their experience, the conciseness criterion is essen-
tial in any type of public relations work since the public’s attention span is short
and the only way to get their attention is to keep the messages short and vigorous.

The Consideration Criterion

All five professionals in this study showed that they have the audience in mind in
their work as they always try to adapt their content to the targeted group. But first
and foremost, four of the five interviewees mentioned the importance of having
two-way communication with the public. They stress the importance of not only
getting feedback and responses to their posts, but more so the importance of mak-
ing use of it to the benefit of both the institution and the public. One of the digital
coordinators said, “most of what I do in my work is for the individual reader” and
emphasised how beneficial feedback is in order to become better at meeting the
targeted group. Another interviewee said that with the help of the public and their
feedback, they as an institution can re-evaluate and change things that the public
is less content with. The third professional explained that they value feedback
highly, and are careful to listen to the public and their opinions since “it is im-

21
portant that the public feels seen”. The fourth organisation answered that is it im-
portant in our society today that cultural institutions respect the democratisation of
information, and that it is their role as a cultural institution to include the public in
the dialogue.

The Concreteness Criterion

The concreteness criterion triggered different sorts of reactions and opinions with-
in the digital communicators. Two out of the five interviewees experience no dif-
ficulty with keeping their work concrete and pertinent. Two others said that digital
media entails a certain degree of clarity and concreteness, “social media makes it
[concreteness] easier if you understand the limitations and opportunities of the
medium”. They developed their answers by explaining that they have the possibil-
ity of making their content more concrete and pertinent thanks to the direct feed-
back that digital platforms allow for. One of the five interviewees experiences that
their content has gotten less concrete with the emergence of new media. They
explained that this is due to the fact that there is much less space restrictions in the
digital setting compared to the analogue setting, “After all, there is unlimited
space in the digital forum and channels”. This has, in their opinion and experience
resulted in distractions and less concrete content.

The Courtesy Criterion

When it comes to the criterion of courtesy, all five digital coordinators said that
they always adapt the tone of the message to the targeted audience. On the official
websites of the institutions, they try to be as transparent and perspicuous as possi-
ble in order for the bigger mass to understand what is communicated. Three of the
interviewees said that it is the individual that sets the tone, and that they [the digi-
tal coordinators] as representatives of a certain cultural institution have the courte-
sy to meet the public at their level. If someone writes a heart or several emojis in
the online dialogue, then the digital coordinators adapt and answer by using the
same style of language. They explain, “It is an important part of the dialogue to
meet the individual at their level”. If someone writes in a serious and correct lan-
guage, then the polite thing to do is to respond in a similar manner. Two of the
interviewees argue that one has to accept that not everything will be understood or
appreciated by everyone, and that the most courteous thing to do is to write sever-
al posts in different channels using different tones rather than one or a few posts
in the same style. One of the professionals agreed with the other four that it al-

22
ways is important to keep the targeted group in mind when creating content, but
that they never use a too relaxed language even in situations where the individual
initiates it. Their argument is, “poorly written content is disrespectful to the recip-
ient”. They argue that, as a cultural institution, the courteous thing to do is to al-
ways respond in polite and correct way.

The Clearness Criterion

In regards to keeping their online content clear and in plain terms, four of the digi-
tal coordinators in this research answered that they find it easier to achieve clear-
ness in a digital setting. This is, they argue, because one is forced to keep the mes-
sage short and vigorous, the response from the public is faster and it is easier to
edit and adjust a post after publication. One of the interviewees answered that it
can be both easier and more difficult to respect the clearness criterion, depending
on the message one wants to communicate. If the message is complex they find it
more difficult to communicate it in a way that is easy for everyone to understand,
since “the message needs to reach the broader mass”. If, on the other hand, the
message is straightforward and fairly easy, then digital communications and social
media simplify the work of keeping the message clear. The format of many digital
media makes it possible to communicate simple messages through only a photo or
an image and a few lines of text. One of the professionals thought that the digital
setting obstructs clear communication. They argue that “the degree of acceptance
of mistakes and errors is higher online”, and it is therefor easy to make content
more hastily and more rapidly than before, which then results in not respecting the
clearness criterion.

