Everyone uses theory, whether they realize it or not. Theory helps us to understand. It helps us to make sense of what is going on around us. Sometimes the meaning is clear. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes the meaning is shared, but sometimes it can be individual. Theory can identify patterns so we know what to expect. It can help us to figure out how to act. Theory can also draw our attention to what is important. It can help us to predict. In other words, theory helps us to better interpret what is going on in our world. A theorist begins her work with something abstract such as a thought or an idea about something she has experienced or seen. In essence, “any attempt to explain or represent an experience is a theory, an idea of how something happens” (Littlejohn, 1999, p. 2). In public relations, theorists, both practitioners and academics, will use words to help establish understanding about the abstract (Toth & Dozier, 2018). Noted public relations theorist James Grunig (2013) called this primary step in developing theory “semantic structuring” and reminds us that public relations uses language to build theories about our observations. “Good theory helps make sense of reality, either positive or explanatory theory or normative theory that helps improve reality; to understand how public relations is practiced, to improve its practice – for the organization, for publics, and for society” (Grunig, 2013, p. 2).

Defining the Concepts: What Is Theory?

Theory can be broadly defined as a description or explanation of an observed or experienced phenomenon (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). However, it is never the be‐all, say‐all on a subject. It is built upon observations, which then lead to hypotheses, concepts, models, and assumptions. Theories are then reevaluated and refined, meaning theories often change and evolve. The basic goals of theory are to explain, predict, and control (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1997). Theory gives people ways to see new and useful things (Littlejohn, 1999); it can also predict future outcomes and explain the reasons for the outcomes (Griffin, Ledbetter, & Sparks, 2015). Theories have four purposes (Infante et al., 1997): to describe or to answer questions such as what is happening; to explain or to answer questions such as how or why something happens; to predict or answer questions such as what will happen; and to control or answer questions such as how should something happen. Theories also have four functions – organizing experience, extending knowledge, guiding future research, and allowing scientists to anticipate events even if they cannot observe them (Infante et al., 1997). The following example might help you to better understand how theory is used in public relations work.

Having a headache is a health condition to which most, if not all, people can relate. However, not everyone has experienced a migraine headache. Migraines are one of the most common health issues workers experience (Mitchell & Bates, 2011). In fact, nearly one in four US households includes someone with the condition (Migraine Research Foundation, 2018). It is estimated that $14.5 billion is lost annually by employers due to the missed work and lack of productivity migraines cause (Reuters Solutions for Excedrin, 2016). Unfortunately, research conducted by GlaxoSmithKline, parent company of the Excedrin brand, has found that many migraine sufferers believe people do not understand what a migraine is or how debilitating one can be (Bulik, 2017). In fact, 35% of respondents stated that they believe co‐workers think they are faking when they say they have a migraine and 63% said they would push through their symptoms to stay at work (Bulik, 2017). Based on this research and insight, Excedrin executives saw an opportunity to foster understanding about migraines while boosting product sales.

In 2016, the Excedrin Migraine Experience was released (Kanski, 2016). Using virtual reality (VR), migraine sufferers could demonstrate to their friends and families what they experience during a migraine. Some symptoms from which they could select were auras, sensitivity to light, and floating spots (Kanski, 2016; Mosbergen, 2016). Overwhelmingly, the people who experienced the VR migraine were overcome by how disorienting the condition was (Mosbergen, 2016). Along with the VR experience, this stage of the campaign also had videos of people experiencing their friend’s or family member’s migraine, and television ads about the videos and the Excedrin brand (Kanski, 2016). The Excedrin Migraine Experience was well received and had close to 4 million views within three weeks, as well as about 400,000 interactions on social media (Kanski, 2016; Liffreing, 2017). As Amardeep Kahlon, US marketing director for respiratory and pain relief at GlaxoSmithKline, said, “People engaged with long content – a two‐minute video – because it pulled on the emotional heartstrings … The campaign videos leveraged real sufferers and their partner with a visualization of their reactions. It makes [the viewer’s] heart melt” (as quoted in Kanski, 2016, para. 8). Therefore, through this campaign, the Excedrin brand was able to build understanding and empathy for people who suffer from migraines from those who do not.

