As a doctoral student two decades ago, I was rooting around a library at the University of Maryland looking for different ways to think about “symmetry,” because something about the original notion of public relations being practiced in a “two-way symmetrical model” (see Grunig & Hunt, Citation1984) felt “off” to me, like it had to many others (e.g., Leichty, Citation1997; Murphy, Citation1991).
In that library, I stumbled across research by Emmy Noether (1882–1935), whose mathematical equations proved “that symmetry—or change—can only exist simultaneously with conservation or invariance” (Sha, Citation2004, p. 391). These equations came to be known as “Noether’s Theorem” (Alekseevskii, Citation1988; Byers, Citation1999; Ne’Eman, Citation1999; Noether, Citation1987). But what struck me even more than Noether’s mathematical brilliance was her persistence in demonstrating it continually against the rigid resistance (and outright discrimination) she faced as she did her work, simply because she was female and Jewish (see Byers, Citation1999; Noether, Citation1987).
As I have asserted before, the implication of Noether’s Theorem for public relations (at least to me) was that “an organization can behave “symmetrically” while maintaining certain beliefs, principles, or purposes that will never be relinquished” (Sha, Citation2004, p. 391). And just as the duality of symmetry and conservation resonated with me decades ago, the duality of change and resistance is something that I think about constantly today. Perhaps my pre-occupation with change and resistance is because both phenomena seem to permeate our quotidian existence in ways more visible, more concerning, and more outrageous than in recent history.
And I’m not just talking about the political landscape.
Change
Even in editing this journal, I feel constantly the pressures of both change and resistance. And to be honest, some days, I can’t tell which side I’m on. On the side of change, I often feel that editing an academic journal can be transformative: Learning about new research being done around the world. Mentoring younger scholars in the publication process. Encouraging innovative ideas and new scholarship. Pushing the boundaries of theory in public relations.
Resistance
But at other times, I feel that academic journal editing is a last bastion of the resistance: Fighting against the rush to decision-making, by taking time to think through difficult editorial decisions. Resisting the emphasis on publication quantity that seems to be the current bureaucratic yardstick for measuring “good research,” no matter its scholarly rigor or provocative insight. Insisting on the importance of scientific endeavor, in a time when some societal forces would have us believe that objective evidence can be ignored because “if there’s a real problem, [God] can take care of it” (see DeMarche, Citation2017; Jagannathan, Citation2017; Rozsa, Citation2017).
Co-existence
One is tempted to suggest, with no small amount of sarcasm, that perhaps God is “taking care of it” by sending His messengers in the form of scientists and His message in the form of scientific data. After all, God and science can co-exist. Similarly, change and resistance are not opposite ends of a spectrum; they can and do co-exist, both in concept and in our real lives.
F. Scott Fitzgerald (Citation1936) claimed that “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function” (n.p.). And so, journal editors soldier on, trying to function, in the midst of change and resistance.
Employee communication, job engagement, and organizational commitment: A study of members of the Millennial Generation
The article by Justin Walden, Eun Wha Jung and Catherine Y. K. Westerman advances public relations theory in employee-organization relationships (EORs) by delimiting its conceptual focus to job engagement (as distinct from “organizational engagement” or “organizational commitment”) and by positing job engagement as a mediator between employee communication and organizational commitment. The authors define job engagement “as a positive and fulfilling state of mind characterized by dedication, vigor, and absorption at work” (p. 73), a state influenced by organizational communication in terms of information adequacy, information flow, and interaction supportiveness. Together, these latter three concepts form the operationalization of “employee communication” in this study.
In addition to its contributions to public relations theory, the article advances research by focusing on Millennials as a situational public, i.e., one whose members are presently “in the first third of their career” (p. 85), a situation that obviously will change over time. I believe this approach to be much more useful in the long term than the plethora of hand-wringing articles in both trade and academic literature that treats Millennials as a cross-situational public, i.e., one defined by birth year and thus doomed to reflect narcissism, entitlement, and self-centeredness (for one example, see Twenge, Citation2006).
This article also includes an appendix item that explains why the authors did not include any demographic variables in running their SEM analysis. This explanation was originally offered by the authors in their response to a reviewer question, and I hope that including it here enhances reader understanding of both an advanced statistical analysis method and the process of revising manuscripts for journal publication.