The Correctness Criterion

The answers in regards to the correctness criterion were more or less unified. The
interviewees argued that it is more difficult to maintain a correct language in the
online setting. Typos, not capitalising initial letters and spacing between words
were the most common struggles when writing digital content. When asked what
this is due to, they answered that the main reason is inattention and the fast pace.
It is important to keep a fast pace online in order to stay relevant, and the side
effect of this is that the quality of language is negatively impacted. One of the
interviewees explained that because of the fast pace in the online setting, content
is ephemeral. They said, “It is easier to get away with careless language in some

23
social media because the content is only available for a limited period of time”
(here referring to the Instagram stories function).
When it comes to abbreviations, the answers varied. One person said that they
are forced to use abbreviations in certain medium, because “otherwise there is not
enough space to get the message through to the reader”. Another interviewee an-
swered the opposite, that they never use abbreviations because they do not think
that they have to. The professionals said that their language use differs depending
on the medium, and that they treat the website and the ‘dialogue’ (community
management) as two separate ways of communicating. On the website, the lan-
guage is correct and official. In the one-on-one dialogue with the public on the
other hand, the language is adjusted and adapted to fit the individual. In the com-
munity management, i.e. when having a dialogue with an individual, the language
is disarming, easier and has a higher use of emojis.

24
Discussion

The discussion is divided into four subheadings. I begin with presenting the re-
sults and a summary of the main findings, followed by the main patterns and
trends in the Democratic Dynamic Change in Public Relations section. Thirdly, in
the Differences in the Perception of Completeness section I discuss the different
definitions of completeness expressed by the professionals. Lastly, the Conflicts
in Synchronisation part of the discussion highlight the interviewees’ answers in
regards to the criterion of conciseness and the criterion of clearness.

Results and Main Findings

Five digital coordinators were interviewed and demonstrated different strengths

and weaknesses in their work with communicating online about their cultural in-
stitutions. Although all five have close to interchangeable job titles, they all have
different views on what skills are essential in their work and how they define effi-
cient and successful communication. Their answers varied from “short and vigor-
ous messages”, “good at writing qualitative text”, “understand how to use social
media”, “be organised and analytical” to “have a holistic overview”. Their differ-
ences are to a large extent reflected in their answers about how they implement
and respect the Seven Cs of Communication in their work. Figure 4 shows a
summary of the interviewees’ main standpoints in regards to each of the seven Cs
that were presented in the previous chapter.

25
 Figure 4: Table presenting the interviewees’ main standpoints.

No duo or cluster-constellation of the interviewees gave unanimous answers to the

interview questions, ergo, did not have the same focus points, strengths or weak-
nesses measured based on the Seven Cs of Communication. All five professionals
found some of the criteria to be either ‘easy to respect’ or ‘difficult to respect’, but
all had different reasons to why they think the way they do (see the consideration
criterion in Figure 4). The criteria they consider to be the easiest to respect in their
digital communication are the consideration criterion and the courtesy criterion.
The criteria they consider and evaluate to be the most difficult to respect are the
conciseness criterion and the correctness criterion. None of the digital coordina-
tors found all seven criteria to be either easy or difficult to respect in a digital set-
ting. As stated in the introduction, effective public relations is in this research
defined as a communication strategy respecting all seven Cs in Cutlip and Cen-
ter’s model for effective public relations. In regards to this definition, none of the
five interviewees fully achieve effective public relations.
This conclusion is somewhat simplistic. Although the professionals in this re-
search do not successfully implement all seven Cs, they show that they actively
try to make use of digital platforms in the best ways they can. The concepts of the
seven criteria were highly relevant to all of the interviewees. They seemed to be

