On the last day of the NCA conference I dragged my suitcase into one last session before heading to the airport, a panel discussion "exploring the relationship between globalization and public relations." The panel consisted of
- Nilanjana Bardhan, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
- Robert Wakefield, Brigham Young University
- Kaustubh Nande, Ohio University
- Nancy Van Leuven, Bridgewater State College
- Debra Worley, Indiana State University
- Celia Kay Weaver, University of Waikato
Nilanjana Bardhan suggested that a good definition of globalization views the world as an interlocking system rather than as separate nations; she argued that globalization is acknowledged but not interrogated, and the international approach (treating nation-states as units of analysis) remains dominant in public relations. The Western style of PR still sets the standard for excellence, and Western agencies are established only in economically established nations. Globalization can be viewed as imposed from above and criticized or fought off from below.
Robert Wakefield asserted that international research in public relations is often descriptive and although it claims to be comparative it usually isn't really so. Where does transnational fit? How is reputation (not brand) managed across national and other borders? He referenced the generic/specific theory of public relations which attempts to address a polarity of thought -- PR is centralized (global) or PR is different in each place (local) -- and said that it never achieved what he thought it promised, noting that Toby McManus said the theory attempted to include cultural differences located in the middle ground between ethnocentric and more global approaches. Sriramesh and Vervic's book used this approach in several chapters, but most chapters remained descriptive. Since the theory was first proposed, a number of changes--such as media and activism crossing borders via the Internet or cultures crossing national borders--have only emphasized the importance of the theory's approach. He pointed out that public relations is usually studied from the center (the organization) out, rather than from the periphery.
Nancy Van Leuven pointed out that an international organization like the Red Cross can't even choose a logo that works internationally, emphasizing how difficult international public relations can be. She looked at China, an 800-lb. gorilla, as a case study. PR started only in the early 1980s and has been expanding more rapidly since 2000. What is PR in China? Is it just promotion? Are Western models even applicable? How does Chinese culture influence relationship cultivation? She also pointed to specific differences such as, in addition to the obvious political/economic differences, the media (where market competitiveness redefines media function) and social/cultural difference, including the importance of interpersonal communication. She said that universities are starting to offer beginners classes such as even management, but that communication agencies in China still have armed guards around them -- yet they can hold press conferences at any time.
Kaustubh Nande described his job at Intel's Emerging Markets public relations program, where he pitched local Indian editors with stories about key messages such as how computers are good for society and helpful in education and careers. A critical perspective began to emerge, he said, when an editor asked him if he were selling education and careers, or computers. There was no line between community PR and marketing; it was megamarketing. He also pointed out that most people aren't global or interconnected; rather, systems are. Only one class of people are actually interconnected.
Debra Worley picked up on this notion and asked, "If students are not global, how do we introduce these ideas?" She did a content analysis of introductory PR textbooks, identifying major discussion areas as trends in globalization, technology as a channel to distribute and gather information, and cross-cultural communication as a way to understand differences in language, culture, etc. appropriately; she identified the latter as the best place to start in an introductory text. She described an assignment in which students were given a case and asked to write strategic plans for Western and non-Western cultures, working in groups to analyze how they did it and why.
Finally, Kay Weaver addressed ways that critical theory can contribute to understanding globalization and what it can contribute to PR practice in a globalized context. First, it seeks to understand power in a global context, which is important to understanding how PR is linked to national and international power structures, and recognizing inequities in power. As an example she described the Maori people in New Zealand, who act as a sort of human subjects board in determining whether and how these indigenous people can be studied. To receive permission to conduct research, a scholar must show not just how the research will contribute to theory but also how it can help oppressed people -- not just identifying them as oppressed. The scholar must ask what those being researched want as well; it resonates, she said, with symmetrical theory in public relations.
At the end of the session Rob Wakefield made the interesting point that four of the six scholars advocated in some way studying public relations from the periphery, the view of the stakeholders, rather than the center, the view of the organization--which linked this session to my earlier post on cocreationalism in PR research.
Comments