Derleme
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Evaluation des relations publiques du point de vue socio-culturel : relations publiques comme métier intermédiaire culturel

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 32, 220 - 240, 27.06.2020

Beris Artan Özoran

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.668531
Cited By: 2

Öz

Pendant plusieurs années, le domaine des relations publiques était sous l’influence du paradigme de gestion. La considération des relations publiques en tant qu'outil de « gestion » cause l’affaiblissement des relations entre le domaine et la culture. Cependant, après les années 2000, il est possible d’observer que les études sur ces relations augmentent. L’augmentation des recherches et des études axées sur la culture, a entraîné un débat sur une éventuelle transformation « socio-culturelle » dans le domaine des relations publiques. Cet article a pour objectif de discuter les points de vu qui considèrent les relations publiques comme un métier « intermédiaire culturel ». Dans ce contexte, tout d'abord, les critiques envers le paradigme de gestion par les points de vu considérant les relations publiques sous des perspectives alternatives, ont été soulignés. Ensuite, il a été discuté de ce que l'on entend par transformations socioculturelles dans le domaine des relations publiques, et les approches considérant les relations publiques comme intermédiaires culturels ont été recueillies. Finalement, l'idée selon laquelle les relations publiques sont considérées comme intermédiaires culturels contenant une violence symbolique, a été discutée.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Relations publiques approche socio-culturelle outil culturel violence symbolique

Kaynakça

  • Aldoory, L. vd. (2008). Is It Still Just a Women’s Issue? A Study Of Work-Life Balance Among Men and Women in Public Relations. Public Relations Journal, 2(4), 1–20.
  • Allagui, I. (2017). Towards Organizational Activism in the UAE: A Case Study Approach. PR Rewiev, 43, 258-266.
  • Bardhan, N. ve Weaver K. (2011). Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi-paradigmatic Perspectives. London: Routledge. Becerikli, S. (2008). ... Ve Halkla İlişkiler. Ankara: Karınca Yayınları.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge:Polity Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1995). Pratik Nedenler: Eylem Kuramı Üzerine. (H. Tufan, Çev.), İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015a). Eril Tahakküm. (B. Yılmaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015b). Ayrım: Beğeni Yargısının Toplumsal Eleştirisi. (D. Fırat ve A. Günce Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
  • Brunner, B. (2006). Where Are The Women? A Content Analysis of Introductory Public Relations Textbooks. Public Relations Quarterly, 43–47.
  • Calhoun, C. (2007). Bourdieu Sosyolojisinin Ana Hatları. G. Çeğin vd. (Ed.), Ocak ve Zanaat içinde. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Curtin, P. ve Gaither, K. (2005). Privileging Identity, Difference and Power: The Circuit of Culture As a Basis for Public Relations Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91-115.
  • Dozier, D. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla ilişkiler İşlevinin Örgütlenişi. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 417-239). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Dozier, D, Grunig, L. ve Grınig, J. (2010). Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. NY: Routledge.
  • Dühring, L. (2015). Lost in Translation? On the Disciplinary Status of Public Relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(1), 5-23.
  • Dutta M. J, Pal M. (2011). Public Relations and Marginalization in a Global Context: A Postcolonial Critique. N. Bardhan ve C. K. Weaver (Ed.), Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts içinde (ss. 195–225). New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2009). Symbolic Power and Public Relations Practice: Locating Individual Practitioners in Their Social Context. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), s. 251-272.
  • Edwards, L. ve Hodges, E. M. C. (2011). Public Relations, Society and Culture. New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2011). Defining The Object of PR Research: A New Starting Point. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1): 7-30.
  • Edwards, L. (2012). Exploring The Role of Public Relations As A Cultural Intermediary Occupation. Cultural Sociology, 6(4), 438-454.
  • Featherstone, M. (2005). Postmodernizm ve Tüketim Kültürü. (M. Küçük, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Gabardi, W. (2001). Negotiating Postmodernism. London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Gilpin, D. R. ve Murphy, P. J. (2010). Implications of Complexity Theory for Public Relations. R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 71–83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gower, K. (2009). Halkla İlişkiler Araştırmaları Yol Ayrımında. F. Kesin ve P. Özdemir (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Grunig, J. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Modelleri. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 307- 348). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Grunig, J.(2009). Paradigms of Global Public Relations in an Age of Digitalisation. Prism, 6(2), 1-19.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern Values in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (1), 93-114.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2002). Towards a Postmodern Agenda for Public Relations. Public Relations Rewiev, 28, 251-264.
  • Holtzhausen, D. ve Voto, R. (2009). Resistance From The Margins: The Postmodern Public Relations Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.
  • Holtzhausen, D. vd., (2009). Exploding the Myth of The Symmetrical/Asymmetrical Dichtonomy: Public Relations Models in the New South Africa. Journal of Public Relations Research,15(4), 305-341.
  • Hon, L. C. vd. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve Kadın: Sorunlar ve Fırsatlar. J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde, (ss. 441-462), İstanbul, Rota Yayın.
  • Hutton, J. G. (1999). The Definition, Dimensions and Domain of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199-214.
  • L’Etang, J. (2005). Critical Public Relations: Some Reflections. Public Relations Review, 31, 521-526.
  • L’Etang, J. (2013). Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation. Sociology Compass, 7(10), 799-817.
  • McKie, D. ve Galloway, C. (2007). Climate Change After Denial: Global Reach, Global Responsibilities, and Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 368–376.
  • Mickey, T. (2003). Deconstructing Public Relations. London: Lawrance Erlbaum Publishers.
  • Munshi, D. ve Edwards, L. (2011). Understanding ‘Race’ in/and Public Relations: Where Do We Start And Where Should We Go? Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 349–367.
  • Munshi, D. ve Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing Spin Cycles: A Postcolonial Look at Public Relations, Greenwashing, and the Separation of Publics. Public Relations Review, 31, 513–520.
  • Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos Theory as a Model for Managing Issues and Crises. Public Relations Review, 22(2), 95–113.
  • Negus, K. (2002). The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and The Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies, 16(4), 501-515.
  • O’Connor, J. (2015). Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries. Regional Studies, 49(3), 374-387.
  • Özdemir, P. ve Yamanoğlu Aktaş, M. (2009). Disiplinlerarası Bir Alan Olarak Halkla İlişkiler: Türkiye’deki Akademik Çalışmalar Üzerine Niteliksel Bir İnceleme. F.Kesin ve P.Özdemir (Ed.) Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Rittenhofer, I. Ve Valentini, C. (2014). A “Practice Turn” for Global Public Relations: An Alternative Approach. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 2-19.
  • Shome, R ve Hegde, R (2002). Postcolonial Approaches to Communication: Charting the Terrain, Engaging the Intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249–270.
  • Toth, E. (2002). Postmodernism for Modernist Public Relations: The Cash Value and Application of Critical Research in Public Relations”, Public Relations Review, 28, 243-250.
  • Waymer, D. (2010). Does Public Relations Scholarship Have a Place in Race? R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 237–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Evaluating Public Relations Through Socio-Cultural Perspectives: Public Relations as a Cultural Intermediary Profession

