A Systematic Review of Digital Public Relations Research in PRR
VerifiedAdded on 2021/07/05
|11
|8770
|98
Report
AI Summary
This report presents a systematic review of the research on the intersection of public relations and digital, social, and mobile (DSM) media, based on an analysis of articles published in the Public Relations Review over a 35-year period. The study explores the evolving terminology, the primary users of these technologies, and the focus on specific media, such as the Internet and social media. The review addresses key research questions, including the problems studied, the consistency of terminology, the stakeholders involved, and the balance between digital and non-digital media in public relations practices. The authors find a lop-sided growth in the field, primarily focusing on using DSM media as tools for media relations with limited attention to stakeholders and issues such as the digital divide and privacy. The research highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of DSM media's impact on public relations and the blurring of lines between public relations, advertising, and journalism.
Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 142–152
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Looking for digital in public relations
Dejan Verˇciˇca,∗
, Ana Tkalac Verˇciˇcb, Krishnamurthy Srirameshc
a Universityof Ljubljana,Slovenia
b Universityof Zagreb,Croatia
c PurdueUniversity,USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received24 November 2014
Accepted8 December2014
Keywords:
Public relations
Digital communication
Mobile media
Social media
Millennials
Systematic
a b s t r a c t
The purpose of this study was to review the growth of the body of knowledge on the nexus
between public relations and ICTs, and digital, social and mobile (DSM) media. We also
soughtto assesswhether these“new” media had induced the body of knowledge to redefine
the term public and whether these media had induced us to think differently with regard
to the rules of engagementwith these publics. Our review of over 35 yearsof articlesin the
Public Relations Review that discussedICTs and DSM media revealeda lop-sided growth
of the field. But the focus has almost exclusively been on using these media as “tools” for
purposes of media relations with negligent study of DSM media stakeholdersand publics.
Issuesof the Digital Divide and Privacy are absent,while amalgamationof public relations,
advertisingand journalism in DSM media is overlooked.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Public relations, as an applied managementand communication discipline, finds itself greatly affected by information
and communication technologies(ICT), especiallyin the past decade.Dealing with digital/social/mobile media is among the
top three concerns in practice (Zerfass,Tench, Verˇciˇc, Verhoeven, & Moreno, 2014) and positions in jobs related to these
media will be among the drivers of new employment in public relations in the US at least until 2022 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics,2014).Thesenew realities are also reflectedin the growing attention from public relations scholars to themesand
problems of digital, mobile, social communication and media. These technologies are evolving so fast that research about
them is always playing catch-up. But we need to stop and think about these tools and device appropriate strategies for
harnessing them for relationship managementby organizations. At the outset, it is far from clear what this domain is all
about. A review of scholarship about the link between digital media and public relations gives us various nomenclatures
for the relationship: digital public relations(Yaxley, 2012), interactiveonline communication(Kelleher, 2009), world wide web
(Kent & Taylor, 1998; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001),the Internetas a medium (Morris & Ogan,1996),from 2000s mobileas the
7th of the mass media (after print from 1500s,recordings from 1900s,cinema from 1910s,radio from 1920s,TV from 1950s,
the Internet from 1990s; Ahonen, 2008), social media (Freberg,2013), social and emergingmedia (Wright & Drifka Hinson,
2013), social media as public relations tactics (Taylor & Kent, 2010), websitepublic relations (Sommerfeldt, Kent, & Taylor,
2012), online public relations(Hallahan, 2013), and onlinement(Heinderyckx, 2014). We contend that none of these terms
covers the relationship adequately,which prompted us to conduct a review of studies that have addressedthe relationship
between public relations and digital, social, mobile (DSM) media.
∗ Correspondingauthor at: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences,Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.Tel.: +38641688146.
E-mail address:dejan.vercic@fdv.uni-lj.si(D. Verˇciˇc).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.002
0363-8111/©2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Looking for digital in public relations
Dejan Verˇciˇca,∗
, Ana Tkalac Verˇciˇcb, Krishnamurthy Srirameshc
a Universityof Ljubljana,Slovenia
b Universityof Zagreb,Croatia
c PurdueUniversity,USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Articlehistory:
Received24 November 2014
Accepted8 December2014
Keywords:
Public relations
Digital communication
Mobile media
Social media
Millennials
Systematic
a b s t r a c t
The purpose of this study was to review the growth of the body of knowledge on the nexus
between public relations and ICTs, and digital, social and mobile (DSM) media. We also
soughtto assesswhether these“new” media had induced the body of knowledge to redefine
the term public and whether these media had induced us to think differently with regard
to the rules of engagementwith these publics. Our review of over 35 yearsof articlesin the
Public Relations Review that discussedICTs and DSM media revealeda lop-sided growth
of the field. But the focus has almost exclusively been on using these media as “tools” for
purposes of media relations with negligent study of DSM media stakeholdersand publics.
Issuesof the Digital Divide and Privacy are absent,while amalgamationof public relations,
advertisingand journalism in DSM media is overlooked.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Public relations, as an applied managementand communication discipline, finds itself greatly affected by information
and communication technologies(ICT), especiallyin the past decade.Dealing with digital/social/mobile media is among the
top three concerns in practice (Zerfass,Tench, Verˇciˇc, Verhoeven, & Moreno, 2014) and positions in jobs related to these
media will be among the drivers of new employment in public relations in the US at least until 2022 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics,2014).Thesenew realities are also reflectedin the growing attention from public relations scholars to themesand
problems of digital, mobile, social communication and media. These technologies are evolving so fast that research about
them is always playing catch-up. But we need to stop and think about these tools and device appropriate strategies for
harnessing them for relationship managementby organizations. At the outset, it is far from clear what this domain is all
about. A review of scholarship about the link between digital media and public relations gives us various nomenclatures
for the relationship: digital public relations(Yaxley, 2012), interactiveonline communication(Kelleher, 2009), world wide web
(Kent & Taylor, 1998; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001),the Internetas a medium (Morris & Ogan,1996),from 2000s mobileas the
7th of the mass media (after print from 1500s,recordings from 1900s,cinema from 1910s,radio from 1920s,TV from 1950s,
the Internet from 1990s; Ahonen, 2008), social media (Freberg,2013), social and emergingmedia (Wright & Drifka Hinson,
2013), social media as public relations tactics (Taylor & Kent, 2010), websitepublic relations (Sommerfeldt, Kent, & Taylor,
2012), online public relations(Hallahan, 2013), and onlinement(Heinderyckx, 2014). We contend that none of these terms
covers the relationship adequately,which prompted us to conduct a review of studies that have addressedthe relationship
between public relations and digital, social, mobile (DSM) media.
∗ Correspondingauthor at: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences,Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.Tel.: +38641688146.
E-mail address:dejan.vercic@fdv.uni-lj.si(D. Verˇciˇc).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.002
0363-8111/©2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
D. Verˇciˇc et al. / Public RelationsReview41 (2015)142–152 143
Public relations has been interestedin the uses of, and consequencesfrom, ICTs for a long time with scholars studying the
phenomenon and its transformations as these evolved.In 1994, in the first of what becamethe annual international public
relations research symposium popularly named BledCom – John V. Pavlik presented a paper on New media technologies
and public relations:Consideringthe consequencesof the information highway. Two years later, in 1996, the third BledCom
addressedthe theme: Takingpublic relationsin the electronicage.Ten years ago,BledCom again addressedthis medium with
the theme: New conceptsand technologiesfor publicrelations,publicaffairsand corporatecommunication.The relevanceof this
medium prompted BledCom to addressit again in 2014 with the theme: Digital Public Relations: New Rules, New Publics.
The opportunities ICTs offer public relations was best presented in 1999 as the 95 Theses of The Cluetrain Manifesto
(Levine, Locke, Searls, & Weinberger, 2000), a text published as a website (www.cluetrain.com) starting with the thesis:
“Markets are conversations.”Other thesesdirectly relevant to public relations are:
6:“The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass
media.”
7: “Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.”
12: “There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And
whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.”
19: “Companiescan now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.”
26: “Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.”
To public relations scholars,The CluetrainManifestoreads like a manifesto for the two-way symmetrical model of public
relations first proposed by Grunig and Hunt (1984).It promises the transformation of our society into a non-hierarchical and
transparentdiscursive community. Its thesesresonatewith meliorist tendenciesof the Excellencetheory of public relations
(Grunig & Grunig, 2008),the cultivation of relationships theory (Hung, 2007; Ledingham& Bruning, 2000) and co-orientation
(Verˇciˇc, 2008). It is therefore expectedthat the Internet and all other technologiesit enabled would have a profound effect
on the development of public relations research and theory. Therefore we are interested in seeing how the impact of the
ICT revolution was perceived by public relations scholars. We decided to conduct a systematic review of articles on this
subject published in the oldest peer-reviewed journal in our field – Public RelationsReviewto addressthe following research
questions:
RQ1. What problems are public relations researchersstudying in the nexus between public relations and digital, social,
mobile media?
RQ2. Is the terminology used in analyzed studies consistent and clear? Which terms are used most often?
RQ3. Who are the prime users of these technologies? Corporations, governments,agencies,NGOs?
RQ4. What are the prime technologiesstudied among the Internet, social media, and mobile?
RQ5. Who is on the other side of these attempts? That is, which stakeholdersand publics are the objects of this commu-
nication?
RQ6. How much researchis there in publics, “new” and “old” in this context?