26
aware of which parts that work worse or better in their communication strategies,
and genuinely want to improve and find better methods. This contradicts Grunig’s
opinion that digital communications practitioners simply ‘copy-paste’ their old
ways of working to this new digital environment, which undermines the true po-
tentials and capabilities of digital public relations (Grunig, 2009). The profession-
als are highly aware of the different possibilities and restrictions that come with
creating communication content in the digital setting, and are equally aware of the
difficulties they face in their work by admitting that they struggle with some parts
of the 7 Cs of Communication model. I find that they, instead of ‘copy-pasting’
their way of working to the online environment, make use of the digital possibili-
ties and work towards attaining effective digital public relations by applying a
two-way-communicative approach to the traditional core criteria of public rela-
tions. I question Grunig’s (2009) argument, and agree with Wolf and Archer that
the core premises of public relations have not changed, but modern communica-
tion technologies have had an enormous impact on the communication dynamics
between the institutions and the public (Wolf and Archer, 2018).

Democratic Dynamic Change in Public Relations

The main patterns and trends in the answers given by the digital coordinators are
the differentiation between communication on the website and the communication
in direct dialogue with an individual, the importance of feedback and the depend-
ence on links.
There is a differentiation between communication on the website versus
communication in direct dialogue with a single or a few individuals from the larg-
er mass. The professionals expressed that there is a variation in tone, language,
attitude and politeness depending on where, with or to whom one writes. On the
institutions’ official websites, the language is clear, plain and follows Swedish
grammatical rules – implemented to be understood by the larger mass. In the
community management (i.e. the direct dialogue online, often in chat format) on
the other hand, the way of communicating does not follow any set rules. The digi-
tal coordinators can more freely use abbreviations, slang, emojis, accidental miss-
spellings and incorrect spacing between words. One of the interviewees explained
that the higher tolerance for overruling normative language, tone, attitude and
politeness is the “higher emphasis on the fact that it is a human being that is an-
swering”. They also expressed that this is unique for our day and age, since cul-
tural institutions previously have kept a serious and authoritarian approach to the
public. Vos (2011), who pinpoints the importance of looking at public relations
through a social sciences lens, means that one should identify social mechanisms
when discussing public relations. In regards to the criteria that are in focus here

27
(courtesy, consideration and correctness), Vos’ approach is highly relevant from
both a public user perspective and an authoritarian perspective. ‘Community man-
agement’ or ‘online dialogue’ is a social phenomenon that has arisen with the
birth of social media platforms. The public can approach the institutions in a for-
mat that gives the individual a chance to set the tone, language, attitude and level
politeness. Social media and online platforms have triggered a change in the dy-
namics between the institutions and the public (Brown, 2009; Verčič, Verčič and
Sriramesh, 2014; Wolf and Archer, 2018) and the cultural institutions’ willingness
to adapt show that they make use of digital media to move into the “Win-Win
Zone” (Grunig, 2001) where an open and honest dialogue (two-way communica-
tion) is preferred to a top-down communicative, authoritarian approach. I believe
that this democratic dynamic change in public relations is a characteristic social
mechanism of our era.
The characteristics of this social mechanism could be noticed at several in-
stances during the interviews. The professionals answered that they find it easier
to be clear and concrete in a digital setting mainly because of the fast and instant
feedback they receive through social media. They answered that the feedback
works in the public’s favour, but it also gives the digital coordinators a chance to
clarify and adjust the message in the cases where the public did not understand it;
the professionals now have more data to analyse, and a receipt of whether or not
they have succeeded in their communication. Simonson’s (2016) triangle diagram
of one-way communication and two-way communication (see Figure 1) is a good
representation of the interviewees’ opinions and perspectives. By valuing feed-
back and actually making use of the received feedback-data by analysing it and
improving the areas that were criticised, the public is consulted and empowered
rather than informed by the institution. The real change here is that the public is
given more responsibility and more freedom to raise their voices and express their
opinions.
In the data from the interviews conducted for the purpose of this research
there is a general agreement that linking is a necessary tool to create complete
messages in the digital environment. This also works in favour of the democrati-
sation of information. The individual reader can through the help of links be an
active user rather than simply a part of the public (Verčič, Verčič and Sriramesh,
2014). One of the professionals part-taking in the study argued that the individual
reader or social media user, thanks to links, has the opportunity to “skim, swim or
dive” into the information they wish to access, and can therefor themself take con-
trol over the information flow. This is an important part of the dynamic change
between the public and the institutions, since more of the responsibility now lies
with the individual to educate themself.
Social mechanisms have evolved with the rise of the Web 2.0 and the public
has been given a valued voice through being able to give online feedback and

