6
Dialogue and Organization–Public Relationships

Maureen Taylor, Michael L. Kent, and Ying Xiong

Certain words often mean one thing in everyday usage that they do not mean to professional communicators or scholars. Dialogue is just such a word, used informally every day by people to mean talk or conversation: “Ethiopia plans to release some imprisoned politicians in bid for national dialogue,” a Washington Post headline reads (February 12, 2018). Or, as a New York Times headline suggests: “France condemns killings in Cameroon, urges dialogue” (February 3, 2018). The subject matter of such stories is often about politicians talking to voters or other politicians, rather than with others.

So, what is dialogue exactly? The concept of dialogue can be traced back to Martin Buber’s book I and Thou (1958). Buber considered dialogue something that could occur in interpersonal interactions and believed that the persons involved in a dialogue should recognize the other’s innate value. Thirty years later, Ron Pearson’s dissertation (1989b) made the concept of dialogue relevant to public relations. Pearson regarded dialogue as a respectful and more ethical communication approach superior to other existing public relations approaches of the day. With the advent of the internet, Kent and Taylor (1998) first discussed dialogue through the co‐creational perspective, as a way to improve organization–public (note, read the dash as “to”) communication, and described dialogue as “any negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions” (p. 325). The mistake many have made is putting the emphasis on the exchange of ideas such as takes place in the mass media, rather than on the idea of negotiated exchange. Kent and Taylor also redefined the concept of dialogue against the backdrop of the internet era and identified five principles used through the World Wide Web, and then conceptualized five features of dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 1998, 2002).

In the past 20 years, scholars have applied the principles and features of dialogue to different contexts, such as charities, corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication, museums, nongovernmental organizations, pharmaceutical companies, social media, university recruiting, and dozens of other areas (e.g. Briones, Kuch, Liu, & Jin, 2011; Gordon & Berhow, 2009; Kent & Taylor, 2016; McAllister, 2012; McAllister‐Spooner & Kent, 2009; Saffer, Sommerfeldt, & Taylor, 2013). Although public relations professionals understand a lot more about dialogue now than two decades ago, many questions still remain. We hope that this chapter explains dialogue in public relations and helps you see its value for your future career.

The chapter will explore dialogue and public relations through six areas. The first section explores the concept of dialogue, the origin of dialogue, the features of dialogic communication, the life cycle of dialogue, and the misconceptions about dialogue in public relations. The second section provides a discussion about how dialogue relates to organization–public relationships. The third section reviews how and why dialogue and relationships are such a concern for public relations practitioners. The fourth section outlines how, when, and why dialogue is applied to relationships. The fifth section provides examples of how dialogue builds organization–public relationships. And the sixth section discusses the next steps to be taken by public relations theorists working in dialogue and organization–public relationships.

Defining the Concepts: What Is Dialogue?

In this section, the concept of dialogue will be discussed. As noted previously, the word dialogue has been applied in various ways in everyday life, and multiple ways in social science. So, before we begin, we need to understand the concept of dialogue in public relations.

The Origin of Dialogue

The word “dialogue” derives from the Greek word dialogos – where “dia” means “through” and “across” and “logos” means “word” and “meaning” (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). Martin Buber is regarded as one of the intellectual parents of modern dialogue. Writing in 1923, Buber described the concept of the I‐Thou and I‐It (Buber, 1958). “I‐Thou” refers to a human’s attitude to other persons, while the “I‐It” reflects a human’s attitude toward objects. “I‐Thou” is a relationship with the characteristics of openness, directness, mutuality, and presence, while the “I‐It” relation is a form of monologue, which is prevalent in daily life. One of the suggestions from Buber is to treat others as “thou,” rather than “it,” in ethical interpersonal relationships. (Table 6.1 presents a list of significant dialogic authors from Buber through to Anne Lane in current times.)

Table 6.1 A summary of dialogic authors

Name and date of main works Background Main contributions to dialogue theory
Martin Buber (1923) Jewish philosopher, born and raised in Vienna, eventually settled in Jerusalem. Renowned scholar of Midrash and Rabbinic literature. Text: I and Thou. Focuses on dialogue as part of an interpersonal communication exchange. Deeply rooted ontology, experience, and Kantian ethics.
Carl Rogers (1957) American, Columbia University trained psychologist; prolific scholar; master clinician. Created person‐centered psychology. Key concepts: “Unconditional positive regard for the other,” genuineness, spontaneity, and face‐to‐face interactions.
Paulo Freire (1970) Brazilian educator, an advocate for the poor and oppressed. Text: Pedagogy of the oppressed. Developed a “critical pedagogy”; worked with migrant workers and the oppressed.
R. D. Laing (1961) Scottish psychiatrist and scholar. Text: Self and others. People make sense of the world in relations to others.
Hans‐Georg Gadamer (1975) German hermeneutic, dialogue scholar. Text: Truth and method. Advocated for exploring biases; language was part of the art of finding truth.
Mikhail Bakhtin (1975) Russian scholar, literary critic, semiotician, and linguistic philosopher. Text: The dialogic imagination. Contextual and co‐created meaning. Meaning is not limited to face‐to‐face communication. Dialogue is hermeneutic.
Jürgen Habermas (1981) German sociologist and philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. Text: The theory of communicative action. Critical theory, pragmatism; communicative rationality; public sphere.
Nel Noddings (1984) American born feminist, philosopher, and educator. Text: Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Known for educational philosophy, theory, and “an ethic of care.”
Kenneth Cissna and Robert Anderson (1980s and 1990s) American interpersonal communication scholars. Text: Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber‐Rogers position and postmodern themes. Authored several dialogic texts and readers, responsible for substantial theoretical contributions to dialogic theory.
Barnett Pearce and Kimberly Pearce (2000) American interpersonal communication scholars, community dialogue consultants. Coordinated management of meaning; dialogic virtuosity; Cupertino Community Project; public dialogue consortium.
Ron Pearson (1990s) Canadian ethicist; public relations scholar. Text: A theory of public relations ethics (doctoral dissertation). Process‐based approach to organizational dialogue and public relations.
Michael L. Kent and Maureen Taylor (1998/2002) American public relations scholars. Text: “Toward a dialogic theory of public relations.” Dialogic model of web communication; outlined five features of dialogic communication.
Petra Theunissen (2012) New Zealand public relations scholar. Dialogic critic. Proposed a dialogic persuasion model “Per‐Di” based on ideas from quantum physics.
Anne Lane (2015) Australian public relations scholar. Worked to make dialogue more practical; focus on engagement and implications of mandated dialogue.

