Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability

Year 2018, Issue: 55, 37 - 59, 28.12.2018

Hatun Boztepe Taşkıran

Abstract

From the critical approach public relations is evaluated as a whole series of strategies and practices that only benefits corporations and ignores mutual benefit and public welfare. In contrast, frequently used and investigated public relations concepts, such as symmetric public relations, dialogical public relations theory, relational paradigm, corporate social responsibility, and corporate sustainability, can answer the criticisms against the discipline. In light of this information, it can be said that there are two different perspectives in public relations literature towards outcomes of public relations. This study is designed to determine whether the argument that public relations is a management function that only benefits corporations is supported by Turkish public relations professionals. Also it is aimed to determine whether Turkish public relations professionals ignore public welfare. This study also presents how contemporary and ethical public relations strategies and practices that center on creating, maintaining, and reinforcing positive relationships between corporations and target audiences function in practice. Within the scope of this study, a research has been carried out with the participation of 107 Turkish public relations practitioners who are in charge of forming and practicing public relations strategies at public institutions, private enterprises, and non-governmental organizations or as freelance consultants. A questionnaire form has been designed and participants have been asked to answer questions which aim to determine the professional perceptions of public relations practitioners. The findings have demonstrated that Turkish public relations practitioners perceive their profession as a whole series of strategies and practices that serves the mutual benefit of corporations and target audiences.

Keywords

Corporate benefit mutual benefit relational paradigm dialogic public relations symmetrical public relations

References

  • Becerikli, S. Y. (2008). …Ve halkla ilişkiler şeytanın avukatlığından arabuluculuğa: Bir disiplinin eleştirel analizi. Ankara, Turkey: Karınca Yayınları.
  • Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Citical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_3
  • Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
  • Böke, K. (2011). “Örnekleme”. In K. Böke (Ed.) Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (3rd eds., pp. 103–149). İstanbul, Turkey: Alfa Basım.
  • Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi – dimensional organization – public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80160-X
  • Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Organization and key public relationships: testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business – to – business context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management a relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 159–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Büchner, L. M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability from a global, european and corporate perspective: corporate social responsibility and sustainable governance. Eurolimes, 13, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.460.4110
  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia a seven – country study of CSR web site reporting. Business & Society, 44(4), 415–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650305281658
  • Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Fringe public relations: How activism moves critical pr toward the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38, 880–887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.02.008
  • Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications theory and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.
  • Edwards, L. (2006). Rethinking power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32, 229–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.05.013
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2005). İletişimi anlamak. (2nd ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Erk Yayınları.
  • Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two way symmetrical public relations past, present and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.) Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). California, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Grunig, J. E. (2006). After 50 years: The value and values of public relations. The Institute for Public Relations 45th Annual Distinguished Lecture, New York, 1–7.
  • Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Herbohn, K., Walker, J., Yien, H., & Loo, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: The link between sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. ABACUS A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 50(4), 422–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/abac.12036
  • Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 72(1), 93–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1201_6
  • Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guideliness for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
  • Ihlen, Ø., & Van Ruler, B. (2007). How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives. Public Relations Review, 33, 243–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.001
  • Ihlen, Ø., Bartleet, J. L., & Steve M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartleet & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 3–12). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization – public relationships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer – retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 225–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_2
  • Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel araştırma metodu. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe Taş Kitapçılık.
  • Mickey, T. J. (1997). A postmodern view of public relations: Sign and reality. Public Relations Review 23(3), 271–284. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90036-9
  • Moloney, K. (2005). Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review, 31, 550–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.015
  • Motion, J., & Weaver, C. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life sciences network and the battle for truth. Public Relations Research, 17(1), 49–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_5
  • Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632541111126346
  • Roper, J. (2011). Environmental risk, sustainability discources, and public relations, Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 69–87. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/2046147X11422147
  • Sayımer, İ. (2007). Halkla ilişkilerde etik sorunsalı: Simetrik iletişim yönlü bir değerlendirme. In İ. Sayımer & P. E. Yayınoğlu (Eds.) Halkla ilişkiler ve reklam üzerine etik değerlendirmeler (pp. 81–114). İstanbul, Turkey: Beta Basım.
  • Searson, E. M., & Johnson, M. A. (2010). Transparency laws and interactive public relations: An analysis of Latin American government web sites. Public Relations Review, 36, 120–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.03.003
  • Solis, B., & Breakendridge, D. K. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.
  • Waddock, S. A. (2008). The development of corporate responsibility / corporate citizenship. Organization Management Journal, 5(1), 29–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/omj.2008.5
  • Wang, D. H. M., Chen, P. H., Yu, T. H. K., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2015). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 48, 2232–2236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.003

Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability

Year 2018, Issue: 55, 37 - 59, 28.12.2018

Hatun Boztepe Taşkıran

Abstract

From the critical approach public relations is evaluated as a whole series of strategies and practices that only benefits corporations and ignores mutual benefit and public welfare. In contrast, frequently used and investigated public relations concepts, such as symmetric public relations, dialogical public relations theory, relational paradigm, corporate social responsibility, and corporate sustainability, can answer the criticisms against the discipline. In light of this information, it can be said that there are two different perspectives in public relations literature towards outcomes of public relations. This study is designed to determine whether the argument that public relations is a management function that only benefits corporations is supported by Turkish public relations professionals. Also it is aimed to determine whether Turkish public relations professionals ignore public welfare. This study also presents how contemporary and ethical public relations strategies and practices that center on creating, maintaining, and reinforcing positive relationships between corporations and target audiences function in practice. Within the scope of this study, a research has been carried out with the participation of 107 Turkish public relations practitioners who are in charge of forming and practicing public relations strategies at public institutions, private enterprises, and non-governmental organizations or as freelance consultants. A questionnaire form has been designed and participants have been asked to answer questions which aim to determine the professional perceptions of public relations practitioners. The findings have demonstrated that Turkish public relations practitioners perceive their profession as a whole series of strategies and practices that serves the mutual benefit of corporations and target audiences.