28
have direct dialogues with the institutions. This has led to a dynamic change be-
tween the public and the institutions, which works in favour of democratisation of
information and the information-communicative society (Shabanova, 2019).
Through links and referring to other digital platforms and pages, institutions now
have the possibility to let the individuals decide for themselves how much and
what kind of information they want to access, which is beneficial to all stakehold-
ers.

Differences in the Perception of Completeness

The main difference of importance and interest to the study has to do with the
completeness criterion. When asked how well they create complete and full mes-
sages, the group of interviewees gave two sets of answers. Two of the five profes-
sionals said that they find it easier to be respect the criterion when writing digital
content, and the other three said that they find it more difficult. When comparing
the answers to why they find it easier or more difficult, I was somewhat surprised
since they all had given more or less the same response disguised in different for-
mulations.
The ones that found it easier to create complete content online explained that
they use links to refer to more information about the subject. They thus consider a
post to consist of more than simply the one initial post itself, and that it also con-
sists of what it links to. The other group answered that they find it difficult to cre-
ate complete messages in just one post, and that they often have to use links to
refer to additional information. In their opinion, a post is just the one initial post
and any link and its content is not part of the initial post. In other words, the two
groups had different understandings of what a post is but all said that they find
that they have to use links in order to succeed in creating complete messages. The
completeness criterion is easier or more difficult to implement successfully de-
pending on how you define a post or a message in digital media. As Brown (2009)
states, “every aspect of how we exchange information is feeling the impact of the
technological revolution” and I argue that the difference in how to define “a post”
is a social phenomenon in itself. With new communication technologies arriving
in a fast tempo, we as communication media users should adapt and be flexible.
What is the right way to determine what a post is today? There might be more
than one right answer. Someone who is at ease in the “information-
communicative society” (Shabanova, 2019) and is used to jumping from webpage
to webpage might consider a post to be more like a spider web than a solid block.
Someone who is not quite as Web 2.0 savvy might struggle with considering a
post as consisting of several different webpages, posts and links. My understand-
ing from the interviews is that the reasons to why the different definitions vary are

29
grounded in the individuals’ own confidence in navigating online. As mentioned
in the section above, online communication has resulted in the emergence of a
social mechanism focused on developing a more dynamic relationship between
the institutions and the public (Brown, 2009; Verčič, Verčič and Sriramesh, 2014;
Wolf and Archer, 2018) through democratisation of information. I believe that a
higher percentage of people (digital coordinators or not) will consider a post as
consisting of more than one webpage as we as a society continue to move forward
in the democratisation process (Statens Offentliga Utredningar, 2016) and as more
and more people gain confidence in the digital communication environment.

