Networks of social capital: Extending a public relations model of civil society in Peru

Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Networks of social capital: Extending a public relations model of civil society in Peru Erich J. Sommerfeldt ∗ Department of Communication, University of Maryland-College Park, 2130 Skinner Building, College Park, MD 20742-7635, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 May 2012 Received in revised form 27 July 2012 Accepted 7 August 2012 Keywords: Public relations Civil society Social capital Peru Networks

a b s t r a c t Scholars have argued that public relations can and indeed must be used to improve society. This article builds on the work of Taylor and Doerfel (2005), who advocated for the continued study of civil society through the lens of public relations theory. This study contributes to a normative public relations model of civil society by examining how interorganizational relationships, which may initially be established for purposes of resource exchange, benefit civil society through the creation and maintenance of social capital. The study examined a segment of Peruvian civil society dedicated to media development, as media is a key partner in building civil society (Taylor, 2009). The results of the study help to explain how interorganizational relationships contribute to the creation of social capital in a civil society network, and how certain network positions are integral to maintaining the social capital of a community of actors. Implications for the role of public relations in building and maintaining networks of interorganizational communities are discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The existence of a robust civil society is thought by many scholars to be an essential precondition of a successful democracy (e.g., Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Gibson, 2001; Hadenius & Uggla, 1996; Taylor, 2000; Taylor & Doerfel, 2005, 2011). However, it is the quality of relationships among civil society actors and organizations that may truly demonstrate whether civil society is capable of supporting democracy and what Heath (2006) termed a “fully functioning society.” Given the important role of interorganizational relationships in civil society, Taylor and Doerfel (2005) argued that public relations has much to contribute to civil society research. They suggested, “public relations, as a relationship-building function . . . must be at the center of the civil society process” (p. 122). A civil society requires quality relationships to be effective and to benefit a community of actors from the social capital generated through such relationships (Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011; Taylor, 2009; Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). Assessing the relationships that exist among civil society actors, then, is essential to understanding the efficacy of civil society movements and to how public relations may support civil society. More work is needed to integrate public relations into civil society theory and practice. The purpose of this study is to further Taylor and Doerfel’s (2005) public relations model of civil society in two ways. First, the study examined how relationships facilitate social capital by questioning whether organization–public relationships among civil society actors lead to increased levels of social capital. Second, the study further interrogates the concept of structural holes in social networks (Burt, 1992a) by examining the extent to which important civil society organizations are bridging structural holes and maintaining quality relationships so that social capital in a civil society network is maximized.

∗ Tel.: +1 301 405 6528. E-mail address: [email protected] 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.08.005

2

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

To explain the importance of relationship quality among civil society actors, the first section of the paper reviews literature on interorganizational relationships in civil society, social capital and civil society networks, and how network composition is related to social capital. The paper then presents the results of network analyses of media development civil society organizations in Peru. In so doing, the study focuses on the role of interorganizational relationships in generating the social capital necessary to maintaining a successful civil society. Last, two propositions are offered to extend a public relations model of civil society.

2. Literature review 2.1. Understanding civil society as relationships Theories of civil society have argued that a robust democracy and fully functioning society require a set of autonomous organizations that work to check the power of the state and build social infrastructure (Gibson, 2001; Taylor, 2009). Succinctly put, civil society can be described as “private and public associations and organizations, all forms of cooperative social relationships that create bonds of trust, public opinion, legal rights and institutions and political parties that voice public opinion and call for action” (Alexander, 1998, p. 3). Civil society may encompass a wide variety of organizations, such as religious groups, professional organizations, universities, unions, media, international donor organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Taylor, 2009). While the mere existence of civil society organizations is one indication of civil society’s ability to effect change, scholars have argued it is the relationships among these actors that are of greater importance to goal achievement. Renshaw (1994) explained that civil society is above all else a relational construct. Renshaw argued that civil society organizations are merely the “bricks” of civil society. Only when civil society actors are joined together can they become a force for development and democratization. Hadenius and Uggla (1996) understood civil society as groups arranged in collaborative networks aimed at accomplishing common objectives. A successful civil society is thus dependent upon quality relationships among organizations. Civil society is thus both a process and an outcome of communicative relationships.

2.2. Building a public relations model of civil society Civil society research by public relations scholars has indicated that public relations, when it works to build relationships and create shared meaning, empowers the accomplishment of shared goals among civil society partners (Taylor, 2000, 2009; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). Taylor and Doerfel (2005) elaborated on the relationship management and organization–public relationship (OPR) literature by suggesting that the strength or weakness of a civil society is found within the relationships among civil society partners. In proposing a public relations model of civil society, Taylor and Doerfel argued the success of one organization is largely dependent on the nature of relationships among all civil society partners, and highlighted the relationships among NGOs and donor organizations as particularly crucial. They explained, “relationships between [civil society] partners are needed to fully leverage the potential of each group” and “when the interests of two or more partners converge, then opportunity for those groups to achieve their goals is enhanced” (p. 122). In order to effectively accomplish shared goals, an issue-sector of civil society is dependent on the relationships among its constitutive organizations. Taylor and Doerfel’s (2005) model proposed that networks of relationships are the foundation of civil society and should be maintained by the public relations function of organizations. Networks among civil society actors with similar goals must be developed so they may accomplish their work with less physical capital—the money and manpower needed to enact change (Drabek, 1987). In other words, NGOs, and civil society in general, should be engaged in building networks to deal with problems too complex for a single organization to accomplish alone (Brown & Ashman, 1996). A civil society thus requires social capital.