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 32, 220 - 240, 27.06.2020

Beris Artan Özoran

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.668531
Cited By: 2

Öz

Public Relations field has been influenced by management paradigm through long years. Evaluating public relations as a mean of “management” caused suppression of public relations’ relationship with culture. However, studies addressing the relationship between public relations and culture has begun to increase after 2000’s. The rise in the culture-centered studies generated a discussion about whether it is a “socio-cultural turn” or not. The main purpose of this article is to discuss arguments which evaluate public relations as a “cultural intermediary” profession. In this scope, firstly the criticisms of alternative perspectives towards management paradigm was emphasized. Thereafter, the meaning of “socio-cultural turn” in public relations and perspectives that argue this profession as a cultural intermediary was discussed. Finally, the approach that accepts public relations as a symbolically violent cultural intermediary was mentioned.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Public relations socio-cultural perspective cultural intermediary symbolic violence

Kaynakça

  • Aldoory, L. vd. (2008). Is It Still Just a Women’s Issue? A Study Of Work-Life Balance Among Men and Women in Public Relations. Public Relations Journal, 2(4), 1–20.
  • Allagui, I. (2017). Towards Organizational Activism in the UAE: A Case Study Approach. PR Rewiev, 43, 258-266.
  • Bardhan, N. ve Weaver K. (2011). Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi-paradigmatic Perspectives. London: Routledge. Becerikli, S. (2008). ... Ve Halkla İlişkiler. Ankara: Karınca Yayınları.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge:Polity Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1995). Pratik Nedenler: Eylem Kuramı Üzerine. (H. Tufan, Çev.), İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015a). Eril Tahakküm. (B. Yılmaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015b). Ayrım: Beğeni Yargısının Toplumsal Eleştirisi. (D. Fırat ve A. Günce Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
  • Brunner, B. (2006). Where Are The Women? A Content Analysis of Introductory Public Relations Textbooks. Public Relations Quarterly, 43–47.
  • Calhoun, C. (2007). Bourdieu Sosyolojisinin Ana Hatları. G. Çeğin vd. (Ed.), Ocak ve Zanaat içinde. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Curtin, P. ve Gaither, K. (2005). Privileging Identity, Difference and Power: The Circuit of Culture As a Basis for Public Relations Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91-115.
  • Dozier, D. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla ilişkiler İşlevinin Örgütlenişi. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 417-239). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Dozier, D, Grunig, L. ve Grınig, J. (2010). Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. NY: Routledge.
  • Dühring, L. (2015). Lost in Translation? On the Disciplinary Status of Public Relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(1), 5-23.
  • Dutta M. J, Pal M. (2011). Public Relations and Marginalization in a Global Context: A Postcolonial Critique. N. Bardhan ve C. K. Weaver (Ed.), Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts içinde (ss. 195–225). New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2009). Symbolic Power and Public Relations Practice: Locating Individual Practitioners in Their Social Context. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), s. 251-272.
  • Edwards, L. ve Hodges, E. M. C. (2011). Public Relations, Society and Culture. New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2011). Defining The Object of PR Research: A New Starting Point. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1): 7-30.
  • Edwards, L. (2012). Exploring The Role of Public Relations As A Cultural Intermediary Occupation. Cultural Sociology, 6(4), 438-454.
  • Featherstone, M. (2005). Postmodernizm ve Tüketim Kültürü. (M. Küçük, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Gabardi, W. (2001). Negotiating Postmodernism. London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Gilpin, D. R. ve Murphy, P. J. (2010). Implications of Complexity Theory for Public Relations. R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 71–83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gower, K. (2009). Halkla İlişkiler Araştırmaları Yol Ayrımında. F. Kesin ve P. Özdemir (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Grunig, J. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Modelleri. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 307- 348). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Grunig, J.(2009). Paradigms of Global Public Relations in an Age of Digitalisation. Prism, 6(2), 1-19.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern Values in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (1), 93-114.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2002). Towards a Postmodern Agenda for Public Relations. Public Relations Rewiev, 28, 251-264.
  • Holtzhausen, D. ve Voto, R. (2009). Resistance From The Margins: The Postmodern Public Relations Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.
  • Holtzhausen, D. vd., (2009). Exploding the Myth of The Symmetrical/Asymmetrical Dichtonomy: Public Relations Models in the New South Africa. Journal of Public Relations Research,15(4), 305-341.
  • Hon, L. C. vd. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve Kadın: Sorunlar ve Fırsatlar. J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde, (ss. 441-462), İstanbul, Rota Yayın.
  • Hutton, J. G. (1999). The Definition, Dimensions and Domain of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199-214.
  • L’Etang, J. (2005). Critical Public Relations: Some Reflections. Public Relations Review, 31, 521-526.
  • L’Etang, J. (2013). Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation. Sociology Compass, 7(10), 799-817.
  • McKie, D. ve Galloway, C. (2007). Climate Change After Denial: Global Reach, Global Responsibilities, and Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 368–376.
  • Mickey, T. (2003). Deconstructing Public Relations. London: Lawrance Erlbaum Publishers.
  • Munshi, D. ve Edwards, L. (2011). Understanding ‘Race’ in/and Public Relations: Where Do We Start And Where Should We Go? Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 349–367.
  • Munshi, D. ve Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing Spin Cycles: A Postcolonial Look at Public Relations, Greenwashing, and the Separation of Publics. Public Relations Review, 31, 513–520.
  • Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos Theory as a Model for Managing Issues and Crises. Public Relations Review, 22(2), 95–113.
  • Negus, K. (2002). The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and The Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies, 16(4), 501-515.
  • O’Connor, J. (2015). Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries. Regional Studies, 49(3), 374-387.
  • Özdemir, P. ve Yamanoğlu Aktaş, M. (2009). Disiplinlerarası Bir Alan Olarak Halkla İlişkiler: Türkiye’deki Akademik Çalışmalar Üzerine Niteliksel Bir İnceleme. F.Kesin ve P.Özdemir (Ed.) Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Rittenhofer, I. Ve Valentini, C. (2014). A “Practice Turn” for Global Public Relations: An Alternative Approach. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 2-19.
  • Shome, R ve Hegde, R (2002). Postcolonial Approaches to Communication: Charting the Terrain, Engaging the Intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249–270.
  • Toth, E. (2002). Postmodernism for Modernist Public Relations: The Cash Value and Application of Critical Research in Public Relations”, Public Relations Review, 28, 243-250.
  • Waymer, D. (2010). Does Public Relations Scholarship Have a Place in Race? R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 237–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Halkla İlişkileri Sosyo-Kültürel Perspektiften Değerlendirmek: Kültürel Aracı Bir Meslek Olarak Halkla İlişkiler

