- Email: [email protected]
Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges
Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 85–87
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Short Communication
Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges夽 Yi-Hui Christine Huang ∗ , Yin Zhang School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 June 2012 Received in revised form 20 September 2012 Accepted 29 October 2012 Keywords: Organization–public relationship (OPR) OPR research Review
a b s t r a c t This paper develops a better understanding of organization–public relationships (OPR) by analyzing empirical studies published in academic periodicals from 2000 to early 2011. A clear trend in the early years of the past decade was a greater focus on scale development, whereas in the latter half of the decade the emphasis was on scale application. Two main streams of OPR research reflect distinct clusters of authorship and research foci. In addition to providing a research summary, this study consolidates the lessons learned from OPR scholarship and provides suggestions for future research. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Organization–public relationship (OPR) has been emphasized in public relations research and practice since the 1980s. OPR has been criticized, however, for being informed more by intuition than meticulous conceptualization and rigorous methodology (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). Ki and Shin (2006) stress that relevant research has neglected to study OPR as a dynamic process existing within diverse contexts (p. 195). Responding to the call for further conceptual and methodological work on OPR, this paper analyze empirical studies published in various academic journals from 2000 to early 2011. This study makes several important contributions to the field of public relations in general and to the field of relationship management in particular. First, we situate OPR at a higher conceptual and operational level. Second, we extend Ki and Shin’s work (2006) by adding data collected after 2004. Finally, we help refine extant theories of public relations effectiveness (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) by explicating the antecedents and outcome variables of OPR.
2. Method We searched four SSCI journals – the Journal of Public Relations Research, the Public Relations Review, the Journal of Communication, the Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and two newly established academic journals in the field, the Journal of Communication Management and the International Journal of Strategic Communication. Keywords were used to search for titles and abstracts of articles: “organization–public relationship(s),” “OPR”, “relationship management,” “relationship building,” and “relationship maintenance.” A total of forty studies, containing either quantitative or qualitative data, are represented in this survey.
夽 The complete study can be requested from the author. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 39431846. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y.-H.C. Huang). 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.10.001
86
Y.-H.C. Huang, Y. Zhang / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 85–87
The following aspects of OPR study in the articles served as categories of analysis for this paper: (1) the definition of OPR; (2) the topic/theme of the study; (3) the nature of relationship examined (political, educational, NPO-public, donor-NGO, commercial, etc.); (4) the perspective emphasized in the investigation (organization or public, subjective or objective, state or process); (5) the dimensions defining and/or characterizing OPR; and (6) the major findings of the study. The following methodological items were also coded: (1) research method (survey, experiment, interview, case study, etc.); (2) the nature of respondents (university students, congressmen, NPO members/donors, etc.), if applicable; and for quantitative research, (3) the method and results of statistical analysis. 25% of the sample was randomly chosen for inter-coder reliability. The inter-coder reliability of the variables examined was between .93 and 1.0.
3. Results Two main streams of OPR research can be defined according to distinct clusters of authorship and research foci.
3.1. Cluster 1 Thirteen empirical studies in our data set adopted and developed Hon and Grunig’s (1999) PR Relationship Measurement Scale and Huang’s (2001) OPRA (developed based upon Huang’s (1997) doctoral dissertation). The research falling in this first cluster views OPR as a relational outcome by exploring it as a dependent variable or as a relationship characteristic that mediates various effects of public relations practice including digital communication, crisis communicative strategy, and relationship cultivation strategy. This cluster of studies examined trust, relational satisfaction, relational commitment, and control mutuality regardless of methodology. The measured reliability (in Cronbach’s alpha) in these studies revealed that the scale reached an acceptable level, most being higher than .70.
3.2. Cluster 2 The second cluster of scholars is represented by Bruning and colleagues, who adopted the scale developed in Bruning and Ledingham (1999), Ledingham and Bruning (1999), and Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997). Based upon the scales developed by Ledingham and Bruning (1999), Bruning, Ledingham, and their co-authors define OPR from the perspective of the public’s attitudes toward an organization. Our study also summarizes the five empirical studies that applied Bruning and Galloway’s (2003) scale. These five studies all evince reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) at a satisfactory level (between .72 and .92). The research falling in the second cluster tends to treat OPR as an independent variable and to explore its effects on the public’s attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors.
3.3. Findings across two clusters Both clusters of research have contributed to OPR theory by situating the concept at a higher operational level. Among the various OPR measures, satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality were ranked as the top four variables (N = 16 and above). Trust in particular is the variable most often emphasized.
3.4. Methodological preference Quantitative approaches (75%) were the main methodological preference in the examined studies, followed by qualitative approaches (15%) and review or meta-analysis (10%). Among the 30 articles using quantitative methods, survey/questionnaire is the most frequent (85.7%), followed by experiment (10.7%). Six studies individually or in combination with qualitative methods used interviews. We also observed that a limited number of OPR studies adopted methods such as longitudinal research or network analysis.
