Dialogic Communication and Thought Leadership: Twitter Use by Public Relations Agencies in the United States

References

• Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. (2015). Smartphones, publics, and OPR: Do publics want to engage? Public Relations Review, 41(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badings, C. (2009). Definitions of thought leadership. http://www.thoughtleadershipstrategy.net
   Google Scholar
• Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2017). Facebook as a tool for supporting dialogic accounting? Evidence from large philanthropic foundations in the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 874–905. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonsón, E., & Ratkai, M. (2013). A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review, 37(5), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2012-0054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourne, C. D. (2015). Thought leadership as a trust strategy in global markets: Goldman Sachs’ promotion of the ‘BRICs’ in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1027772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization– public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z. F., Ji, Y. G., & Men, L. R. (2017). Strategic use of social media for stakeholder engagement in startup companies in China. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(3), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2017.1298114
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czerniawska, F. (2012). Thought leadership: Too important to be left to consultants? https://www.sourceglobalresearch.com/blog/2012/08/09/thought-leadership-too-important-to-be-left-to-consultants
   Google Scholar
• Diket, R. M., & Klein, S. R. (2016). Thought leadership: Social media and leadership in an information-based society. In E. A. Samier (Ed.), Ideologies in educational administration and leadership (pp. 127–146). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Edelman-LinkedIn. (2018). 2019 B2B though leadership impact study. https://www.edelman.com/research/2019-b2b-thought-leadership-impact-study
   Google Scholar
• Estanyol, E. (2012). Marketing, public relations, and how Web 2.0 is changing their relationship: A qualitative assessment of PR consultancies operating in Spain. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortin, D. R., & Dholakia, R. R. (2005). Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00106-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Haro-De-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & del Carmen Caba-Pérez, M. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society, 20(1), 29–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haro-De-Rosario, A., Sáez-Martín, A., & Gálvez-Rodríguez, M. M. (2017). Facebook as a dialogic strategic tool for European local governments. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 50E, 73–89.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
   Google Scholar
• Heaselgrave, F., & Simmons, P. (2016). Culture, competency and policy: Why social media dialogue is limited in Australian local government. Journal of Communication Management, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2015-0059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, D., Singh, R., Ganesh, J., & Taube, L. (2013). Building thought leadership through business-to-business social media engagement at Infosys. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(2), 77–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, P. (2018, December 10). 2018 review: Top 12 thought leadership pieces. Retrieved from https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/2018-review-top-12-thought-leadership-pieces
   Google Scholar
• Holston, D. (2014). Thought leadership online. Print, 68(2), 14.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, H., Luo, Y., & Kulemeka, O. (2017). Strategic social media use in public relations: Professionals’ perceived social media impact, leadership behaviors, and work-life conflict. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1226842
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Research note–Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 454–470. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, T., & Sweetser, K. (2012). Social media adoption among university communicators. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1997). Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/209511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through world wide web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerns, C. D. (2019). Leading thought leadership: A practice-oriented framework. International Leadership Journal, 11(1), 3–41.
   Google Scholar
• Komodromos, M. (2014). A study of PR practitioners’ use of social media tools in Cyprus. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 1450011–1450019. Nohttps://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946714500113
   Google Scholar
• Koolstra, C. M., & Bos, M. J. W. (2009). The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette, 71(5), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048509104980
   Google Scholar
• Lane, A. (2014). Toward understanding the (lack of?) significance of dialogue to the practice of public relations. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 123–142.
   Google Scholar
• Linvill, D. L., McGee, S. E., & Hicks, L. K. (2012). Colleges’ and universities’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(4), 636–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, J., Li, C., Ji, Y. G., North, M., & Yang, F. (2017). Like it or not: The Fortune 500's Facebook strategies to generate users' electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manetti, G., Bellucci, M., & Bagnoli, L. (2017). Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: A study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(8), 991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016649260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAllister, S. M. (2012a). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAllister, S. M. (2012b). Practitioner perceptions of the importance, function, and actual utilization of dialogic Internet Tools and institutional resources at American colleges. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 20(4), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2012.711151
   Google Scholar
• McAllister-Spooner, S. M., & Kent, M. L. (2009). Dialogic public relations and resource dependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870903210113
   Google Scholar
• McCrimmon, M. (2005). Thought leadership: A radical departure from traditional, positional leadership. Management Decision, 43(7–8), 1064–1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510610062
   Google Scholar
• Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, A., Navarro, C., Tench, R., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Does social media usage matter? An analysis of online practices and digital media perceptions of communication practitioners in Europe. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, C. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1641–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2017). Social media in higher education: Understanding how colleges and universities use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1212451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieczka, M. (1997). Understanding in public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 65–80.
   Google Scholar
• Pina, L. S., Loureiro, S. M. C., Rita, P., Sarmento, E. M., Bilro, R. G., & Guerreiro, J. (2019). Analysing consumer-brand engagement through appreciative listening on social network platforms. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2019.1557805
   Google Scholar
• Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. (2004). Interactivity-as-product and interactivity-as-process. The Information Society, 20(5), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490508081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, B., & Levenshus, A. B. (2017). The art of engagement: Dialogic strategies on Twitter. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2015-0057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2004). Congressional web sites and their potential for public dialogues. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15456889ajc1202_1
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522
   Google Scholar
• Tremayne, M., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the world wide web. Science Communication, 23(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547001023002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Halderen, M., & Kettler-Paddock, K. (2011). Making sense of thought leadership. RSM Insight, 6, 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Waters, R. D., Ghosh, P., Griggs, T. D., & Searson, E. M. (2014). The corporate side of the blogosphere: Examining the variations of design and engagement among Fortune 500 blogs. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(5), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2014.946207
   Google Scholar
• Watkins, B. A. (2017). Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetherhead, D., & Roth, M. (2015). Putting more thought into practice: Thought leadership lessons to build on. Public Relations Tactics, 22(8), 11.
   Google Scholar
• Wise, H. (2013). Delivering on thought leadership. https://www.prweek.com/article/1274838/delivering-thought-leadership
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2017). Tracking how social and other digital media are being used in public relations practice: A twelve-year study. Public Relations Journal, 11(1), 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Young, L. (2013). Thought leadership: Prompting businesses to think and learn. Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Zuk, R. (2009). Thought leadership on the social Web: Six traits that draw people to your ideas. Public Relations Tactics, 16(8), 7.
   Google Scholar