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 32, 220 - 240, 27.06.2020

Beris Artan Özoran

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.668531
Cited By: 2

Öz

Halkla ilişkiler alanı uzun yıllar yönetim paradigmasının etkisinde kalmıştır. Halkla ilişkilerin bir “yönetim” aracı olarak ele alınması, alanın kültürle ilişkisinin geri planda kalmasına neden olmaktadır. Ancak 2000’li yıllardan sonra halkla ilişkilerle kültür arasındaki ilişkiyi irdeleyen çalışmaların artmaya başladığı görülmektedir. Kültürü merkeze alan araştırmaların ve çalışmaların artması, halkla ilişkiler alanında “sosyo-kültürel” bir dönüşüm yaşandığı tartışmasını başlatmıştır. Makalenin amacı halkla ilişkileri “kültürel aracı” bir meslek olarak konumlandıran görüşleri tartışmaktır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle, halkla ilişkileri alternatif bakış açılarıyla değerlendiren görüşlerin, yönetim paradigmasına yönelttiği eleştiriler üzerinde durulmuştur. Daha sonra halkla ilişkilerdeki sosyo-kültürel dönüşümün ne anlama geldiği tartışılmış ve halkla ilişkileri kültürel aracı olarak ele alan yaklaşımlar derlenmiştir. Son olarak, halkla ilişkilerin simgesel şiddet içeren bir kültürel aracı olarak değerlendirilen görüş tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