2.3. Social capital in civil society In the last two decades, few theoretical concepts have received more interdisciplinary attention than that of social capital. Social capital is a broad and, at times, vaguely defined concept that has been theorized and applied in different ways and at varying levels of analysis. One perspective considers social capital as lodged in networks of association (cf. Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). According to Putnam (1994), social capital “refers to features of social organization such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action” (p. 163). Social capital has thus become a common theme in civil society research, for as Fukuyama (2001) explained: “an abundant stock of social capital is presumably what produces a dense civil society” (p. 11). When relationship networks produce benefits for civil society actors such networks are thought to be evidence of social capital (e.g., Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). Indeed, Taylor (2009) defined civil society as “the process of interactions that lead to relationships, build trust and create social capital” (p. 77). Relationships are thus the vehicle for social capital—providing a familiar scholastic milieu in which researchers can examine the role of public relations in civil society.

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

3

2.4. Organization–public relationships and social capital Public relations scholars have recently begun to explicate organizational relationships—both internal and external—as the manifest social capital of an organization (e.g., Ihlen, 2005; Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011). Ihlen (2005) noted that as public relations theory has become more relationship-centered, the number and quality of relationships an organization possesses should be considered the total social capital of the organization. Found within organizational relationships is the sum of resources, both tangible and intangible, an organization can bring to bear (Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011). The existence and quality of relationships, then, facilitate certain outcomes and/or manifestations of social capital (Kennan & Hazleton, 2006). Moreover, the OPR and relationship management literature has recognized relationships as analogous to social capital in all but name. The content of relationships is understood to constrain or enhance the ability of organizations to act and has consequences that affect outcomes such as goal achievement, organizational effectiveness, and the effectiveness of the public relations function itself (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Huang, 2001). Public relations scholars have thus positioned relationships as a bellwether of organizational success or failure. Social capital is clearly a fruitful avenue from which to further a public relations model of civil society and to theorizing how public relations can contribute to communities and societies. Taylor and Doerfel (2005) called for research that measures the idealized relationships advocated in their model, and to further explain how public relations contributes the advancement of civil society. They did not demonstrate the extent to which the content or quality of relationships is connected to how civil society may achieve its goals, or how such content is facilitated by actors with the requisite capital (both social and financial) to sustain civil society. Thus, a normative model of public relations in civil society should also address: (1) the extent to which OPR facilitates social capital and (2) whether those organizations that have the wherewithal to positively augment goal accomplishment are indeed occupying key network positions. Assessing how relationship quality and network structure are related to social capital are clear next steps to furthering a public relations model of civil society. 2.5. Measuring social capital As Sommerfeldt and Taylor (2011) pointed out, the measurement of social capital is difficult as it takes no one form or dimension. However, another widely accepted definition of social capital by Coleman (1988) lends insight into how it may be assessed: [Social capital] is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors—whether persons or corporate actors—within the structure. (p. S98) Given this definition, this study applied the concepts of information exchange and cooperation as aspects of the structure of civil society that help to facilitate outcomes—the accomplishment of shared goals. 2.5.1. Information exchange Meyer (1997) explained that NGOs exchange information to strengthen each other’s ability to act. Information exchange between NGOs is particularly valuable before undertaking a shared action, and to strengthen technical and organizational skills (Drabek, 1987; Meyer, 1997). Taylor and Doerfel (2003) suggested NGOs that hold similar goals should share information and other resources to help cope with ambiguity, particularly in transitional nations. While NGOs, as non-profit organizations, do compete for donor funds, which may result in isolationism (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004), NGOs have more reasons to share information with other NGOs than do profit-seeking organizations (Meyer, 1997). High levels of information exchange among civil society actors are thus indicative of social capital. 2.5.2. Cooperation Civil society actors must cooperate with one another to accomplish development goals. Social capital promotes more effective cooperation and social problem solving at both the interpersonal and interorganizational levels (Tendler & Freedheim, 1994). Cooperation is thus recognized as a positive manifestation of social capital (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Indeed, several definitions of social capital are associated with receiving support from other actors to accomplish goals (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1994). Doerfel and Taylor (2004) noted while an idealized civil society is comprised entirely of cooperative relationships, the sometimes-intense competition for funding among NGOs might undermine truly collaborative relationships. Little cooperation may be a sign of low social capital in that actors are unable to come together to work toward accomplishing shared goals, and this failure may lead to the eventual collapse of the network. 2.6. Relationships create social capital As discussed, information exchange and cooperative relationships between civil society actors are thought to be evidence of social capital. As Kennan and Hazleton (2006) described, it is the communicative exchange as reified in relationships that produces and defines available social capital resources. Resources, such as information and the cooperation of others, can thus be understood as representations of social capital that are made possible through relationships. As such, the first

4

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

hypothesis was posed to further theory development on the relationship between OPR and social capital, and public relations’ contributions to civil society. H1.

Relationship quality will positively predict levels of information exchange and cooperation.