Going beyond interpersonal relationships, dialogue is also considered as an ethical framework in public relations and communication. Taylor and Kent (2014) wrote: “dialogue, as an established theory of ethics, says that organizations should engage with stakeholders and publics to make things happen, to help make better decisions, to keep citizens informed, and to strengthen organizations and society” (pp. 387–388). The implication here is that dialogue should be an imperative for organizations, and they should engage in dialogue when they communicate with publics.

Dialogue is a complex concept with multiple dimensions. Recently, Kent and Lane (2017) used a plant metaphor of a “rhizome” to describe the concept of dialogue: “Dialogue is not the one‐off message of the tree, but the longevity of the rhizomatous relationships developed, their strength and endurance, their connection to other parts of a network through hidden bonds” (p. 573). By using the rhizomatous metaphor, Kent and Lane emphasized several features of rhizomatous dialogue, such as the multiple entry points, the enduring process, and the interactive, organic, and random rhizomatous exchanges among dialogic participants.

Kent and Lane argued that dialogue was essentially a long‐term and relational process. They urged organizations to not simply treat employees, stakeholders, and publics as interchangeable parts, privileging the organization’s needs over all others, but to learn and grow from their interactions with their publics. Organizations should take a longer‐term view about their role in their environment.

Features of Dialogic Communication

What makes some communication dialogic and other communication not dialogic? The answer is: the orientation to others. Dialogic communication encompasses five features: mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment, as described by Kent and Taylor (2002, pp. 25–29), that together create an orientation to others.

First, mutuality. Mutuality is characterized by an “inclusion or collaborative orientation” and a “spirit of mutual equality.” Collaboration and spirit of mutual equality are the two features of mutuality.

Second, propinquity, or “nearness.” Dialogic propinquity means that publics are consulted in matters that influence them, and for publics, it means that they are willing and able to articulate their demands to organizations. Propinquity is created by three features of dialogic relationships: immediacy of presence, temporal flow, and engagement.

Third, empathy. Empathy refers to the atmosphere of support and trust that must exist if dialogue is to succeed. Supportiveness, communal orientation and confirmation are the three main features of empathy.

Fourth, risk. Risk means parties who engage in dialogue take relational risks. Vulnerability, unanticipated consequences, and recognition of strange otherness are characterized as the feature of risk.

Fifth, commitment. Commitment describes three characteristics of dialogic encounters: “genuineness” and authenticity, “commitment to the conversation,” and a “commitment to interpretation.”

Another key feature of dialogue that ties all of the five features together is the concept of trust. Without a willingness to engage and trust one another, dialogue is not possible. Trust, of course, also needs to be built. Organizations need to take steps as they engage their stakeholders to build relationships and foster trust through engagement and interaction (cf. Lane & Kent, 2018)

Each of the five dialogic features is about building and maintaining the relationship. The five dialogic features are all necessary. Indeed, the five dialogic features are the floor or lowest level of the bar that needs to be met before dialogue can be genuine. People who engage in dialogue spend time in close proximity (propinquity). Just asking employees, stakeholders, publics, or customers what they think, or for their ideas, is not dialogue. Spending time in meetings talking, building relationships is. Similarly, mutuality is necessary. When one party in an interaction tries to gather information about the other, or exploit what they know or believe, there is no dialogue taking place. Ultimately, sharing information with others and self‐disclosing is a risk, and thus, risk and trust go hand‐in‐hand as dialogue is built. Part of the importance of building relationships through dialogue is for both parties to empathize or understand the other. Dialogue is not about persuasion but trust and coorientation or understanding. Finally, commitment emerges from the iterative communication. Dialogue is not about the episodic exploitation of others, but about building long‐term relationships with others.

Life Cycle of Dialogue

Dialogue is an interaction and there are stages in its life cycle as interactants engage and disengage. Here, we discuss how a dialogue starts, how dialogue is achieved, and we explain how and whether dialogue has an ending point.

How a Dialogue Begins

When does a dialogue begin? Who should be the initiator of a new dialogic relationship? A dialogue begins with the awareness of others and willingness to turn to the other person (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). As Buber wrote, “the basic movement of the life of dialogue is the turning toward the other” (1965, p. 25). What Buber meant is that there is both an emotional and a physical “turning” toward another. Turning toward another occurs through a psychological orientation toward the other as well as a physical moving toward the other. Dialogue is not an individualistic process. Dialogic partners need to recognize the value of others and move together (Kent & Taylor, 2016; Taylor & Kent, 2014).

Empathy is another underlying precondition for professionals to apply dialogic communication. Empathy refers to “the ability to put yourself into the shoes of another person” (Kent & Taylor, 2016, p. 65). It is hard to achieve dialogue without the humanistic exchange of empathy (Kelleher, 2009). Public relations practitioners and their organizations need to be empathetic to the needs, attitudes, and behaviors of their stakeholders. Organizations must not view publics, especially activist publics, as obstacles or challenges. Instead, practitioners need to “walk in their shoes” to better understand how the organization can meet their needs. Remember, activists are actually trying to help organizations meet societal expectations, and change from within is always better than forced regulation or laws.