RQ7. Is the almost singular focus on digital media, which are after all instruments of the elite, healthy to the field of public
relations? Is such a focus affecting how we communicate with publics who do not have accessto the digital media who
constitute the majority of the world population?
RQ8. Are we paying enough attention to the blurring of boundaries between public relations and digital journalism,
advertising,and marketing?
RQ9. What are some of the issues that digital media spawn for public relations and how have we addressedthose (e.g.
Freedom of information and privacy issues)?
2. Methodology
There is a growing number of studiesexploring the application of new communication technologiesin public relations but
there is no guiding theory, framework, or even unified terminology. Since systematicreviews have a potential to delineate
an area for both the practice and academic research (Briner & Denyer, 2012) our method of reviewing all articles in the
oldest journal seemed appropriate. A systematic review addressesa specific question (or a set of questions), applies clear
and replicable methods and through this accomplishes an exhaustive literature review as well as a critical assessmentof
specific studies. By approaching a body of literature this way it is possible to draw conclusions on what is known and what
is not known on a particular topic. Systematic means “. . .reviewers follow an appropriate (but not standardized or rigid)
design and that they communicate what they have done.”(Briner & Denyer,2012, pp 329).
According to Victor (2008) there are three alternativeapproachesto systematicreviews. The one chosenfor our particular
purpose,the integrativeapproach,is aimed at building theory basedon the review. The integrativereview analysesemerging
Public relations has been interestedin the uses of, and consequencesfrom, ICTs for a long time with scholars studying the
phenomenon and its transformations as these evolved.In 1994, in the first of what becamethe annual international public
relations research symposium popularly named BledCom – John V. Pavlik presented a paper on New media technologies
and public relations:Consideringthe consequencesof the information highway. Two years later, in 1996, the third BledCom
addressedthe theme: Takingpublic relationsin the electronicage.Ten years ago,BledCom again addressedthis medium with
the theme: New conceptsand technologiesfor publicrelations,publicaffairsand corporatecommunication.The relevanceof this
medium prompted BledCom to addressit again in 2014 with the theme: Digital Public Relations: New Rules, New Publics.
The opportunities ICTs offer public relations was best presented in 1999 as the 95 Theses of The Cluetrain Manifesto
(Levine, Locke, Searls, & Weinberger, 2000), a text published as a website (www.cluetrain.com) starting with the thesis:
“Markets are conversations.”Other thesesdirectly relevant to public relations are:
6:“The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass
media.”
7: “Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.”
12: “There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And
whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.”
19: “Companiescan now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.”
26: “Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.”
To public relations scholars,The CluetrainManifestoreads like a manifesto for the two-way symmetrical model of public
relations first proposed by Grunig and Hunt (1984).It promises the transformation of our society into a non-hierarchical and
transparentdiscursive community. Its thesesresonatewith meliorist tendenciesof the Excellencetheory of public relations
(Grunig & Grunig, 2008),the cultivation of relationships theory (Hung, 2007; Ledingham& Bruning, 2000) and co-orientation
(Verˇciˇc, 2008). It is therefore expectedthat the Internet and all other technologiesit enabled would have a profound effect
on the development of public relations research and theory. Therefore we are interested in seeing how the impact of the
ICT revolution was perceived by public relations scholars. We decided to conduct a systematic review of articles on this
subject published in the oldest peer-reviewed journal in our field – Public RelationsReviewto addressthe following research
questions:
RQ1. What problems are public relations researchersstudying in the nexus between public relations and digital, social,
mobile media?
RQ2. Is the terminology used in analyzed studies consistent and clear? Which terms are used most often?
RQ3. Who are the prime users of these technologies? Corporations, governments,agencies,NGOs?
RQ4. What are the prime technologiesstudied among the Internet, social media, and mobile?
RQ5. Who is on the other side of these attempts? That is, which stakeholdersand publics are the objects of this commu-
nication?
RQ6. How much researchis there in publics, “new” and “old” in this context?
RQ7. Is the almost singular focus on digital media, which are after all instruments of the elite, healthy to the field of public
relations? Is such a focus affecting how we communicate with publics who do not have accessto the digital media who
constitute the majority of the world population?
RQ8. Are we paying enough attention to the blurring of boundaries between public relations and digital journalism,
advertising,and marketing?
RQ9. What are some of the issues that digital media spawn for public relations and how have we addressedthose (e.g.
Freedom of information and privacy issues)?
2. Methodology
There is a growing number of studiesexploring the application of new communication technologiesin public relations but
there is no guiding theory, framework, or even unified terminology. Since systematicreviews have a potential to delineate
an area for both the practice and academic research (Briner & Denyer, 2012) our method of reviewing all articles in the
oldest journal seemed appropriate. A systematic review addressesa specific question (or a set of questions), applies clear
and replicable methods and through this accomplishes an exhaustive literature review as well as a critical assessmentof
specific studies. By approaching a body of literature this way it is possible to draw conclusions on what is known and what
is not known on a particular topic. Systematic means “. . .reviewers follow an appropriate (but not standardized or rigid)
design and that they communicate what they have done.”(Briner & Denyer,2012, pp 329).
According to Victor (2008) there are three alternativeapproachesto systematicreviews. The one chosenfor our particular
purpose,the integrativeapproach,is aimed at building theory basedon the review. The integrativereview analysesemerging
144 D. Verˇciˇc et al. / PublicRelationsReview41 (2015)142–152
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Social media and digital commun on Crisis commun on
Graph 1. Number of papers mentioned through time.
areas or topics that are in need of a conceptualization or synthesis of published studies. This type of review can be used for
stimulating further research(Torraco, 2005), the main aim of this paper.
Becausethe research questions we wished to address were relatively diverse, we decided to use a less prescribed pro-
cedure that relies on researcher’sexpertise and judgment (as suggestedby Victor, 2008). This meant conducting a review
of how digital communication technologies have influenced public relations. In conducting this review we slightly modi-
fied the classic five-step approach which includes (1) key word and term identification; (2) study identification; (3) quality
assessment;(4) data extraction, and (5) data synthesis (Walker, 2010).
The first step in the process was to identify the key terms in order to define the body of articles for analysis. One of the
main problems in the area of using digital technologiesin public relations is a relatively confused terminology so this step
presented a challenge.Since our unit of analysis was only one journal, we decided to go through all published articles in
that journal. As a pre-test we analyzed the 50 most recent articles (published in 2012, 2013, and 2014) based on the title
and short abstract that hinted any type of digital use in public relations. After compiling the articles we extracted all the
terms that were to be used in further analysis (digital media, digital natives, e-service, Facebook,Internet, mobile public
relations, mobile websites,new media, online, online newsrooms, podcasts,smartphones,social media, blogs, micro-blogs,
social networking sites, tweet, Twitter, viral, Web 2.0, websites).
After defining the key terms, the second step was to identify the studies that would be analyzed.By using the previously
identified key terms we ended up with the sample size of 155 articles.Even though the third step in a systematicreview calls
for a quality assessmentof published articles, our decision to analyze only one journal allowed us to include all published
studies.In the fourth step,dataextraction,we used a pro-forma data-extractionfrom Walker (2010)which included the name
of the author(s), title, year published, abstract,geographicarea,methods used, major topic of study, the source analyzed in
the paper, the media analyzed in the paper, the receivers(publics) analyzed in the paper, and additional comments.Finally,
our researchquestions guided the data synthesis and analysis that is presentedfurther.
3. Results
Interestingly, the first article mentioning the term website in the context of public relations was published in Public
RelationsReviewin 1975. Individual mentions of new digital realities continued, but a breakthrough happenedin 1996 with
twelve publications. As one would expect, the number of publications has steadily risen since then. But with the whole
practice of public relations steadily growing for the past 20 years and since the number of published articles per volume is
increasingthrough years,we decidedto control the rise of publications dealing with DSM public relations with those dealing
with a similarly appealing domain such as crisis public relations. As shown in Graph 1, the quantity of articles dealing with
DSM public relations is steadily growing since 1996, but not necessarilymore than publications in other areasattractive for
research,like crisis public relations.
This is a counterintuitive finding as one would expect public relations researchersto focus on the domain that is gaining
in importance in practice and that may be the largest providers of new jobs in the sector. It shows inertia of academia in
general,and of public relations in particular.
3.1. RQ1 (problemsstudied)and RQ2 (terminology)
A review of terms used in the 155 published articles shows that 63 different terms were used in the context of DSM
media, with the top five by frequencyof use being social media, Twitter, websites,the Internet and web sites that appeared
nearly two thirds (95) of all titles. What is surprising in this list is the near absenceof mobile with only three titles (mobile
public relations, mobile websites and smartphones)(Table 1).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Social media and digital commun on Crisis commun on
Graph 1. Number of papers mentioned through time.
areas or topics that are in need of a conceptualization or synthesis of published studies. This type of review can be used for
stimulating further research(Torraco, 2005), the main aim of this paper.
Becausethe research questions we wished to address were relatively diverse, we decided to use a less prescribed pro-
cedure that relies on researcher’sexpertise and judgment (as suggestedby Victor, 2008). This meant conducting a review
of how digital communication technologies have influenced public relations. In conducting this review we slightly modi-
fied the classic five-step approach which includes (1) key word and term identification; (2) study identification; (3) quality
assessment;(4) data extraction, and (5) data synthesis (Walker, 2010).