While social capital results from quality relationships, it is also found in the structure of a network (Lin, 2001). In other words, the composition of relationships in a network has an impact of the overall social capital available to network members. Holding certain positions in a network is an indication of some advantage (Burt, 2002). Social capital is thus also understood as an asset of network composition and position. 2.7. Network structures that sustain civil society Recent work has interrogated civil society and social capital through the examination of inter and intraorganizational network analyses (e.g., Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003, 2005, 2011). Examinations of the position of certain actors in a network as well as overall network structure helps to further illustrate the importance of relationship maintenance in facilitating an efficacious civil society. In particular, centrality and structural holes are theoretical and statistical concepts that have been used in assessments of social capital and in the study of civil society. 2.7.1. Network centrality is key for important civil society actors Centrality is a network concept that has significant heuristic value to public relations theory and research (Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011). In brief, an actor is high in centrality if it is extensively involved in relationships with other actors in a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). While there are many forms of network centrality (cf. Freeman, 1979) this study is specifically interested in examining degree centrality. Degree centrality is a simple measure of how many relationships an actor holds in a network, and is reflective of an actor’s network importance and prestige (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In civil society, important organizations such as donors should seek to maintain strong ties with many actors because of the resource needs of civil society partners (Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). Civil society evolves through developmental stages before it reaches high levels of stability (cf. Giffen, Earle, & Buxton, 2006). As Giffen et al. explained, donors tend to arrive in development contexts as issues intensify and pull out as issues appear to wane or resolve. Taylor and Doerfel (2003) noted that in order to have long-term impact on the network, donors should enable important, “veteran” NGOs to assume more prominent roles in the network. Donors should ideally imbue networks with social capital by transferring influence to key NGOs as they withdraw from development contexts. Thus, depending on the stage of civil society, donors and/or NGOs may be recognized as important organizations and important communication partners, and should consequently seek to maintain many ties in the network. Research has demonstrated that centrality is related to perceptions of an actor’s influence or importance in the network (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Flanagin, Monge, & Fulk, 2001). Central organizations are perceived to be more valuable as relationship partners, influential, and prestigious. Important actors are typically recognized as such because they control access to information and other resources (Flanagin et al., 2001; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). Preferably, then, those that are recognized to be important actors in a civil society network should maintain many network contacts. H2.

Degree centrality will be positively associated with perceptions of organizational importance.

Additionally, those who maintain many relationships should ideally be actors high in social capital. As Taylor and Doerfel (2005) pointed out, “the more an organization collaborates with others, the greater that focal organization’s degree centrality will be” (p. 123). For the benefit of the entire network, the organizations that maintain the greatest number of relationships should also be strong providers of information and be willing to cooperate. Centrality and social capital outcomes such as cooperation and information exchange are thus inherently linked. H3.

Degree centrality will be positively associated with information exchange and cooperation.

While degree centrality is an intuitive way to understand an organization’s influence within a network, the structural composition of networks and location of important actors such as donors or veteran NGOs contributes to the overall social capital of civil society as well (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). Public relations might therefore best serve civil society when it works through actors that bridge structural holes. 2.7.2. Structural holes and maintaining network social capital Taylor and Doerfel (2003) wrote, “the theory of structural holes is a natural, but largely unused complement to philosophies about civil society and its development” (p. 158). A relationship between two linked organizations presents opportunities for exchange and the possible creation of mutual benefit and social capital (Brown & Ashman, 1996; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). Burt (1992a) argued that unlinked actors represent a structural hole in a network. Significant opportunities are afforded to an actor that serves as a “bridge” between the two unconnected actors, linking them together (Burt, 2002). These opportunities are rooted in the bridging actor’s ability to play the role of tertius gaudens—the “third who benefits” (Burt, 1992b, pp. 30–32). Thus, while benefits are afforded to the connecting “third”—an actor that may occupy such positions out of entrepreneurial self-interest—such agents are also better positioned to facilitate development in the network. Those

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

5

who bridge structural holes can add value to a network by brokering connections and resources among others (Stohl & Stohl, 2005). Ideally, actors who bridge structural holes in civil society should recognize their position and hold the necessary capital and aspirations to maintain the network. The efficiency and effectiveness of relationships are particularly important to donor organizations and others recognized as important network actors, as they are the entities that most often provide the resources needed for the development of civil societies (Brown & Ashman, 1996; Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Flanagin et al., 2001). Burt (1992a) argued a dense network wherein many actors are connected to many others could be “inefficient in the sense that it returns less diverse information for the same cost as the sparse network” (p. 65). One solution is that focal organizations should be connected “to as few other organizations (efficiency of links) as possible while obtaining indirect access to other organizations in the network (effectiveness of links)” (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004, p. 380). In other words, those who bridge structural holes should seek to maintain the balance of social capital in a network by reducing the number of redundant relationships, but also connecting the network members so that resources and communication flows freely. Public relations, as a community building function, should therefore take advantage of an organization’s network position to facilitate network cohesion. Extending previous work, donor organizations should emerge as important network actors because of their access to information and financial resources. Donors should also seek to maximize their structural position in a network by taking advantage of structural holes to maintain civil society (Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). However, as civil societies mature, donors will typically withdraw (Giffen et al., 2006). Other important network actors must thus assume leadership roles previously maintained by donors. To ensure the long-term sustainability of civil society, Taylor and Doerfel (2003) noted that donors should work to ensure that important NGOs not only occupy strategic positions, but are also “willing and capable to perform a network role as a go-between within the interorganizational relationships” (p. 176). Extending previous research, a normative model for civil society networks would place important network actors in positions that bridge structural holes, allowing them to reach broader parts of the network in an efficient and effective way. Important organizations should, therefore, bridge structural holes that afford them effective and efficient relationships. H4. Structural holes measures of effective size and efficiency will be positively associated with perceptions of organizational importance. The hypotheses of this study were proposed to help explain how quality relationships and the position of certain civil society actors contribute to a normative public relations model of civil society—a model in which the purpose of public relations is to build social capital. 3. Method The best way to illustrate the role of public relations in civil society is through real-world examples (Taylor, 2009). The next sections describe a study of a network of media development organizations in Peru. The network was used to test the hypotheses and offer propositions that may help to extend a public relations model of civil society. 3.1. Network exemplar While the composition of civil society is multifaceted (Hadenius & Uggla, 1996), according to Shaw (1996), the development of a media system that affords communication among groups is “the most critical of all civil society institutions” (p. 13). Thus, a network of actors dedicated to the advancement and protection of free and fair media—herein termed media development civil society—in Peru was examined. There has been significant international donor assistance to Peru both during and after the authoritarian regime of President Alberto Fujimori in the 1990s (Alasino, 2008). One of the many sectors to have suffered under the Fujimori government was the media. The press was tightly monitored and controlled during Fujimori’s administration in the 1990s after long periods of suppression under the military rule of the nation from the 1960s to the 1980s. The media in Peru have suffered a tumultuous 50 years; only in 2011 did the Peruvian press reach fully “free” status (Freedom House, 2011). Media development civil society in Peru thus serves as an ideal context in which to examine how public relations may serve to create the social capital necessary for a civil society sector to accomplish its goals. 3.2. Data collection Through key informant interviews with Peruvian NGOs, donors, and media representatives, and a reputational snowball sample (cf. Knoke & Yang, 2008), a network of 24 organizations that participate in Peruvian media development civil society was identified. The network was comprised by donors, international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), local NGOs, professional associations, educational institutions, and a government agency—all forms of civil society partners identified by Taylor (2009). A brief description of each organization is included in Table 1. One knowledgeable individual from each organization was requested to take a social network survey. Of the 24 organizations in the network, 17 responded, resulting in a response rate of 71 percent, consistent with response rates in previous network research (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Feeley, 2000). When ties from organizations that are missing could not be examined, reciprocity was assumed between the missing organization and the organization that identifies them (cf. Knoke & Yang, 2008).