Achieving Dialogue

Dialogue is not an easy process to undertake. In fact, it can be slow, painful, and long. How do communication professionals ensure the success of the dialogic process? First, genuineness and authenticity are the key elements for a successful dialogue (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). Genuineness and authenticity are part of dialogic commitment, and mean being honest and forthright. Dialogue should not be undertaken in an attempt to manipulate.

The partners in a dialogue should not be concealing their true thoughts, nor pretending to listen to each other (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). In the social media era, many organizations have created social media accounts and regularly post messages to followers, consumers, and others. Some scholars have considered these online interactions as proof of dialogue (Adams & McCorkindale, 2013; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). However, online interactions are not sufficient proof of dialogue because most organizations do not apply genuine and authentic replies when they interact with their social media followers. Organizations often ignore uncomfortable questions and criticisms from followers in social media and use social media as a marketing tool. These organizational behaviors reveal an unwillingness or inability to enact dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014). More importantly, however, social media is a public forum and dialogue is an interpersonal activity. As a tool, social media cannot mimic real communication interactions. The public face of social media is not suitable for dialogic exchanges. But, as Kent and Taylor (1998) suggested, social media and the internet can be used to facilitate genuine dialogic exchanges rather than dialogue.

Second, no partner in a dialogic interaction should seek to manipulate or control the process of dialogue. In other words, one participant should not try to direct the outcome of the dialogue. Trying to direct outcomes reflects a functional approach to public relations and is antithetical to a dialogic orientation. When practitioners believe that they can “manage” organization–public relationships, they are not talking about enacting true dialogue. The word “manage” is not a dialogic concept.

Third, dialogue should emphasize the process of reciprocity, mutuality, and negotiation. Dialogic reciprocity is both an experiential state and a relational expectation. As Buber (1958) suggests:

The tree is no impression, no play of my imagination, no value depending on my mood; but it is bodied over against me and has to do with me, as I with it – only in a different way.

Let no attempt be made to sap the strength from the meaning of the relation: relation is mutual. (p. 8)

Between you and it [lived experience] there is mutual giving: you say Thou to it and give yourself to it, it says Thou to you and gives itself to you. (p. 33)

Thus, a dialogic encounter is a physical encounter with another human being in which both people are forced to negotiate shared meanings.

Reflecting Buber’s idea of “I‐Thou,” which emphasizes the importance of mutuality in dialogue, communication scholars have repeatedly stressed the mutual and reciprocal relationship between dialogic partners. In a dialogic approach to public relations, the rules of dialogue are not determined just by organizations, but rather the rules are also influenced by publics. Organizations and publics need to negotiate meanings together to achieve a healthy dialogic relationship. The interactants (organizations and publics) involved in dialogue need to have the willingness to reach a mutually satisfying outcome with the process of open and negotiated discussion (Kent & Taylor, 1998).

Fourth, during the process of dialogic communication, trust is required for a genuine dialogic relationship. Trust means that dialogic interlocutors are not afraid that they might lose their jobs, offend others, or simply be used. Trust is not a free ticket to behave badly or inappropriately. Dialogue is a civil process and anyone entering into it with the intention of bullying others or dominating the conversation is actually not in a dialogue that engenders trust. “Dialogue is only possible when people spend time together interacting, understanding the rules of interaction, trusting the other person/people involved in an interaction” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 390). Without trust, there is no potential for dialogue or dialogic communication.

Does Dialogue Have an End Point?

How long does dialogue last? Imagine that an organization cares about its publics and replicates every dialogic step, as we suggest in this chapter. Is there ever a terminus or finishing point for the organization to stop using dialogue? The answer is both yes and no. The possibility does exist for fleeting dialogic encounters between people. From time to time we meet someone who so enthralls us (and the feeling is mutual) that a conversation of trust and caring can emerge. But dialogue is also fleeting, and no one can live in the dialogic moment all the time.

That said, dialogue also takes time to grow and strengthen. Since dialogue should not be enacted for manipulative purposes, the power of the relationships that emerge, and networks or ties (Kent & Lane, 2017) that are built are long‐lived. Ideally dialogue is seen as an ongoing process, not a one‐off encounter or communication tactic.

The development and the effectiveness of dialogue cannot be achieved overnight. Looking at the effectiveness of dialogue should have a long‐term or “Long Now” orientation (Kent, 2011, 2013) where the experiential present matters, but so too does the expectation of a long‐lived encounter. Through long‐term interactions, dialogic partners can establish rhizomatous relationships, which have hidden bonds, and profound and lasting networks (Kent & Lane, 2017).

Misconceptions about Dialogue

In public relations research, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how to apply dialogue in different contexts. The term dialogue is often used to describe any kind of two‐way communication between an organization and its publics. However, as the discussion has suggested, a dialogic encounter involves a lot more than simply a two‐way exchange of ideas and information.

Two‐way communication is not enough for dialogue. Dialogue is not equivalent to two‐way communication. Two‐way communication is necessary for dialogue to occur, but it is not sufficient. Rather, it is the orientation to listening, learning, and agreeing to disagree that keeps the relationship moving forward.

Not all conversations should be dialogic. In many communication interactions, there is no need for dialogue. For instance, purchasing groceries, asking directions, or polite conversations do not involve dialogue. These informational interactions – indeed, most of our encounters in life – are just interactions. Kindness and empathy matter, of course, but the bar for these conversations is much lower than for dialogue. Additionally, dialogue is mutual and relational. Although we may develop a relationship or friendship with our local mechanic or hair stylist, that exchange is largely based on goods and services, not mutual understanding. As mentioned earlier, it is hypothetically possible to slip into an I‐Thou dialogic encounter anywhere, but the I‐Thou experience is rare. You have to work on it.

