Editor’s essay: Thoughts on theory

The primary purpose of the Journal of Public Relations Research, since its founding, has been to help create, test, refine, or expand theory in public relations. Since commencing my editorship of this journal (work year 2015, credit year 2016), I have come to the chagrined realization that our journal’s very purpose is misunderstood by some authors, reviewers, and readers, for whom the phrase “theory in public relations” may not be quite clear.

What is theory?

At the most basic level, a theory is an idea or an explanation about how things work. As such, theories might come from a variety of sources that tell us what we know; these methods of knowing originally were articulated as tenacity, authority, taste, and science (see Pierce, 1877), with the method of taste now referred to as the method of intuition (see Wimmer & Dominick, 2014). The point of scientific endeavors (including social scientific efforts, as might be found in public relations) is to offer a method of knowing that is grounded in being public, objective, empirical, systematic, cumulative, predictive, and self-correcting (cf. Wimmer & Dominick, 2014).

According to Reynolds (2007), scientific theories exist in at least two forms: (a) a theory can be “a set of well-supported empirical generalizations or ‘laws,’ … referred to as the ‘set-of-laws’ form of theory” (p. 8), or (b) a theory can be “an interrelated set of definitions, axioms, and propositions … called the ‘axiomatic’ form of theory” (pp. 8–9). As explained by Wimmer and Dominick (2014), “[a] theory is a set of related propositions that presents a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among concepts” (p. 12).

Really, then, theories are only as useful as the explanations that they can offer. In fact, Babbie (2014) actually defined theory as “a systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of life” (p. 9). Stinchcombe (1968), perhaps, expressed it best when he wrote that “theory ought to create the capacity to invent explanations” (p. 3, italics original). Thus, this journal seeks to publish research that will not only explain public relations phenomena, but also engender the creation of new theories in public relations.

How are theories built?

Creating new theories and enhancing existing theories are nonlinear processes. The various texts in theory construction all point to the constant interplay between the abstract and the empirical, between the conceptualized and the observed (e.g., Chaffee, 1991; Reynolds, 2007; Stinchcombe, 1968). For specific guidance on building social scientific theories, see the helpful text by Shoemaker, Tankard, and Lasorsa (2004) that literally offers ten steps for building a theory, including specifying both theoretical definitions (step #5) and operational definitions (step #6) for all concepts.

Thus, to fulfill its primary purpose of theory-building in public relations, this journal seeks to publish articles that include both kinds of definitions. Defining theoretical concepts requires careful “explication,” an iterative process described by Chaffee (1991) as “the thinking that relates theory with research” (pp. 4–5), by which he meant connecting abstract ideas with empirical observations. In public relations scholarship, Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) began the process of explicating organization-public relationships and in that effort also provided an example of a portion of the explication process.

What can budding theorists do?

Let me be clear: No research method has a monopoly on theory-building, and this journal continues to welcome scholarship employing all methods of data collection and analysis. No group of scholars or school of thought has exclusive rights over theory building in public relations, and all of us must share the burden of elevating the standards of scholarly work in our field. So, here are some suggestions for those who would engage in the definitely difficult, but fantastically fun, process of theory-building:

• Create: Connect theoretical concepts that were previously unconnected. Public relations is interdisciplinary, and extant literature in our field draws on concepts from many others. But creative theory building is not necessarily dependent on expertise in another discipline. Rather, as Hage suggested in his Foreword to Shoemaker et al. (2004), creative thinking might simply be facilitated by opening oneself to a variety of information sources, people, and experiences.

• Test: Apply an existing theory to a new situation, industry, context, country, or language. Then, go further by coming back to the theory to discuss ways in which it worked or failed to work, as well as why or why not.

• Expand: Add layers of nuance and complexity to the theoretical concept being studied. Consider whether a concept might, in fact, be multidimensional and drill down into each of those dimensions.

• Refine: Take an existing concept and problematize it. Critique with purpose, to build up, not bring down.

Also, manuscripts submitted for review with this journal should include a discussion of the implications of the study’s findings for building theory in public relations. Seriously.

As Wirtz and Zimbres (2018) show in their analysis (granted, of a specifically delimited scope) presented in this issue, public relations scholars have more frequently provided practical implications than theoretical implications regarding their work. In other words, we have spent more time telling practitioners how to improve public relations practice than we have spent time telling ourselves how to enhance public relations theory.