6

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

Table 1 Roster of organizations, their type and activities. Organization

Type

Activities/purpose

British Embassy Calandria Catholic University Chemonics Citizen’s Day (CAD) Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman) Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Institute for Development Communication (IDC) Institute for Legal Defense (ILD) Institute for Press and Society (IPYS) National Association of Peruvian Journalists (NAPJ) National Endowment for Democracy (NED) National Radio Coordinator (NRC) Network of Peruvian Provincial Journalists (NPPJ) Open Society Institute (OSI) Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) Peruvian Center of Social Studies (CEPES) Peruvian Press Council Proetica RedTV/TV-Cultura Transparencia U.S. Embassy United Nations Development Program (UNPD) USAID

Donor NGO University INGO NGO Autonomous INGO NGO NGO NGO Association Donor NGO Association Donor Government NGO NGO NGO Media NGO Donor Donor Donor

Journalist training Research, training, media observation Research, education Environment, health, education Research, evaluation Civil rights, citizen’s rights Nonpartisan training and promotion Training, research, communication Anti-corruption, legal representation Journalist training, lobbying Training, lobbying, press freedom Strengthening democratic institutions Independent information dissemination Training, lobbying Capacity building, research Monitor international donations Community radio training, free speech Press rights, media independence Transparency, anti-corruption training Training, independent media production Transparency, election monitoring Capacity building, training Capacity building, technical assistance Capacity building, training

3.3. Variables and network measures Participants were asked to identify those organizations on a roster with which they had interacted over the past year. Once identified, Likert-scaled questions were asked about the nature of their relationship with each organization. Providing a roster and asking questions about those on the roster is a common technique for obtaining reliable social network measures (Marsden, 1990). A graphic representation of the network interaction structure is shown in Fig. 1. Results from the survey provided the data for constructing network matrices of relationship quality, social capital, and organizational importance. The results of these measures were valued adjacency matrices indicating the extent to which one organization (row) ranked another organization (column) on the network measures below.

Fig. 1. Interaction network of Peruvian media development actors. Note. Nodes are sized by degree centrality. The larger the node, the more relationships an actor maintains in a network.