The campaign has since been expanded so that it has more reach. For example, the VR simulation can now be shared through an app and cardboard headset, allowing more people to experience it (Tode, 2017). In addition, there have been new components added through the Excedrin Works campaign. Some elements of Excedrin Works are a Migraine Conversations guide (Excedrin, 2017). The guide is meant to help people when discussing migraines in the workplace and shows a series of videos superimposing migraine symptoms on a person trying to make it through his workday (Bulik, 2017; Kanski, 2017). In addition, racing car driver Danica Patrick has been highlighted in videos talking about her experience with migraines in the hopes that, by sharing her story, others will too (Kanski, 2017). This campaign is based on building relationships and dialogue and has the goal of forming more meaningful relationships between those afflicted by migraines and the Excedrin brand (Kanski, 2017). “‘If we can help foster and facilitate conversation, hopefully that makes the plight of the migraine sufferer much easier,’ Scott Yacovino, senior brand manager for Excedrin and the US pain business at GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Health, said” (Bulik, 2017, para. 3). As we can see, this campaign was built on the foundation of research, but it also seems to have elements of theory at work within it. For example, it seems as if principles of dialogic theory and relationship management theory (two theories you will learn more about in this book) have been invoked, since the campaign makes use of conversation, dialogue, and relationship building.

How and Why Is Theory of Concern to Public Relations?

As the Excedrin example illustrates, public relations is an applied field; however, it needs theory to guide its practice. Theory helps practitioners become better practitioners because it helps them better understand publics, messaging, strategy, and tactics. “Executing effective public relations starts with knowing and understanding the public relations theory that helps define the practice” (Toth & Dozier, 2018, 71). Public relations is a difficult field to describe. In fact, if you asked a group of people to define the term, they would all likely have a different definition. The fact that public relations does not have a universal definition has meant that theory and practice have been influenced by many and have charted numerous routes (Toth & Dozier, 2018). For example, some theorists and practitioners believe the core existence of public relations is to be a management function. This perception of public relations is based on the work of Grunig and Hunt (1984), who stated that public relations is “the management of communication between an organization and its publics” (p. 6). Other practitioners and theorists have put more emphasis on the building and maintaining of relationships. These people are more likely to define public relations similar to Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2006), who defined the field as “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p. 6). This book will introduce you to many theories used in public relations so you better understand how theory informs public relations practice.

However, Ferguson (1984) cautioned, “Theory is not an explanation based on supposition or conjecture. It is a way to understand events and to predict future events based upon research findings supporting the theory” (p. 3). Theory should be important to public relations practitioners and academics alike. Without theory, we base our decisions on instinct. With theory, we are able to base decisions on empirical evidence (Ferguson, 1984). It’s more than guesses. Theory lays the groundwork for data‐driven decision‐making.

Metaphors for Theory

Griffin et al. (2015) suggest some metaphors for theory – nets, lenses, and maps – because theory has different levels and can be used in many different situations. Theory is like a net because theories can be cast to capture what makes the world around us. The net can be all encompassing, much like a grand theory, or it can be small, and of fine mesh, similar to a specialized theory. Theory is like a lens because it can be used to focus on a certain aspect of public relations or it can push other items to the back; either way, theory highlights and shapes the perceptions one has about an idea. Finally, theory is like a map because it guides us through what are often unfamiliar territories as we expand or build new theories. Similarly, Toth and Dozier (2018) write about Nastasia and Rakow’s (2010) categorization of theory as either map reading or map making. Theories that encompass the idea of map reading use reasoning, both deductive and inductive, to explain why things work as they do. To test whether or not a theory holds true, evidence needs to be gathered for map reading. Therefore, when theory is applied to new and different situations it becomes an even more useful map‐reading theory. As an example, Toth and Dozier (2018) relate how in public relations we generally do not build relationships with the “general public,” but rather prioritize strategic publics and build and maintain relationships with them. Theories categorized as map making help us to better understand new and up‐and‐coming actions and behaviors. For example, when practitioners and theorists work to determine how new and emerging media have affected public relations practice, they “construct a map that suggests how to use social media strategically and how to measure the impact of social media” (Toth & Dozier, 2018, p. 72). When a theory is classified as map making, it is a theory that helps us to ponder different significances and to develop new ways of analyzing and ultimately applying its concepts. Map‐making theories remind us that theory changes and is adapted over time.

