A systematic analysis of research applying ‘principles of dialogic communication’ to organizational websites, blogs, and social media: Implications for theory and practice

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to analyze peer-reviewed research that applied principles of dialogic communication to organizational websites, blogs, and social media. We identified 79 relevant studies and found that 83% reported the results of a content analysis. Only 25% of studies presented a theoretical implication; 75% discussed practical implications. Future research must distinguish between analyzing structural features of web-based organizational communication and studying dialogue. Differences in power and access to resources between organizations and publics should be incorporated into studies seeking to advance a dialogic theory of public relations.

摘要

本研究的目的是分析同行评议研究，应用了组织网站、博客和社交媒体对话交流的原则。我们确定了79项相关研究，并发现其中有83％报告了内容分析的结果。只有25％的研究提出了理论意义；其余75％则讨论了实际意义。未来的研究必须将分析基于网络的组织沟通和研究对话的不同特征区分开来。组织和公众之间权力差异和对资源获取的差异应纳入寻求推进公共关系对话理论的研究中。

Resumen

La finalidad de este estudio ha sido analizar actuaciones de investigación revisadas paritariamente en que se aplicaban principios de comunicación dialógica a sitios-web, blogs y redes sociales institucionales. Hemos identificado 79 estudios relevantes y hemos hallado que el 83% de ellos presentabanlos resultados de un análisis de contenidos. Únicamente el 25% de los estudios presentaron una implicación teórica; el 75% abordaban implicaciones prácticas. Futuras actuaciones de investigación deberán distinguir entre lo que es el análisis de caracteres estructurales de comunicación institucional basada en la web y lo que es el estudio dialógico. Las diferencias de poder y de acceso a recursos entre organizaciones y públicos deberán incorporarse a estudios que se propongan hacer avanzar una teoría dialógica de las relaciones públicas.

KEYWORDS:

• Dialogic theory
• principles of dialogic communication
• relationship management
• research synthesis
• web-based organizational communication

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the initial submission and subsequent versions of our article. We also thank Dr. Bey-Ling Sha for her guidance throughout the publication process and for pushing us to think more deeply about the implications of our study for public relations theory and practice. Finally, the first author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Clifford Christians for his comments on an earlier version of the article and for generously sharing his knowledge about dialogic theory, communication ethics, and the impact of technology on communication in the public sphere.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version of this article.

Notes

¹ The term dialogic communication framework refers to the group of five dialogic communication principles presented in Kent and Taylor (1998).

² Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) “four models of public relations” (p. 27ff) have been supplanted by the situational theory of publics (see Grunig, 1997).

³ See Kent (2008, 2013) and Theunissen (2015) for a more in-depth discussion of this topic.

⁴ See Kent and Lane (2017, pp. 571–572) for their response to Pieczka’s (2011) criticism.

⁵ The original searches were conducted in January 2015. Searches were updated in March 2017 and January 2018.

⁶ A complete list of the journal articles and book chapters included in our study can be found in the supplemental materials accompanying this article.

⁷ To conserve space, we present an overview of the codebook, categories, and coding procedures. Additional details can be obtained by contacting the first author.

⁸ Although several analyses of theory development in public relations research exist (e.g., Fussell Sisco et al., 2013; Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, & Jones, 2003), we did not find an operational definition of theoretical implication in those studies. Therefore, we developed our definition after consulting those studies and other articles about theory development (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007; Corley & Gioia, 2011). Our definition of practical implication was adapted from Bartunek and Rynes (2010).

⁹ Listed by number of studies presenting a practical implication represented by that code. The sum is greater than 59, because many studies offered more than one practical implication.

¹⁰ Two recent articles (i.e., Kent & Lane, 2017; Lane & Bartlett, 2016) have recommended public relations education as a means for changing practitioner perceptions of dialogue and for increasing its prominence in public relations practice.

¹¹ Our definition of dialogic communication has similarities to the definition of engagement offered by Taylor and Kent (2014; see p. 391), although we have not included implications for society. (See also Heath (2006, p. 106–107.)

¹² Kent and Taylor (2002) included Freire (1970) in their discussion of empathy and mutuality in relationships, and other articles have included Freire’s perspective (see Kent & Lane, 2017; Kent & Theunissen, 2016).