The first step in the process was to identify the key terms in order to define the body of articles for analysis. One of the
main problems in the area of using digital technologiesin public relations is a relatively confused terminology so this step
presented a challenge.Since our unit of analysis was only one journal, we decided to go through all published articles in
that journal. As a pre-test we analyzed the 50 most recent articles (published in 2012, 2013, and 2014) based on the title
and short abstract that hinted any type of digital use in public relations. After compiling the articles we extracted all the
terms that were to be used in further analysis (digital media, digital natives, e-service, Facebook,Internet, mobile public
relations, mobile websites,new media, online, online newsrooms, podcasts,smartphones,social media, blogs, micro-blogs,
social networking sites, tweet, Twitter, viral, Web 2.0, websites).
After defining the key terms, the second step was to identify the studies that would be analyzed.By using the previously
identified key terms we ended up with the sample size of 155 articles.Even though the third step in a systematicreview calls
for a quality assessmentof published articles, our decision to analyze only one journal allowed us to include all published
studies.In the fourth step,dataextraction,we used a pro-forma data-extractionfrom Walker (2010)which included the name
of the author(s), title, year published, abstract,geographicarea,methods used, major topic of study, the source analyzed in
the paper, the media analyzed in the paper, the receivers(publics) analyzed in the paper, and additional comments.Finally,
our researchquestions guided the data synthesis and analysis that is presentedfurther.
3. Results
Interestingly, the first article mentioning the term website in the context of public relations was published in Public
RelationsReviewin 1975. Individual mentions of new digital realities continued, but a breakthrough happenedin 1996 with
twelve publications. As one would expect, the number of publications has steadily risen since then. But with the whole
practice of public relations steadily growing for the past 20 years and since the number of published articles per volume is
increasingthrough years,we decidedto control the rise of publications dealing with DSM public relations with those dealing
with a similarly appealing domain such as crisis public relations. As shown in Graph 1, the quantity of articles dealing with
DSM public relations is steadily growing since 1996, but not necessarilymore than publications in other areasattractive for
research,like crisis public relations.
This is a counterintuitive finding as one would expect public relations researchersto focus on the domain that is gaining
in importance in practice and that may be the largest providers of new jobs in the sector. It shows inertia of academia in
general,and of public relations in particular.
3.1. RQ1 (problemsstudied)and RQ2 (terminology)
A review of terms used in the 155 published articles shows that 63 different terms were used in the context of DSM
media, with the top five by frequencyof use being social media, Twitter, websites,the Internet and web sites that appeared
nearly two thirds (95) of all titles. What is surprising in this list is the near absenceof mobile with only three titles (mobile
public relations, mobile websites and smartphones)(Table 1).
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
D. Verˇciˇc et al. / Public RelationsReview41 (2015)142–152 145
Table 1
Terms mentioned in article titles.
Social media 30
Twitter 15
Websites 15
Internet 13
Web sites 13
World wide web 9
Blogs 8
Facebook 7
Online 7
Digital age 3
New media 3
Blog posts 2
Blogger 2
Blogging 2
Cyberspace 2
Digital natives 2
E-mail 2
Online media relations 2
Online public relations 2
Social network sites 2
Tweet 2
Web 2
Web 2.0 2
Web pages 2
Weblogs 2
Blog engagement,Blog power, Blogosphere,Cell phones,Cyber-PR,Digital media, Digital public relations,
E-releases,E-service,Following, Information age,Liking, Micro-blogs, Mobile public relations,Mobile
websites,Nanoblogging,New communication technologies,New technologies,Online news forum,
Online newsrooms,Online social media, Online strategiccommunication,Online wire services,
Podcasts,Smartphones,Social media newsrooms,Social media platforms,Social media release,Social
media websites,Social networking, Technology,Video news releases,Viral, Virtual public relations,Web
analytics,Web power, Web presence,Web use,Web-based corporate press rooms, Youtube
Only once each
As evidentin the table,DSM is predominantly about media and media relations and,again,the academicloci of researchers
determineswhat it is they are interestedin and how it is studied.With most public relations programslocatedin departments
of communication and journalism, it is no surprise that study of this new domain is done though the lenses of traditional
(mass media) communication and journalism disciplines.
We selectedthe seventerms most frequently used in the titles and run a search.Here we report results for the five most
frequently used through time. In Graph 2 we see a continuing popularity of website analysis since 1996, while since 2009
social media take over the primacy.
With social media taking primacy one would expect that social nature of communication processeswill gain in impor-
tance.We review that below.
3.2. The prime usersof thesetechnologies(RQ3),the prime technologies(RQ4),stakeholdersand publics(RQ5)
We analyzed the 155 articles searchingfor types of organizations involved in public relations activities by sector.That is,
how and in which DSM public relations they were involved in and who their stakeholdersand/or publics were. As Table 2
shows, the organizations most involved in these media are businesses,followed by government,political parties and can-
didates, and finally civil society organizations (activists, NGOs). We identified a fourth type of organization – universities,
which can belong to any of the three groups. This is a result of a popularity of content analysis of different media in com-
munication studies (where hammers produce nails) and when this paper is published as an article will fall in the same
category.
Looking for sources (RQ3) revealed that businesses are on the top spot, followed by civil society organizations and
governments. We isolated public relations practitionersas a separate group because 12 articles discussed them. What is
interesting is that for 40 articles we were unable to identify who are,or could be, the sourcesof communication as they were
not identified by the authors. This number is the same as the number of the largest identified group – business.The reason
for this missing information is in the types of studies in question: many articles reported about content analyses without
any referenceto interlocutors (also see RQ5 below) who remain absent for the study.
In response to a question on the frequency of media used (RQ4), web pages and web sites in general are on the top,
followed by social media (in general) and Tweeter. It seemsthat media are selectedon the basis of availability.
The most interesting are answers to the RQ5: Who is on the other side, who are the stakeholders and publics for DSM
media? The analysis we conducted points to the general public (i.e. undefined ‘users’) as the most common group with
journalists in second place. One could say that all negative stereotypeson public relations are materialized in publications
on DSM public relations under investigation. Based on this analysis, the public relations researchersas representedin the
Table 1
Terms mentioned in article titles.
Social media 30
Twitter 15
Websites 15
Internet 13
Web sites 13
World wide web 9
Blogs 8
Facebook 7
Online 7
Digital age 3
New media 3
Blog posts 2
Blogger 2
Blogging 2
Cyberspace 2
Digital natives 2
E-mail 2
Online media relations 2
Online public relations 2
Social network sites 2
Tweet 2
Web 2
Web 2.0 2
Web pages 2
Weblogs 2
Blog engagement,Blog power, Blogosphere,Cell phones,Cyber-PR,Digital media, Digital public relations,
E-releases,E-service,Following, Information age,Liking, Micro-blogs, Mobile public relations,Mobile
websites,Nanoblogging,New communication technologies,New technologies,Online news forum,
Online newsrooms,Online social media, Online strategiccommunication,Online wire services,
Podcasts,Smartphones,Social media newsrooms,Social media platforms,Social media release,Social
media websites,Social networking, Technology,Video news releases,Viral, Virtual public relations,Web
analytics,Web power, Web presence,Web use,Web-based corporate press rooms, Youtube
Only once each
As evidentin the table,DSM is predominantly about media and media relations and,again,the academicloci of researchers
determineswhat it is they are interestedin and how it is studied.With most public relations programslocatedin departments
of communication and journalism, it is no surprise that study of this new domain is done though the lenses of traditional
(mass media) communication and journalism disciplines.
We selectedthe seventerms most frequently used in the titles and run a search.Here we report results for the five most
frequently used through time. In Graph 2 we see a continuing popularity of website analysis since 1996, while since 2009
social media take over the primacy.
With social media taking primacy one would expect that social nature of communication processeswill gain in impor-
tance.We review that below.
3.2. The prime usersof thesetechnologies(RQ3),the prime technologies(RQ4),stakeholdersand publics(RQ5)
We analyzed the 155 articles searchingfor types of organizations involved in public relations activities by sector.That is,
how and in which DSM public relations they were involved in and who their stakeholdersand/or publics were. As Table 2
shows, the organizations most involved in these media are businesses,followed by government,political parties and can-
didates, and finally civil society organizations (activists, NGOs). We identified a fourth type of organization – universities,
which can belong to any of the three groups. This is a result of a popularity of content analysis of different media in com-
munication studies (where hammers produce nails) and when this paper is published as an article will fall in the same
category.
Looking for sources (RQ3) revealed that businesses are on the top spot, followed by civil society organizations and
governments. We isolated public relations practitionersas a separate group because 12 articles discussed them. What is
interesting is that for 40 articles we were unable to identify who are,or could be, the sourcesof communication as they were
not identified by the authors. This number is the same as the number of the largest identified group – business.The reason
for this missing information is in the types of studies in question: many articles reported about content analyses without
any referenceto interlocutors (also see RQ5 below) who remain absent for the study.
In response to a question on the frequency of media used (RQ4), web pages and web sites in general are on the top,
followed by social media (in general) and Tweeter. It seemsthat media are selectedon the basis of availability.