halkla ilişkiler sosyo-kültürel yaklaşım kültürel aracı sembolik şiddet

Kaynakça

  • Aldoory, L. vd. (2008). Is It Still Just a Women’s Issue? A Study Of Work-Life Balance Among Men and Women in Public Relations. Public Relations Journal, 2(4), 1–20.
  • Allagui, I. (2017). Towards Organizational Activism in the UAE: A Case Study Approach. PR Rewiev, 43, 258-266.
  • Bardhan, N. ve Weaver K. (2011). Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts: Multi-paradigmatic Perspectives. London: Routledge. Becerikli, S. (2008). ... Ve Halkla İlişkiler. Ankara: Karınca Yayınları.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge:Polity Press.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1995). Pratik Nedenler: Eylem Kuramı Üzerine. (H. Tufan, Çev.), İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015a). Eril Tahakküm. (B. Yılmaz, Çev.). İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2015b). Ayrım: Beğeni Yargısının Toplumsal Eleştirisi. (D. Fırat ve A. Günce Berkkurt, Çev.). Ankara: Heretik Yayıncılık.
  • Brunner, B. (2006). Where Are The Women? A Content Analysis of Introductory Public Relations Textbooks. Public Relations Quarterly, 43–47.
  • Calhoun, C. (2007). Bourdieu Sosyolojisinin Ana Hatları. G. Çeğin vd. (Ed.), Ocak ve Zanaat içinde. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Curtin, P. ve Gaither, K. (2005). Privileging Identity, Difference and Power: The Circuit of Culture As a Basis for Public Relations Theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91-115.
  • Dozier, D. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla ilişkiler İşlevinin Örgütlenişi. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 417-239). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Dozier, D, Grunig, L. ve Grınig, J. (2010). Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. NY: Routledge.
  • Dühring, L. (2015). Lost in Translation? On the Disciplinary Status of Public Relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(1), 5-23.
  • Dutta M. J, Pal M. (2011). Public Relations and Marginalization in a Global Context: A Postcolonial Critique. N. Bardhan ve C. K. Weaver (Ed.), Public Relations in Global Cultural Contexts içinde (ss. 195–225). New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2009). Symbolic Power and Public Relations Practice: Locating Individual Practitioners in Their Social Context. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(3), s. 251-272.
  • Edwards, L. ve Hodges, E. M. C. (2011). Public Relations, Society and Culture. New York: Routledge.
  • Edwards, L. (2011). Defining The Object of PR Research: A New Starting Point. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1): 7-30.
  • Edwards, L. (2012). Exploring The Role of Public Relations As A Cultural Intermediary Occupation. Cultural Sociology, 6(4), 438-454.
  • Featherstone, M. (2005). Postmodernizm ve Tüketim Kültürü. (M. Küçük, Çev.). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  • Gabardi, W. (2001). Negotiating Postmodernism. London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Gilpin, D. R. ve Murphy, P. J. (2010). Implications of Complexity Theory for Public Relations. R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 71–83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gower, K. (2009). Halkla İlişkiler Araştırmaları Yol Ayrımında. F. Kesin ve P. Özdemir (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Grunig, J. ve Grunig, L. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Modelleri. J. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde (ss. 307- 348). İstanbul: Tribeca.
  • Grunig, J.(2009). Paradigms of Global Public Relations in an Age of Digitalisation. Prism, 6(2), 1-19.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern Values in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (1), 93-114.
  • Holtzhausen, D. (2002). Towards a Postmodern Agenda for Public Relations. Public Relations Rewiev, 28, 251-264.