Grand Theories and Theories of Middle Range

According to McQuail (2010), there are several types of theories used within communication – social science (empirically based); normative (theories of how things such as media should work); working (normative theories applied to specific areas such as public relations), and common sense (based on inherent knowledge). Classifying a theory as either normative or positive is common in public relations. Scholars working with normative theory only have to demonstrate that “if an activity were to be conducted as the theory prescribes, it would be effective” (Grunig & Grunig, 1992, p. 291). Many normative theories build models, which are meant to improve practice if followed by practitioners (Grunig & Grunig, 1992). Normative theories of public relations (PR) have centered on relationship building, dialogue, and two‐way communication (Archer & Harrigan, 2016), and therefore, dialogic theory would be an example of a normative public relations theory. In contrast to a normative theory, a positivist theory seeks to explain what is rather than what should be (Dozier & Broom, 2006). “Positive theories describe phenomena, events, or activities as they actually occur (Grunig & Grunig, 1992, p. 291). An example of a positive theory of public relations would be the public relations role theory. In addition, Grunig and Grunig (1992) say, “the evidence from research supports the conclusion that the four models [of public relations] provide a good positive theory: Public relations practitioners do indeed practice all of them” (p. 292).

Theory can also be broken down to the levels at which it operates. For example, some theories apply to intrapersonal levels of communication, others interpersonal (dyad), others to group communication, and still others to the organizational and mass levels. Public relations practitioners can work on all these levels and should be aware of how theory can guide their practice whether they are talking to one person or large groups.

A grand theory is an abstract way of thinking about concepts (Mills, 1959). Scientists believe there is one truth and that theory is like a mirror reflecting that truth. They are objective and believe that once a truth is found it will continue to be true in the future. Therefore, science has grand theories such as the theory of relativity. Mass communication and public relations don’t operate in quite the same way. Although grand theories, all‐encompassing and generalizable, do exist in the physical sciences, they do not seem possible for mass communication. For one reason, the social sciences, and mass communication in particular, are relatively new disciplines. Also, there is much intersubjectivity in these fields so agreements are at times difficult to come by. Theory resides on a continuum between objective and interpretive (Griffin et al., 2015). Therefore, theorists who are more interpretive believe theory is socially constructed, meaning it changes depending on context rather than having a universal meaning, as a theorist who works from the objective side of the spectrum believes. Mass communication has made attempts at finding a grand theory, but they have been disproven. For example, Schramm’s (1971) magic bullet theory was an attempt at finding a grand theory for the discipline. Building on persuasion, the magic bullet theory claimed that if media messages hit their intended targets, a certain effect would follow. However, the theory did not account for individualism and instead assumed that all people would interpret messages in the same way. People did not. Therefore, the magic bullet theory was disproven as grand theory. Some people even thought of the excellence theory as a grand theory; however, that perspective has changed with the advent of more theories in public relations (Taylor & Kent, 2014).

Rather than being defined as grand theories, mass communication and public relations theories are theories of middle range. Middle‐range theories make specific explanations rather than broad generalizable ones. Merton (1968) described middle‐range theories as having a limited scope and explaining a limited range of concepts and phenomena rather than explaining phenomena on a broader level. This approach to theory also integrates empirical research. Theories of middle range describe what a theory can and cannot do. These theories focus on the measurable aspects of social reality rather than attempting to explain the entire social world. Communication fields have been encouraged to create theories of middle range because they were thought to be superior to grand theories as specific explanations rather than broad, generalizable ones (Craig, 1993). Similarly, Wehmeier (2009) suggests practitioners prefer general theories and theories of middle range. Some examples of middle‐range theories you may have learned about in other classes include cultivation theory and uses and gratifications theory. In public relations, most of our theories fall into the category of middle‐range theory, too.

Theory Building

As we have covered, there are different levels of theory as well as a continuum of theories’ objectivity. Theory development is an ever growing and ever expanding process. Since public relations is a relatively new field, there is much room for growth in terms of theory. This section will cover how we build and expand upon theory.

Theory is built every day by both practitioners and academics as they follow what is happening within the field. They will look at the issues. They will address problems. They will examine the trends. All this work is done to better the field and to develop new solutions. Academics most commonly build theory through their research, which might include publishing refereed journal articles, delivering conference papers, or publishing books. Practitioners can also publish books and articles, but might have their work featured in trade journals rather than academic ones. Practitioners also share their knowledge and insight at conferences, and might also have blogs to further discuss their ideas. In fact, even the debates playing out on social media can help to build theory (Toth & Dozier, 2018). Theory building is a social experience; theorists bring their own experiences, worldviews, and presuppositions to the process (Botan & Hazleton, 1989).

Much theory in the communication discipline comes from a Western perspective (Littlejohn, 1999). Theory from the United States tends to focus on communication from an objective perspective based in quantitative methods. European scholars are more likely to use historical, critical, and cultural approaches to theory. In addition, European theory is also quite frequently influenced by Marxism (Littlejohn, 1999). Theory with an Eastern perspective is more likely to focus on Confucian principles (Kim, 2003). Another well‐established region for public relations scholarship is Australia and New Zealand (Botan & Hazleton, 2006). Emerging areas of theoretical influence are South America and Asia (Botan & Hazleton, 2006). One trend in public relations is the weakening of American dominance when it comes to theory due to the internationalization of the field. This occurrence is helping to bring new ideas, perspectives, and cultural insights to the field (Botan & Hazleton, 2006). As public relations continues to expand globally, it seems fitting that its theory will be influenced and reshaped by theorists from around the world. “In a field where creativity is a desirable characteristic, a broad knowledge of theories and methods will lead to the recognition of multiple, alternative solutions for practical as well as theoretical problems” (Hazleton & Botan, 1989, p. 7).

Theory is not set in stone; it represents what we know at this moment in time (Botan, 1989). Kaplan (1964) suggests that theory grows by extension or intension. Kuhn (1970) says a third way to grow theory exists: scientific revolution. When theories develop by extension, they grow to include more concepts; when they develop by intension, further refinement is based on a deeper understanding of the original concepts; and in scientific revolution, previously accepted theories are rejected in favor of new ones (Infante et al., 1997). Extension uses current understandings to reach out and understand a new area (Botan, 1989). When we use theory developed before social media came on to the scene to try and understand how and why using social media in certain ways is successful in public relations, we are expanding theory via extension. Intension is similar to using a microscope; it is when theory is used to more closely examine our current understanding in order to bring about new thoughts (Botan, 1989). When a theorist uses critical theory to more closely examine the diversity of the field of public relations, she is using intension to advance theory. Scientific revolutions can lead to an entirely new approach to a field, including new practices (Botan, 1989). Scientific revolutions can lead to defensiveness, as the theorists whose ideas have been overturned protect their contributions and fight to keep them relevant (Littlejohn, 1999). However, while theories are rarely rejected, they are frequently revised (Grunig, 1992). In order to build and expand public relations theory, alternative theories addressing the same issues need to be compared (Botan & Hazleton, 1989). Public relations needs not only to keep developing new theories, but also to critique all existing theories in order to grow as a field; without those struggles, the field will be stagnant (Botan & Hazleton, 2006). Botan and Hazleton (2006) suggest areas still in need of theory and scholarship include the role of gender in the field; fundraising/social responsibility; and financial/investor relations.

In order to grow and develop new theories, a four‐step process of testing is followed (Infante et al., 1997). First, a hypothesis is developed. Then the theorist decides how best to test the hypothesis. The appropriate research is then conducted to test the hypothesis. Finally, the theorist interprets the observations. While a theory cannot be proven, a theory can be falsified, meaning there are enough counterexamples to reject the theory. During theory testing, a theorist wants to be sure the theory is both reliable (replicable) and valid (with the ability to measure what the theory states it measures). There are many evaluative criteria used to determine a theory’s worth. While scholars debate what criteria are necessary to evaluate and compare a theory, here are some suggestions. Shaw and Costanzo (1970) say there are three necessary criteria for a good theory. The necessary criteria are logical consistency, meaning the theory does not have any contradictory parts; consistency with accepted facts; and testability or, in other words, the potential for the theory to be disproven. Shaw and Costanzo (1970) also say there are desirable, but not necessary, criteria for theory evaluation. These additional criteria are simplicity, parsimony, consistency with related theory, interpretability, usefulness, and being pleasing to the mind.

Social scientists also “agree on four criteria a theory must meet to be good – relative simplicity, testability, practical utility, and quantifiable research” (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 25). Therefore, a good objective theory will do the following six things: predict future events; explain an event or human behavior; be simplistic/no more complex than it needs to be; be testable (meaning it is possible to have hypotheses); have practical utility or usefulness; and use quantitative means and research to compare differences (Griffin et al., 2015). By using such criteria, researchers can compare and contrast theories and determine where the strengths and weaknesses of each lie.

However, not all theory is scientific or objective. Some is interpretive. Interpretive theory also has standards. A good interpretive theory brings light to values, meaning it identifies the underlying ideology of the theory (Griffin et al., 2015). Some examples might be ethical perspective, equality, and freedom. Interpretive theory gives new insight into people and their actions and behaviors typically based on small, unique groups or individuals. Interpretive theory is also aesthetically appealing, meaning it is more creative and less likely to follow a standard format. Interpretive theory has the support of communities of scholars. It also is meant to generate change and/or to transform society by reexamining the accepted wisdom of a culture. Lastly, interpretive theory uses qualitative research to support its assertions.