The most interesting are answers to the RQ5: Who is on the other side, who are the stakeholders and publics for DSM
media? The analysis we conducted points to the general public (i.e. undefined ‘users’) as the most common group with
journalists in second place. One could say that all negative stereotypeson public relations are materialized in publications
on DSM public relations under investigation. Based on this analysis, the public relations researchersas representedin the
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
146 D. Verˇciˇc et al. / PublicRelationsReview41 (2015)142–152
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1994
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
www 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
Internet 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 7 3 7 3 6 6 3
Social media 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 9 16 22 25 33
Facebook 1 6 13 15 29 27
Twier 1 3 7 5 13
PUBREL_1356
Graph 2. Term popularity through time.
analyzed articles couldn’t pass PR 101 class as they are unable to define their publics (stakeholders,targets,whatever) and
in the field of DSM they can see only general ‘users’.This becameeven more obvious in responseto RQ6.
3.3. Primacy of publics(RQ6)
Public relations academicsand practitioners alike recognize that the major value of DSM public relations is in its ability
to directly reach stakeholdersand publics (Kelleher, 2009), and vice versa.For that reason we looked for articles focused on
the publics: analyzing any characteristicof the receiver,as an individual or a group, and adding to the body of knowledge
about digital publics. These articles were coded as being focused on publics. We coded articles as focused on the medium
or the source if they were not in any way concerned with the receiver(s) and/or publics, if they are aimed at studying the
process,the medium or rarely, the source. Less than one in five (17%)of all articles deal with stakeholders and/or publics
(Graph 3).
In DSM public relations, the public does not count. Solis and Breakenridge(2009) were clearly wrong in their assertion
that “social media is reinventing the aging business of PR” in Putting the Public back in Public Relations– at least in public
relations researchon DSM media, publics remain absent.
3.4. Critical areasof practice(RQ7,8, 9)
From our broader knowledge in digital, social and mobile media and our understandingof the problems related to them
in the context of public relations we were interested in seeing how public relations research is dealing with critical areas
of practice, such as privacy, access to the “new” media and digital divide, and the convergenceof nominally distinctive
professions like journalism, advertising,marketing and public relations into just digital,social or whatever communicators.
Interestingly,public relations researchis silent on theseissues.Not a single article (as measuredthrough titles and abstracts)
in our analysis discussed issues of privacy. This will probably change with the recent exposure of the activities of the US
National Security Agency and other intelligence communities. However, until mid-2014 public relations scholarship as
representedin the Public relationsreviewremained silent on this important issue. Interestingly,ethics in the digital universe
also remains unexplored by public relations scholars. Only one article among the 155 articles we analyzed deals with it.
Similarly, another important topic – the Digital Divide – referring to the inequality in accessto digital, social and mobile
communication, media and public relations remains under the radar for the predominant number of researchers.The dis-
tribution of authorship – especially the first author of the analyzed articles – indicates to some extent why this is the case
becauseauthors domiciled at US universities disproportionately lead the authorship (Graph 4).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
1994
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
www 2 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
Internet 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 7 3 7 3 6 6 3
Social media 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 9 16 22 25 33
Facebook 1 6 13 15 29 27
Twier 1 3 7 5 13
PUBREL_1356
Graph 2. Term popularity through time.
analyzed articles couldn’t pass PR 101 class as they are unable to define their publics (stakeholders,targets,whatever) and
in the field of DSM they can see only general ‘users’.This becameeven more obvious in responseto RQ6.
3.3. Primacy of publics(RQ6)
Public relations academicsand practitioners alike recognize that the major value of DSM public relations is in its ability
to directly reach stakeholdersand publics (Kelleher, 2009), and vice versa.For that reason we looked for articles focused on
the publics: analyzing any characteristicof the receiver,as an individual or a group, and adding to the body of knowledge
about digital publics. These articles were coded as being focused on publics. We coded articles as focused on the medium
or the source if they were not in any way concerned with the receiver(s) and/or publics, if they are aimed at studying the
process,the medium or rarely, the source. Less than one in five (17%)of all articles deal with stakeholders and/or publics
(Graph 3).
In DSM public relations, the public does not count. Solis and Breakenridge(2009) were clearly wrong in their assertion
that “social media is reinventing the aging business of PR” in Putting the Public back in Public Relations– at least in public
relations researchon DSM media, publics remain absent.
3.4. Critical areasof practice(RQ7,8, 9)
From our broader knowledge in digital, social and mobile media and our understandingof the problems related to them
in the context of public relations we were interested in seeing how public relations research is dealing with critical areas
of practice, such as privacy, access to the “new” media and digital divide, and the convergenceof nominally distinctive
professions like journalism, advertising,marketing and public relations into just digital,social or whatever communicators.
Interestingly,public relations researchis silent on theseissues.Not a single article (as measuredthrough titles and abstracts)
in our analysis discussed issues of privacy. This will probably change with the recent exposure of the activities of the US
National Security Agency and other intelligence communities. However, until mid-2014 public relations scholarship as
representedin the Public relationsreviewremained silent on this important issue. Interestingly,ethics in the digital universe
also remains unexplored by public relations scholars. Only one article among the 155 articles we analyzed deals with it.
Similarly, another important topic – the Digital Divide – referring to the inequality in accessto digital, social and mobile
communication, media and public relations remains under the radar for the predominant number of researchers.The dis-
tribution of authorship – especially the first author of the analyzed articles – indicates to some extent why this is the case
becauseauthors domiciled at US universities disproportionately lead the authorship (Graph 4).
D. Verˇciˇc et al. / Public RelationsReview41 (2015)142–152 147
Table 2
Sources,media and types of publics as defined in the analyzed papers.
Source (type of organization) Medium (type of channel used) Receiver(type of public on which the research
was focused)
Business 40 Web pages(Web
sites)
46 Journalist 10
Civil society organizations 24 Social media 33 PR practitioners 5
Government 15 Tweeter (Tweets) 28 Students 5
Public relations practitioners 12 Blogs (blog posts,
bloggers,blogging,
micro-blogs)
22 Organizational
publics
4
Collegesand universities 8 Facebook(profiles,
pages)
15 Bloggers 3
Political candidatesand parties 5 Web (Web 2.0,
World Wide Web)
12 Consumers
(customers)
3
Agencies 4 Internet 10 Donors 3
Activist organizations 4 New media
(technology)
7 Employees(future
employees)
3
Advocacy groups 2 e-mails 4 NGO stakeholders 3
Undefined 40 Social network
sites
4 Stakeholders 3
YouTube 4 Citizens 2
On line newspapers 3 Digital natives 2
On-line
communications
3 Undefined 103
Digital media
(digital technology)
2
Intranet 2
Online forums 2
Social media
platforms
2
Electronic
communication,
e-mail newsletter,
e-service,Flickr,
Information
technology,Mobile
communications
technologies,
On-line newsroom,
Online photos,
Online talkbacks,
Podcasts,Real-time
chat, Smartphones,
Social Media
Newsrooms, Social
Media Release,
Social web, Web
research,Mobile
messaging
Once each Agenciespublics,
American citizens,
Citizens of
Singapore,Clients,
Communities,
European citizens,
Facebookusers,
Investors,Museum
publics, Readers,
Recipientsof e
mails, Red Cross
donors, Sports fans,
Twitter users
One each
In mentioning this we do not in any way want to suggestthat the Digital Divide does not exist in the US becauseit does
exist in various forms in almost every developedcountry including the US. We could not find any answers to RQs 7, 8, and 9,
in our analysis of the body of work representedin the 155 articles becausenot a single of those articles discussedthe Digital
Divide, with the majority not even acknowledging its presence.
4. Discussion
It has been more than 2500 years since Plato complained about writing and reading:
You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearanceof wisdom,
not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things,
when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
(Plato, 1925, 275a, 275b).
Every new technology,every development in communication raises hopes and instills fears. Mass media in general and
television in particular have been studied, among other things, for their effects on users (Livingstone, 1996). We contend
that the field of public relations (both scholarship and practice) has not addressedthe relationship between DSM media
and the field holistically addressingall aspectsof these media going beyond merely using them as tools. In addition, there
Table 2
Sources,media and types of publics as defined in the analyzed papers.
Source (type of organization) Medium (type of channel used) Receiver(type of public on which the research
was focused)
Business 40 Web pages(Web
sites)
46 Journalist 10
Civil society organizations 24 Social media 33 PR practitioners 5
Government 15 Tweeter (Tweets) 28 Students 5
Public relations practitioners 12 Blogs (blog posts,
bloggers,blogging,
micro-blogs)
22 Organizational
publics
4
Collegesand universities 8 Facebook(profiles,
pages)
15 Bloggers 3
Political candidatesand parties 5 Web (Web 2.0,
World Wide Web)
12 Consumers
(customers)
3
Agencies 4 Internet 10 Donors 3
Activist organizations 4 New media
(technology)
7 Employees(future
employees)
3
Advocacy groups 2 e-mails 4 NGO stakeholders 3
Undefined 40 Social network
sites
4 Stakeholders 3
YouTube 4 Citizens 2
On line newspapers 3 Digital natives 2
On-line
communications
3 Undefined 103
Digital media
(digital technology)
2
Intranet 2
Online forums 2
Social media
platforms
2
Electronic
communication,
e-mail newsletter,
e-service,Flickr,
Information
technology,Mobile
communications
technologies,
On-line newsroom,
Online photos,
Online talkbacks,
Podcasts,Real-time
chat, Smartphones,
Social Media
Newsrooms, Social
Media Release,
Social web, Web
research,Mobile
messaging
Once each Agenciespublics,
American citizens,
Citizens of
Singapore,Clients,
Communities,
European citizens,
Facebookusers,
Investors,Museum
publics, Readers,
Recipientsof e
mails, Red Cross
donors, Sports fans,
Twitter users
One each
In mentioning this we do not in any way want to suggestthat the Digital Divide does not exist in the US becauseit does
exist in various forms in almost every developedcountry including the US. We could not find any answers to RQs 7, 8, and 9,
in our analysis of the body of work representedin the 155 articles becausenot a single of those articles discussedthe Digital
Divide, with the majority not even acknowledging its presence.