  • Holtzhausen, D. ve Voto, R. (2009). Resistance From The Margins: The Postmodern Public Relations Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.
  • Holtzhausen, D. vd., (2009). Exploding the Myth of The Symmetrical/Asymmetrical Dichtonomy: Public Relations Models in the New South Africa. Journal of Public Relations Research,15(4), 305-341.
  • Hon, L. C. vd. (2005). Halkla İlişkiler ve Kadın: Sorunlar ve Fırsatlar. J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Halkla İlişkiler ve İletişim Yönetiminde Mükemmellik içinde, (ss. 441-462), İstanbul, Rota Yayın.
  • Hutton, J. G. (1999). The Definition, Dimensions and Domain of Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199-214.
  • L’Etang, J. (2005). Critical Public Relations: Some Reflections. Public Relations Review, 31, 521-526.
  • L’Etang, J. (2013). Public Relations: A Discipline in Transformation. Sociology Compass, 7(10), 799-817.
  • McKie, D. ve Galloway, C. (2007). Climate Change After Denial: Global Reach, Global Responsibilities, and Public Relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 368–376.
  • Mickey, T. (2003). Deconstructing Public Relations. London: Lawrance Erlbaum Publishers.
  • Munshi, D. ve Edwards, L. (2011). Understanding ‘Race’ in/and Public Relations: Where Do We Start And Where Should We Go? Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 349–367.
  • Munshi, D. ve Kurian, P. (2005). Imperializing Spin Cycles: A Postcolonial Look at Public Relations, Greenwashing, and the Separation of Publics. Public Relations Review, 31, 513–520.
  • Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos Theory as a Model for Managing Issues and Crises. Public Relations Review, 22(2), 95–113.
  • Negus, K. (2002). The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and The Enduring Distance Between Production and Consumption. Cultural Studies, 16(4), 501-515.
  • O’Connor, J. (2015). Intermediaries and Imaginaries in the Cultural and Creative Industries. Regional Studies, 49(3), 374-387.
  • Özdemir, P. ve Yamanoğlu Aktaş, M. (2009). Disiplinlerarası Bir Alan Olarak Halkla İlişkiler: Türkiye’deki Akademik Çalışmalar Üzerine Niteliksel Bir İnceleme. F.Kesin ve P.Özdemir (Ed.) Halkla İlişkiler Üzerine içinde. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Rittenhofer, I. Ve Valentini, C. (2014). A “Practice Turn” for Global Public Relations: An Alternative Approach. Journal of Communication Management, 19(1), 2-19.
  • Shome, R ve Hegde, R (2002). Postcolonial Approaches to Communication: Charting the Terrain, Engaging the Intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249–270.
  • Toth, E. (2002). Postmodernism for Modernist Public Relations: The Cash Value and Application of Critical Research in Public Relations”, Public Relations Review, 28, 243-250.
  • Waymer, D. (2010). Does Public Relations Scholarship Have a Place in Race? R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations (ss. 237–246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Toplam 44 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Beris Artan Özoran 0000-0002-1814-4323

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Haziran 2020
Kabul Tarihi 21 Ocak 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020Sayı: 32

Kaynak Göster

APA Artan Özoran, B. (2020). Halkla İlişkileri Sosyo-Kültürel Perspektiften Değerlendirmek: Kültürel Aracı Bir Meslek Olarak Halkla İlişkiler. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi(32), 220-240. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.668531

Cited By

Halkla İlişkiler Aracı Olarak Belediyelerde Kültür Sanat Yönetimi: Bir Metropol Örneği
Journal of Literature and Humanities
https://doi.org/10.55590/literatureandhumanities.1514982
Halkla İlişkilerin Toplumsal Dönüştürücü Rolü Bağlamında Sürdürülebilirlik ve İklim Krizi Üzerine Bir Deneme
Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1038197
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Creative Commons Lisansı TRDizinlogo_live-e1586763957746.png