11
Activism

Erica Ciszek

Where there is power, there is resistance.

Michel Foucault

“Build bridges, not walls.” “Love trumps hate.” “Smash the patriarchy.” On January 21, 2017, more than a million people around the world marched in the streets in opposition to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States. Public transit was packed, the streets were flooded, and social media ignited with images and videos from the global Women’s March. Less than a week later, thousands of opponents of abortion from across the country gathered in Washington, DC, as part of the March for Life, joined by US Vice President Mike Pence.

“Hands up. Don’t shoot.” “White silence is violence.” “Is my son next?” Black Lives Matter (BLM), a demonstration against violence and systemic racism toward African Americans, began as a social media movement in 2013. In the wake of deaths of numerous African Americans by police actions, activists took to social media as well as direct action to spark policy change. The phrases “all lives matter” and “blue lives matter” emerged as oppositional rhetoric to BLM, spurring countermovements.

#NoDAPL. More than 1 million people “checked in” on Facebook to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in November 2016 to confuse law enforcement, who were believed to use geotracking services to monitor communications there. This geolocation tactic is among various moves employed by the Dakota Access Pipeline protestors, a grassroots movement that emerged in early 2016 in response to the construction of the Energy Transfer Partners’ Dakota Access Pipeline in the northern United States.

Images of a three‐year‐old Syrian refugee trying to reach Europe, but lying drowned on the beach, echoed around the world in September 2015, as international media published a heartbreaking photo of the child. Nearly one year later, another image of a Syrian boy covered in dust and blood in the back of an ambulance circulated round social media. While the images went viral, the war continued. In Russia on November 3, 2016, a group of 25 activists from Syria Solidarity UK and the Syria Campaign dispersed more than eight hundred mannequin arms and legs near the entrance to the embassy to symbolize the murder of Syrians in Aleppo.

Defining the Concepts: What Is Activism?

As demonstrated in these examples, activism is a global phenomenon that varies across social, economic, and political landscapes and influences public relations theory and practice. Public relations scholars and practitioners cannot assume activism is a “homogeneous category”; activists range in scale and fall along an ideological spectrum, often in direct opposition to one another (L’Etang, 2016, p. 207).

Research suggests activists have been engaging in public relations for more than a century, and activism is a complex issue that requires a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives. How one views and studies activism (by way of theory) depends on the lens through which the scholar views the world (paradigm), impacting the object of study (ontology), how it is studied (methodology), and what is valued about it (axiology).

While there are several conceptualizations of activism in public relations, L. A. Grunig’s (1992) definition is one of the most common in PR literature: an activist organization is “two or more individuals who organize in order to influence another public or publics through action that may include education, compromise, persuasion tactics, or force” (p. 504). Activist organizations strive to raise awareness, change attitudes, and encourage or discourage certain actions (Taylor & Das, 2010). Additionally, activism is a process of exerting pressure on institutions or organizations to “change policies, practices, or conditions the activists find problematic” (M. E. Smith, 2005, p. 5). Jones and Chase (1979) suggest the role of activists is to create a “perceived need for reform” (p. 10), challenging the status quo, targeting social norms, practices, policies, and the dominance of social groups (Zoller, 2005).

Activist organizations have two main public relations goals: first, to influence public opinion and behavior to resolve the problematic situation; and, second, to create and maintain their efforts (M. E. Smith, 2005). In working to resolve issues they have identified, activist publics generally pursue three areas: (1) eliciting or resisting change on the part of an organization, industry, or field; (2) seeking public policy or regulatory changes that would effect institutional change or public behavior; and (3) changing social norms. These goals are not independent or mutually exclusive, and many activist organizations take up all three.

Activists employ various methods to affect socially or environmentally detrimental practices, leveraging a range of approaches to achieve this goal (Davis, McAdam, Scott, & Zald, 2005), most commonly contesting practices of prominent organizations in focal industries (Baron & Diermeier, 2007; den Hond & de Bakker, 2007; King, 2008; Lenox & Eesley, 2009; Rehbein, Waddock, & Graves, 2004). M. E. Smith (2005) identified three categories of strategies employed by activists: confrontational tactics, informational strategies, and relationship‐building strategies. Confrontational tactics, which include boycotts, demonstrations, and symbolic events, are used to garner public attention through dramatization of an issue. Informational strategies are designed to raise awareness and understanding of a group’s issue and suggestions for solving the concern. Finally, through relationship‐building strategies, the goal is to negotiate a desirable outcome for all parties involved by building satisfactory relationships with the responsible institutions or organizations.