4. Discussion
It has been more than 2500 years since Plato complained about writing and reading:
You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearanceof wisdom,
not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things,
when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise.
(Plato, 1925, 275a, 275b).
Every new technology,every development in communication raises hopes and instills fears. Mass media in general and
television in particular have been studied, among other things, for their effects on users (Livingstone, 1996). We contend
that the field of public relations (both scholarship and practice) has not addressedthe relationship between DSM media
and the field holistically addressingall aspectsof these media going beyond merely using them as tools. In addition, there
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
148 D. Verˇciˇc et al. / PublicRelationsReview41 (2015)142–152
17%
83%
Focused on publi cs Focused on the medium or the source
Graph 3. Number of papers focusedon publics vs. on the medium or the source.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
USA
Spain
Republic of Korea
The Netherlands
Australia
Israel
UK
Belgium
Finland
Germany
South Africa
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UAE
Canada
Croaa
Denmark
Egypt
Hong Kong
Italy
New Zealand
Portugal
Singapore
Taiwan
Graph 4. Number of papers by country of first author affiliation.
is a dire need to address these media not only in view of the users of digital media but also those that do not have access
to ICTs and DSM media. At the moment, all the focus has been exclusively on addressing new media as an instrument of
the haves – the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), and “digital naturals” (Akerstrom & Young, 2013). Forgotten in this are
“Digital Aliens” – who have been deprived of participation in the Digital revolution becauseof such factors as lack of social
capital or policy decisions that have resulted in poor infrastructure favoring urbanites.Although the theme of Bledcom 2014
was digital media, not a single paper addressed the Digital Divide and what that means to public relations practice and
scholarship. Only two papers made some referencesto the Digital Divide. This justifies our aversion that the majority of the
discussion about social media in public relations literature appears to be elite talk, by elites, for elites. “Digital Aliens” are
just as relevant to public relations – perhaps they may be more important than digital natives and naturals.Yet, the field has
paid scant attention, almost single-mindedly jumping on the new DSM media bandwagon with great aplomb but limited
introspection.
The OECD (2001) defined Digital Divide as “the gap between individuals, households, businessesand geographicareas
at different socio-economic levels with regard to both their opportunities to accessinformation and communication tech-
nologies (ICTs) and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities”(p. 5). OECD has been trying to measureDigital
Divide using indicators such as communication infrastructure, computer availability, Internet availability and alternative
accessto the Internet through TVs or mobile phones.
17%
83%
Focused on publi cs Focused on the medium or the source
Graph 3. Number of papers focusedon publics vs. on the medium or the source.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
USA
Spain
Republic of Korea
The Netherlands
Australia
Israel
UK
Belgium
Finland
Germany
South Africa
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UAE
Canada
Croaa
Denmark
Egypt
Hong Kong
Italy
New Zealand
Portugal
Singapore
Taiwan
Graph 4. Number of papers by country of first author affiliation.
is a dire need to address these media not only in view of the users of digital media but also those that do not have access
to ICTs and DSM media. At the moment, all the focus has been exclusively on addressing new media as an instrument of
the haves – the “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), and “digital naturals” (Akerstrom & Young, 2013). Forgotten in this are
“Digital Aliens” – who have been deprived of participation in the Digital revolution becauseof such factors as lack of social
capital or policy decisions that have resulted in poor infrastructure favoring urbanites.Although the theme of Bledcom 2014
was digital media, not a single paper addressed the Digital Divide and what that means to public relations practice and
scholarship. Only two papers made some referencesto the Digital Divide. This justifies our aversion that the majority of the
discussion about social media in public relations literature appears to be elite talk, by elites, for elites. “Digital Aliens” are
just as relevant to public relations – perhaps they may be more important than digital natives and naturals.Yet, the field has
paid scant attention, almost single-mindedly jumping on the new DSM media bandwagon with great aplomb but limited
introspection.
The OECD (2001) defined Digital Divide as “the gap between individuals, households, businessesand geographicareas
at different socio-economic levels with regard to both their opportunities to accessinformation and communication tech-
nologies (ICTs) and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities”(p. 5). OECD has been trying to measureDigital
Divide using indicators such as communication infrastructure, computer availability, Internet availability and alternative
accessto the Internet through TVs or mobile phones.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
D. Verˇciˇc et al. / Public RelationsReview41 (2015)142–152 149
4.1. What doesthe Digital Divide meanin the 21st century?
The diversity of digital media and Internet usagearound the world has increasedexponentially since the dawn of the new
millennium. As of 2014, of the 7.2 billion residents of earth, only 2.9 billion had accessto the Internet, i.e. just over 40%of
the population. Notably, 75%(2.8 billion) of Internet users live in the top 20 countries whereas the remaining 25%live in 178
countries (representingonly about 1%users per country). China (688 million users) accountsfor 22%of the total exceeding
the combined users of the US, India, and Japan. Africa, the second largest continent (both in land mass and population) has
less than 10%of Internet users. This provides us proof, if one was needed,that the Digital Divide is real, and yet ignored in
public relations scholarship.
It would be folly to assumethat the Digital Divide is only present in developing countries. In his 2000 State of the Union
speech,then US president Bill Clinton broachedthe Digital Divide within US borders signaling the need for us to not overlook
“Digital aliens” in every part of the world. One of the biggestchallengesfor public relations practitioners and scholars, one
that needsto be addressedif our field is to be deemedrelevant,is how the digital revolution has impactedon the Digital Aliens
around the world and what we, as communication professionals,need to do in order to build relationships with them. We
had discussed more than a decadeago (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2004) that the innovativeness– needs paradox is very evident
in public relations and a decadelater that state continues wherein public relations appearsto be absent where it is needed
most as is evident in our neglect of the Digital Divide.
There are many examplesof how scholarship has avoideddiscussingthe Digital Divide. In the secondedition of New Media
and Public Relations(ed. Duhe, 2012),not only is there not a single chapter on the Digital Divide, but it is not even mentioned
in the entire book that has sections on topics such as health communication and risk and crisis communication the efficacy
of which are greatly impacted by the Digital Divide. Duhe addressesmany intersections between public relations and new
media addressingthe nexus in corporations, governments,and non-profits. She also addressesnew media “applications”in
the health sector,universities, and its link to crisis communication. But, all of these applications and linkages are discussed
with no referenceto the Digital Divide that surely limits the processand impact of new media at various levels.Sheapplauded
that we are addressingthe Digital Divide (personal communication, 2014).
A book titled The Internetand Governancein Asia: A critical readerdoes not discuss Digital Divide either even though it
has a chapter on the “challengesand responses”of Internet Governance.Published in Asia, one would have thought this
critical issue would have been debatedby the communication scholars who have contributed essaysto this edited volume. A
chapterdiscusses“obstaclesto ushering in e-governancein India” and lists illiteracy, corruption, etc.as “complicatingissues”
contributing to lack of adequatee-governancebut no mention is made of the Digital Divide, which is directly impacted by
the very “complicating issues.”
John Pavlik’s book: New Media Technology:Cultural and CommercialPerspectivesalso fails to address Digital Divide as a
perspectiveworth considering despite its title of addressing“cultural” perspectives.The Digital Divide, we argue,is a result
of an elitistic worldview and culture among those who hold social capital in every region of the world. Further, the leaders
of developing nations should be held responsible for contributing to the Digital Divide by harboring policies that are not
friendly to the have-nots of their own societies.Chapter 3 of Pavlik’s book addressesthe “infrastructure of the information
age”but fails to addressthe lack of infrastructure as a variable that is just as worthy of consideration as the opposite (having
the infrastructure).The lack of infrastructure is not the result only of economic poverty but also the poverty of political will
and sound public policy. The book’s glossary of new media technology terms does not even list Digital Divide.
Gan, Gomez,and Johannen (2004) addresscyberactivismin Asia addressingfreedom of expressionand media censorship
in the continent. The book is touted as “an insight into the political, societal and legal challengesthat cyberactivistshave to
face,and what this means for democraticdevelopmentin the region.”However, interestingly,it does not addressthe Digital
Divide at all as a variable or obstacle that influences cyberactivism.
There are publications in Asia that address DD, though even though these are few and far apart. Bridging the Digital
Divide:Gyandoot– The modelfor communitynetworksby Rajesh Rjora (IAS) is one such book that discusseshow Gyandoot,a
governmentinitiative in India, has attemptedto bridge the Digital Divide. The field of public relations can leveragefrom such
case studies by addressing the communication challengesin such programs. Such analyses can also address many factors
including how new media enhancethe chasm between the haves and have nots, thereby creating new problems for public
communication especially in the developing world. Digital Aliens are just as important to organizations ad Digital Natives.
Public Relations scholarship needs to address these issues as its role is to serve all of society and not just the haves,or just
corporations. It should be noted that in many regions of the world the lack of Internet penetration is being offset by the
growth of mobile phone technology. However, public relations literature has not addressedthe growth of mobile phones
and how they have impacted on our ability to reach these Digital Aliens around the world.
