Notes on a dialogue: twenty years of digital dialogic communication research in public relations

Historically speaking, the use of mass communication channels in public relations practice has mirrored the diffusion of new technologies. Early 20th century public relations efforts largely relied on newspapers and magazines as channels to promote clients and causes. Radio and television became staple tools for public relations upon their introduction and mass diffusion through society. By and large, these technologies were one-way communication tools for public relations to transmit information to publics, and most often content must have first passed the scrutiny of media gatekeepers. However, with the introduction and widespread penetration of the Internet, public relations practitioners could communicate directly with publics on an unprecedented scale without the approval of media gatekeepers or conformity to their rules. Through so-called Web 1.0 platforms, like websites and early blogs, practitioners could create their own content and directly reach their publics—and they had no idea what to do.

Early research on the adoption of Internet-enabled technologies by practitioners suggests they were indeed confused about what to make of this fledgling communication tool. Some embraced the new platform; others viewed it as a distraction. By the turn of the century, it was still considered noteworthy for public relations practitioners to utilize websites for public relations purposes, and many regarded the technology with skepticism as to its strategic value (Hill & White, 2000). It was within this murky and uncertain technological environment that Kent and Taylor (1998) proposed the five principles of dialogic communication in their article, “Building Dialogic Relationships Through the World Wide Web.” The article was the first comprehensive theoretical framework to guide the field of public relations in its use of digital communication. Their work was among the earliest public relations studies to recognize the relationship-building potential of digital communication technology (at that time, mostly websites) and to provide strategies for communication professionals seeking to build relationships with publics.

In the 2 decades since the article’s publication, the dialogic principles have become a touchstone for the public relations literature, and Kent and Taylor’s (1998) article outlining the principles is among the most cited and influential articles in public relations history. The principles have been applied in fields such as public relations, advertising, marketing, management, organizational communication, and information studies. Hundreds of studies have used the dialogic principles to analyze various types of organizational websites (McAllister-Spooner, 2008; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Yang & Taylor, 2010) and, more recently, social media accounts such as blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (e.g., Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Gao, 2016; Linvill, McGee, & Hicks, 2012; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). Over the years, studies have attempted to verify and adapt the original principles, applying them within new contexts and relating them to various organizational characteristics (see Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018, for a comprehensive review of studies involving the principles of dialogic public relations).

Unlike 20 years ago, computer-mediated communication is now an indispensable part of public relations practice. It is clear from the state of research and practice in public relations that the question is no longer if, but how to best use digital communication technologies to build relationships with publics. With new ways of engaging stakeholders on digital platforms and much wider-spread adoption of digital communication by organizations around the world, it is time to take another look at where we are and ask difficult questions about the potential for dialogic communication through digital media. For this purpose, at this 20-year anniversary, we dedicate this special issue to digital dialogic communication research by showcasing a number of articles that extend our thinking on dialogic theory and use this vital platform to raise interests and point to new directions.

Understanding the dialogic promise

Prescriptive theories of dialogue, such as those advanced by Pearson (1989), Botan (1997), and Kent and Taylor (1998, 2002), are heavily influenced by the work of Martin Buber (1970), wherein dialogue is seen as a specialized form of interpersonal communication. In brief, dialogue is foremost concerned with the attitudes held by each party in an interaction. Genuine dialogue sees communication partners as equals (I-Thou), rather than as mere recipients of persuasive messages (I-It). Botan (1997) explained that dialogue “elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the organization” (p. 196) as opposed to treating publics as objects to be segmented and responded to.

Kent and Taylor (1998) took up the challenge of translating this deeply interpersonal theory to web-mediated communicative relationships. The aim of their work was to provide theory-based strategies to enhance organization–public relationships by making the Web more “personal.” These strategies—grounded in the assumptions of dialogue—took the form of five principles of web-based communication: the dialogic loop, features that allow publics to ask questions and for organizations to respond; usefulness of information, providing information of value to publics in a clear and logical structure; generation of return visits, features that attract publics back to websites and ways to create long-term relationships; intuitiveness/ease of interface, the simplicity and ease of website navigation; and conservation of visitors, features that conserve a user’s time and keeps them on the website. By building these strategies into websites, Kent and Taylor argued, organizations could work to fulfil the “dialogic promise” of digital media, thereby successfully integrating a form of interpersonal dialogue into web-based communication.