Conflicts in Synchronisation

The majority of the professionals answered that they find it difficult to keep the
messages concise when writing online content because there in many cases is un-
limited space. The conciseness criterion means that the message should be short
and not too wordy (Mulder, 2012; Cutlip and Center, 1952). The interviewees
answered that they often struggle with scaling down the word-count to fit certain
social media (Instagram and Twitter in particular). The same majority said that
they succeed well in keeping their online posts clear, and experience no difficulty
with communicating in plain terms. According to Mulder (2012) and Cutlip and
Center (1952), the clearness criterion means that the message should be specific
and keeping to the point. They explained that the main reason to why they find it
easy is because they are forced to keep the messages short and concise. There is a
conflict and confusion in the interviewees’ answers in regards to the criterion of
conciseness and the criterion of clearness. One answer undermines the other.
The confusion here is: How can the interviewees successfully implement the
clearness criterion if they do not respect the criterion of conciseness, since they
argue that conciseness is a premise for clearness? This makes me question their
answers since they contradict themselves. If one applies all of the seven Cs to a
message, the message will be “in sync … and free from ballast” (Romih, 2016).
Here, the digital coordinators indirectly admit that their digital messages are not in
sync and I judge that there is a risk that the digital environment has jeopardised a
successful interplay between the two criteria. The solution would be to draw at-
tention to this issue, and for the digital coordinators to focus more on successfully
implementing the conciseness criterion.

30
Conclusions

Communicating about culture and cultural heritage is essential and a key priority
in order to ensure that the public is educated about the past as well as the present.
Public relations professionals within cultural institutions are to a large extent re-
sponsible for creating effective communication and public relations that reach the
larger mass (Gabriel, 2018; Chiaparini, 2012; Brown, 2006). In this research, the
digital coordinators at five Swedish cultural institutions have been interviewed
about their effective public relations work in a digital setting. Their answers show
that their work have different focus points, strengths and weaknesses.
The interviewees are aware of the different possibilities and restrictions that
come with creating communication content in the digital setting. The areas of
their individual public relations work that they find the most difficult to success-
fully implement are the criteria of conciseness and correctness. The majority of
the professionals expressed that they often find it challenging to limit the message
to only a few sentences and that it is easy to accidentally digress and lose focus
because of the close to unlimited space online. They also explained that they find
it more difficult to maintain a correct language when writing digital content,
mainly because of the faster pace of production in the online forum, as well as
inattention. There is a higher tolerance for mistakes online, since the content often
is ephemeral.
The most significant similarities within the professionals’ digital public rela-
tions work is the democratisation of the dynamics between the institution and the
public. This is done by implementing two-way communication through adapted
and personalised dialogue (community management), valorisation of feedback by
consulting the public and the linking to additional information which empowers
the public and gives them a chance to take control over their own information
flow.
The most significant difference was found in the answers given regarding the
usage of links. The results show that the professionals consider it to be either easi-
er or more difficult to successfully create complete posts depending on how you
define a post or a message in digital media. Some found it easier, since the linking
function opens up for an extension of the original post. Some found it more diffi-
cult, since they have to refer to a different post in order to create a complete post.

31
Their understanding of what ‘a post’ is determines whether or not they consider it
to be easy or difficult to fit all necessary information into a single post.
This research brings light to some of the current difficulties within digital
public relations in the cultural sector, and therefor contributes to research within
the public relations field as well as the digital humanities field. The research could
be extended and further developed by investigating how digital coordinators of
different age groups work, and look into whether or not they experience the same
difficulties in their public relations work in a digital setting.

32
Bibliography and List of References

Literature

Statens Offentliga Utredningar. 2016. En gränsöverskridande Mediepolitik. För

upplysning, engagemenang och ansvar. (SOU 2016:80). Stockholm: Statens
Offentliga Utredningar.
Cutlip, S & Center, A. 1952. Effective Public Relations: Pathways to Public Fa-
vor. Prentice Hall.
Broom, G. & Sha, B. 2012. Cutlip and Center's Effective Public Relations. 11th
edition. Prentice Hall.
Cutlip, S, Center, A & Broom, G. 2006. Effective Public Relations. 9th edition.
Prentice Hall.
Romih, T. 2016. The “7 C’s of Effective Communication” Applied to Science.
Available: https://www.seyens.com/7cs-effective-communication-science/
[2020-03-26].
Markham, A & Buchanan, E. 2012. Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Re-
search: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version
2.0).
The Museum of Public Relations, ND, Public Relations Through the Ages: A
Timeline of Social Movements, Technology Milestones and the Rise of the
Profession. Available at: https://www.prmuseum.org/pr-timeline [2020-03-
31].
Watson, T. 2012. A (Very) Brief History of Public Relations. Communication Di-
rector. 01. 42-45.
Simonson, P. 2016. Communication History.
Vos, T. 2011. Explaining the Origins of Public Relations: Logics of Historical
Explanation. Journal of Public Relations Research. 23. 119-140.
Brown, R. E. 2006. Myth of symmetry: Public relations as cultural styles. Public
Relations Review. 32. 206–212.
Mulder, P. 2012. 7 C’s of Effective Communication. Available:
https://www.toolshero.com/communication-skills/7cs-of-communication/ [04-
04-2020].
Cambridge University Press. 2020. Cambridge Dictionary. Available:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org [04-04-2020].

33
Verčič, D, Verčič A. & Sriramesh, K. 2014. Looking for digital in public rela-
tions, Public Relations Review. 41. 142-152.
Wolf, K & Archer, C. 2018. Public relations at the crossroads: The need to re-
claim core public relations competencies in digital communication. Journal of
Communication Management. 22.
Brown, R. 2009. Public Relations and The Social Web. London and Philadelphia:
Kogan Page.
Shabanova, S. 2019. The Mass Communication and the Public Sphere. SSRG
International Journal of Communication and Media Science. 6:3. 31-33.
Grunig, J.E. 2009. Paradigms of Public Relations in an Age of Digitalization.
PRism Online PR Journal. 6.
Sundarasaradula, D. & Hasan, H. 2005. A Unified open system model for explain-
ing organisational change. In: Hart, D. & Gregor, S. (eds.). 2005. Information
Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising. 1st edition. ANU E Press,
125-142.
Van Ruler, B. 2018. Communication Theory: An Underrated Pillar on Which
Strategic Communication Rests. International Journal of Strategic Communi-
cation. 12:4. 367-381.
Kalbfleisch, P. 2003. Communication Yearbook 27. 1st edition. London & New
York: Routledge.
Grunig, J.E. 2001. Two-way symmetrical communication theory Past, present and
future. In: Heath, R.L (eds.). 2001. Handbook of Public Relations. SAGE
Publications, Inc. 11-30.
UNESCO. 2001. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Paris:
UNESCO. Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/5_Cultur
al_Diversity_EN.pdf [25-04-2020].
UNESCO. 2017. What is meant by “cultural heritage”?. Available:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-
property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-
questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/ [25-04-2020].
United Nations General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Paris, France.
Gabriel, F. 2018. Communicating Cultural Heritage Resources to the Public: Ex-
periences from the Makonde of Mtwara Region, Tanzania. AP: Online Journal
in Public Archaeology. 8. 35.
Chiaparini, A. 2012. Communication and Cultural Heritage Communication as
Effective Tool for Heritage Conservation and Enhancement. PhD. Politecnico
di Milano (BEST). Available:
https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/56724/3/2012_03_PhD_Chiap
parini.pdf [26-04-2020].

34
Digisam. 2018. Digitalt kulturarv. Available at: http://www.digisam.se/digitalt-
kulturarv/ [25-04-2020].
Murphy, H.A. et al. 2000. Effective Business Communication. 7th Edition.
McGraw-Hill, NY (SIE) Tata McGraw-Hill.
Hedin, A. & Martin, C. 2011. En liten lathund om kvalitativ metod med tonvikt på
intervju. Available: https://uu.summon.serialssolutions.com/#!/ [05-05-2020].
Daymon, C. & Holloway, I. 2011, Qualitative Reseach Methods in Public Rela-
tions and Marketing Communications. 2nd edition. Routledge.

35