4.1.1. Privacy
Freedom of expression is deemedfundamental to public relations as it is for journalism. The freedom to gather informa-
tion, and then disseminate it without fetters is at the heart of much of what journalists and public relations practitioners
do. Yet, notions of privacy vary across cultures and political systemsas do the definitions and the interplay between what is
private and what is public as well as private interest vs. public interest has been challengedin the Digital Age.In some sense,
we are all still figuring out how to deal with these multiple issues in our societies.The European Court’s ruling in May 2014
upholding the privacy of individuals and requiring Google to delete personal information of individuals that were either old
4.1. What doesthe Digital Divide meanin the 21st century?
The diversity of digital media and Internet usagearound the world has increasedexponentially since the dawn of the new
millennium. As of 2014, of the 7.2 billion residents of earth, only 2.9 billion had accessto the Internet, i.e. just over 40%of
the population. Notably, 75%(2.8 billion) of Internet users live in the top 20 countries whereas the remaining 25%live in 178
countries (representingonly about 1%users per country). China (688 million users) accountsfor 22%of the total exceeding
the combined users of the US, India, and Japan. Africa, the second largest continent (both in land mass and population) has
less than 10%of Internet users. This provides us proof, if one was needed,that the Digital Divide is real, and yet ignored in
public relations scholarship.
It would be folly to assumethat the Digital Divide is only present in developing countries. In his 2000 State of the Union
speech,then US president Bill Clinton broachedthe Digital Divide within US borders signaling the need for us to not overlook
“Digital aliens” in every part of the world. One of the biggestchallengesfor public relations practitioners and scholars, one
that needsto be addressedif our field is to be deemedrelevant,is how the digital revolution has impactedon the Digital Aliens
around the world and what we, as communication professionals,need to do in order to build relationships with them. We
had discussed more than a decadeago (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2004) that the innovativeness– needs paradox is very evident
in public relations and a decadelater that state continues wherein public relations appearsto be absent where it is needed
most as is evident in our neglect of the Digital Divide.
There are many examplesof how scholarship has avoideddiscussingthe Digital Divide. In the secondedition of New Media
and Public Relations(ed. Duhe, 2012),not only is there not a single chapter on the Digital Divide, but it is not even mentioned
in the entire book that has sections on topics such as health communication and risk and crisis communication the efficacy
of which are greatly impacted by the Digital Divide. Duhe addressesmany intersections between public relations and new
media addressingthe nexus in corporations, governments,and non-profits. She also addressesnew media “applications”in
the health sector,universities, and its link to crisis communication. But, all of these applications and linkages are discussed
with no referenceto the Digital Divide that surely limits the processand impact of new media at various levels.Sheapplauded
that we are addressingthe Digital Divide (personal communication, 2014).
A book titled The Internetand Governancein Asia: A critical readerdoes not discuss Digital Divide either even though it
has a chapter on the “challengesand responses”of Internet Governance.Published in Asia, one would have thought this
critical issue would have been debatedby the communication scholars who have contributed essaysto this edited volume. A
chapterdiscusses“obstaclesto ushering in e-governancein India” and lists illiteracy, corruption, etc.as “complicatingissues”
contributing to lack of adequatee-governancebut no mention is made of the Digital Divide, which is directly impacted by
the very “complicating issues.”
John Pavlik’s book: New Media Technology:Cultural and CommercialPerspectivesalso fails to address Digital Divide as a
perspectiveworth considering despite its title of addressing“cultural” perspectives.The Digital Divide, we argue,is a result
of an elitistic worldview and culture among those who hold social capital in every region of the world. Further, the leaders
of developing nations should be held responsible for contributing to the Digital Divide by harboring policies that are not
friendly to the have-nots of their own societies.Chapter 3 of Pavlik’s book addressesthe “infrastructure of the information
age”but fails to addressthe lack of infrastructure as a variable that is just as worthy of consideration as the opposite (having
the infrastructure).The lack of infrastructure is not the result only of economic poverty but also the poverty of political will
and sound public policy. The book’s glossary of new media technology terms does not even list Digital Divide.
Gan, Gomez,and Johannen (2004) addresscyberactivismin Asia addressingfreedom of expressionand media censorship
in the continent. The book is touted as “an insight into the political, societal and legal challengesthat cyberactivistshave to
face,and what this means for democraticdevelopmentin the region.”However, interestingly,it does not addressthe Digital
Divide at all as a variable or obstacle that influences cyberactivism.
There are publications in Asia that address DD, though even though these are few and far apart. Bridging the Digital
Divide:Gyandoot– The modelfor communitynetworksby Rajesh Rjora (IAS) is one such book that discusseshow Gyandoot,a
governmentinitiative in India, has attemptedto bridge the Digital Divide. The field of public relations can leveragefrom such
case studies by addressing the communication challengesin such programs. Such analyses can also address many factors
including how new media enhancethe chasm between the haves and have nots, thereby creating new problems for public
communication especially in the developing world. Digital Aliens are just as important to organizations ad Digital Natives.
Public Relations scholarship needs to address these issues as its role is to serve all of society and not just the haves,or just
corporations. It should be noted that in many regions of the world the lack of Internet penetration is being offset by the
growth of mobile phone technology. However, public relations literature has not addressedthe growth of mobile phones
and how they have impacted on our ability to reach these Digital Aliens around the world.
4.1.1. Privacy
Freedom of expression is deemedfundamental to public relations as it is for journalism. The freedom to gather informa-
tion, and then disseminate it without fetters is at the heart of much of what journalists and public relations practitioners
do. Yet, notions of privacy vary across cultures and political systemsas do the definitions and the interplay between what is
private and what is public as well as private interest vs. public interest has been challengedin the Digital Age.In some sense,
we are all still figuring out how to deal with these multiple issues in our societies.The European Court’s ruling in May 2014
upholding the privacy of individuals and requiring Google to delete personal information of individuals that were either old
150 D. Verˇciˇc et al. / PublicRelationsReview41 (2015)142–152
Year
(July 1) Internet Users Users
Growth
World
Populaon
Populaon
Growth
Penetraon
(% of Pop.
with
Internet)
2014* 2,925,249,355 7.9% 7,243,784,121 1.14% 40.4%
2013 2,712,239,573 8.0% 7,162,119,430 1.16% 37.9%
2012 2,511,615,523 10.5% 7,080,0 72,420 1.17% 35.5%
2011 2,272,463,038 11.7% 6,997,9 98,760 1.18% 32.5%
2010 2,034,259,368 16.1% 6,916,1 83,480 1.19% 29.4%
2009 1,752,333,178 12.2% 6,834,7 21,930 1.20% 25.6%
2008 1,562,067,594 13.8% 6,753,6 49,230 1.21% 23.1%
2007 1,373,040,542 18.6% 6,673,105,940 1.21% 20.6%
2006 1,157,500,065 12.4% 6,593,2 27,980 1.21% 17.6%
2005 1,029,717,906 13.1% 6,514,0 94,610 1.22% 15.8%
2004 910,060,180 16.9% 6,435,7 05,600 1.22% 14.1%
2003 778,555,680 17.5% 6,357,991,750 1.23% 12.2%
2002 662,663,600 32.4% 6,280,8 53,820 1.24% 10.6%
2001 500,609,240 21.1% 6,204,1 47,030 1.25% 8.1%
2000 413,425,190 47.2% 6,127,7 00,430 1.26% 6.7%
Fig. 1. World Internet penetration in the 21st century.
or deemed not in the public interest (attesting that individuals had a “right to be forgotten”).This was followed by a rare
unanimous June ruling by the US Supreme Court (Riley vs. California) that privacy rights trumped the need to investigate
criminals. Writing the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice John Robertswrote for the Court: “Modern cell phones,as a category,
implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarettepack, a wallet, or a purse. . . We cannot
deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. . . Privacy comes at a
cost.”The rules by which new media are expectedto play varies with socio-cultural systems and we have only now begun
to even define our rules of engagementin communicating issues that involved privacy (Fig. 1).
There is a popular notion that millennials – being Digital Natives – are distinctively different from other generations
especially when it comes to digital media and communication. Snowden, almost a millennial at 31, provides a case study
of how millennials view privacy issues. A Harvard University study of millennials (Institute of Politics, 2013) conducted
5 months after the story broke, found that exactly half of those surveyed were unsure of whether Snowden was a hero
or villain for releasing sensitive information. Of the remaining, there was an equal split between those who called him a
hero (22%)or traitor (22%).A majority of millennials strongly opposed government efforts to collect personal electronic
communication even if national security was involved. Of these, 18–24 year olds were significantly more opposed to such
collection of information than 25–29 year olds (Fig. 2). The problem we see in such studies is that they often do not address
the impact of the Digital Divide and assume that all those in a certain age bracket have similar accessto, and use of, these
digital media being “millennials”. We contend that the culture of Digital Natives is bound to be different from those we call
Digital Aliens and such studies should account for how these two groups view the same issues.