Dialogues with entrepreneurs in China: How start-up companies cultivate relationships with strategic publics
The article by Linjuan Rita Men, Yi Grace Ji, and Zifei Fay Chen advances our knowledge in public relations management by integrating prior research on start-up with existing scholarship on organization-public relationships. The piece articulates a clear definition for start-ups as “small- to medium-sized enterprises in an early stage of development that focus on providing high-tech innovative products and services” (p. 91) and breaks new scholarly ground by investigating the role of public relations in start-ups’ efforts to cultivate relationships in the context of a competitive, fast-growing market (i.e., China).
Interestingly, although the entrepreneurs interviewed noted the role of public relations in building relationships with organizational stakeholders, the term “relationship building” was noticeably absent from their explicit definitions of the term “public relations.” Future scholars may learn from the authors’ clear articulation of their procedures for data collection, reduction and analysis, as well as from their reflection on how their personal and professional backgrounds may have affected the execution of those procedures.
Exploring trust and distrust as conceptually and empirically distinct constructs: Association with symmetrical communication and public engagement across four pairings of trust and distrust
Minjeong Kang and Young Eun Park tease out conceptual and operational distinctions between trust and distrust, which prior literature has tended to treat as opposing ends of a single spectrum. This study breaks new theoretical ground in finding empirical support for the validity of treating trust and distrust as separate dimensions, which opens up the possibility of both conditions existing simultaneously in organization-public relationships. In addition, the study examines how four types of trust-distrust pairings are related to two important concepts in public relations research (i.e., symmetrical communication and public engagement), finding that “the high trust-high distrust pairing consistently showed the strongest, positive association,” (p. 131) compared to other pairing types.
This most interesting finding augurs well for the future of public relations scholarship on the concepts of trust and distrust treated as separate dimensions. For example, the measures used in this study for trust and distrust can be applied to different organization types, industries, and contexts. Even more helpful for pushing forward the body of knowledge in public relations, this study underscores that future research on organization-public relationships should investigate further the concept of “distrust,” while carefully avoiding the temptation to equate this concept with “lack of trust” or “low trust.” More broadly, this article underscores that all researchers should explicate carefully the concepts used in their studies.
Thank you to the following reviewers for their timely and helpful feedback on the articles published in this issue:
Hua Jiang, Syracuse University
Eyun-Jung Ki, University of Alabama
Linjuan Rita Men, University of Florida
Lan Ni, University of Houston
John Penrose, San Diego State University
Katie R. Place, Quinnipiac University
Di Zhang, Renmin University of China
I promise that I will never change in my gratitude for those colleagues who take time from their own busy personal and professional lives to help expand the body of knowledge in public relations. Likewise, I shall endeavor to never resist thoughtful feedback from reviewers on manuscripts and from authors and readers on this journal.
References
- Alekseevskii, D. V. (1988). Noether theorem. In Encyclopaedia of mathematics, Vol. 6: An updated and annotated translation of the Soviet ‘Mathematical Encyclopaedia’ (pp. 407–408). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
- Byers, N. (1999). E. Noether’s discovery of the deep connection between symmetries and conservation laws. In M. Teicher (Ed.), The heritage of Emmy Noether (pp. 67–81). Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.
- DeMarche, E. (2017, June 1). Michigan congressman who believes in climate change says God will ‘take care of it’. FoxNews Politics. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/michigan-congressman-who-believes-in-climate-change-says-god-will-take-care-it.html
- Fitzgerald, F. S. (1936, February). “The Crack-Up, Part 1” Esquire Magazine. Republished in 2017 and Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a4310/the-crack-up/
- Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
- Jagannathan, M. (2017, May 31). GOP Rep. Tim Walberg says God will ‘take care of’ climate change, NY Daily News. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gop-rep-tim-walberg-god-care-climate-change-article-1.3210185
- Leichty, G. (1997). The limits of collaboration. Public Relations Review, 23(1), 47–55. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90005-9
- Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. In L. A. Grunig, & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 3, pp. 115–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Ne’Eman, Y. (1999). The impact of Emmy Noether’s theorems on XXIst century physics. In M. Teicher (Ed.), The heritage of Emmy Noether (pp. 83–101). Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University.
- Noether, G. E. (1987). Emmy Noether (1882-1935). In L. S. Grinstein, & P. J. Campbell (Eds.), Women of mathematics: A bibliographic sourcebook. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
- Rozsa, M. (2017, June 1). Michigan Republican: God “can take care” of climate change problems. Salon. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://www.salon.com/2017/06/01/michigan-republican-god-can-take-care-of-climate-change-problems/
- Sha, B. L.. (2004). Noether’s Theorem: The science of symmetry and the law of conservation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(4), 391–416. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1604_4
- Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled–and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.