There is also the issue of monologues (one‐way information) that pretend to be dialogue. In some scenarios, people speak with each other without really listening to others. Buber (1965) referred to this type of exchange as “monologue disguised as dialogue” (p. 22). Indeed, “hearing” without actually “listening,” and talking without actually disclosing anything or saying anything has been a recognized problem for centuries (Macnamara, 2013).

Online interactions do not equal dialogue. Online organization–public interactions, such as posting messages on Twitter or Facebook, are not real dialogue (Smith, 2010). “Providing feedback to customers on a social media site, or posts on Twitter or Facebook are not examples of dialogue (just as rhetoric is the artful use of language, but not all language is rhetoric)” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 390). Make no mistake, repeated online communication interactions can create two‐way communication between people and between people and organizations. However, mediated communication is not the same as the face‐to‐face communication rooted in trust and involving personal and intellectual risk that Buber suggested was a requisite for dialogue. The value of high quality online communication is that it allows for people to exchange ideas, make arguments, and negotiate meaning. Social media lack a number of important dialogic qualities, including propinquity, commitment, mutuality, trust, and unconditional positive regard for others, that Kent and Taylor (2002) argued are necessary for true dialogue to occur.

How Dialogue Relates to Organization–Public Relationships

Organization–public relationships (OPRs) are the raison d’être for so much of public relations communication. Dialogue is just one of many theoretical frameworks that help us to understand OPRs. Dialogue relates to organization–public relationships because public relations professionals act as the conscience of organizations and guide their ethical decisions. A dialogic orientation places ethics at the center of both the relationship and the communication.

Dialogue as an Ethical Decision‐Making Guide for Organizations

The public relations industry has long been criticized as architects of public opinions. Public relations professionals have been accused of using manipulation to pursue the economic self‐interest of firms at the expense of the public interest (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002; Hutton, 1999). Dialogue might be one way to counter negative stereotypes of public relations practice because it flips the equation that was once tipped in favor of the firm to an equation where mutual understanding is the key outcome of public relations.

According to Pearson (1989a), dialogue is a condition for ethical conduct. However, as noted, one cannot perpetually exist in a dialogic state, so dialogue also provides a model for how to behave, for how to treat stakeholders and public ethically. Dialogue offers an ethical framework for thinking about how to engage with others and enact long‐term relationships (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012).

Why Are Dialogic Relationships a Concern in Public Relations?

For more than one hundred years, public relations has sought to become a valued organizational function. Practitioners have gained influence with members of an organization’s dominant coalition by helping to manage crisis, public affairs, lobbying, and other practices. Our focus has been on meeting the needs of internal stakeholders, managers, and other senior organizational members, rather than on building relationships that are as robust with our external publics. Dialogue shifts that focus somewhat by suggesting that our relationships should be centered on long‐term, productive engagement with all relevant stakeholders and publics. We will be providing a discussion about how and why dialogue in public relations may be the best way to improve both the effectiveness of the practice as well as its reputation.

What Is Unique about Dialogue?

What makes dialogue unique is its capacity to serve both organizational and public interests. The co‐creational turn in public relations has made dialogue a timely and valued framework for public relations (Botan & Taylor, 2004). Yet, many public relations practitioners lack the skill set needed to implement dialogue in their practice. From a practical standpoint, most professionals have never been trained in dialogue, thus making it difficult to take a dialogic orientation or apply dialogue in organizational settings. Instead, many instances of “disguised dialogue,” “monologues,” or, “DINO: dialogue in name only” (Kent & Theunissen, 2016) have emerged as organizations seek to give the impression that they are listening to public concerns.

Some public relations practitioners go through the motions to act dialogically online, yet offline still cling to the functional perspective of public relations that treats “publics and communication as tools or means to achieve organizational ends” (Botan & Taylor, p. 651). Lane and Bartlett (2016) remind us that “public relations practitioners do not understand what dialogue is. Despite being asked to focus on dialogue in their work, the examples the practitioners provided consistently did not actually involve … mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment” (p. 4087). Dialogue offers a unique perspective on organization–public relationships, but only if organizational communicators actually understand dialogue.

Within the academic study of public relations, “dialogic communication is an ethical practice approach that aims to improve community relationships and organization–public relationships and allow organizations to realize their social responsibilities” (Huang & Yang, 2015, p. 376). It is time for a change of the public relations paradigm (cf. Kuhn, 1970). For two decades or more, the functional paradigm dominated teaching and research in public relations (e.g. excellence theory, OPR, contingency theory) and has been widely applied to public relations (Taylor & Kent, 2014). However, to move public relations forward and so that it becomes a more ethical and transparent practice, public relations practitioners need to treat the public as partners in a meaning‐making process (Botan & Taylor, 2004). Young public relations practitioners (like the readers of this book) need to be prepared for the current paradigm in public relations and have an open mind to embracing the potential other “paradigm shifts” down the road.

Moreover, many studies of dialogic public relations just take dialogue at face value, “claiming dialogue is occurring when in actuality none exists, more research is needed that clearly explains the difference between genuine dialogue and self‐serving dialogue, or ‘dialogue in name only’” (Kent & Theunissen, 2016; Paquette, Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015, p. 32). Academics need to be able to distinguish genuine dialogue from two‐way interaction that is being called dialogue.

How to Apply Dialogue and Relational Concerns in Public Relations

One misunderstanding about dialogue is treating it as a panacea for all organizational opportunities and problems. Indeed, conversations and interactions happen every day and everywhere. But most are not dialogic. An “abusive use of dialogue” has existed in public relations for years (Toledano, 2017). One approach that might be more fruitful is for communicators to think about taking a “dialogic approach,” or creating the “potential for dialogue” (Kent & Taylor, 1998), rather than simply calling two‐way exchanges “dialogic”.