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

7

3.3.1. OPR The measurement scales put forward by Hon and Grunig (1999) remain among the most widely accepted for measuring the relational dimensions of an OPR. Hon and Grunig’s scales include items to measure trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction—slightly modified versions of which were used in this study. Each of the composite scales was found to be highly reliable, with Chronbach alpha scores greater than .84. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation of the OPR matrices identified one factor (eigenvalue = 17.433, ˛ = .910) that explained 87.16 percent of the variance in relationship quality. All of the OPR items loaded onto the first factor. As such, the four relationship matrices were then averaged to create an index (the mean) of OPR for each organization. This index matrix was used to test the first hypothesis. 3.3.2. Social capital To measure social capital, items were adopted for information exchange (Haythornthwaite, 1996; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003) and cooperation (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004). Reliability tests for information exchange (˛ = .72), cooperation (˛ = .93), showed the measures met acceptable levels of internal reliability, and index matrices of both variables were created and used to test the first hypothesis. 3.3.3. Organizational importance To measure organizational importance in the network, all 24 organizations were asked to rank all other organizations in the network on the value of their communication relationship. Those who are ranked more positively are likely to be more important to the overall success of the network (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004; Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). The OPR, information exchange, cooperation, and organizational importance matrices were also analyzed using the indegree centrality measure in UCINET 6 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) to attain mean values for each organization, based on all of the other organization’s evaluations. These values were used to test H2–H4. The in-degree centrality scores for the three matrices are reported in Table 2. 3.3.4. Centrality In UCINET 6, the network of interactions among Peruvian media development civil society actors was analyzed using the degree centrality measure. An actor with high degree centrality is “where the action is” in a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 179) and is considered to be “in the thick of things” (Freeman, 1979, p. 219). UCINET’s degree centrality measure reports the number of incoming and outgoing ties for each actor. The degree centrality scores were used to answer H2 and H3, and are included in Table 2. 3.3.5. Structural holes Additionally, the interaction network was analyzed using UCINET 6 to identify measures of structural holes. To answer H4, UCINET was used to obtain values for effective size and efficiency. As Doerfel and Taylor (2004) explained, “an effective link provides access to organizations beyond the initial contact,” and scores may range from zero to the number of actors in the network (p. 385). Efficiency is a complementary measure of effective size that refers to “a contact that connects an actor to a subgroup by way of a single member of that subgroup” (Doerfel & Taylor, p. 385) explaining what proportion of its ties are non-redundant (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). The scores are included in Table 2. These network measures illustrate which actors interact, which have important locations, and whether those actors that are perceived to be important to the overall success of civil society are actually in the position to enact influence within the network. When considered together, the above methods help to characterize the network and provide insight into the development of a normative model of public relations in civil society. 4. Results The first hypothesis predicted the quality of an OPR would positively predict the strength of information exchange and cooperation between two actors. Social network calculations were performed by using the UCINET Multiple Regression Quadratic Assignment Procedure (MRQAP), which regresses individual cells of a dependent network matrix on the corresponding cells in the independent variable matrix or matrices. A MRQAP determined that OPR explained 87.7 percent of the variance in information exchange (ˇ = .936, p < .001), implying that as levels of relationship quality increased, so too did levels of information exchange. OPR explained 87.3 percent of the variance in cooperation (ˇ = .924, p < .001), suggesting that as OPR improved, so did levels of cooperation. H1 was thus fully confirmed. H2 predicted that degree centrality scores would be positively related to perceptions of organizational importance. Centrality refers to organizations with extensive ties in the network. The hypothesis was confirmed because degree centrality was significantly correlated with organizational importance (r = .392, p < .05, one-tailed). H3 suggested that degree centrality would positively predict information exchange and cooperation. The hypothesis was fully confirmed, as degree centrality was significantly related to information exchange (r = .752, p < .01, one tailed) and cooperation (r = .745, p < .01, one-tailed). The strong correlations show that those organizations with the most ties were also those perceived to be the strongest information providers and best collaborators. Previous research suggests that important civil society organizations should occupy network positions that enable them to broker information and resources. H4 predicted that measures of effective size and efficiency would be positively associated

8

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

Table 2 Scores of network measures. Communication importance (rank) British Embassy Calandria Catholic Universitya Chemonics Citizen’s Day (CAD) Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman) Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Institute for Development Communication (IDC) Institute for Legal Defense (ILD) Institute for Press and Society (IPYS) National Association of Peruvian Journalists (NAPJ) National Endowment for Democracy (NED) National Radio Coordinator (NRC) Network of Peruvian Provincial Journalists (NPPJ) Open Society Institute (OSI) Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) Peruvian Center of Social Studies (CEPES) Peruvian Press Council Proetica RedTV/TV-Cultura Transparencia U.S. Embassy United Nations Development Program (UNDP) USAID a

Degree centrality (rank)

OPR (rank)

Information exchange (rank)

Cooperation (rank)

Effective size (rank)

Efficiency (rank)

60 (11) 89 (5) – 43 (17) 57 (13) 104 (1)

5.00 (9) 13.00 (1) 7.00 (7) 8.00 (6) 13.00 (1) 11.00 (3)

22.00 (16) 47.48 (3) 24.19 (14) 29.67 (9) 48.14 (2) 51.05 (1)

23.33 (18) 49.67 (3) 27.33 (14) 36.67 (9) 56.33 (1) 47.33 (6)

24.11 (18) 48.22 (6) 27.44 (16) 29.67 (13) 51.67 (1) 49.89 (4)

3.40 (15) 9.31 (1) 4.71 (11) 4.25 (13) 8.85 (2) 7.00 (4)

.68 (3) .72 (2) .67 (4) .53 (12) .68 (3) .64 (5)

66 (10)

9.00 (5)

34.00 (8)

35.67 (10)

37.11 (9)

5.00 (10)

.56 (11)

36 (18)

4.00 (10)

15.00 (20)

15.67 (20)

14.11 (21)

2.50 (20)

.63 (6)

93 (4)

6.00 (8)

19.76 (17)

26.00 (16)

25.67 (17)

2.67 (19)

.44 (15)

91 (4)

11.00 (3)

40.52 (6)

46.33 (7)

45.44 (7)

6.46 (7)

.59 (9)

55 (15)

7.00 (7)

26.76 (11)

31.33 (12)

30.11 (12)

3.29 (16)

.47 (14)

8.05 (23)

9.00 (22)

9.00 (24)

1.00 (22)

.33 (17)

67 (9)

3.00 (11)

97 (3)

7.00 (7)

24.00 (15)

27.00 (15)

28.56 (15)

4.14 (14)

.59 (9)

56 (14)

10.00 (4)

36.24 (7)

40.00 (8)

41.11 (8)

5.80 (8)

.58 (10)

98 (2) 58 (12)

11.00 (3) 6.00 (8)

42.48 (5) 14.71 (22)

48.00 (5) 19.33 (18)