4.1.2. New mediaand marketing
For over three decades,perhapsever since the Excellencestudy(1992),debatehas ragedon about the relationship between
public relations and allied communication functions such as marketing and advertising.Public relations scholars and prac-
titioners generally tend to decry the “invasion” of their communication “space”by marketing and advertising practice. In
fact, one of the biggest recommendationsof the Excellencestudy was that there needed to be a distinct separation of these
functions within the organizational context. Despite that history, our field has remained silent on the relationship between
marketing, advertising, and public relations in the digital world. Digital media managers have been developing new and
innovative ways of using platforms such as Facebookas tools of marketing. Whereas public relations scholarship has been
consumed with how to use these social media platforms deftly as public relations instruments, we have yet to addresswhat
impact there is, or will be, as these platforms increasingly turn into marketing tools. Will that turn off our “publics” who use
Year
(July 1) Internet Users Users
Growth
World
Populaon
Populaon
Growth
Penetraon
(% of Pop.
with
Internet)
2014* 2,925,249,355 7.9% 7,243,784,121 1.14% 40.4%
2013 2,712,239,573 8.0% 7,162,119,430 1.16% 37.9%
2012 2,511,615,523 10.5% 7,080,0 72,420 1.17% 35.5%
2011 2,272,463,038 11.7% 6,997,9 98,760 1.18% 32.5%
2010 2,034,259,368 16.1% 6,916,1 83,480 1.19% 29.4%
2009 1,752,333,178 12.2% 6,834,7 21,930 1.20% 25.6%
2008 1,562,067,594 13.8% 6,753,6 49,230 1.21% 23.1%
2007 1,373,040,542 18.6% 6,673,105,940 1.21% 20.6%
2006 1,157,500,065 12.4% 6,593,2 27,980 1.21% 17.6%
2005 1,029,717,906 13.1% 6,514,0 94,610 1.22% 15.8%
2004 910,060,180 16.9% 6,435,7 05,600 1.22% 14.1%
2003 778,555,680 17.5% 6,357,991,750 1.23% 12.2%
2002 662,663,600 32.4% 6,280,8 53,820 1.24% 10.6%
2001 500,609,240 21.1% 6,204,1 47,030 1.25% 8.1%
2000 413,425,190 47.2% 6,127,7 00,430 1.26% 6.7%
Fig. 1. World Internet penetration in the 21st century.
or deemed not in the public interest (attesting that individuals had a “right to be forgotten”).This was followed by a rare
unanimous June ruling by the US Supreme Court (Riley vs. California) that privacy rights trumped the need to investigate
criminals. Writing the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice John Robertswrote for the Court: “Modern cell phones,as a category,
implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarettepack, a wallet, or a purse. . . We cannot
deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. . . Privacy comes at a
cost.”The rules by which new media are expectedto play varies with socio-cultural systems and we have only now begun
to even define our rules of engagementin communicating issues that involved privacy (Fig. 1).
There is a popular notion that millennials – being Digital Natives – are distinctively different from other generations
especially when it comes to digital media and communication. Snowden, almost a millennial at 31, provides a case study
of how millennials view privacy issues. A Harvard University study of millennials (Institute of Politics, 2013) conducted
5 months after the story broke, found that exactly half of those surveyed were unsure of whether Snowden was a hero
or villain for releasing sensitive information. Of the remaining, there was an equal split between those who called him a
hero (22%)or traitor (22%).A majority of millennials strongly opposed government efforts to collect personal electronic
communication even if national security was involved. Of these, 18–24 year olds were significantly more opposed to such
collection of information than 25–29 year olds (Fig. 2). The problem we see in such studies is that they often do not address
the impact of the Digital Divide and assume that all those in a certain age bracket have similar accessto, and use of, these
digital media being “millennials”. We contend that the culture of Digital Natives is bound to be different from those we call
Digital Aliens and such studies should account for how these two groups view the same issues.
4.1.2. New mediaand marketing
For over three decades,perhapsever since the Excellencestudy(1992),debatehas ragedon about the relationship between
public relations and allied communication functions such as marketing and advertising.Public relations scholars and prac-
titioners generally tend to decry the “invasion” of their communication “space”by marketing and advertising practice. In
fact, one of the biggest recommendationsof the Excellencestudy was that there needed to be a distinct separation of these
functions within the organizational context. Despite that history, our field has remained silent on the relationship between
marketing, advertising, and public relations in the digital world. Digital media managers have been developing new and
innovative ways of using platforms such as Facebookas tools of marketing. Whereas public relations scholarship has been
consumed with how to use these social media platforms deftly as public relations instruments, we have yet to addresswhat
impact there is, or will be, as these platforms increasingly turn into marketing tools. Will that turn off our “publics” who use
⊘ This is a preview!⊘
Do you want full access?
Subscribe today to unlock all pages.
Trusted by 1+ million students worldwide
D. Verˇciˇc et al. / Public RelationsReview41 (2015)142–152 151
Fig. 2. Digital media and privacy.
digital space? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggestthat indeed such brazen, and sometimes, surreptitious, marketing on
digital platforms is turning off users or at least diminishing their enthusiasm to use these social media spaces.
5. Conclusion and the future
The purpose of this study was to review the growth of the body of knowledge on the nexus between public relations and
ICTs (and social media). In particular, our focus was on studying whether ICTs and social media had been holistically studied
by scholars of public relations. We also sought to assesswhether these “new” media had induced the body of knowledge to
redefinethe term publicand whether these media had induced us to think differently with regard to the rulesof engagement
with these publics. Our review of over 35 years of articles in the Public RelationsReviewthat discussedICTs and social media
revealed a lop-sided growth of the field. First, the focus has almost exclusively been on using these media as “tools.” The
field used a plethora of terms to refer to the link between public relation and ICTs.
Interestingly,mobile technologywas almost completely ignored in the articles reviewed for this study. The focus has pre-
dominantly been on the use of digital media for purposes of media relations. For a field that stressesaudiencesegmentation,
the articles reviewed in this study did very little to properly define the publicsthese messageswere aimed at through these
media with “users”being the most popular term to define the recipients of thesemessages.Perhapsa corollary to this serious
lacuna of not defining publics is the fact that our field has completely ignored the Digital Divide as being relevant in this era
of ICTs and social media. We strongly advocatethat our field give greater recognition to the impact of the Digital Divide on
public relations activities around the world. Another area that has not been studied is the issue of privacy and what impact,
if any, the differing rules of privacy in different regions of the world is having in how public relations is being practiced.In
sum, this study assertsthat much work needs to be done in determining the relationship between public relation and ICTs
and social media and offers some avenuesfor future researchthat would help bridge knowledge gaps in this domain.
References
Ahonen, T. T. (2008).Mobile as 7th of the massmedia:Cellphone,cameraphone,iPhone,smartphone.London: Futurtext.
Akerstrom,M., & Young, P. (2013).What do digital naturals demand from democracy?In Paperpresentedat the InternationalPolitical MarketingConference,
Stockholm University School of Business,Stockholm,Sweden,
Briner, R., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematicreview and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In D. Rousseau (Ed.), Oxford handbookof
evidence-basedmanagement(pp. 112–129). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bureauof Labor Statistics.(2014).Public relationsspecialists.In Bureauof laborstatistics,U.S.Departmentof Labor,occupationaloutlookhandbook(2014–2015
ed.).Retrievedfrom http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/public-relations-specialists.htm#tab-6
Duhe, S. (2012).New mediaand publicrelations.New York: Peter Lang.
Freberg,K. (2013).Social media. In R. L. Heath (Ed.),Encyclopediaof public relations(2nd ed.,pp. 847–849). Los Angeles,CA: Sage.
Gan, S.,Gomez,J., & Johannen,U. (Eds.).(2004).Asian cyberactivism:Freedomof expressionand mediacensorship.Bangkok: Friedrich Naumann Foundation.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellencetheory and public relations: Past, present,future. In A. Zerfass,B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public
relationsresearch:Europeanand internationalperspectivesand innovation(pp. 327–347). Wiesbaden,Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984).Managingpublic relations.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hallahan, K. (2013).Online public relations.In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopediaof publicrelations(2nd ed.,pp. 623–625). Los Angeles,CA: Sage.
Fig. 2. Digital media and privacy.
digital space? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggestthat indeed such brazen, and sometimes, surreptitious, marketing on
digital platforms is turning off users or at least diminishing their enthusiasm to use these social media spaces.
5. Conclusion and the future
The purpose of this study was to review the growth of the body of knowledge on the nexus between public relations and
ICTs (and social media). In particular, our focus was on studying whether ICTs and social media had been holistically studied
by scholars of public relations. We also sought to assesswhether these “new” media had induced the body of knowledge to
redefinethe term publicand whether these media had induced us to think differently with regard to the rulesof engagement
with these publics. Our review of over 35 years of articles in the Public RelationsReviewthat discussedICTs and social media
revealed a lop-sided growth of the field. First, the focus has almost exclusively been on using these media as “tools.” The
field used a plethora of terms to refer to the link between public relation and ICTs.
Interestingly,mobile technologywas almost completely ignored in the articles reviewed for this study. The focus has pre-
dominantly been on the use of digital media for purposes of media relations. For a field that stressesaudiencesegmentation,
the articles reviewed in this study did very little to properly define the publicsthese messageswere aimed at through these
media with “users”being the most popular term to define the recipients of thesemessages.Perhapsa corollary to this serious
lacuna of not defining publics is the fact that our field has completely ignored the Digital Divide as being relevant in this era
of ICTs and social media. We strongly advocatethat our field give greater recognition to the impact of the Digital Divide on
public relations activities around the world. Another area that has not been studied is the issue of privacy and what impact,
if any, the differing rules of privacy in different regions of the world is having in how public relations is being practiced.In
sum, this study assertsthat much work needs to be done in determining the relationship between public relation and ICTs
and social media and offers some avenuesfor future researchthat would help bridge knowledge gaps in this domain.
References
Ahonen, T. T. (2008).Mobile as 7th of the massmedia:Cellphone,cameraphone,iPhone,smartphone.London: Futurtext.
Akerstrom,M., & Young, P. (2013).What do digital naturals demand from democracy?In Paperpresentedat the InternationalPolitical MarketingConference,
Stockholm University School of Business,Stockholm,Sweden,
Briner, R., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematicreview and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In D. Rousseau (Ed.), Oxford handbookof
evidence-basedmanagement(pp. 112–129). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bureauof Labor Statistics.(2014).Public relationsspecialists.In Bureauof laborstatistics,U.S.Departmentof Labor,occupationaloutlookhandbook(2014–2015
ed.).Retrievedfrom http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/public-relations-specialists.htm#tab-6
Duhe, S. (2012).New mediaand publicrelations.New York: Peter Lang.
Freberg,K. (2013).Social media. In R. L. Heath (Ed.),Encyclopediaof public relations(2nd ed.,pp. 847–849). Los Angeles,CA: Sage.
Gan, S.,Gomez,J., & Johannen,U. (Eds.).(2004).Asian cyberactivism:Freedomof expressionand mediacensorship.Bangkok: Friedrich Naumann Foundation.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellencetheory and public relations: Past, present,future. In A. Zerfass,B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public
relationsresearch:Europeanand internationalperspectivesand innovation(pp. 327–347). Wiesbaden,Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984).Managingpublic relations.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hallahan, K. (2013).Online public relations.In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopediaof publicrelations(2nd ed.,pp. 623–625). Los Angeles,CA: Sage.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
152 D. Verˇciˇc et al. / PublicRelationsReview41 (2015)142–152
Heinderyckx,F. (2014).Reclaimingthe high ground in the age of onlinement. Journal of Communication,64(6),999–1014.
Hung, C.-J. F. (2007). Toward the theory of relationship managementin public relations: How to cultivate quality relationships? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The
futureof excellencein publicrelationsand communicationmanagement:Challengesfor thenextgeneration(pp. 443–476).Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Institute of Politics. (2013).Surveyof youngAmericans’attitudestoward politicsand public service(24th ed.).Cambridge,MA: Institute of Politics.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of
Communication,59(1),172–188.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998).Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public RelationsReview,24.
Ledingham,J. A., & Bruning,S.D. (2000).Publicrelationsas relationshipmanagement:A relationalapproachto thestudyand practiceof publicrelations.Yahweh,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levine,E., Locke,C.,Searls,D., & Weinberger,D. (2000).Thecluetrainmanifesto.Retrievedfrom http://www.cluetrain.com/
Livingstone,S.(1996).On the continuing problemsof media effectsresearch.In J. Curan,& M. Gurevitch(Eds.),Massmediaand society(2nd ed.,pp. 305–324).
London: Edward Arnold.
Morris, M., & Ogan,C. (1996).The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication,46, 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01460.x
OECD.(2001).Understandingthe Digital Divide.Paris: OECD Publications.
Plato. (1925). (translated by Harold N. Fowler). Phaedrusin Plato in twelve volumes(Vol. 9) Cambridge,MA/London: Harvard University Press/William
Heinemann Ltd. Retrievedfrom http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedrus+275a&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174
Prensky,M. (2001).Digital natives,digital immigrantsPart 1. On the horizon (Vol. 9), 1–6.
Solis, B., & Breakenridge,D. (2009).Puttingthe publicbackin publicrelations:How socialmediais reinventingthe agingbusinessof PR. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ:
FT Press.
Sommerfeldt,E. J., Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2012).Activist practitioner perspectivesof website public relations: Why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the
dialogic promise? Public RelationsReview,38, 303–312.
Sriramesh,K., & Vercic, D. (2004).The innovativeness-needsparadox and global public relations: Some propositions on the need for international public
relations subsidies.Media Asia,31(1),3–13.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010).Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’sPublic relationstactics.
Public RelationsReview,36, 207–214.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001).How activist organizationsare using the Internet to build relationships.Public RelationsReview,27.
Torraco, R. J. (2005).Writing integrativeliterature reviews: Guidelines and examples.Human resourcedevelopmentreview,32, 1145–1155.
Verˇciˇc, D. (2008). Co-orientation model of public relations. In W. Donsbach(Ed.), The internationalencyclopediaof communication(Vol. III) (pp. 995–998).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Victor, L. (2008).Systematicreviewing.Socialresearchupdate(Vol. 54). Summer.Retrievedfrom http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU54.pdf
Walker, K. (2010).A systematicreview of the corporatereputationliterature: Definition, measurement,and theory.Corporatereputationreview,12,357–387.
Wright, D. K., & Drifka Hinson, M. (2013). An updated examination of social and emergingmedia use in public relations practice: A longitudinal analysis
between 2006 and 2013. Public RelationsJournal, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2013WrightHinson
2013.pdf
Yaxley, H. (2012). Digital public relations – Revolution or evolution? In A. Theaker (Ed.), The public relationshandbook(4th ed., Vol. 54, pp. 411–422).
London/New York: Routledge.
Zerfass,A., Tench,R.,Verˇciˇc, D.,Verhoeven,P., & Moreno, A. (2014).Europeancommunicationmonitor2014.Excellencein strategiccommunication– Key issues,
leadership,genderand mobilemedia.Resultsof a surveyin 42 countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,Helios Media.
Heinderyckx,F. (2014).Reclaimingthe high ground in the age of onlinement. Journal of Communication,64(6),999–1014.
Hung, C.-J. F. (2007). Toward the theory of relationship managementin public relations: How to cultivate quality relationships? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The
futureof excellencein publicrelationsand communicationmanagement:Challengesfor thenextgeneration(pp. 443–476).Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Institute of Politics. (2013).Surveyof youngAmericans’attitudestoward politicsand public service(24th ed.).Cambridge,MA: Institute of Politics.
Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of
Communication,59(1),172–188.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998).Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public RelationsReview,24.
Ledingham,J. A., & Bruning,S.D. (2000).Publicrelationsas relationshipmanagement:A relationalapproachto thestudyand practiceof publicrelations.Yahweh,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levine,E., Locke,C.,Searls,D., & Weinberger,D. (2000).Thecluetrainmanifesto.Retrievedfrom http://www.cluetrain.com/
Livingstone,S.(1996).On the continuing problemsof media effectsresearch.In J. Curan,& M. Gurevitch(Eds.),Massmediaand society(2nd ed.,pp. 305–324).
London: Edward Arnold.
Morris, M., & Ogan,C. (1996).The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication,46, 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01460.x
OECD.(2001).Understandingthe Digital Divide.Paris: OECD Publications.
Plato. (1925). (translated by Harold N. Fowler). Phaedrusin Plato in twelve volumes(Vol. 9) Cambridge,MA/London: Harvard University Press/William
Heinemann Ltd. Retrievedfrom http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Phaedrus+275a&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174
Prensky,M. (2001).Digital natives,digital immigrantsPart 1. On the horizon (Vol. 9), 1–6.
Solis, B., & Breakenridge,D. (2009).Puttingthe publicbackin publicrelations:How socialmediais reinventingthe agingbusinessof PR. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ:
FT Press.
Sommerfeldt,E. J., Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2012).Activist practitioner perspectivesof website public relations: Why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the
dialogic promise? Public RelationsReview,38, 303–312.
Sriramesh,K., & Vercic, D. (2004).The innovativeness-needsparadox and global public relations: Some propositions on the need for international public
relations subsidies.Media Asia,31(1),3–13.
Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010).Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’sPublic relationstactics.
Public RelationsReview,36, 207–214.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001).How activist organizationsare using the Internet to build relationships.Public RelationsReview,27.
Torraco, R. J. (2005).Writing integrativeliterature reviews: Guidelines and examples.Human resourcedevelopmentreview,32, 1145–1155.
Verˇciˇc, D. (2008). Co-orientation model of public relations. In W. Donsbach(Ed.), The internationalencyclopediaof communication(Vol. III) (pp. 995–998).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Victor, L. (2008).Systematicreviewing.Socialresearchupdate(Vol. 54). Summer.Retrievedfrom http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU54.pdf
Walker, K. (2010).A systematicreview of the corporatereputationliterature: Definition, measurement,and theory.Corporatereputationreview,12,357–387.
Wright, D. K., & Drifka Hinson, M. (2013). An updated examination of social and emergingmedia use in public relations practice: A longitudinal analysis
between 2006 and 2013. Public RelationsJournal, 7(3). Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Documents/2013WrightHinson
2013.pdf
Yaxley, H. (2012). Digital public relations – Revolution or evolution? In A. Theaker (Ed.), The public relationshandbook(4th ed., Vol. 54, pp. 411–422).
London/New York: Routledge.
Zerfass,A., Tench,R.,Verˇciˇc, D.,Verhoeven,P., & Moreno, A. (2014).Europeancommunicationmonitor2014.Excellencein strategiccommunication– Key issues,
leadership,genderand mobilemedia.Resultsof a surveyin 42 countries.Brussels:EACD/EUPRERA,Helios Media.
1 out of 11
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
Copyright © 2020–2025 A2Z Services. All Rights Reserved. Developed and managed by ZUCOL.