Public Relations Theory

Grunig (1989) stated “one can think of many theories that apply … but it is more difficult to think of a public relations theory … that has not been borrowed from another” (p. 18, cited in Ledingham, 2003). Similarly, Ferguson (1984) suggests that a theory of PR is a unicorn, a mythical beast, and notes some critics have questioned whether or not PR is worthy of theory. It seems today that these criticisms can be laid to rest as public relations does have theory and it is applicable to its practice. Because public relations as an academic field is relatively young, it is important to recognize how far the field has come and how much research has been done in order to advance our understanding of the practice and the theory that guides it (Toth & Dozier, 2018).

While the roots of public relations are in journalism, its theory has developed with the interjection of humanistic and social science approaches (Botan & Hazleton, 1989). In the 1950s and 1960s, public relations and its theory were closely tied to mass communication and focused on the effectiveness of media relations and campaigns (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2006). However, researchers found that media effects had more influence on what people thought about than how they behaved or how they formed attitudes, thereby lessening their importance to public relations (Grunig et al., 2006). Around that time, theorists began thinking about public relations differently and noting its ties to two‐way communication and management (Grunig et al., 2006). Soon public relations theorists, most notably J. E. Grunig, G. M. Broom, and D. M. Dozier, began investigating public relations from a management and communication perspective by looking at concepts such as symmetrical communication and roles (Grunig et al., 2006). There was a theoretical shift from PR concentrating on managing communication to emphasizing negotiating relationships (Kent & Taylor, 2002).

Much like scientists, public relations practitioners and academics would like to have a set of proven and true theories (Grunig, 1992). It would be comforting to know that using a certain strategy would guarantee the desired results. Unfortunately, that is not how public relations works. The possibility of laws of public relations existing would likely lead to much debate because of the diversity of perspectives and worldviews held by theorists (Botan & Hazleton, 1989). “A domain of scientific or scholarly inquiry, such as public relations, is held together not so much by agreement on theories as by agreement on the problems that theories used in the domain should solve” (Grunig, 1992, p. 7). Meaning that while academics and practitioners may not agree on the best theory or approach to an issue, they can agree that theory is needed to better understand certain aspects of public relations such as strategy, media relations, ethics, or crisis communication. Academics and practitioners will try to explain these areas in different ways because we have different perspectives, worldviews, and ideas (Grunig, 1992). Developing theory and practice together helps each to inform the other (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2013). After all, the only way to find how valid a theory truly is is to apply and test it through research and in various contexts. Also, it’s OK that not all theories will work in all situations. Building theory is about new ideas, even ideas that are uncomfortable to some (Botan, 1989).

Conclusion

In order to grow, PR needs to face not only its past but also its complex present. Shifts signal opportunities for further theory development (Kent & Taylor, 2002). They should be viewed as exciting. New theories and theory building should be persuasive and move people toward changing their ideological viewpoints (Gioia & Pitre, 1990). There needs to be a diversity of theories and perspectives for public relations to grow (Botan & Hazleton, 2006).

The rest of this book is designed to give you a more in‐depth look at the practice of public relations and how theory fits within it. Each chapter will focus on an area of public relations practice such as strategy, ethics, and community. In addition, each chapter will define terms, explain the importance of each topic to public relations, detail theories of importance, and give examples of when and how theory can be applied. Finally, the chapters include short case studies to help you better understand the links between theory and good practice. You may notice some chapters detail the same theory as others. This choice was made to show you how the same theory could be applied in different contexts. You may also notice that some theories are strictly used in the domain of public relations, with others coming from communication or other fields. Again, the decision to include this range of theories was made to more fully demonstrate the breadth of public relations and the work of its practitioners. With this design, students, such as you, will not only learn how functions of public relations can be served by the application of multiple theories, but you will also learn how theories can be implemented within different professional settings. Ultimately, this book should help you to better answer the questions of what theory’s place is within the practice of public relations.