50.56 (3) 18.33 (19)

6.82 (5) 3.00 (17)

.62 (7) .50 (13)

48 (16)

4.00 (10)

15.57 (19)

16.67 (19)

17.89 (20)

3.00 (18)

.75 (1)

88 (6) 58 (12) 81 (7) 91 (4) 89 (5) 80 (8)

11.00 (3) 3.00 (11) 7.00 (7) 9.00 (5) 4.00 (10) 12.00 (2)

45.76 (4) 5.05 (24) 26.86 (10) 26.43 (12) 14.95 (21) 17.24 (18)

51.00 (2) 9.00 (23) 25.00 (17) 31.67 (11) 15.67 (21) 49.00 (4)

49.33 (5) 9.11 (23) 31.78 (11) 32.89 (10) 13.89 (22) 50.78 (2)

6.82 (5) 1.00 (22) 4.71 (12) 5.67 (9) 1.50 (21) 7.50 (3)

.62 (7) .33 (17) .67 (4) .63 (6) .38 (16) .63 (6)

11.00 (3)

24.57 (13)

29.67 (13)

28.67 (14)

6.64 (6)

.60 (8)

97 (3)

Not included in communication importance question, nominated for inclusion during the survey process itself.

with organizational importance. Important civil society organizations should have an effective network that reaches many different contacts, as well as an efficient network that reaches broad, non-redundant parts of a network via a single contact. Organizational importance was positively associated with effective size (r = .405, p < .05, one-tailed) but not associated with efficiency (r = .07, p > .05, one-tailed). Therefore, the hypothesis was only partially supported. 5. Discussion Public relations has a clear and important role in civil society networks through maintaining relationships that facilitate cooperation and information exchange. This function becomes particularly vital in those organizations that bridge structural holes, as such actors as best positioned to ensure network sustainability. The results of the inter-organizational analysis provide a picture of a civil society sector with organizational leaders that are high in social capital, and others that lack quality relationships or the structural position to enact influence in the network. The answers to the hypotheses and research questions provide two general points of insight into furthering a public relations model of civil society: (1) relationship quality is key to the generation of social capital and (2) important civil society organizations should occupy positions that bridge structural holes. 5.1. Relationships are equivalent to network social capital The results of the first hypothesis lend further credence to calls from public relations scholars to consider relationships as akin to social capital (Ihlen, 2005; Kennan & Hazleton, 2006; Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011; Taylor, 2009, 2010, 2011).

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

9

Clearly, there is a strong link between the quality of a relationship between two actors and the information and cooperation exchanged. Indeed, relationship quality accounts for a high percentage of the variance in the social capital variables studied, making it reasonable to say that relationships are indeed analogous to the social capital of an organization—furthering Ihlen’s (2005) argument that quality organizational relationships result in social capital. The substance of beneficial relationships is akin to the social capital embedded within them, making social capital not only an outcome of relationships, but of the relationship itself. Good relationships are organizational social capital, and vice versa. Important foundational actors in civil society, such as donors like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), are largely responsible for contributing to the development of civil societies (Brown & Ashman, 1996; Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). As can be inferred from the data, relationship quality is strongly correlated with social capital outcomes such as information exchange and cooperation. However, while some donors, USAID included, ranked high in organizational importance, they lacked in relationship quality, as assessed through the OPR measures. For example, USAID ranked third in organizational importance, but was also perceived to maintain relationships of less quality than many other important actors, such as the ombudsman’s office. Moreover, as interrogated in the second hypothesis, those high in organizational importance were also significantly more likely to be high in degree centrality. At the same time, the answer to the third hypotheses suggests those actors who occupy positions high in degree centrality were more likely to rank highly in information exchange and cooperation. The findings of the second and third hypotheses indicate that important actors are also likely to be highly embedded in the network. Therefore, these actors should seek to maintain quality relationships in order to contribute fully to the success of a civil society by providing social capital. This assertion contributes to the first proposition of a normative model of public relations in civil society: Proposition 1. Important civil society actors should be highly embedded in the network and maintain quality relationships so as to facilitate social capital outcomes. 5.2. Important organizations should maintain strategic positions Organizations enter into relationships out of a need for resources (Broom et al., 1997). Previous research on civil society networks has thus placed great emphasis on the structural position of donor organizations and their network relationships. Indeed, understanding the position of donors in civil society and the extent to which they help to shape effective networks is a beneficial research avenue for public relations. As Taylor and Doerfel (2011) explained, donors can create relationships in civil society and “serve as liaisons in the network by being strategically central and by eliminating redundancy” (p. 330). Research has thus suggested donors should have high degree centrality and effective and efficient links. Effective size is an indication of the extent to which an actor has access to diverse parts of a network. As Burt (1992a) explained, network relationships should be “non-redundant so as to reach separate, and therefore more diverse, social worlds of network benefits” (Burt, 1992a, p. 69). Donors should thus seek to “spread the wealth,” as it were, so that parts of the network are not excluded. Important organizations were likely to have a greater effective size, enabling them to research broader parts of the network. As partially explained above, organizations with high degree centrality were likely to be important organizations, and perceived as more cooperative or better providers of information. This arrangement makes important actors in the network purveyors of social capital. As can be seen in Table 2, those actors high in degree centrality are more often than not NGOs. Moreover, four of the top five organizations in effective size and the entire top five in efficiency were NGOs, providing an indication of the leadership role NGOs such as Calandria, CAD, and others are providing to actors across the media development network. Organizations such as the ombudsman, National Radio Coordinator (NCR), the Peruvian Press Council, Calandria, Citizen’s Day, and the Institute for Press and Society (IPYS) all occupied positions high in degree centrality—many were also ranked as important actors. The data suggests a network in which it is NGOs and not donors that are responsible for the proliferation of social capital. Recognizing that sustainable civil societies must eventually function without intense donor engagement, the burden of network maintenance will normatively fall to important NGOs (Taylor & Doerfel, 2003). Indeed, donor participation in Peruvian media development appears to be on the decline. According to media development NGO and donor representatives, several European donor organizations have recently begun to pull out of Peru, citing improving macro-economic indicators in Peru as well as a decline in international aid budgets. The relative lack of structural prominence of some donors in the network, and the concurrent prominence of some NGOs is thus not surprising. While many of most central actors in the network were NGOs, they also had more effective and efficient links than some of the donors. The relationships maintained by the National Endowment for Democracy, and the American and British Embassies (all long-time actors in the media development scene of Peru) are not fully integrated into the civil society network, which is likely an indication of a withdrawal from full engagement in the network or a limited engagement with a select few actors. The retreat of donor organizations and the bridging of structural holes by NGOs are not necessarily indicative of a decline in the stability of a network. As Taylor and Doerfel (2005) explained, while donors should work to foster cooperative relationships, the primary relationship-building work and structural prominence of donors should be in the earlier stages of civil society development. As donor organizations slowly exit civil society networks—as appears to be the case in Peru—foundational NGOs should begin to bridge structural holes. Not only are NGOs such as Calandria and IPYS—both large, highly respected NGOs in the community in question—assuming network positions that bridge structural holes, they hold higher quality relationships in the environment than donor organizations such as USAID, which in turn indicates they