The work attracted considerable attention because it not only reflected the field of public relations’ keen interest in using digital technologies for organization–public relationship building (the potential for which was unclear at that time), but also answered urgent calls for theorizing on this new communication platform. The principles have since been adapted in various studies, and measures have been developed aimed at demonstrating the degree to which each principle is manifested on website platforms (e.g., Taylor et al., 2001; Yang & Taylor, 2010). These instruments enabled researchers to gauge the extent to which organizations’ websites are dialogic (McAllister-Spooner, 2009) and examine the connection between utilization of dialogic principles and actual responsiveness and accessibility (Callison & Seltzer, 2010). The instruments have also been extensively applied in the examination of organizations’ social media communication. Indeed, the principles are more popular than ever before, with numerous studies utilizing the approach to understand organization–public relationship building through social media. Much of this research has found that although social media, as platforms, exhibit more dialogic potential than websites (e.g., Seltzer & Mitrook, 2007), many organizations still fail to fully utilize the potential of social media to be dialogic (Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010), primarily using social media as tools for one-way information dissemination.

20 years of dialogic communication research: what’s next?

An important goal of this special issue is not to simply look back and summarize what we have learned over the past 20 years, but also to discern new directions for theoretical development in digital dialogic communication research. To begin such a task, we must first understand the existing gaps and criticisms in the digital dialogic literature.

Criticisms of the dialogic approach

One of the most prominent criticisms, and perhaps failings, of the dialogic communication literature is the frequent conflation of dialogue with symmetrical communication (Grunig, 2001), where researchers “reify dialogue as a set of procedures” (Kent & Lane, 2017, p. 571), and equate any back and forth of communication with dialogue. This confusion often manifests in studies where researchers simply treat the presence of any interactive features or functions on organizations’ websites and social media accounts as evidence of a dialogic approach.

In addition, the principles of dialogic communication have also been challenged by practitioners who fail to see value from the dialogic approach in daily practice, or are constrained by their issue positions or organizational resources to implement dialogic communication (Sommerfeldt, Kent, & Taylor, 2012). Others have criticized the theory for failing to account for power imbalances between organizations and their publics and the influence of factors such as social, political, and economic contexts on dialogic communication (Ihlen & Levenshus, 2017; Roper, 2005). Additionally, as technological innovations continue to revolutionize communication processes, emerging trends such as artificial intelligence, big data, and machine learning may all pose new questions and challenges to dialogic communication and require the theory to evolve and adapt—or risk becoming irrelevant.

New media environment, new challenges

Some studies have begun exploring expansions or modifications of the dialogic principles in light of advances in digital communication technology, and more interactive social media platforms (Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Gao, 2016; Linvill et al., 2012). Nonetheless, most of these efforts have focused on improving or modifying measurements; few have considered the actual fit between the original dialogic principles and characteristics of contemporary social media. As an example, many studies utilizing the principles choose to simply omit the ease of interface principle, as digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide the same interface for all users. A substantial extension of dialogic communication theory might, therefore, come from a deeper consideration of the unique characteristics of the social media communication context and their match or mismatch with dialogic principles; or through providing new connections among previous concepts, and exploring the practical implications of these connections. In any case, scholars should begin to question the applicability of the principles to the social media environment, and adapt—or even remake—them accordingly.

Big data, social networks, and new methodological possibilities

A new and exciting trend is the availability of big data and analytic tools that allow practitioners and scholars to assess publics’ online behavioral patterns at an unprecedented scale. Much like the case 20 years ago, the field of public relations is again at a crossroads, where data-driven insights are taking the field into new directions. Meaningful theories need to be able to answer the call of their times. For dialogic communication research to advance in this new age, scholars need to go beyond content analysis (a method used in the overwhelming majority of dialogic communication studies; cf. Wirtz & Zimbres, 2018), and embrace new methodological approaches such as big data, social networks, machine learning, and the triangulation of these methods. New methodological approaches would perhaps afford scholars the opportunity to develop new indicators of dialogic communication—perhaps even recognize new forms of enacting dialogue—and better model and predict outcomes of dialogic communication. New methodologies could also offer new approaches to examine the connection between dialogic feature utilization and actual responsiveness.