References

1. Archer, C., & Harrigan, P. (2016). Show me the money: How bloggers as stakeholders are challenging theories of relationship building in public relations. Media International Australia, 160, 67–77.
2. Botan, C. H. (1989). Theory development in public relations. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 99–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Botan, C. (2006). Grand strategy, strategy, and tactics in public relations. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 223–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (Eds.) (1989). Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Public relations theory II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Bulik, B. S. (2017, September 4). Empathy at work: GlaxoSmithKline extends Excedrin Migraine campaign to include sufferers on the job. Retrieved from https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/empathy‐at‐work‐gsk‐extends‐excedrin‐migraine‐campaign‐to‐include‐sufferers‐job
7. Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. (2015). Public relations’ “Relationship Identity” in research: Enlightenment or illusion. Public Relations Review, 41, 689–695.
8. Craig, R. T. (1993). Why are there so many communication theories? Journal of Communication, 43, 26–33.
9. Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. H. (2006). Effective public relations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (2006). The centrality of practitioner roles to public relations theory. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 137–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Excedrin. (2017). Excedrin® discussion guide for migraines in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.excedrin.com/migraines/prevention‐tips/migraines‐at‐work‐discussion‐guide/
12. Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Gainesville, Florida.
13. Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, 584–602.
14. Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education.
15. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Grunig, J. E. (2013). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J.‐N. Kim (Eds), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 1–26). New York: Routledge.
18. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communications. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 1–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
21. Hazleton, V. (2006). Toward a theory of public relations competence. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 199–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Hazleton, V., & Botan, C. H. (1989). The role of theory in public relations. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 3–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
24. Kanski, A. (2016, October 26). How Excedrin brought VR to drug marketing with The Migraine Experience. MM&M. Retrieved from https://www.mmm‐online.com/campaigns/how‐excedrin‐brought‐vr‐to‐drug‐marketing‐with‐the‐migraine‐experience/article/568012/
25. Kanski, A. (2017, December 28). Excedrin’s survival guide for a headache at work. PRWeek. Retrieved from https://www.prweek.com/article/1453113/excedrins‐survival‐guide‐headache‐work
26. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.
27. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.
28. Kim, Y. (2003). Professionalism and diversification: The evolution of public relations in South Korea. In K. Sriramesh & D. Verčič (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 106–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Ledingham, J. A (2001). Government–community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285–295.
31. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181–198.
32. Liffreing, I. (2017, September 6). Excedrin is using virtual reality to show what having migraines are like. Digiday UK. Retrieved from https://digiday.com/marketing/excedrin‐using‐virtual‐reality‐show‐migraines‐like/
33. Littlejohn, S. W. (1999) Theories of human communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail’s mass communication theory (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
35. Meadows, C., & Meadows, C. W., III. (2014). The history of academic research in public relations: Tracking research trends over nearly four decades. Public Relations Review, 40, 871–873. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.06.005
36. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social construction. New York: Free Press.
37. Migraine Research Foundation. (2018). Migraine facts. Retrieved from http://migraineresearchfoundation.org/about‐migraine/migraine‐facts/
38. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Mitchell, R. J., & Bates, P. (2011). Measuring health‐related productivity loss. Population Health Management, 14, 93–98.
40. Mosbergen, D. (2016, April 8). Emotional video shows people experiencing migraines for the first time – in virtual reality. HuffPost. Retrieved from https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57075b60e4b0c4e26a225176
41. Nastasia, D. I., & Rakow, L. F. (2010). What is theory? Puzzles and maps as metaphors in communication theory. Triple C, 8, 1–17.
42. Pasadeos, Y., Berger, B, & Renfro, R. B. (2010). Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 136–158.
43. Reuters Solutions for Excedrin (2016). Employees hide headaches, migraines from supervisors. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/excedrin/employees‐hide‐headaches‐migraines‐from‐supervisors
44. Schramm, W. (1971). The nature of communication between humans. In W. Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (pp. 3–516). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
45. Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1970). Theories of social psychology. New York: McGraw‐Hill.
46. Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2013). Political public relations: Old practice, new theory‐building. Public Relations Journal, 7, 1–11.
47. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 384–398.
48. Tode, C. (2017, October 16). How Excedrin’s standalone VR experience evolved into a viral video. Mobile Marketer. Retrieved from https://www.mobilemarketer.com/news/how‐excedrins‐standalone‐vr‐experience‐evolved‐into‐a‐viral‐video/507086/
49. Toth, E. L., & Dozier, D. M. (2018, April). Theory: The ever‐evolving foundation for why we do what we do. In Commission for Public Relations Education, Fast forward: Foundations + future state. Educators + practitioners (pp. 71–77). New York: Commission for Public Relations Education.
50. Wehmeier, S. (2009). Out of the fog and into the future: Directions of public relations theory building, research, and practice. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34, 265–282.