« NCA09: PR educators on teaching social media & public relations | Main | The Week's Best, 23 November 2009 »

November 19, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e551c6567b88330120a6b3f5c6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NCA09: PR Lyceum on co-creational meaning:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dawn Gilpin

Thanks for posting this--it sounds like a session I really would have enjoyed (and definitely would have attended had I been at NCA). I agree that widening our scope to look at issues, publics, and organizations together is a way to help our work cross disciplinary boundaries. But I also think it's a useful way for us of conceptualizing our field, period.

Cocreation is one word, but it fits into a range of perspectives that don't, I believe, narrow our focus too much. Of course, I'm biased, since I have a hard time looking at things any other way!

Karen Russell

Thanks for the comment, Dawn, and glad the post was useful. I'm a constructionist myself but think the kind of discussion that the lyceum format encouraged was incredibly good for the field.

Bob Batchelor

Hi Karen, thanks for posting this overview. Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I wonder why the profession (academic or industry) needs yet another attempt at creating a "big picture" theory? I think we can all admit that this incessant navel-gazing by scholars about defining and redefining what PR is or should be plays a significant role in erecting the barrier between professionals in the field and academe.

What PR needs is scholars to focus on solving problems that keep PR from being taken seriously within organizations. It seems much more logical for PR scholars to use their connections and expertise to conduct research within agencies and organizations to uncover the real problems the profession faces, then tackle those using the tools scholars possess that those working in the field do not.

For example, the lack of determining ROI has bedeviled PR since its earliest days. What if PR scholars collectively identified that as their number one topic for the next 3-5 years, then at the end of the timeframe, produced techniques that established the value of PR and communications within organizations. Wouldn't that be more valuable than 1,000 new studies that agonize over PR's metatheory?

Instead, most PR scholars either want to be the next Grunig or do the exact opposite, getting so minute on a given topic that there is no worldview outside the mile-deep trench, an inch wide that they've created for themselves.

What is curious is why PR even needs a metatheory. Professionals don't stay awake each night worrying about this. They are concerned with solving "real world" problems they face on a daily basis. Rather, it is scholars who yearn for metatheory. If we applied our research methods, interdisciplinary approach, and ability to write and communicate our findings to their (professionals) problems and challenges, then both sides would benefit. [And I purposely use "sides" because we are not currently all on the same team]

Some of us (like you and I, Karen) are by definition interdisciplinary. I don't think one can study history without becoming so. These other disciplines do not have a single metatheory, but they do have practical applications. For example, part of the study of English can be analysis of how one becomes a better writer. Likewise, in history, one can learn to become a practicing historian. In these instances, scholars are applying their skills to solving practical problems. We need more of that in the PR scholarly community.

The theoretical discussions/arguments have a place in English and History, but they do not dominate the majority of the scholarly community, like the questions of metatheory do in PR.

Karen Russell

Bob, I agree that research on practical questions such as those you outlined are useful. But I think there's a place for theory about the role of PR in society and other big questions, too. We need critical perspectives as well as practical applications because, I think, building a strong profession is only one of our goals.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

My Photo

My Other Accounts

Delicious Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Blog powered by TypePad
    Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported