Why do people take to the streets? Understanding the multidimensional motivations of protesting publics

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Why do people take to the streets? Understanding the multidimensional motivations of protesting publics Jarim Kim School of Communication, Kookmin University, Bugak Hall 603, 77 Jeongneung-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-702, South Korea

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Government public relations Protesting public Motivation Protest Symbolic reality Individuality

This study enhances our understanding of protesting publics by exploring the motivations that trigger individuals to take part in protests. This study used 22 in-depth interviews for one case and 25 in-depth interviews for another to investigate why individuals participate in anti-government protests. At the collective level, individuals participated in protests to communicate with and warn their governments; at the individual level, protestors expected to learn through active participation, gain personal satisfaction, and vent their emotions. This study contributes to public relations theory and practices specific to government public relations.

1. Introduction Dominant public relations theories about individual engagement in collective action have centered on segmenting people and strategically communicating with the most active publics to protect organizations from the threats posed by these groups (e.g., Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Grunig, 1992). Few theories other than the situational theory of publics (STP; Grunig & Repper, 1992) and the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS; Kim & Grunig, 2011) have enhanced our theoretical understanding of when and why individuals become active and behave collectively against organizations. Despite their contributions to understanding publics, researchers have criticized these theories for overlooking the process and individual characteristics of the members that comprise publics (Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). Specifically, scholars have argued for more research on publics’ own perspectives (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Karlberg, 1996; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001), explaining that individuals, through their interactions with various messages, other people, and society, interpret issues and participate in meaning-making processes. Scholars have also highlighted the limitations of currently dominant theories in understanding publics, arguing that people become politically and socially active for multiple reasons (Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Klandermans, 1997; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez, 1994; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). Our understanding of publics is particularly limited in the context of government public relations. Scholars (Hong, Park, Lee, & Park, 2012; Liu & Horsley, 2007) have argued that government public relations differs from public relations in other private sectors (e.g., corporate public relations), as government public relations plays different social roles and functions (Avery, Bedrosian, Brucchi, Dennis, Keane, & Koch, 1996; Hong et al., 2012; Liu & Horsley, 2007). The government should focus on enhancing the public good (Liu & Horsley, 2007) by serving its citizens ethically, embracing the legal responsibility to “maintain its [own] stability” because, regardless of political interests, a government should serve its citizens (Hallahan, 2000a; Hong et al., 2012, p. 38). Despite its scope and influence over society, government public relations has received limited scholarly attention (Hong et al., 2012); most research on an active public has focused on private organizations’ public relations practices. More specifically, understanding the dimensions of quality government public relations is critical for both the government and its publics. One method of investigating quality is to

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.05.002 Received 21 August 2017; Received in revised form 14 May 2018; Accepted 15 May 2018 0363-8111/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kim, J., Public Relations Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.05.002

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

examine the motives that drive individuals to participate in anti-government protests. Despite the field’s growth over the past 10 years, a state-of-the-field article (Pasadeos, Berger, & Renfro, 2010) indicated that advancement in public relations research still requires a more public-centered approach. Accordingly, this study adopted a publiccentered approach to investigate the multidimensional motives individuals bring to protests. Specifically, this study argues the onedimensional perspective of existing public relations theories limits their understanding of protesting publics; the study utilized an alternative, motive-based framework to understand protesting publics with multidimensional motives and demonstrated the utility of this approach by analyzing data collected from two anti-government protests. This study aimed to complement the STP and enhance scholarly understanding of protesting publics in the public relations field by investigating protestor motivations and revealing to government public relations practitioners the qualities required to foster good relationships with publics. 2. Literature review 2.1. Situational theory of publics STP (Grunig, 1997; Grunig & Repper, 1992) has been a dominant approach to understanding publics’ active participation in a collective behavior such as protest. Employing sociopsychological variables to examine when and why individuals become active, STP states that once an issue arises, an active public tends to problematize the issue, recognize fewer constraints against acting toward a resolution, and engage in active communication and organization toward the resolution (Grunig, 1997; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Scholars have integrated variables including shared involvement (Aldoory & Van Dyke, 2006), shared risk (Aldoory, Kim, & Tindall, 2010), and cultural identity (Sha, 2006) into STP, and other scholars further refined it into a more general theory (STOPS; Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim, Ni, Kim, & Kim, 2012). Recently, researchers have tested STOPS’s utility in understanding publics in relation to policy issues that received a great deal of media attention in China (Chen, Hung-Baesecke, & Kim, 2017), Chinese citizens’ environmental issues (Jiang, Kim, Liu, & Luo, in press), and anti-vaccination issues (Krishna, in press). Other studies have divided active publics into subgroups using this theory. For example, Ni and Kim (2009) identified six subgroups of active publics based on the extent of their activeness in problem solving, while Krishna (2017) conceptualized a special type of active public—lacuna public—characterized as those who lack issue-specific knowledge, but exhibit negative attitudes. Despite such contributions, some scholars argued for the need to employ alternative perspectives to better understand publics. 2.2. STP’s limitations for understanding a protesting public Noting the STP’s limitations, scholars (Botan, 2006; Botan & Soto, 1998; Chay-Nemeth, 2001; Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Karlberg, 1996; Leitch & Neilson, 2001; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez, 1993, 1994; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) have argued for alternative approaches to understanding publics. As evidenced by Grunig and Repper’s (1992, p. 129) description of publics (“A public, a market, or any other segment of a population exists only because a […] practitioner uses a theoretical concept to identify it”), the STP locates publics as a subject position (Leitch & Neilson, 2001). Specifically, these scholars have criticized the STP for viewing publics as collectives that arise around organizational problems (Botan & Soto, 1998; Vasquez, 1994). 2.2.1. A public centered around symbolic reality These scholars have disputed the STP’s assumption that publics often arise from problems; instead, they have emphasized that publics often arise around symbolic realities (Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Sommerfeldt, 2012). They view publics as engaging in “an ongoing process of agreement upon an interpretation” to arrive at “more sophisticated, insightful, and socially linked” interpretations than organizations assume (Botan & Soto, 1998, p. 21). Given the autonomous, interpretive, and communicative nature of publics, individuals can become involved in communication processes to understand their world and develop their symbolic reality and group consciousness through a process of continuous interaction (Botan, 2006; Vasquez, 1993; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). Scholars adopting this approach have argued that problematic situations are not static objects; rather, they are symbolic realities “created, raised, and sustained through the symbolic convergence (configuring and reconfiguring) or messages” (Vasquez & Taylor, 2001, p. 150). Such realities or collective beliefs develop through social interactions in which events and information are discussed and interpreted; some members will inevitably disagree and deviate from the group, while others will defend and retain their beliefs. Beliefs are constantly “contested, refuted, reformulated, and defended within as well as between groups” (Klandermans, 1997, p. 5). Empirical studies (e.g., Klandermans & Oegema, 1987) have supported this approach, finding that—contrary to STP’s predictions—protesters viewed the possibility that their participation would resolve the problem that triggered their active participation skeptically. Nevertheless, they acted on principle to protect their values. Rather than fixed, individual perceptions are susceptible to interpretation; thus, the meanings individuals attach to their social contexts explain their participation in such protests (van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2009). Ironically, an empirical study based on the STOPS (Kim et al., 2012) revealed that—contrary to STOPS’s predictions—problem recognition had no significant association with motivation or protest participation. Kim et al. (2012) explained that the massive media coverage received by the issue examined in their study limited the potential for variation in how problem recognition affected motivation. However, these empirical studies imply that individuals become active for reasons other than problem solving, as suggested by some scholars (Botan, 2006; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). 2.2.2. Individuality among a public Scholars arguing for the incorporation of public-centered and process-based approaches emphasize the importance of a public’s 2

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

individuality, treating a public as a “metaphor of a collection of individuals” (Allport, 1937; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001, p. 149) rather than a rational entity whose actions are predictable via sociopsychological variables. Hence, collective behaviors, such as protests by active publics, are not unitary phenomena, but “individuals acting together” despite disagreements and differing motives and contributions to goal-achieving processes (Klandermans, 1997, p. 3). Individuals become engaged in communication processes through different emotions and motivations (Vasquez & Taylor, 2001); such emotional motives may play key roles in triggering a public’s active participatory actions, since a completely rational person would never participate in collective action because of its temporal, financial, physical, and psychological costs (Klandermans, 1997). Scholars (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) have explained that individual urgency to address problems does not necessarily translate into action; they have argued that the fact that collective action requires fulfillment of several other factors (e.g., expression motivation) highlighting the need for greater focus on the “meaning, emotion, or alternative sources of motivation” (Vasquez & Taylor, 2001, p. 149). An empirical study (Verhulst & Walgrave, 2009) conducted using data from 18 separate protests in eight countries across nine issues supported this argument, revealing that those lacking appropriate means of venting their dissatisfaction or complaints were more likely to take to the streets to express their concerns. The study also demonstrated that emotional protests involving violence or victims tended to attract considerable first-time participants. Stürmer and Simon’s (2009) field study in Germany found that anger played a pivotal role in triggering student protests. They also revealed that releasing aggressive tension was a driving motivation for protest. 2.3. Motive-based approach to understanding protesting publics Motivation has received limited attention in the public relations field. Hallahan (2000b, p. 466) has explained that individuals are “ready, willing, interested, or desire to process a message” when motivation is heightened, leading to a predisposition to information processing. STOPS (Kim & Grunig, 2011) incorporated motivation as a pivotal link between various cognitive and perceptual variables and behaviors, defining it as “the extent to which a person is willing to learn and think more about a given problem as a consequence of recognizing a problematic situation, finding a close connection to his or her own interest, and/or expecting little constraint in solving the problem” (Kim et al., 2012, pp. 150–151). However, its role has been restricted to determining the joint influence of three perceptions (problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition) connected to a specific problem before it manifest behaviorally. Kim and Grunig (2011) call this situational motivation specific to a given problem, distinguishing it from non-situational motivations like the need for social interaction or pleasure. In other academic fields, including political communication and social psychology, scholars have devoted considerable attention to motivation in trying to understand various types of political participation. For example, scholars (Conover, Searing, & Crewe, 2002; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1987, 1991; Kwak, Williams, Wang, & Lee, 2005) have found that motivations such as information gathering, opinion formation, expression, or persuasion, drive discussions about politics, which foster further participation in various political activities (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955; Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999; Pattie & Johnston, 2009; Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). Meanwhile, researchers have found that multidimensional motivations like psychological well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, selfrealization, social integration) (Klar & Kasser, 2009), gaining rewards and recognition (Grant, 2008; Omoto, Snyder, & Hackett, 2010; Vallerand & Lalande, 2011), concern about others (Omoto et al., 2010), or benefiting others (Grant, 2008) drive political activism. 2.3.1. Motivation and protest Specifically, scholars have identified motivation as a key concept in protest or social movement contexts, because, although many individuals sympathize with protest goals (e.g., equal rights), few actually participate in goal-achieving processes. Scholars have identified various motives (e.g., grievances, efficacy, identity, emotion, social embeddedness) (for a review, see van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013; van Zomeren, 2016) that trigger protest participation; instrumentality, which posits that individuals engage in cost–benefit analysis when making decisions about participating in collective action, is among the most dominant approaches (Klandermans, 1993). Initially influenced by social constructivism—centered on how individuals perceive and interpret their contexts—Klandermans and colleagues (e.g., Klandermans 1997; Klandermans & Oegema, 1987) considered the meanings that individuals attach to social contexts, arguing that individual perceptions are more susceptible to interpretation than fixed, and thus play an important role in the meaning-making process (van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2009). These individual-level studies asked why “some people engage in social movement whereas others do not” (Klandermans, 1997, p. 6) and found the answer in the motivations that fuel engagement (Stürmer, Simon, Loewy, & Jörger, 2003). In general, researchers have identified three motivations originating from different sets of costs and benefits to explain individuals’ participation in protests: collective, normative (social), and reward (nonsocial) motives (Klandermans, 1993; Klandermans & Oegema, 1987; Simon et al., 1998). The collective motive is a function of the expectation that a given goal will be reached and the values that an individual weighs against expected outcomes (i.e., goals). Generally, achieving a collective action goal means that all people, including those who do not participate, benefit from the outcome. For example, a successful protest against the construction of a nuclear power plant benefits everyone in the neighborhood, though some may not have protested. The normative motive involves the expected reactions of significant others (e.g., family members, friends, or colleagues) to an individual’s participation in a given collective action. For example, participation in a student activist group may help a person gain peer approval. The reward motive involves costs (e.g., physical risks, time, or money) and benefits (e.g., satisfaction) that directly affect individuals. The normative and reward motives relate directly to actual individual participation, meaning they affect only those who participate. For example, individuals who participate in an anti-war protest may lose time and energy, but earn respect from their colleagues or enjoy 3

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

themselves with other members who share their values. Many studies have made convincing arguments regarding the utility of their empirical data in various contexts (Klandermans, 1993; Klandermans & Oegema, 1987; Simon et al., 1998). For example, Klandermans and Oegema (1987) conducted telephone surveys with 114 citizens three days before a scheduled demonstration and found that, as a collective, those who intended to participate in a demonstration against cruise missiles in an attempt to convey their opinions to the government did not expect to stop the missiles’ deployment. They found a higher participation likelihood among those who knew more people attending the demonstrations (i.e., normative motive) and perceived lower costs (i.e., reward motive). Similarly, using a survey of Senior Protection League Gray Panthers’ members, Simon et al. (1998) showed that collective, normative, and reward motives predicted collective action participation intentions. Other studies (e.g., Verhulst & Walgrave, 2009; Walgrave & Verhulst, 2006) have used this motive-based approach to further examine the distinct motivations that convert non-activists into activists. Using data from 18 separate protests regarding nine issues in eight countries, Verhulst and Walgrave (2009) examined how first-time protesters differed from veteran protesters and found that individuals who lacked a means of venting their dissatisfaction or complaints were more likely to express their concerns in the streets. They also showed that emotional protests involving violence or victims tend to attract numerous first-time participants. Rowley and Moldoveanu (2003) specifically focused on when stakeholders take action and proposed that stakeholder urgency does not necessarily translate into action; instead, several factors, including motivation to express one’s identity or protect one’s interests, must exist for actual collective action to occur. In summary, viewing publics’ active collective behavior as one-dimensional attempts to solve organizational problems, prior public relations studies have mostly disregarded motives other than problem solving or public individuality. A motive-based approach suggests that multidimensional motives drive individuals to become protesters. Investigating the multidimensional motives that may drive individuals take part in collective behaviors is necessary to enhance our understanding of protesting publics. Although Klandermans’s (1997) framework includes three motives, this exploratory study, which investigates multiple motives at individual levels, does not divide individual motives into two specific categories (i.e., normative, reward) due to the potentially different categorizations that may exist. Thus, this study poses the following research questions. RQ1. What collective-level motives do protesting publics have? RQ2. What individual-level motives do protesting publics have? Kim, Ni, and Sha (2008) challenge scholars to “continue the refinement of theories that are both conceptually rich and pragmatically useful” (p. 761). This study addresses this challenge by investigating the underlying motivations of protesting publics, thereby identifying potential directions for theory extension. Additionally, this study’s insights regarding the motivations of protesting publics have practical implications for government officials that can improve relationships between governments and publics. 3. Cases under study This study investigated two anti-government protests in South Korea; these were selected because they involved the general public during specific time periods. Protests led by certain groups or protests carried out several times— e.g. activist group protests that attempt to persuade other publics to adopt their positions (Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001) or those who protest to receive media attention—may have different goals. Protests involving the general public were selected to identify the multiple individual and collective motives individuals have in their relationships with governments. This study focused on protesting publics’ motivations other than problem solving; thus, themes related to problem solving were excluded. Additionally, themes emerging across cases were reported to create a potential framework for understanding protesting publics in the context of government public relations. 3.1. Case 1: 2008 anti-Lee administration protests On April 18, 2008, Korean President Myung-bak Lee reached an agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush to lift the ban on U.S. beef imports. South Korea was one of the U.S.’ largest beef markets until the 2003 ban resulting from the outbreak of mad cow disease (i.e., bovine spongiform encephalopathy) (Kim, 2008). This disease is linked to the variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, a fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy disease in humans (Smith, 2007). Commencing his presidency in February 2008, President Lee seemed motivated to restore the close relationship between the U.S. and Korea that had weakened over the previous two regimes (Herskovitz, 2008). After the announcement, the threat of mad cow disease in U.S. beef received heavy coverage in the mass media. Fear that U.S. beef might be unsafe spread like wildfire across Korea, initiating uncontrollable mass protests against U.S. beef imports that lasted for more than two months. On May 31, 2008, more than 100,000 people gathered in Seoul Plaza, and police detained more than 200 protesters after violent clashes (Choe, 2008). During the protests, approximately 1000 protesters were detained, more than 370 police officers were injured, and 111 police buses were damaged (Hong & Choi, 2010). 3.2. Case 2: 2016 anti-Park administration protests Korean President Geun-hye Park stepped down from her presidency when the Constitutional Court upheld a parliamentary vote to impeach her for alleged corruption on March 10, 2017. The scandal centered on President Park’s relationship with Ms. Soon-sil Choi, an old friend with no official government post, accused of a number of offenses, including influence-peddling, leaking classified information, interfering in national affairs, and pressuring corporations to donate to her foundations. President Park also allegedly had personal connections to Ms. Choi’s inappropriate conduct, and her approval rating had plummeted to approximately 5%, the 4

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

lowest in South Korean presidential history (Lee, 2016; Park & Kim, 2016; “Seoul Protest Targets,” 2016). The scandal generated massive protests; for 17 consecutive Saturdays between October 29, 2016 and March 4, 2017, hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets of major cities facing cold and sometimes snow, to voice their dissent. As many as a million people participated in several gatherings (Choi & Kim, 2016) and 2.3 million took part in the sixth demonstration on December 3, 2016 (“The Comparison of,” 2016). 4. Methods Considering the scarcity of research investigating the motivation of active publics, a qualitative method was deemed most appropriate; such an approach facilitates the explication of processes or experiences in particular settings and offers richness and comprehensiveness by accommodating detailed descriptions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative interviewing is a robust strategy when “‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context” (Yin, 2003, p. 1). Additionally, it was chosen because participants’ perceptions matter in research questions that investigate “why.” This paper was based on a large study that focused on various characteristics of protesting publics. This study investigated two cases of protesting publics engaged in anti-government protests. Examining multiple cases facilitated the identification of factors that motivate individual activism across contexts by highlighting the stable themes that emerged in both cases. Furthermore, employing two cases helped the researcher transcend the limitations of a single context. Despite their contributions to public relations, the close connection of case-specific studies (Chay-Nemeth, 2001; Vasquez, 1993) to specific contexts limits their application to other contexts, inhibiting the development of theories based on their findings. In both cases, participants in anti-government protests were interviewed at the protest sites. 4.1. Participants: case 1. 2008 anti-Lee administration protests In the first case study, 22 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants of an anti-Lee administration protest in Seoul Plaza, Korea. Purposive sampling began at the site of a series of protests from June 14–20, 2008, and August 20–21, 2008. The researcher approached interviewees and explained the study’s purpose. Among the 22 interviewees, eight refused to be recorded, but their interviews gave the researcher a general sense of their motivations. The interviews with the 14 participants who agreed to be recorded lasted 30–65 min. Participants had various occupations, including homemakers, office workers, unemployed, students, and doctors; half were female. Their participation in the protests ranged from 1 to 16 days. This study received institutional review board (IRB) approval, and participants gave their informed consent. 4.2. Participants: case 2. 2016 anti-Park administration protests For the second case study, 25 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants in the anti-Park administration protests in Korea. Data were collected via purposive sampling at Gwanghwamun Square during a series of protests between October 29 (the first day of protests) and December 31, 2016. The researcher approached interviewees and explained the study’s purpose. Seven participants declined to be recorded, but consented to written notes; 18 participants consented to recording, and their interviews lasted 20–60 min. Participants were aged 23–67 years.12 were female. Their occupations included homemakers, office workers, retirees, students, doctors, and journalists. The university the researcher belonged to during the second study did not require IRB approval. The researcher, however, tried to use the same standards as in the first, IRB-approved study. 4.3. Data collection The quantity of interviews (47) yielded sufficient data to reach a saturation point, producing concrete, repeated, emerging themes. Experimental research has shown that the initial 12 interviews were sufficient to reach a saturation point (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). The interview protocols (see Appendices A and B) were developed based on Rubin and Rubin’s (1995) guidelines, pretested through mock interviews with graduate students, and revised for further clarification. The semi-structured interview protocol was used to give participants some control over the interviews while focusing on the research questions. All interviews were conducted by a female researcher at protesting sites; even after introducing herself and explaining the goals of her research, participants remained guarded against sharing information with outsiders. In the first case, several protesters had been arrested or injured in clashes with the police during the preceding month, and, while no physical confrontation occurred during the second protest, the sheer number of protestors in the confined protest site made conducting interviews difficult. Many refused to be interviewed, and almost everyone approached asked whether the researcher was a news reporter or whether their identities (names, professions, etc.) would be publicly revealed. After discussing personal matters—their jobs or current events—for some time, they consented to interviews. Before the interviews, the researcher made every effort to comply with IRB ethical considerations for interviewing—explaining the interviews’ purpose and the publication potential. More importantly, because of the participants’ general reluctance, the researcher stressed that the interviews could be stopped anytime at the interviewee’s request and that they did not need to answer any questions that made them uncomfortable. The assurances that the researcher would treat them ethically seemed to positively impact the results by opening participants’ minds. 5

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

4.4. Data analysis All recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a grounded theory approach that grounded the findings in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The researcher sought “the patterns, the recurrences, [and] the plausible whys” to seek “repeatable regularities” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ confidentiality, and the transcribed interviews were reread with guidance from the research questions until a saturation point was reached. Each emergent theme was grouped with inter-related themes while being separated from new themes using the constant-comparative analysis method. Finally, themes were organized based on the research questions. The interviews were conducted in Korean, and the interview questions were developed in English, then translated into Korean. After the interviews, the researcher (a bilingual with a working knowledge of Korean and English) back-translated the collected data into English. During the back-and-forth translation process, another bilingual Korean was invited to ensure that the interview protocol content and data were retained. 4.5. Research rigor Strategies to ensure reliability and validity were employed at every step of the research process to attain research rigor and obtain an effective outcome (Creswell, 1997; Kvale, 1989). In particular, the researcher tried to be self-reflective, embracing the notion that, since the investigator is the instrument of the research, the “[r]esearch is only as good as the investigator” (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002, p. 17; Sha, 2016). The researcher proceeded cautiously, frequently using observer comments and memos to ensure that the present research did not reflect any assumptions she may have formed during previous research experience (e.g., STPbased research). Moreover, the researcher tried to remove participants’ assumptions regarding the researcher. For example, when initiating interviews, the researcher was often asked about her occupation and the interview’s purpose. The researcher was a Ph.D. student at a U.S. university when she conducted interviews for the first case. Participants willingly provided details about the protest because they assumed that the researcher, a student studying abroad, was unfamiliar with the Korean context. However, the participants knew that she was an assistant professor at a college in Korea while collecting data for the second case, which made them hesitant to provide details; for example, they often said, “You should know better” or were concerned that their “subjective thoughts” could contribute to the research because they perceived research as usually based on “fancy stuff in labs.” The researcher therefore stressed that she was unfamiliar with the event and wanted to hear their views while continuously probing their answers. The researcher also tried to minimize the assumptions that occurred to her during the interviews while analyzing the data so that the data did not lead her to any premature conclusions. 5. Findings The research questions asked what motives individuals have at collective and individual levels. The section below reports the respective findings. 5.1. Responses to RQ1 RQ1 asked what motives protesting publics have at the collective level, and two themes emerged: (1) warning the government and (2) communicating with both the government and public. 5.1.1. Warning the government Participants joined the protests to warn the Lee and Park administrations that the citizens were vigilant and outraged. Participants often emphasized that their goal in protesting was to protect democratic values by ensuring that politicians and the government understood that sovereignty and rights resided with citizens who were politically concerned. One participant said, “Maybe politicians and the government need our oversight. If they knew we were watching them, [such an issue might have been prevented]. I, myself, had been indifferent to political issues. I did not know the names of politicians at all.” Interestingly, many were rather unconcerned about the problems that had triggered the protests. For example, one participant who participated in the anti-Lee Administration protest said, “If it [imported beef] were that serious, the government would have prevented beef imports.” Instead, they thought that the government had acted illegitimately by eschewing proper procedures to reach a consensus about the issue. They were aggrieved about being disregarded in the decision-making process and felt that their concerns about U.S. beef imports should have been considered because “the country’s sovereign power resides with us.” Many protesters stressed the value-protecting purposes of their participation, expressing their anger about the government’s illegitimate actions. They perceived the government as having threatened the fundamentals of democracy by ignoring proper procedures and making decisions that could negatively affect society as a whole. They often asserted that they did not think that President Park’s scandal had directly impacted them, but assumed that the current issue was only the tip of the iceberg and that more fundamental problems that would negatively affect them were hidden. One participant explained, Whether Ms. Park is impeached or not, I would not be affected that much, as my salary would not change, but there is a more serious problem [than a salary cut] because her misconduct affects me in other ways. This shows us that my taxes and money are being misused. I am taxed highly, but this is okay if it benefits citizens. I heard that citizens in Scandinavian countries pay high 6

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

income taxes. I think that despite such high tax rates, they do not complain because they believe their taxes are appropriately utilized for all citizens, including themselves. This issue shows that this government takes money from citizens in taxes to spend on kickbacks. This is unfair, regardless of my interests. Participants also perceived the government’s communication process as illegitimate. While communicating with the citizens, the government was neither ethical nor transparent and frequently “changed its words, and something hidden was discovered later.” They believed that if they overlooked this issue, “other legitimate procedures would not be warranted in the future.” Participants delivered their warnings to the government, but did not expect that their protests would change the government’s decisions regarding the beef ban. For example, one participant who had participated in the protest every day over the previous two weeks said, “In the beginning, people expected something to change, but nothing has changed, and it won’t. But as citizens, we need to send warnings to the government. Otherwise, the government may not heed public opinion when issues of a more serious nature arise in the future.” Another participant added, “I think this [participating in the protest] is my duty to protect democratic values.” 5.1.2. Communicating with the government The protest was the participants’ only means of communication with the government, particularly with the president. They seemed to believe in particular that they had no direct channel of communication and the few available indirect channels to the government were useless. They said that the only direct way to express their opinions was by voting, but that this was not an option in the current situation because they would “need to wait another year to vote, which is too late for us. We need to communicate now.” Moreover, some participants shared that they had sent emails to lawmakers to support President Park’s impeachment, but they perceived this as less effective than the protests. One participant said, We, the citizens, want to say that we are sick of President Park’s scandal and the unhealthy links between business and politics, and we want her to resign from the presidency. But there is no access to the government, politicians, or the president… I do not think she [President Park] looks for citizens’ feedback on governmental websites or reads any letters, even though we send many emails. I believe this [protesting] is the only way to communicate with them. Participants often used the term “hope” to express their goal of communicating with the government. Although they doubted the effectiveness of such protests, they participated because they hoped to resolve the current situation. For example, one participant said, I do not think that our participation will determine whether the problem can be resolved, but we hope to contribute to resolving the current issue […] because if many people join the protest, the president may understand what people really want. As you know, two million people took to the streets, and I think we showed them what we want. Interestingly, participants seemed to agree that their political acts would “contribute to consolidating democracy in the long term,” just as citizens fought against the military dictatorship in the 1980s to build democracy and preserve its values for their descendants. However, they contrasted the current protests with those of the 1980s. For example, one participant said, Unlike the 386 Generation’s1 violent protests, we are peacefully expressing our beliefs in an attempt to protect democracy. We are just saying that we want to communicate with Ms. Park and that she should listen to us… This is why more than a million citizens, ranging from middle school students to the elderly, are here, while I believe the political protests in the 80s were led by young people. Another participant commented, “If it [the current protest] were like the protests in the 80s, which were very violent and involved physical fights with police, I would not join them as it would be too scary, but this is not such a protest; we just want to communicate.” Furthermore, they wanted to share their opinions with those who were unaware of the issue’s seriousness. Without their collective action, the event would “not be covered by news reporters, and people will think it has been resolved.” This was the best way to publicize the issue. 5.2. Responses to RQ2 RQ2 asked what motives protesting publics have at the individual level. Three themes emerged: (1) to learn from the experience, (2) to gain personal satisfaction, and (3) to release their emotions. 5.2.1. Learning from the experience Participants wanted to learn about politics, society, and democracy at a historic event. They often explained that they had learned about the democratic process and grassroots democracy from textbooks, but rarely had opportunities to become involved in these processes apart from voting. First, they expected to learn how their democratic values could be protected. They often mentioned that such things were not taught in schools; thus, the experience was more valuable. Some explained that voting had been the only way of exerting their rights, but they were pessimistic about the voting system because it was difficult for them to believe that a single vote could impact the election result. However, they learned about the importance of social responsibility through their participation, 1 The 386 Generation stands for those who were born in the 1960s, attended college in the 1980s, and actively participated in the political uprising against the military dictatorship in Korea in their 30s (Jung, 2006).

7

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

saying, “At least those who are here […] will regret that their choice during the [last] election caused this problem and learn to gain power by acting collectively.” Others wanted to experience the situation in person. Controversy existed around the issues, and some participants were unsure which side to take. Thus, they initially attended to experience the vigil in person and choose a side; later, they continued protesting because the whole process had impressed and educated them. For example, one participant said that he had only visited the site to see what was occurring. However, having listened to protesters’ speeches on why beef imports hurt the poor and observed how many people were committing all their energy, time, and money to the movement, he realized the protest’s importance. Moreover, many seemed to have been influenced by the large number of protesters. One participant said, “There must be some reason why so many people have joined the process that I may not know.” Another participant, who described herself as unaware about such issues, emphasized that she was passively helping others who were “young, smart, and knowledgeable enough about such issues to lead this protest.” People seemed to assume that there must be some major problem to have driven thousands to take to the streets. 5.2.2. Personal satisfaction Some participants recalled historical moments that had advanced democracy and connected the current protests to such events. Participants seemed to take pride in being a part of such important moments and fulfilling their duty to advance democracy. They often recalled fierce public protests against the military dictatorship, which ultimately resulted in democracy in the 1970s and 1980s. One participant commented, “Historically, no, it does not have to go far. In the 80s, people defended their human rights by paying attention and showing an interest in politics… we are here for the same reason.” In addition to such devotion to a historical moment, participants also wanted to be acknowledged by future generations, as one participant described: You know the May 1968 protests in France. When I was young and read a history book, I used to think “What if I had been there?” […] This protest will be a historical moment that will be remembered in the future, so I will be happy to have been there with other people at the protests. I also read an article about a man who brought all his children to the protest. He said that he came to be able to tell his children with pride in the future that their father was part of this historical moment… Whether this event successfully creates a desirable outcome, this must be a very meaningful event in history. 5.2.3. Emotional release Participants strongly attributed their motivations for taking to the streets to negative emotions, such as loss, frustration, shame, resentment, concern, despondency, or low self-esteem. Participants generally expressed a sense of loss, frustration, and being thoroughly absent-minded, as one participant explained: This protest represents an emotional release for citizens. We made the wrong choice in the last election, the president did not play her role as the president, lawmakers were extremely selfish, and Soon-sil Choi took advantage of such stupid politicians… I did not suffer any material damage from this issue, but it has been hugely mentally damaging. I feel upset enough to give those involved a good licking. I feel that they have ridiculed the entire public. Participants who voted for Ms. Park in particular seemed to feel responsible for and ashamed about their poor choice. One participant who admitted to voting for Ms. Park lamented her choice: “I am upset at myself as I made a wrong choice in voting… I feel we citizens were so stupid and did not thoroughly verify the quality of presidential candidates.” Another ashamed participant commented that she had not scrutinized the qualities of the presidential candidates, as she already had preferred parties in mind. Moreover, participants expressed their concerns about their nation’s deteriorating reputation, feeling ashamed of their country’s global reputation. One participant said, “I am concerned about the future… This kind of absurd issue will make foreign countries perceive us as a small, undeveloped country. I am so ashamed.” In contrast, participants also experienced emotional release through their collective behavior, akin to experiencing a sporting event or festival. One participant explained, “If I were a very rational person, I would not be here, because its success [anti-U.S. beef import protesting] does not depend on my participation. However, I’m here because I’m somewhat emotional.” They even seemed to have fun during the protests. As one participant explained, “I was at an event for the 2002 World Cup when thousands of people came here [the Seoul Plaza] to support the Korean team; sometimes I recall the big event and feel excited.” Another participant described experiencing a historical moment as joyful: We could watch Tae-Ji Seo’s [one of the most popular Korean pop singers] concert at home on a DVD player with a 5.5 surround sound speaker system and it would be convenient, but we go to concerts because we obtain valuable experiences by being with others and the hero on the stage. Protests have the same meaning… just participating should be a big joy. 6. Discussion Using 47 in-depth interviews with individuals who participated in anti-government protests and guided by Klandermans’ motivebased framework, this study deepens scholarly understanding of the multidimensional individual- and collective-level motives of protesting publics. On the collective level, participants were motivated by the desire to warn and otherwise communicate with their government. On the individual level, they joined the protests to learn from their own experiences, gain personal satisfaction, and vent 8

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

their emotions. As suggested by the motive-based framework, this analysis showed that multidimensional motives drove protesting publics, demonstrating the limitations of dominant public relations theories (e.g., STP, STOPS) in explaining protesting publics. Specifically, at the collective level, the findings suggest that people have various motives other than problem solving (i.e., beef imports, the impeachment of President Park) for taking part in protests. Many participants found the issues at hand (e.g., threats of mad cow disease) neither problematic nor directly relevant to them, or they believed that their participation would not alter the current situations, confirming prior research findings (Klandermans & Oegema, 1987). Other collective motives, such as value protection and communication efforts in these anti-government protests, were driving factors that led people to take to the streets. As many scholars (Botan, 2006; Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez, 1993; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) have argued, publics seemed to develop a symbolic understanding of the protest and their participation when they autonomously interpreted various meanings of the protest through their interactions with others. Symbolically, their participation represented the only public channel for collectively communicating with and warning the government. In the STP framework, government violations of protester values (e.g., democratic decision-making procedures) may be viewed as problems that protesters perceived. However, manifested in symbolic realities, value-protection motives are somewhat distinct from problem recognition in that people’s ultimate goals are not to solve the immediate problems; instead, they focus on preserving more fundamental values that can be embodied in various social processes. Simply put, value-protection motives are more static and problem recognition is more situational. This dynamic was observed in protesters’ perceptions of the consequences of participation. They frequently used terms such as “hope” or “in the future,” asserting that while their current participation would not resolve the current situation, the government’s legitimacy and democracy itself could be protected in both the immediate future and the long term. They also hoped that protests would move citizens to show more concern about their social and political behaviors (e.g., choosing candidates more deliberately rather than simply voting along party lines) in the future. As van Stekelenburg and Klandermans (2009) have suggested, the meanings that individuals attach to political events are a shared ground that drive people to the streets collectively. This study’s findings support Kim et al. (2012), who found no association between motivation and either political participation or problem recognition. In the context of governmental public relations or politics, other motives may play stronger roles in predicting publics’ activeness; for example, Liu and Horsley (2007) argue for a separate model for government public relations. Another noteworthy finding is the importance of individuality; the findings revealed that protesting publics have various personal motives at the individual level, supporting the arguments of Klandermans (1997), who views collective behaviors as non-unitary phenomena acted by individuals with differing motives and disagreements, and Vasquez and Taylor (2001), who stress the emotional, irrational nature of publics. In this study, participants often mentioned personal costs (e.g., spending days on the street in the snow and cold, being threatened by the police) or limited efficacy (e.g., their participation would not make a difference). Nevertheless, they chose to participate to satisfy their needs, such as life lessons, personal satisfaction, and emotional release—dimensions of individual reward motives (Klandermans, 1997). Participants viewed the political protests of the 1970s and 1980s as symbolic events that protected human rights and advanced democracy in modern Korean society. They learned this in school, but seemed to want to experience such events themselves. Furthermore, participant comments that there must be some reason so many people engaged in the protests suggest the massive number of people who occupied Seoul Plaza and Gwanghwamun Square was meaningful to participants. Similarly, participants thought that massive anti-government protests were infrequent and valued the opportunity to participate in historic events that would later be remembered, similar to the 1980s Korean pro-democracy movement or the French Revolution. People felt pride regarding their participation in historic events. As previous studies (Botan, 2006; Cozier & Witmer, 2001; Vasquez, 1994; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) have argued, individuals appeared to take part in the ongoing process of reconfiguring the symbolic meaning of anti-government protests. Corroborating prior research (Stürmer & Simon, 2009; Verhulst & Walgrave, 2009), this study’s findings also suggested that protesting publics are driven by the motive of emotion venting. Political issues may make individuals feel upset, lost, frustrated, guilty, or regretful. Emotions varied among participants, but they all needed emotional release and had no means of coping other than expressing their feelings. Interestingly, some participants’ emotions had no connection to the problems that had triggered the protest. Participants’ comparisons of the protests to pop concerts or the World Cup indicate that they enjoyed participating because doing so gave them a sense of community belonging. In this regard, such protests functioned to release stress that had accumulated in their everyday lives. Contrary to prior studies (Stürmer & Simon, 2009; Verhulst & Walgrave, 2009) showing an association between protests and negative emotions, this study found that Korean people attached positive emotions to protesting. As shown in participants’ differentiation between current protests and those of the 1970s and 1980s, people may have interpreted the protest as something positive and enjoyable. Thus, this study highlights the importance of taking a cultural and historic approach to understanding protesting publics, because, as prior studies suggest (Chay-Nemeth, 2001; Sha, 2006), the interpretation of current events depends on individuals’ experiences in their specific cultural and historical contexts. Klandermans’s (1997) framework originally suggested two individual-level motives (i.e., normative, reward). No strong theme emerged around the normative motive in this study, although many participants mentioned they often communicated and came to the protests with their friends and colleagues. When specifically asked, they often said they must have come to protests alone, stressing their own will toward participation. Although it is beyond the scope of this research, investigating how the normative motive affects protest participation differently than the reward motive would expand scholarly understanding of protesting publics.

9

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

7. Theoretical and practical implications One of this study’s most important theoretical contributions is that it offers the potential to develop a comprehensive framework integrating social psychological approaches to understanding protesting publics. As Klandermans’s (1997) framework suggested, individuals join protests with both collective and individual motives. This study’s findings also support public relations scholars’ arguments for the need of more public-centered, process-focused approaches (Botan, 2006; Botan & Soto, 1998; Chay-Nemeth, 2001; Leitch & Neilson, 2001; Sommerfeldt, 2012; Vasquez, 1993, 1994; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). Currently dominant theories like STP (Grunig & Repper, 1992) and STOPS (Kim & Grunig, 2011) suggest individuals with such low problem and involvement recognition and high constraint recognition should remain inactive. However, this study found that individuals take part in protests for various personal reasons developed from various contexts, experiences, interpretations, or interactions with other people or environments; this highlights the importance of individual-level approaches to understanding protesting publics, which takes a step forward from prior research on publics that maintained a confined view. Importantly, this study’s findings do not contradict current public relations theories such as STP and STOPS (Grunig & Repper, 1992; Kim & Grunig, 2011); rather, they are complementary. Individuals may not be focused on solving a given problem, but they seem to interpret its meanings in their context through their interactions with others (Botan, 2006; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001). Subsequently, the problem’s shared meaning may trigger individuals to participate in protests, as Kim and Grunig (2011, p. 128) called problem recognition “the prime mover” of subsequent actions. For example, in the case of mad cow disease, many individuals perceived U.S. beef as safe, but viewed President Lee’s exclusion of the public from his decision-making as inappropriate. Thus, the issue itself may not have been problematic, but participants perceived its symbolic meaning—comprised of various contexts and processes—as problematic. In this regard, problem recognition can be a trigger for further interpretation and interactions and the STP and STOPS (Grunig, 1997; Kim & Grunig, 2011) demonstrate these pivotal paths. As this study suggests, however, individuals have multiple motives for participating in protests (Klandermans, 1997), and the incorporation of individual needs and emotional factors further complements current public relations theories’ ability to understand protesting publics. This study’s other major theoretical contribution is its focus on the government public relations context. The study developed a framework specific to protesting publics by exploring possible factors worth considering in future research. Government public relations differs from other forms in its limitations and purposes (Liu & Horsley, 2007; Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2013). Individuals expect governments to serve citizens ethically and legally by involving them in decision-making processes (Hong et al., 2012; Liu & Horsley, 2007; Sommerfeldt, 2013); thus, individuals become protesters when such expectations are violated regardless of the given issue’s seriousness or inherent nature, as this study indicated. This study also highlighted the importance of effective government public relations since the sheer number of potential publics in political contexts is huge and political influence over individuals is unavoidable (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2013). This study also has several practical implications. First, it suggests that public relations practitioners must understand the symbolic meanings that individuals attach to their participation. When issues arise, organizations and public relations practitioners narrow their focus to specific problems, but this study’s findings indicate that an issue’s fundamental causes may remain hidden, meaning a problem’s resolution may leave individuals unappeased if their core reasons for collective action remain unaddressed. Practitioners must therefore understand the real meaning of issues to foster effective communication with the public. This further implies the need for active participation by practitioners in the co-creation process through which individuals associate meanings with organizations. Second, this study indicates that public relations practitioners need to understand the multiple—often implicit—motivations that drive individuals to become active. As this study showed, individuals have various motivations including defense of values, satisfaction of personal and emotional needs, or concern about explicit problems. These motivations may have little to do with the problems on which protests focus; rather, they should be understood in a broader and more fundamental sense. By understanding these multiple motives at the individual level, organizations can foster higher quality relationships by more fundamentally fulfilling their needs. For example, the current study findings may indicate that Korean citizens’ general stress levels are high enough to utilize protesting as a release. Third, government officials must endeavor to communicate with and involve the public in decision-making processes. Public needs warrant democratic values, regardless of problems or their consequences. Specifically, study participants mentioned that they took extreme collective action because they had no other means of expressing their concerns to the government. Thus, creating alternative public participation channels could enhance the government–public relationship and communication. 8. Limitations and future research directions No study is without limitations. First, the events covered in this study received extensive media coverage, which may have contributed to high levels of public engagement. As one participant said, “Some young people in middle or high school seemed to get stirred up by mass media,” which indicates some protesters may not have been motivated, but temporarily swayed by external influences. Although some scholars (Vasquez, 1994; Vasquez & Taylor, 2001) have argued that this phenomenon is natural to the development of collective beliefs, future research should investigate how individuals become a protesting public. Moreover, this study employed two cases specific to the government public relations context in Korea. Participants interpreted the events according to their historical and cultural contexts, although this was beyond this study’s scope. Scholars (Chay-Nemeth, 2001; Sha, 2006) have stressed the importance of cultural identity and historical background in understanding publics. Thus, future studies should focus on these aspects when investigating protesting publics. Additionally, testing the transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of these findings 10

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

to other settings or populations would be beneficial. Finally, focusing on motives common to two events, this study did not compare the differences in publics’ reactions between the two protests. Examining how and why publics differently react to various antigovernmental issues would be an interesting avenue for future research. In conclusion, this study has enhanced scholarly understanding of the collective- and individual-level motives of protesting publics. It enriches the field of public relations by integrating different approaches to understanding publics and disclosing features of protesting publics that have received scant attention. The study also contributes to public relations practices by guiding practitioners in identifying the symbolic meanings and diverse motives of a public’s collective action. Moreover, it highlights the importance of creating new channels for government-public interaction. Appendix A Case 1 Interview Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tell me a little bit about yourself. What is your job? In general, are you interested in politics or social issues? Why/why not? Who/what influenced you? Did you vote in the 2007 election? Why do you participate in the process? What are the most appealing characteristics of this demonstration? What meanings do you think these people attach to their participation? What are your personal reasons, if any, to participate in this protest? Is there anything else you would like to share in terms of your experience? Could you share any information about yourself? Thank you for your participation!

Appendix B Case 2 Interview Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Tell me a little bit about yourself. What is your job? In general, are you interested in politics or social issues? Why/why not? Did you vote in the most recent election? Why did you participate in this protest? What do you think is the objective of this protest? What meanings do you think these people attach to their participation? What are your personal reasons, if any, to participate in this protest? What are the most appealing characteristics of this protest? Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience? Could you share any information about yourself? Thank you for your participation!