Dialogue can be used by organizations as an approach of authentic relationship building with publics. In authentic dialogue, organizations give up the control over organization–public communication and form a profound “change‐oriented outlook” (L’Etang, 2006, p. 25). Furthermore, as Theunissen (2014) argued, dialogue has the power to assist organizations and publics to co‐construct corporate identity.

In the public relations industry, there is a consensus that social media are a way to engage in dialogue with the public. Making decisions about what is acceptable and what is not should not be the sole decision of the organization (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). To strive for dialogic communication in a social media platform, organizations need to revisit the core values of dialogue, emphasizing the importance of treating others with positive regard and empathy (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 25). Social media platforms are the tools, channel, and medium for organizations to practice public relations (Kent, 2014). But how to use the tools in a dialogic communication is another question. Posting messages on social media is not dialogic (Taylor & Kent, 2014). For the majority of organizations, social media are just another media channel to disseminate organization–related messages based on one‐way and sender‐to‐receiver assumptions (Kent & Taylor, 2016).

A dialogic orientation can underpin ethical codes in organizations. “Dialogue reflects a central principle of Kantian deontological ethics, that respect and empathy for the other is paramount” (Paquette et al., 2015, p. 32). Professionals need to first get over the fear that organizational interests are at risk because of the unpredictability of external publics (Toledano, 2017). Professionals also need to acknowledge the interconnectedness of organizations and publics, and seek training in how to facilitate dialogue, and how to shape ethical leadership (Taylor & Kent, 2014).

How, When, and Why Is Dialogue Applied to Relationships?

Kurt Lewin, a founding father of social psychology, observed: “There's nothing so practical as a good theory.” Dialogic theory is often defined as a normative theory that offers an idealistic and unreasonable view on best practice in the field, in opposition to a positive theory that describes how something is actually done. We disagree with this narrow characterization. Dialogic theory, indeed all good theories, should consist of both normative and positive precepts. Dialogue is normative because it is an idealistic approach to ethical public relations. Dialogic theory motivates us to think about the other, engage ethically, and look for co‐created meaning. But, dialogic theory is also positive in that it represents what is already happening in many public relations contexts. It is a positive theory or, as Lewin would call it, practical, because it provides actual guidelines for how to engage in effective organization–public communication. Many scholars who have been cited, notably Kent, Lane, Pearson, Taylor, Theunissen, Toledano, and others, have outlined ways for dialogic theory to be used. The idea that dialogue is impractical is fiction. Next, we will introduce three scenarios for applying dialogic theory to relationship building.

Employing a Dialogic Approach to Website Design

In the Web 1.0 era, before the growth of social media, the majority of internet users were consumers of online content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). In the mid to late 1990s, when the internet was just becoming available to the general public and organizations as a communication tool, Kent and Taylor identified five dialogic web principles that they argued could be used for building relationships through the World Wide Web. The five principles described the ways that websites should be designed in order to facilitate relationship building. Although the principles seem more mundane today, to people who have grown up with flash websites and interactive social media, in 1998 Kent and Taylor’s principles were some of the first “how to” suggestions for public relations professionals who were responsible for website design and content creation. The principles included:

  • Principle 1: The dialogic loop. The dialogic feedback loop allows publics to communicate with organizations and help build mutually beneficial relationships.
  • Principle 2: Usefulness of information. Organizations are encouraged to respond to stakeholder questions and concerns and provide an assortment of information to website visitors as a means of building relational trust and commitment.
  • Principle 3: Generation of return visits. Ultimately, if people do not return, a relationship cannot be built. Designing websites that would engender return traffic and thereby create the foundation for long‐lasting relationships is no easy task.
  • Principle 4: Intuitiveness/Ease of interface. Sites should be dynamic enough to encourage all potential publics to explore them, information rich enough to meet the needs of very diverse publics, and interactive enough to allow users to pursue further informational issues and dialogic relationships.
  • Principle 5: The rule of conservation of visitors. Websites should contain features that make them attractive such as updated information, changing issues, special forums, new commentaries, online question‐and‐answer sessions, and online experts to answer questions for interested visitors (Kent & Taylor, 1998, pp. 326–331).

Kent and Taylor’s five principles have been examined on hundreds of websites (universities, nonprofit organizations, charity organizations, corporations, etc.) and the foundational principle, the dialogic loop, is often lacking. Although a number of scholars (cf. Briones et al., 2011; Gordon & Berhow, 2009; McAllister, 2012; McAllister‐Spooner & Kent, 2009) have examined how to foster and maintain online relationships with individuals and publics, however, when the focus of communication remains fixed on an economic exchange model rather than a relational model, dialogue suffers (Kent & Taylor, 2016).

Websites are still relevant communication tools even in a social media age. Therefore, public relations practitioners should review organizational webpages to ensure that design features reflect dialogic principles. Consumer product companies, banks, telecommunications, and online marketplaces will be more valuable to visitors if the sites follow the dialogic principles and orientations.

Applying Dialogic Theory to Social Media Fostered OPRs

As the World Wide Web evolved, Web 2.0 allowed for more interactive features in mediated communication. Web 2.0 allowed organizations to develop platforms specifically for people who wanted to engage with organizations. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms allowed organizations to be more engaged with publics. Internet users also had new tools to create social networking profiles and personal blogs. Online users have shifted from content consumers to acting as both content producers and consumers (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).

However, most social media interactions still are not dialogic; rather, most social media function as just another type of asymmetrical communication, dissemination, or propaganda tool. Information is still just sent from organizations to followers via new platforms (Taylor & Kent, 2014). For many organizations, the basic motivation is to use social media as marketing tools, to increase sales, to increase profit, with little regard for the long‐term health of the organization’s relationships with its stakeholders, publics, and customers. The underlying assumption of most social media interactions is that the public is a passive entity to be acted on, persuaded, or motivated/convinced to act, rather than stakeholders and publics being treated as active, thoughtful, decision‐making partners.

Kent (2013) identified several solutions for reconstructing online organization–public relationships in mediated spaces. These suggestions reflect a dialogic orientation to online relationships:

  1. When we construct social spaces for individuals and publics, we should talk about what stakeholders and publics want to talk about. Serving the interests of our stakeholders actually serves our own interests.
  2. Social media need to be genuinely social. When all that public relations and communication professionals can think to use social media for is social marketing, we have missed our calling as ethical communicators.
  3. Public spaces and collective decision‐making need to be revived. The best decisions are challenged and are made through consultation with outsiders and experts.
  4. Taking the time to become more widely informed and acting as organizational counsels rather than corporate Tweeters should be a priority.
  5. The focus of communication professionals needs to be on the long term and not the short term. The principles of the Long Now provide a guideline: serving the long view, fostering responsibility, rewarding patience, minding mythic depth, allying with competition, taking no sides, and leveraging longevity. (pp. 342–344)

This approach would make social media relationships more rewarding and move social media platforms closer to dialogic rather than economic relationships.

Applying Dialogic Theory to CSR Activities

Another way to apply dialogic communication to public relations is through specific contexts. Corporate social responsibility is a common public relations strategy (Taylor, 2012). CSR is premised on the idea that an organization’s behaviors should contribute to society (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). When a firm donates money, employees’ time, or products or services to help others, this is CSR. Other types of CSR initiatives include community based programs, scholarships, and corporate support of nonprofit and social cause groups.

Social media can help firms better understand how they can give back to communities. Public relations practitioners can “listen” to what members of the public identify as problems or opportunities and then respond. In order to use social media in CSR more effectively, and enact dialogic social media, a number of requirements must first be met. Kent and Taylor (2014) suggested three ways to incorporate dialogic theory in CSR: engagement of stakeholders, recognition of the value of others, and empathy with stakeholders and stake seekers.

Kent and Taylor (2016) offered Homo dialogicus as a model to rethink CSR and social media. Corporations need to actually engage individuals and interact with them on a one‐to‐one basis. Genuine dialogue is not a public activity but an interpersonal or group activity. Although most social media are used as one‐way tools, they do not have to be (cf. Duhé, 2012). As people participate in discussions and as questions emerge, ad hoc discussion spaces (outside of Facebook) can be created where topics of interest can be genuinely explored in smaller groups, and with stakeholders and publics who have a real interest in particular substantive issues. These small discussion groups could be guided by dialogic principles and all participants could be made aware of dialogic discussion rules that would empower the participants (cf. Pearce & Pearce, 2000a; Pearson, 1989a; Taylor & Kent, 2014) and facilitate dialogue. In the Homo dialogicus model, public relations communicators move from being functional “sender to receiver” content creators, treating people as ends rather than means, to co‐creational communicators who have an interest in genuine relationships with others and care about their stakeholders and publics. Dialogue becomes possible.

The second dialogic issue is to recognize the value of others. Being dialogic means caring about others and having “unconditional positive regard” (Rogers, 1992, p. 828) for the other. A dialogic organization needs to be more reflective and ask itself difficult questions about honesty, trust, and risk. Through CSR, corporations seek to become better community members and better corporate citizens. That relational process begins with the dialogic concepts of trust and risk.

In keeping with the Homo dialogicus metaphor, scholars and professionals should remember that dialogic theory comes from interpersonal communication theories. Dialogic partners respect and trust one another. For organizations to build dialogic relationships, they should stop keeping secrets. Although some organizations might argue that too much organizational transparency creates risk – what happens if stakeholders, stake seekers, and publics do not like what an organization has to say? Dialogic communicators and organizations need to be honest and committed to getting their house in order and sharing or resolving the organizational secrets that they are afraid or ashamed to reveal publicly. Is it better to tell the truth and “steal the thunder” from a media investigation or wait for the inevitable release of embarrassing information? Research says it is best to be straightforward and honest (Arpan & Pompper, 2003).

The third dialogic issue in CSR is empathy. Empathy refers to the ability to put yourself into the shoes of another person. Currently, the narrow focus we see among corporations, focused almost exclusively on return on investment, does little to immediately impact people’s lives. Dialogic communicators are open to other people’s ideas and opinions, and value what they have to say. Communicators need to be trained to be dialogic. Having dialogically trained professionals would allow communicators to build relationships and trust, and more effectively interact with stakeholders and publics. CSR is about giving back to one’s community and doing what is ethical and morally right. More than that, both CSR and dialogue are ethical orientations toward others. For this to happen, organizational leaders need to be trained in dialogue, better informed about actual stakeholders and publics, willing to listen to the actual voices of stakeholders and publics, and be willing to be changed.

Integrating Theory and Practice: Steps to Building Organization–Public Relationships

Pearson (1989a) identified the steps to building dialogic relationships. The steps to facilitating dialogic relationships don’t have to be sequential and there are no doubt dozens of other steps beyond what we recommend here. Our goal in this section is to identify steps that organizations can enact to create the foundation for dialogue. We suggest that organizations start with the easier steps and then move toward higher level steps as they are ready.

One step is for organizations to use their social media sites for listening rather than as one‐way marketing, advertising, or messaging tools. The goals should be to engage individuals and publics in organizational decision‐making and issues management. Indeed, most people are unlikely to join organization‐specific social media spaces if all an organization tries to do is recreate its current social media advertising presence on Facebook and Twitter.

A second step is to consider ways to engage face‐to‐face with publics. Relationships are built in real time and require real knowledge about other people. Successful organizations and organizational communicators need access to more diverse people and diverse voices to gain more knowledge of their relationships with others.