3.5. Themes In earlier OPR research there was greater focus on scale development, while recent scholarship has emphasized scale application. The scope of the application has expanded and diversified, and different educational relations, commercial relations, and political relations have been explored. Moreover, a majority of OPR studies were carried out from the perspective of publics (66.1%) in contrast to organizational perspective (17.9%) or co-orientation (5.2%). Such trends appear to be responding to the call for more research on power balances and symmetrical research agendas.
Y.-H.C. Huang, Y. Zhang / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 85–87
87
3.6. Cross-cultural investigation Another important finding is that 15.8% of OPR research was conducted in an international setting, particularly in East Asian regions such as Taiwan, China, and South Korea. These studies introduced new dimensions measuring OPR in order to reflect certain cultural implications such as face and favor practices. 4. Future research Criticisms of OPR research remain. Given the consensus in existing PR scholarship that OPR is multi-dimensional in conceptualization and requires a multi-indexed approach, definitive measurement criteria for OPR, such as “relationship dimensions,” “relational features,” “relational outcomes,” and “relationship quality indicators,” continue to be elusive. 4.1. Dynamic emphasis This paper calls for the development of more dynamic and process-oriented methodologies for discerning the various attributes of OPR. For example, to what extent trust and relational commitment is a causal or reciprocal relationship is worthy of exploration. 4.2. Cultural context OPR scholarship should ultimately attempt to be more comprehensive in its conceptualization and more sensitive to different cultural contexts. For example, studies of OPR in Middle Eastern or Latin American regions are needed. Eurocentric traditions may in turn be enriched by studies developed out of non-Western contexts. 4.3. Level-specific effects Attention should be paid in future OPR studies to exploring both the interactive and the relative effects at individual and organizational levels. This would perhaps illuminate complex relationships among these variables that have previously been simplified as OPR–performance links. 4.4. The buffering and/or double-edged effects of OPR on organizational performance Discerning both the positive and negative effects of OPR on organizational effectiveness is another important challenge to future research. References Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization–public relationship scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309–319. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization–public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: a study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville. FL: Institute for Public Relations. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations, organization–public relationships, and conflict management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: a cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 6–90. Ki, E. J., & Shin, J. H. (2006). Status of organization–public relationship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985–2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 194–195. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1999). Managing media relations: extending the relational perspective of public relations. In J. Biberman, & A. Alkhafaji (Eds.), Business research yearbook. Saline, MI: McNaughton & Gunn, Inc, pp. 644–648. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: toward a theory of relational loyalty, a qualitative approach. Academy of Managerial Communication Journal, 1, 23–43.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Short Communication
Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges夽 Yi-Hui Christine Huang ∗ , Yin Zhang School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 June 2012 Received in revised form 20 September 2012 Accepted 29 October 2012 Keywords: Organization–public relationship (OPR) OPR research Review
a b s t r a c t This paper develops a better understanding of organization–public relationships (OPR) by analyzing empirical studies published in academic periodicals from 2000 to early 2011. A clear trend in the early years of the past decade was a greater focus on scale development, whereas in the latter half of the decade the emphasis was on scale application. Two main streams of OPR research reflect distinct clusters of authorship and research foci. In addition to providing a research summary, this study consolidates the lessons learned from OPR scholarship and provides suggestions for future research. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Organization–public relationship (OPR) has been emphasized in public relations research and practice since the 1980s. OPR has been criticized, however, for being informed more by intuition than meticulous conceptualization and rigorous methodology (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). Ki and Shin (2006) stress that relevant research has neglected to study OPR as a dynamic process existing within diverse contexts (p. 195). Responding to the call for further conceptual and methodological work on OPR, this paper analyze empirical studies published in various academic journals from 2000 to early 2011. This study makes several important contributions to the field of public relations in general and to the field of relationship management in particular. First, we situate OPR at a higher conceptual and operational level. Second, we extend Ki and Shin’s work (2006) by adding data collected after 2004. Finally, we help refine extant theories of public relations effectiveness (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) by explicating the antecedents and outcome variables of OPR.
2. Method We searched four SSCI journals – the Journal of Public Relations Research, the Public Relations Review, the Journal of Communication, the Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and two newly established academic journals in the field, the Journal of Communication Management and the International Journal of Strategic Communication. Keywords were used to search for titles and abstracts of articles: “organization–public relationship(s),” “OPR”, “relationship management,” “relationship building,” and “relationship maintenance.” A total of forty studies, containing either quantitative or qualitative data, are represented in this survey.
夽 The complete study can be requested from the author. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 39431846. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y.-H.C. Huang). 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.10.001
86
Y.-H.C. Huang, Y. Zhang / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 85–87
The following aspects of OPR study in the articles served as categories of analysis for this paper: (1) the definition of OPR; (2) the topic/theme of the study; (3) the nature of relationship examined (political, educational, NPO-public, donor-NGO, commercial, etc.); (4) the perspective emphasized in the investigation (organization or public, subjective or objective, state or process); (5) the dimensions defining and/or characterizing OPR; and (6) the major findings of the study. The following methodological items were also coded: (1) research method (survey, experiment, interview, case study, etc.); (2) the nature of respondents (university students, congressmen, NPO members/donors, etc.), if applicable; and for quantitative research, (3) the method and results of statistical analysis. 25% of the sample was randomly chosen for inter-coder reliability. The inter-coder reliability of the variables examined was between .93 and 1.0.