References Aldoory, L., & Van Dyke, M. A. (2006). The roles of perceived shared involvement and information overload in understanding how audiences make meaning of news about bioterrorism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 346–361. Aldoory, L., Kim, J. N., & Tindall, N. (2010). The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elaborating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review, 36, 134–140. Allport, F. H. (1937). Toward a science of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1, 7–23. Avery, G. D., Bedrosian, J. M., Brucchi, S. J., Dennis, L. B., Keane, J. F., & Koch, G. (1996). Public affairs in the public sector. In L. B. Dennis (Ed.). Practical public affairs in an era of change: A communications guide for business, government, and college (pp. 169–177). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Botan, C. H., & Soto, F. (1998). A semiotic approach to the internal functioning of publics: Implications for strategic communication and public relations. Public Relations Review, 24, 21–44. Botan, C. H. (2006). Public relations in a new age. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.). Public relations theory II (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chay-Nemeth, C. (2001). Revisiting publics: A critical archaeology of publics in the Thai HIV/AIDS issue. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 127–161. Chen, Y. R. R., Hung-Baesecke, C. J. F., & Kim, J. N. (2017). Identifying active hot-issue communicators and subgroup identifiers: Examining the situational theory of problem solving. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94, 124–147. Choe, S. H. (2008). Shaken Korean leader promises new beginning. The New York Times. (June 12) Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/ asia/12skorea.html. Choi, H. Y., & Kim, B. E. (2016). ONE MILLION protesters storm Seoul's streets, demanding Park's resignation. The Korea Times. (November 15) Retrieved from: http:// www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/11/116_218065.html. Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political discussion. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 21–62. Cozier, Z., & Witmer, D. F. (2001). The development of a structuration analysis of new publics in an electronic environment. In R. L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations (pp. 615–623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public

11

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

Relations Research, 12, 3–22. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: de Gruyter. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.). Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.). Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 503–530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.). Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London, U.K: International Thompson Business Press. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. Hallahan, K. (2000a). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26, 499–515. Hallahan, K. (2000b). Enhancing motivation, ability, and opportunity to process public relations messages. Public Relations Review, 26, 463–480. Herskovitz, J. (2008). No honeymoon for unpopular S. Korean president. Reuters. (June 4) Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/03/us-koreapresident-idUSSEO24913820080603. Hong, S. C., & Choi, C. (2010). Intermedia frame building: The U.S. beef import case in South Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Communication Association. Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European countries. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 37–68. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1987). Networks in context: The social flow of political information. American Political Science Review, 81, 1197–1216. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure, and interdependence. Journal of Politics, 53, 122–160. Jiang, H., Kim, J. N., Liu, B., Luo, Y. The impact of perceptual and situational factors on environmental communication: A study of citizen engagement in China. Environmental Communication (in press). Jung, S. H. (2006). The sociology of the middle ages: Who is the 386 Generation? Naver Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId= 1395165&cid=42068&categoryId=42068. Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 263–278. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. New York, NY: The Free Press. Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communication activeness: A situational theory of problem solving (STOPS). Journal of Communication, 61, 120–149. Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361–385. Kim, J. N., Ni, L., & Sha, B. L. (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 751–768. Kim, J. N., Ni, L., Kim, S. H., & Kim, J. R. (2012). What makes people hot?: Applying the situational theory of problem solving to hot-issue publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 144–164. Kim, M. (2008). South Korea relaxes U. S. beef import rules. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSEO27686720080418?feedType=RSS& feedName=topNews. Klandermans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations, and barriers: Steps towards participation in social movements. American Sociological Review, 52, 519–531. Klandermans, B. (1993). A theoretical framework for comparisons of social movement participation. Sociological Forum, 8(Sep. (3)), 383–402 Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers. Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Blackwell: Oxford. Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2009). Some benefits of being an activist: Measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Political Psychology, 30, 755–777. Krishna, A. (2017). Motivation with misinformation: Conceptualizing lacuna individuals and publics as knowledge-deficient, issue-negative activists. Journal of Public Relations Research, 29, 176–193. Krishna, A. Poison or prevention? Understanding the linkages between vaccine-negative individuals’ knowledge deficiency, motivations, and active communication behaviors. Health Communication (in press). Kvale, S. (1989). Issues of validity in qualitative research. Lund, Sweden: Chartwell Bratt. Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, 32, 87–111. Lee, R. (2016). Park’s approval rating hits record-low of 5%. The Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/11/116_217549.html. Leitch, S., & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical frameworks for the practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations (pp. 127–138). London: Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 377–393. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 13–22. Ni, L., & Kim, J. N. (2009). Classifying publics: communication behaviors and problem-solving characteristics in controversial issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3, 217–241. Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Hackett, J. D. (2010). Personality and motivational antecedents of activism and civic engagement. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1703–1734. Park, J. M., & Kim, J. (2016). South Korean parliament votes overwhelmingly to impeach President Park. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkoreapolitics-idUSKBN13X2JS. Pasadeos, Y., Berger, B., & Renfro, B. (2010). Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 136–158. Pattie, C., & Johnston, R. (2009). Conversation, disagreement and political participation. Political Behavior, 31, 261–285. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act?: An interest and identity based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28, 204–219. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seoul protest targets South Korean President Park Geun-hye. (2016). BBC.Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37958037. Sha, B. L. (2006). Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An emerging theory of intercultural public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 45–65. Sha, B.-L. (2016). Editor’s essay. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28, 3–4. Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531–565. Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., ... Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 646–658.

12

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Kim

Smith, T. (2007). A focus on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Retrieved from: http://web.archive.org/web/20080303135425/http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_ fsheet.php?product_id=169. Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2012). The dynamics of activist power relationships: A structurationist exploration of the segmentation of activist publics. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 269–286. Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2013). The civility of social capital: Public relations in the public sphere, civil society and democracy. Public Relations Review, 39, 280–289. Stürmer, S., & Simon, B. (2009). Pathways to collective protest: Calculation, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 681–705. Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2013). Political public relations: Old practice, new theory-building. Public Relations Journal, 7, 1–11. Stürmer, S., Simon, B., Loewy, M., & Jörger, H. (2003). The dual-pathway model of social movement participation: The case of the fat acceptance movement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71–82. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27, 263–284. The comparison of 1–9th candlelight vigil participants who participated in Park, Geun-hye impeachment candlelight vigil. (2016, December 26). Newstown. Retrieved from http://www.newstown.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=272361. van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2009). Social movement theory: Past, present, and prospect. In I. van Kessel, & S. Ellis (Eds.). Movers and shakers: Social movements in Africa (pp. 17–44). Leiden: Brill. van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, B. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61, 886–905. van Zomeren, M. (2016). Building a Tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of social structure into the political psychology of political action. Political Psychology, 37, 87–114. Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on the public. In R. L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations (pp. 139–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vasquez, G. M. (1993). A homo narrans paradigm for public relations: Combining Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory and Grunig’s situational theory of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 201–216. Vasquez, G. M. (1994). Testing a communication theory-method-message behavior complex for the investigation of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6, 291–316. Verhulst, J., & Walgrave, S. (2009). The first time is the hardest? A cross-national and cross-issue comparison of first-time protest participants. Political Behavior, 31, 455–484. Walgrave, S., & Verhulst, J. (2006). Towards ‘new emotional movements’? A comparative exploration into a specific movement type. Social Movement Studies, 5(3), 275–304. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13