10

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

contribute more social capital to the network. Adapting structural holes theory to the study of public relations’ role in civil society thus enables the interrogation of civil society’s structural evolution—and how public relations may aid this evolution. The more embedded an organization is in a context, as measured through centrality and structural holes, the more likely an organization can create opportunities for others (Taylor & Doerfel, 2011). Civil society organizations are awarded structural prominence and brokerage roles by engaging in positive relationships. The importance of public relations is therefore heightened in organizations that bridge structural holes. As Burt (2002) explained, those who bridge structural holes will generally stand out for their skills in (a) communicating across differences of opinion, (b) reasoning from the interests of the other, (c) establishing mechanisms that build trust and reputation, and (d) re-structuring the organization or market where the current structure is a problem (p. 229). From Burt’s (2002) description, it would appear that organizations that successfully bridge structural holes not only bear the burden of network relationship maintenance and information brokerage, but they are recognized for their role in establishing relationships built on trust, negotiation, and problemsolving—responsibilities long ascribed to the public relations function. In the Peruvian network, it is unclear the extent to which structural prominence is granted to organizations with the capacity or organizational will to sustain the network in the long-term. For example, although Citizen’s Day (CAD) exhibited the highest scores for information exchange and cooperation, the organization was not recognized to be among the most important in the sector. This discrepancy represents either a flaw in the arrangement of the Peruvian network, or a failure on the part of participants to recognize the influence of CAD based on the arrangement and number of its relationship ties. This disconnect is of significant concern for establishing a normative model of public relations in civil society. It raises questions such as: does the mission and capacities of the organization match its network role? Moreover, are important organizations, those recognized to be valuable communication partners, able to best contribute to the network through occupying strategic positions? Perceptions of organizational importance are an indication of those organizations that are most vital to the continuation of civil society (Doerfel & Taylor, 2004). A model of public relations in civil society should also recognize the importance of maintaining quality relationships that facilitate social capital as well as the larger goal of establishing sustainable network structures. Donor organizations or foundational NGOs, those with greater resources and better quality relationships, should sit in strategic positions in the network that make them crucial partners for less well-connected and resource-poor agents in civil society. Proposition 2. Organizations that bridge structural holes should be aware of their strategic position and become willing brokers of information and resources, but also must have the capacity and resolve to maintain the successful functioning of a network. What is essential, then, is that important actors maintain positions high in degree centrality, bridge structural holes, and cultivate positive relationships so that social capital may flow through the network unimpeded. In the early stages of civil society, these positions may be occupied by donor organizations, as they are best equipped to provide the resources that develop civil societies and relationships. However, as civil societies mature, important NGOs may begin to bridge structural holes. Bridging structural holes affords public relations the opportunity to create “a normative environment” that fosters cooperative exchanges and strengthens the positions of all actors in the network (Stohl & Stohl, 2005, p. 461). The existence of structural holes in a network is thus not only a boon for organizational prestige, but serving to bridge those holes is an ethical imperative if public relations is to help build communities and societies.

6. Limitations and future research This paper has extended Taylor and Doerfel’s (2005) nascent public relations model of civil society by demonstrating that quality OPR among civil society actors facilitates social capital. As demonstrated above, quality OPR allows for free flowing information and cooperation among civil society actors. Future research should address the impact of relationship building activities on civil society. Moreover, the this study proposed that important civil society actors, those recognized to possess information or financial resources, should bridge structural holes, wherein public relations, when effectively practiced by such organizations, has the best opportunity to facilitate network development. Future research could examine the practices of those who bridge structural holes to determine whether communication behavior matches their normative network role. As Taylor and Doerfel (2011) explained, civil society is reflective of the cultural, economic, and historic context of a nation. How civil society manifests and the arrangement of efficacious civil society networks are likely to vary. The propositions offered herein were derived from a one-time study of a civil society network in Peru. Ideally, network analyses should be repeated to identify whether the network composition is stable. Additional public relations research on other civil society networks is needed to continue the development of a normative public relations model for civil society. The arrangement of networks, of course, is a process dictated by communication and resource exchange. Quality relationships and an ideally structured network do not manifest themselves without effort. In other words, social capital requires work. As argued in this article and elsewhere (cf. Kennan & Hazleton, 2006; Sommerfeldt & Taylor, 2011), the work of social capital should be inherently tied to the public relations function. Taylor (2009, 2011) argued social capital is accomplished through rhetorical activities. Future research could attempt to assess the relationship among the rhetoric of an organization, the quality of its relationships, and its position in a civil society network.

