NCA09: PR Lyceum on co-creational meaning

My favorite session at NCA was the PR Lyceum on co-creational meaning. Evidently it was a conference first, and I'm glad I got to be there, listening to some of the top scholars in our field -- both on the panel and in the audience -- debating the merits of this theoretical approach. 

The panel started with Maureen Taylor's three questions: is a new approach (paradigm, model or theory) needed in public relations? Is the cocreational view the exact theory needed? If not, then what? She reminded us that theory should be generative and parsimonious and should be able to predict and explain, and pointed out that while PR scholars frequently cite theory from related fields like health communication, scholars in those fields never cite PR theory. The current theories, she argued, have limited us. As an alternative she offered a social constructionist approach, viewing publics as co-creators of meaning, advocating that we should stop studying ourselves (meaning organizations and practitioners) and study publics instead.

Next, Carl Botan furthered refined the notion of co-creation but saying it refers to the role of the publics in creating, not just responding to messages. Co-creation is not the same as interpretation, which gives publics a less active role (how do they process the messages we send them), but is an active process of integrating their own knowledge with intentional and unintentional messages. The approach is neither sender- nor message-centered, and we need a nuanced understanding of this process at least as sophisticated as our understanding of the senders. He concludes that the cocreational approach is metatheoretic (a set of criteria used to evaluate other PR theories) but argued that it can also stand as a theory itself, capable to lead us to posing research questions and hypotheses. He then presented data from a study on climate change communication in which that data supported the cocreational approach. Co-creation is not an either/or, he concluded, but operates as a sliding continuum.

Elizabeth Toth then argued that PR theory already offers three different ways to conceptualize publics. First, she identified parallels between this approach and J. Grunig's work, particularly situational theory, which sees publics having an identity of organizing around something, and which has been confirmed by research. Second, scholars have already conceptualized publics as they are constructed through language and discourse, examining the struggle over meaning. And third, critical approaches such as Dozier and Lauzen's article on extending the intellectual domain have shown that public could have irreconcilable differences with organizations and that they self-organize and are not powerless. Thus, while not discounting it, she pointed out that PR scholarship need not be limited to this one approach.

Next, Robert Heath said that as a rhetorical scholar, he would identify Aristotle as the starting point for cocreational theory. Publics are there because of issue position, he argued; they are not separate from the issues that define them. We live together in joined and disjointed discourse, and we still don't know how it all works (noting activism as an example). Meaning trumps process and infrastructure in his view, and if we impose the cocreational model on PR we are fracturing ourselves. Society is not getting better at solving collective problems, he said, and discourse can create meaning that is dysfunctional.

Finally, Tim Coombs started with the notion of grand theory, one that tries to explain everything in the field; the problem here is that PR is hugely amorphous, so how can we capture it all? Adopting one theoretical approach has the unintended consequence of limiting research. Instead he advocated Robert Merton's notion of theories of the middle range, explaining the smaller parts first and then trying to put them all together. As a metatheory, the cocreational approach can act as a touchstone for middle range research when it's relevant to a particular study. He asserted that cocreationalism can make us more reflexive of our research and how it affects our society, intentionally and unintentionally, but argued that it needs to address the problem of power, because co-creators are not in reality equal.

The discussion that followed was so lively I didn't attempt to keep up with it all in my notes, but a few points stood out.

• Vince Hazelton, the session moderator, asked why it had to be either/or? We should focus on both organization and publics because we are all speakers. We should study interaction and symbolic exchange.
• Michael Palenchar suggested that focusing on discourse rather than publics addresses the issue of power.
• Maureen Taylor conceded that cocreationalism is not so much a new approach as a new name that might help PR theory cross disciplinary boundaries.

Based on the discussion, my impression was that most people thought that the co-creation approach is useful and a good addition to the field, but that they were not willing to consider it as the best or even the primary theoretical approach for the field.

Comments

[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.