A third step is to train organizational members and managers in ways to be dialogic (Kent & Taylor, 2014). Having dialogically trained professionals would allow communicators to build relationships and trust, and more effectively interact with stakeholders and publics.

Dialogic models really do work and there is a body of knowledge and practice that public relations scholars and practitioners can draw upon. One example is the Dialogue Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This Boston‐based initiative draws on faculty expertise of professors in business, psychology, and leadership. Dialogue is facilitated around episodes of engagement and collective inquiry (Isaacs, 1999). Isaacs viewed dialogues as located in “containers” or spaces where interactions can take place. Participants are guided through a series of discussions where they share their views, build trust, work through conflict, and then come up with new understandings of the situation. MIT’s Dialogue Project provides facilitation services to government, educational institutions, and businesses.

We have also seen a growing number of college and university campuses attempting to use dialogic theory to structure discussions about race, diversity, and political disagreements. Ramasubramanian, Sousa, and Gonlin (2017) explored how a campus brought the topic of race to public dialogue. Intergroup dialogues may offer many students one of their first meaningful opportunities to explore difficult or taboo topics in a safe group setting. Because dialogue proceeds from a positive orientation toward others, it is a useful framework to structure discussions around topics of race, stereotypes, justice, and systemic inequities. We have not seen a lot of businesses and corporations embracing dialogue yet. We accept that change is difficult. Change takes time. But, also accept that understanding dialogue is part of the future of public relations and organization–public relationships.

Major Topics/Questions Needing to Be Addressed by Public Relations Theorists Working in Dialogue in Organization–Public Relationships

There are two major topics that need to be addressed by public relations theorists working in dialogue. First, we need to move past the idea that websites and social media are inherently dialogic. Websites and social media platforms have the potential to facilitate interactions but they are the lowest level of dialogic potential.

Second, public relations theorists working in dialogue must be able to bring the concepts and processes of dialogue to the practitioner community. Theorists can make dialogue a relevant, useful, and effective framework to structure public relations practice by teaching dialogue in the public relations classroom. Dialogue can be embedded into classes such as PR Writing, Research, Cases and Campaigns. Student projects could help local nonprofit organizations engage in dialogue with community stakeholders. Another way to bring the concept of dialogue to the industry is to meet practitioners on their own turf. We can present dialogue at practioner conferences such as the annual or regional conferences of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). We can also write articles about dialogue for industry publications, blogs, and business outlets.

This is an exciting time in public relations practice and the dialogic turn suggests that public relations has significant contributions to make to organizations and society.

Suggested Cases to Explore That Demonstrate Dialogic Theory in Action

The Pearce and Pearce article, “Extending the theory of coordinated management of meaning (CMM) through a community dialogue process” (2000b) and Shawn Spano’s book Public dialogue and participatory democracy: The Cupertino Community Project provide a great case study of the power of dialogue to help communities. As founders of the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC), Barnett Pearce, Kimberly Pearce, and Shawn Spano have worked with the City of Cupertino, California for many years. The Cupertino Community Project: Voices and Visions used a dialogic approach to foster community discussions.

Cupertino, California, is a small town located outside of San Jose. It experienced a rapid change in demographics in the 1980s as the Asian population grew to approximately 66% of the community, and the Caucasian population felt threatened and many left the community. The PDC facilitations began in 1996, in an uncomfortable climate described as “a powder keg, waiting to go off” (Krey, 1999, p. 4). Through structured dialogues in community venues, the city has increased its capacity to address community concerns on intercommunal relationships and other topics. The PDC employed a variety of dialogic activities, including public meetings in which residents discussed how issues relating to ethnicity should be handled in the future, local government promotion of multiculturalism, and a perception of shared ownership of the Cupertino Community Project: Voices and Visions by residents and city officials (see Pearce & Pearce, 2000a; Spano, 2001).

Another case study that is useful for learning about how dialogic processes can empower communities occurred in Aqaba, Jordan. Maureen Taylor’s article “Building social capital through rhetoric and public relations” (2011) observed how a local nonprofit group, the Jordan River Foundation (JRF), applied dialogic principles to bring citizen concerns and priorities to the local governing agency. This is an interesting case study because it provides a glimpse into the ways in which culture shapes dialogue. Jordanian culture has traditional roles for men and women and in rural areas the two groups rarely interact in public settings. To listen to the voices of both men and women, JRF created a culturally appropriate, dialogic facilitation model for the community discussion groups.

JRF publicized community meetings through mosques, schools, and health centers. The meetings took place in a large tent, similar to those used by the local Bedouin to engage guests and discuss tribal issues. To increase the participation of women, JRF encouraged women to bring their children to the meeting. When women entered, JRF members offered them seats in circles with other women. When married men arrived, they were escorted to sit in circles with other men. When young, unmarried men arrived, they were placed in their own group of seats. Seats were organized into circles of eight people and in the middle of each grouping of chairs, there was a large flip chart.

The JRF facilitators welcomed everyone with appropriate cultural and religious greetings, and explained the rules for the community dialogue. They then showed a list of community priorities that had emerged from a previous meeting with community members and explained each topic on the large flip chart. At the end of the discussion, each circle talked about the topics, which included road improvement, pest control, parks, and local education. These were quality‐of‐life issues that the local government had not addressed. Each person identified his or her priorities within the group. The group members spent time talking about the topics, adding personal anecdotes. JRF provided each participant with three stickers and asked them to place the stickers on the topics that they believed were most in need of improvement in the neighborhood. Eventually the individual priorities were tabulated to represent a group list, and then one member of each group reported his or her group’s priorities to the entire neighborhood. A JRF facilitator tabulated the choices and then publicly counted the times a priority was selected. At the end of the session, the neighborhood had discussed and voted for their priorities to be brought to the government in a transparent, dialogic manner.

These two case studies show that dialogue can be facilitated to improve people’s lives. The use of clear, transparent rules and process helps people to participate in dialogic activities where all voices are given a chance to articulate their position.