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

11

7. Conclusion This paper extends the work of Taylor and Doerfel (2005) by arguing the role of public relations in civil society is to develop and maintain social capital through quality relationships among civil society actors and by working through actors in key network positions. Civil society actors must recognize their relationships have a direct consequence on the ability of not only the entire sector to succeed, but also of their organization to benefit from the social capital acquired via those relationships. A significant implication of this study for future research is that communication activities directed at improving relationship quality are likely to result not only in increased social capital in the network as a whole, but are also likely to elevate the influence of the organization in the network. Civil society actors must engage in reciprocal communicative behaviors that are aimed at improving the constitutive variables of relationships that are high in social capital, such as collaboration and information exchange. These behaviors are likely to increase the structural prominence of the organization, benefit the overall organization of the network, and positively augment opportunities for goal achievement. Public relations become the communication processes by which organizations attempt to bind themselves together in a network for their mutual benefit. This mutual benefit takes the form of access to social capital. Relationships are thus the vehicle through which organizations empower themselves and the community. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank The Media Map Project and Internews Network for their support of this research, as well as Maureen Taylor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. References Alasino, E. (2008). Peru: The kingdom of the NGO? Donor harmonization: Between effectiveness and democratization. Madrid: Fundacion para las Relationes Internacionales y el Diaglogo Exterior. Alexander, J. C. (1998). Real civil societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Concept and theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Brown, L. D., & Ashman, D. (1996). Participation, social capital, and intersectoral problem solving: African and Asian cases. World Development, 24(9), 1467–1479. Burt, R. S. (1992a). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (1992b). The social structure of competition. In N. Nohria, & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 57–91). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Burt, R. S. (2002). The social capital of structural holes. In M. F. Guillen (Ed.), The new economic sociology: Developments in an emerging field (pp. 148–190). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Drabek, A. (1987). Development alternatives: The challenge for NGOs—An overview of the issues. World Development, 15, ix–xv. Doerfel, M., & Taylor, M. (2004). Network dynamics of interorganizational cooperation: The Croatian civil society movement. Communication Monographs, 71(4), 373–394. Feeley, T. H. (2000). Testing a communication network model of employee turnover based on centrality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(2), 262–277. Flanagin, A. J., Monge, P., & Fulk, J. (2001). The value of formative investment in organizational federations. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 69–93. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7–20. Freedom House. (2011). Freedom of the press: Peru. Retrieved from. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/peru Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. Gibson, J. L. (2001). Social networks, civil society, and the prospects for consolidating Russia’s democratic transition. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 51–68. Giffen, J., Earle, L., & Buxton, C. (2006). The development of civil society in central Asia. The International NGO Training and Research Centre. Retrieved from. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/R4D/PDF/Outputs/Urbanisation/R7649-report.pdf Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hadenius, A., & Uggla, F. (1996). Making civil society work, promoting democratic development: What can states and donors do? World Development, 24(10), 1621–1639. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from. http://faculty.ucr.edu/∼hanneman/ Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18(4), 323–342. Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from. http://www.instituteforpr.com/pdf/1999 guide measure relationships.pdf Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61–90. Ihlen, O. (2005). The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 492–496. Kennan, W. R., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Internal public relations, social capital, and the role of effective organizational communication. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 311–338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge University Press. Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463. Meyer, C. A. (1997). The political economy of NGOs and information sharing. World Development, 25(7), 1127–1140. Putnam, R. D. (1994). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683.

12

E.J. Sommerfeldt / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 1–12

Renshaw, L. (1994). Strengthening civil society: The role of NGOs. Development, 4(1), 46–49. Shaw, M. (1996). Civil society and media in global crises: Representing distinct violence. London: Pinter. Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2011). A social capital approach to improving public relations’ efficacy: Diagnosing internal constraints on external communication. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 197–206. Stohl, M., & Stohl, C. (2005). Human rights, nation states, and NGOs: Structural holes and the emergence of global regimes. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 442–467. Taylor, M. (2000). Media relations in Bosnia: A role for public relations in building civil society. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 1–14. Taylor, M. (2009). Civil society as a rhetorical public relations process. In R. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 76–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor, M. (2010). Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 5–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Taylor, M. (2011). Building social capital through rhetoric and public relations. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 436–454. Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2003). Building interorganizational relationships that build nations. Human Communication Research, 29(2), 153–181. Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Another dimension to explicating relationships: Measuring inter-organizational linkages. Public Relations Review, 31(1), 121–129. Taylor, M., & Doerfel, M. L. (2011). Evolving network roles in international aid efforts: Evidence from Croatia’s post war transition. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 311–334. Tendler, J., & Freedheim, S. (1994). Trust in a rent-seeking world: Health and environment transformed in northeast Brazil. World Development, 22(12), 1771–1792. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: University Press. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.