Questioning the dialogic promise

Systematic efforts should be taken to examine organizational and institutional barriers to the adoption and implementation of dialogic communication. Questions such as what institutional contexts, power dynamics, and socio-cultural contexts are more conducive or constraining for dialogic communication; how communication practitioners navigate complex stakeholder relationships and institutional barriers to engage stakeholders in dialogue need to be asked. Answering these questions may provide practical implications for practitioners who are puzzled about the applicability and relevance of dialogic communication.

Finally, whereas most studies assume that dialogic communication brings positive, or at least benign, outcomes, little attention has been paid to examine the potential negative consequences of dialogic communication. Is there a dark side to dialogue? Kent and Taylor admit that engaging in the appearance of dialogue may be used for malfeasant purposes. Relatedly, are honesty, transparency, and mutuality always a possibility in digital communication? Moreover, what can we do to prevent unintended consequences on organizations, especially in the age of social media? After all, studies have consistently found most organizations fail to fully realize the dialogic promise of digital media. Answers to these questions could deepen our understanding of dialogic communication and revise the framework for the age of Facebook, Twitter, and future platforms with possibly even greater interactive potential and relationship building capacity.

Contributions to the dialogue

Digital communication will continue to dominate public relations practice and scholarship for the foreseeable future. If we hope to fully realize the potential of social media to be truly social and engage in dialogic relationship building, we must advance digital dialogic scholarship. The articles in this special issue are an effort toward that end. Each of these articles addresses a different facet of dialogic communication research and provides heuristic questions for future scholarship.

First, Morehouse and Saffer examine the knowledge-construction networks of dialogic communication in 20 years of public relations literature. Their examination of scholarship networks in the field provides insights into the state of digital dialogic research and suggests that scholars must continue to mix their expertise and adopt different approaches to the study of digital dialogue. Next, Men, Tsai, Wan-Hsiu, Chen, and Ji add complexity to the dialogic approach by pairing examination of the dialogic principles with the concept of social presence—the extent to which an actor appears to be a real person online. As the roots of the dialogic approach are in interpersonal communication theory, the consideration of social presence on social media platforms provides an interesting new approach to examine the efficacy of dialogic communication with publics. Third, Uysal considers the dialogic principles in the context of investor relations and corporate social performance, revealing that more socially responsible corporations are more likely to engage in dialogic communication behavior. Finally, Ciszek and Logan question the relevance of the dialogic principles in social media research, and suggest that alternative perspectives such as dissensus and agonism may better reflect the nature of organization–public interactions, particularly in discussions on difficult social issues.

Although the special issue attracted 22 submissions, only four were selected. The aim of the special issue was to advance the theoretical conceptualization of dialogic communication and dialogic relationship building for the next generation of public relations scholars and practitioners. We hope this special issue makes a meaningful contribution to the study of digital dialogue. We thank all reviewers listed here, whose efforts made this special issue possible:

William Anderson

Anita Atwell Seate

Lucinda Austin

Joshua Bentley

Denise Bortree

Josh Boyd

Luke Capizzo

Lisa Chewning

Kathy Fitzpatrick

Tiffany Gallicano

Linda Hon

Melissa Janoske

Hua Jiang

Melissa Johnson

Amanda Kennedy

Eyun-Jung Ki

Spiro Kiousis

Anna Klyueva

Anne Lane

Jaesub Lee

Sun Young Lee

Greg Leichty

Brooke Liu

Stephanie Madden

Dean Mundy

Tim Penning

Donnalyn Pommper

Magda Pieczka

Katie Place

Trent Seltzer

Brian Smith

Jessalynn Strauss

Elizabeth Toth