Discussion Questions

  1. 1 What are the best practices in a dialogic approach to creating and maintaining organization–public relationships?
  2. 2 What are some of the antecedents of dialogue?
  3. 3 What are some of the consequences of a dialogic approach to public relations for the organization and for the public?
  4. 4 How do we measure dialogue or dialogic public relations?
  5. 5 Is it possible to achieve a dialogic relationship between an organization and its public in social media platforms? If yes, please elaborate the rules that should be applied. If no, why?
  6. 6 What is the difference between dialogue and other conceptual frameworks discussed in this book?
  7. 7 How can you apply the dialogic features and principles to your own life, to your organization or group?
  8. 8 What are some of the limitations of dialogue? Under which circumstances would a dialogic approach not be appropriate?
  9. 9 What is the link between dialogue and civic discourse?

Suggested Readings

  1. Kent, M. L., & Lane, A. B. (2017). A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relations Review, 43, 568–578.
  2. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 321–334.
  3. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.
  4. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384–398.
  5. Theunissen, P., & Noordin, W. N. W. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38, 5–13.

References

  1. Adams, A., & McCorkindale, T. (2013). Dialogue and transparency: A content analysis of how the 2012 presidential candidates used twitter. Public Relations Review, 39, 357–359.
  2. Arpan, L. M., & Pompper, D. (2003). Stormy weather: Testing “stealing thunder” as a crisis communication strategy to improve communication flow between organizations and journalists. Public Relations Review, 29, 291–308.
  3. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 9–24.
  4. Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: The state of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661.
  5. Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37–43. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006
  6. Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
  7. Buber, M. (1965). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.
  8. Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments: The Buber‐Rogers position and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8(1), 63–104.
  9. Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6).
  10. Duhé, S. (2012). Introduction: A thematic analysis of 30 years of public relations literature addressing the potential and pitfalls of new media. In S. Duhé (Ed.), New media and public relations (pp. xiii–xxvi). New York: Peter Lang.
  11. Gordon, J., & Berhow, S. (2009). University websites and dialogic features for building relationships with potential students. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 150–152. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.11.003
  12. Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 57–84.
  13. Huang, J., & Yang, A. (2015). Implementing dialogic communication: A survey of IPR, PRSA, and IABC members. Public Relations Review, 41, 376–377.
  14. Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 199–214.
  15. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue: The art of thinking together. New York: Doubleday.
  16. Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations outcomes in interactive online communication. Journal of Communication, 59, 172–188.
  17. Kent, M. L. (2011). Public relations rhetoric: Criticism, dialogue, and the long now. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 550–559.
  18. Kent, M. L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39, 337–345.
  19. Kent, M. L. (2014). Rethinking technology research and social media. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 1–2.
  20. Kent, M. L., & Lane, A. B. (2017). A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relations Review, 43, 568–578.
  21. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 321–334.
  22. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.
  23. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2014). Problems with social media in public relations: Misremembering the past and ignoring the future. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(2), 23–37.
  24. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From Homo economicus to Homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42, 60–67.
  25. Kent, M. L., & Theunissen, P. (2016). Elegy for mediated dialogue: Shiva the Destroyer and reclaiming our first principles. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4040–4054.
  26. Krey, D. (1999). Cupertino asks, “Can we talk about diversity?” Western City, 75, 4–8.
  27. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
  28. Lane, A. B. & Bartlett, J. (2016). Why dialogic principles don’t make it in practice – and what we can do about it. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4074–4094.
  29. Lane, A., & Kent, M. L. (2018). Dialogic engagement. In K. Johnston & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 61–72). Medford, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
  30. L’Etang, J. (2006). Public relations and propaganda: Conceptual issues, methodological problems and public relations discourse. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 23–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  31. Macnamara, J. (2013). Beyond voice: Audience‐making and the work and architecture of listening as new media literacies. Continuum, 27(1), 160–175.
  32. McAllister, S. M. (2012). How the world's top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.010
  33. McAllister‐Spooner, S. M., & Kent, M. L. (2009). Dialogic public relations and resource dependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 220–239.
  34. Paquette, M., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Kent, M. L. (2015). Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 30–39.
  35. Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2000a). Combining passions and abilities: Toward dialogic virtuosity. Southern Journal of Communication, 65, 161–175.
  36. Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, K. A. (2000b). Extending the theory of coordinated management of meaning (CMM) through a community dialogue process. Communication Theory, 10, 405–423.
  37. Pearson, R. (1989a). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 111–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  38. Pearson, R. (1989b). A theory of public relations ethics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University, Athens, OH.
  39. Ramasubramanian, S., Sousa, A., & Gonlin, V. (2017). Facilitated difficult dialogues on racism: A goal‐based approach. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45, 537–556.
  40. Rogers, C. (1992). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 827–832.
  41. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336–341.
  42. Saffer, A. J., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Taylor, M. (2013). The effects of organizational Twitter interactivity on organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39, 213–215.
  43. Smith, B. G. (2010). Socially distributing public relations: Twitter, Haiti, and interactivity in social media. Public Relations Review, 36, 329–335.
  44. Spano, S. J. (2001). Public dialogue and participatory democracy: The Cupertino Community Project. New York: Hampton.
  45. Taylor, M. (2011). Building social capital through rhetoric and public relations. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 436–454.
  46. Taylor, M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility communication campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. Aiken (Eds.), Communication campaigns (4th ed.) (pp. 261–274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  47. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384–398.
  48. Theunissen, P. (2014). Co‐creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 40, 612–614.
  49. Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38, 5–13.
  50. Toledano, M. (2017). Dialogue, strategic communication, and ethical public relations: Lessons from Martin Buber’s political activism. Public Relations Review, 44, 131–141.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
13.59.107.152