Keywords

Corporate benefit mutual benefit relational paradigm dialogic public relations

References

  • Becerikli, S. Y. (2008). …Ve halkla ilişkiler şeytanın avukatlığından arabuluculuğa: Bir disiplinin eleştirel analizi. Ankara, Turkey: Karınca Yayınları.
  • Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Citical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_3
  • Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002
  • Böke, K. (2011). “Örnekleme”. In K. Böke (Ed.) Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (3rd eds., pp. 103–149). İstanbul, Turkey: Alfa Basım.
  • Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi – dimensional organization – public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80160-X
  • Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Organization and key public relationships: testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business – to – business context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management a relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 159–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Büchner, L. M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability from a global, european and corporate perspective: corporate social responsibility and sustainable governance. Eurolimes, 13, 41–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1.1.460.4110
  • Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia a seven – country study of CSR web site reporting. Business & Society, 44(4), 415–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650305281658
  • Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). Fringe public relations: How activism moves critical pr toward the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38, 880–887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.02.008
  • Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications theory and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.
  • Edwards, L. (2006). Rethinking power in public relations. Public Relations Review, 32, 229–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.05.013
  • Erdoğan, İ. (2005). İletişimi anlamak. (2nd ed.). Ankara, Turkey: Erk Yayınları.
  • Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two way symmetrical public relations past, present and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.) Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). California, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Grunig, J. E. (2006). After 50 years: The value and values of public relations. The Institute for Public Relations 45th Annual Distinguished Lecture, New York, 1–7.
  • Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Herbohn, K., Walker, J., Yien, H., & Loo, M. (2014). Corporate social responsibility: The link between sustainability disclosure and sustainability performance. ABACUS A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 50(4), 422–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/abac.12036
  • Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 72(1), 93–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1201_6
  • Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guideliness for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
  • Ihlen, Ø., & Van Ruler, B. (2007). How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives. Public Relations Review, 33, 243–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.001
  • Ihlen, Ø., Bartleet, J. L., & Steve M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and communication. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartleet & S. May (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 3–12). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization – public relationships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer – retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 225–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_2
  • Karasar, N. (1984). Bilimsel araştırma metodu. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe Taş Kitapçılık.
  • Mickey, T. J. (1997). A postmodern view of public relations: Sign and reality. Public Relations Review 23(3), 271–284. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90036-9
  • Moloney, K. (2005). Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review, 31, 550–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.015
  • Motion, J., & Weaver, C. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life sciences network and the battle for truth. Public Relations Research, 17(1), 49–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_5
  • Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632541111126346
  • Roper, J. (2011). Environmental risk, sustainability discources, and public relations, Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 69–87. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/2046147X11422147
  • Sayımer, İ. (2007). Halkla ilişkilerde etik sorunsalı: Simetrik iletişim yönlü bir değerlendirme. In İ. Sayımer & P. E. Yayınoğlu (Eds.) Halkla ilişkiler ve reklam üzerine etik değerlendirmeler (pp. 81–114). İstanbul, Turkey: Beta Basım.
  • Searson, E. M., & Johnson, M. A. (2010). Transparency laws and interactive public relations: An analysis of Latin American government web sites. Public Relations Review, 36, 120–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.03.003
  • Solis, B., & Breakendridge, D. K. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education.
  • Waddock, S. A. (2008). The development of corporate responsibility / corporate citizenship. Organization Management Journal, 5(1), 29–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/omj.2008.5
  • Wang, D. H. M., Chen, P. H., Yu, T. H. K., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2015). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 48, 2232–2236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.003
There are 32 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Communication and Media Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Hatun Boztepe Taşkıran

Publication Date December 28, 2018
Submission Date March 14, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Issue: 55

Cite

APA Boztepe Taşkıran, H. (2018). Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences(55), 37-59.
AMA Boztepe Taşkıran H. Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. December 2018;(55):37-59.
Chicago Boztepe Taşkıran, Hatun. “Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, no. 55 (December 2018): 37-59.
EndNote Boztepe Taşkıran H (December 1, 2018) Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 55 37–59.
IEEE H. Boztepe Taşkıran, “Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability”, Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, no. 55, pp. 37–59, December 2018.
ISNAD Boztepe Taşkıran, Hatun. “Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences 55 (December 2018), 37-59.
JAMA Boztepe Taşkıran H. Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 2018;:37–59.
MLA Boztepe Taşkıran, Hatun. “Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability”. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, no. 55, 2018, pp. 37-59.
Vancouver Boztepe Taşkıran H. Key Issues in Turkish Public Relations Practitioners’ Perception of the Profession: Relational Paradigm, Dialogic Public Relations, Symmetrical Public Relations, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences. 2018(55):37-59.
 Download Cover Image