3. Results Two main streams of OPR research can be defined according to distinct clusters of authorship and research foci.
3.1. Cluster 1 Thirteen empirical studies in our data set adopted and developed Hon and Grunig’s (1999) PR Relationship Measurement Scale and Huang’s (2001) OPRA (developed based upon Huang’s (1997) doctoral dissertation). The research falling in this first cluster views OPR as a relational outcome by exploring it as a dependent variable or as a relationship characteristic that mediates various effects of public relations practice including digital communication, crisis communicative strategy, and relationship cultivation strategy. This cluster of studies examined trust, relational satisfaction, relational commitment, and control mutuality regardless of methodology. The measured reliability (in Cronbach’s alpha) in these studies revealed that the scale reached an acceptable level, most being higher than .70.
3.2. Cluster 2 The second cluster of scholars is represented by Bruning and colleagues, who adopted the scale developed in Bruning and Ledingham (1999), Ledingham and Bruning (1999), and Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison, and Lesko (1997). Based upon the scales developed by Ledingham and Bruning (1999), Bruning, Ledingham, and their co-authors define OPR from the perspective of the public’s attitudes toward an organization. Our study also summarizes the five empirical studies that applied Bruning and Galloway’s (2003) scale. These five studies all evince reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) at a satisfactory level (between .72 and .92). The research falling in the second cluster tends to treat OPR as an independent variable and to explore its effects on the public’s attitudes, evaluations, and behaviors.
3.3. Findings across two clusters Both clusters of research have contributed to OPR theory by situating the concept at a higher operational level. Among the various OPR measures, satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality were ranked as the top four variables (N = 16 and above). Trust in particular is the variable most often emphasized.
3.4. Methodological preference Quantitative approaches (75%) were the main methodological preference in the examined studies, followed by qualitative approaches (15%) and review or meta-analysis (10%). Among the 30 articles using quantitative methods, survey/questionnaire is the most frequent (85.7%), followed by experiment (10.7%). Six studies individually or in combination with qualitative methods used interviews. We also observed that a limited number of OPR studies adopted methods such as longitudinal research or network analysis.
3.5. Themes In earlier OPR research there was greater focus on scale development, while recent scholarship has emphasized scale application. The scope of the application has expanded and diversified, and different educational relations, commercial relations, and political relations have been explored. Moreover, a majority of OPR studies were carried out from the perspective of publics (66.1%) in contrast to organizational perspective (17.9%) or co-orientation (5.2%). Such trends appear to be responding to the call for more research on power balances and symmetrical research agendas.
Y.-H.C. Huang, Y. Zhang / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 85–87
87
3.6. Cross-cultural investigation Another important finding is that 15.8% of OPR research was conducted in an international setting, particularly in East Asian regions such as Taiwan, China, and South Korea. These studies introduced new dimensions measuring OPR in order to reflect certain cultural implications such as face and favor practices. 4. Future research Criticisms of OPR research remain. Given the consensus in existing PR scholarship that OPR is multi-dimensional in conceptualization and requires a multi-indexed approach, definitive measurement criteria for OPR, such as “relationship dimensions,” “relational features,” “relational outcomes,” and “relationship quality indicators,” continue to be elusive. 4.1. Dynamic emphasis This paper calls for the development of more dynamic and process-oriented methodologies for discerning the various attributes of OPR. For example, to what extent trust and relational commitment is a causal or reciprocal relationship is worthy of exploration. 4.2. Cultural context OPR scholarship should ultimately attempt to be more comprehensive in its conceptualization and more sensitive to different cultural contexts. For example, studies of OPR in Middle Eastern or Latin American regions are needed. Eurocentric traditions may in turn be enriched by studies developed out of non-Western contexts. 4.3. Level-specific effects Attention should be paid in future OPR studies to exploring both the interactive and the relative effects at individual and organizational levels. This would perhaps illuminate complex relationships among these variables that have previously been simplified as OPR–performance links. 4.4. The buffering and/or double-edged effects of OPR on organizational performance Discerning both the positive and negative effects of OPR on organizational effectiveness is another important challenge to future research. References Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization–public relationship scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309–319. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization–public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: a study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville. FL: Institute for Public Relations. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations, organization–public relationships, and conflict management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: a cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 6–90. Ki, E. J., & Shin, J. H. (2006). Status of organization–public relationship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985–2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 194–195. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1999). Managing media relations: extending the relational perspective of public relations. In J. Biberman, & A. Alkhafaji (Eds.), Business research yearbook. Saline, MI: McNaughton & Gunn, Inc, pp. 644–648. Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: toward a theory of relational loyalty, a qualitative approach. Academy of Managerial Communication Journal, 1, 23–43.