Ultimately, I still agree with Botan and Hazleton (2006), who argued that “we need to encourage the development of additional and different theories of public relations … [and] … we need to engage in frequent and public debates over the merits and weaknesses of all theories of public relations” (p. 9). After all, the defining characteristic of a scientific theory may be its falsifiability (cf. Popper, 1959).

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

John Wirtz and Thais Menezes Zimbres offer an overdue, systematic analysis of research in public relations that has sought to apply the principles of dialogic communication (cf. Kent & Taylor, 1998) to organizational web sites, blogs, and social media, i.e., what practitioners today would call an organization’s owned media channels. The authors trace the history of public relations scholarly thought on dialogic communication to Pearson (1989), and they articulate a “dialogic communication framework” as “the group of five dialogic communication principles presented in Kent and Taylor (1998)” (p. 6). Furthermore, the article parses out the distinction between dialogic communication and symmetrical communication, two related but distinct concepts that some scholars seem determined to continually conflate (Kent & Lane, 2017).

Strengths of this article include its clear articulation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of publications analyzed, the authors’ thorough explanation of the processes by which the codebook and coding categories were developed and refined by the research team, and the detailed explanation of how the content analysis was executed. This methodological clarity and transparency has strong potential for helping future scholars using the content analysis method.

The article also offers two important theoretical contributions: First, the authors offer a conceptual definition of dialogic communication as “interactions between organizations and publics that seek to create mutual respect, mutual understanding, and mutual benefits” (p. 26). Second, the article offers three recommendations for advancing a dialogic theory of public relations: connecting to a larger community of dialogic theorists, reconsidering assumptions about organizational power and equality, and incorporating other forms of communication.

Furthermore, Wirtz and Zimbres articulate an important implication of their study’s findings: “studying dialogue or studying some other communication phenomenon” (p. 23) is a scholarly choice. As researchers, we all make choices about where to expend our intellectual capacity and our scholarly energy; as editor-in-chief of this journal, I encourage researchers to choose endeavors that will push the boundaries of theoretical knowledge in public relations.

To that end, and in recognition of the 20th anniversary of the publication of Kent and Taylor’s (1998) foundational article on the principles of dialogic communication, the Journal of Public Relations Research will publish, later this year, a special issue on digital dialogic theory, offering scholars the choice to further expand theory in this area into the current digital age.

• Walking the talk: An exploratory examination of executive leadership communication at startups in China

The study of leadership is important for public relations, in that public relations practitioners are encouraged to participate in organizational leadership as members of the dominant coalition (cf. Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) and in that the public relations function is encouraged to lead decision-making as the organization’s conscience (cf. Bowen, 2008; Neill & Drumwright, 2012; Ryan & Martinson, 1983).

Thus, the article by Linjuan Rita Men, Zifei Fay Chen, and Yi Grace Ji is significant for its expansion of public relations theory on leadership and extension of this area of research into the contexts of start-up companies in China. The authors found that executive leaders’ management styles and character shape organizational culture, which they categorized into five types: innovation/adventure, openness, inclusiveness/participation, supportiveness, and aggressiveness/competitiveness. Effective leadership communication strategies were found to be symmetrical, transparent, authentic, and visionary.

On one hand, these findings offer practical suggestions for enhancing the communication efforts of executive leaders in Chinese start-ups. On the other hand, the study also yields significant implications for developing theory at the intersection of public relations and leadership communication, in particular with the identification of visionary communication, which “emphasized the value and contributions of the company for high purpose in a broad social, cultural, economic, or political context” (p. 48). I look forward to future scholarship that further explicates this concept, perhaps by connecting it to real-world public relations phenomena in other countries, with different organization types, and under various leadership demographics.

In the ongoing scholarly dialogue (mediated by journal editors) that constitutes part of the iterative theory-building process (mediated by academic journals) in any field, the role of blinded peer reviewers is critical. Manuscript reviewers give generously of their time, their expertise, and their ideas to enhance the scholarly products ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals.

Thus, I thank the members of our 2018 editorial board, as well as the following reviewers whose helpful feedback enhanced the articles published in this issue:

Melissa A Johnson, North Carolina State University

Dean Kruckeberg, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

David McKie, University of Waikato (NEW ZEALAND)

David Remund, Drake University (Iowa)

Maureen Taylor, University of Tennessee