Activism is “essential to nourish democracy” (Demetrious, 2013, p. 53), and Heath and Waymer (2009) argued that “obtaining the democratic exchange long championed by public relations” required “seeing how and when activists engage in the dialogue that occurs on various issues” (p. 195). Activism requires the development of oppositional consciousness, contesting dominant ideologies, and providing “symbolic blueprints” for collective action and social change (Morris & Braine, 2001, p. 26). Activists rely on persuasive appeals to change attitudes and encourage action, employing various strategies and tactics to connect with publics, including pleas for social responsibility and appeals to fear, sympathy, morality, respect, or social justice. Activism employs a range of communicative actions – advocacy, stakeholder relations, fundraising, recruitment, internal and external engagement, and dialogue – and is not always confrontational.

How and Why Is Activism of Concern to Public Relations?

Public relations has had a complicated relationship with activism. “Historically activism justified organisational investment in PR services and personnel and apparently explained the emergence and development of the specialist areas of issue management and crisis management” (L’Etang, 2016, p. 207). Until fairly recently, however, public relations theory has failed to consider how its history emerged from the work of activists and how activists are on the forefront of communication that advances their strategic objectives (Coombs & Holladay, 2012b). In the 1960s and 1970s, new social movements played a central role in the relationship between activism and public relations, whereby organizations employed PR as a protective strategy against radical critiques:

The dominant corporate‐centric view of US public relations history often claims that public relations developed as a response to activists who attempted to interfere with business operations … By alternatively grounding US public relations history in the works of activists, we open possibilities for re‐imagining the field and legitimizing activists’ works as a positive, central component in public relations theory and research.

(Coombs & Holladay, 2012b, p. 347)

This history resulted in the “formation of rather fixed identities” of activism and public relations, positioning them as binaries that “opposed each other” (L’Etang, 2016, p. 207).

Populist and progressive organizations challenged monopolies during the late nineteenth century (Coombs & Holladay, 2007), employing direct confrontation and advocating for workplace reform, women’s suffrage, and reform in the food and drug sectors. During this time, abolitionists, suffragists, and labor organizers acted as strategic communicators, working toward corporate and governmental change by attracting the attention of “the corporate elite, developing and utilizing many of the modern tools of public relations” (Coombs & Holladay, 2007, p. 52). Antislavery groups created alliances, lobbied, raised money, mobilized resources, engaged in media and community relations, and advocated for policy reform (Heath & Waymer, 2009).

Now third‐sector groups such as social collectives, community action groups, and nongovernmental organizations carry out activist public relations to foster public legitimacy for social change (Demetrious, 2008), and social movement organizations employ public relations and issues management practices to engage public spheres and impact issue outcomes (e.g. Crable & Vibbert, 1985; M. F. Smith & Ferguson, 2010; Weaver & Motion, 2002). Because garnering acceptance by segments of the public is part of the life cycle of an issue (Crable & Vibbert, 1985), activists must establish the legitimacy of their own issues while simultaneously challenging the legitimacy of target organizations and the values they represent (M. F. Smith & Ferguson, 2010).

Some scholars have argued that, while not typically as sophisticated in resources and scope as the organizations and institutions they target, activist groups use similar strategies and tactics to reach publics and achieve goals (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995). J. E. Grunig and Grunig (1997) suggest that activist groups might practice public relations in the same way as other groups or organizations. Activist communication efforts, therefore, are driven by objectives that are “not that different” from other organizations that use public relations to pursue strategic goals and maintain the organization (M. E. Smith, 2005, p. 7). A challenge in positioning activism as public relations, however, lies in the “inescapable understanding of PR as an organizational function” (Edwards, 2012, p. 12). Therefore, shifting the definition of PR to account for “the flow of purposive communication on behalf of individuals, formally constituted and informally constituted groups, through their continuous transactions with other social entities” (Edwards, 2012, p. 21) allows activist groups to be considered, and this idea should be incorporated into public relations theory.

How, When, and Why Is Theory Applied to Activism

Public relations theory has had a “historical animosity” to activism (Demetrious, 2013, p. 26), and activism was understood as “the Other” (L’Etang, 2016, p. 208). Activists, however, are not always external to an organization (Greenwood, 2015), and they may be an internal public (Curtin, 2016) or part of the strategic communication team (Holtzhausen, 2012); public relations practitioners can be activists (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002), and activists may also function as public relations practitioners (Taylor & Das, 2010). Although activism is central to public relations, scholars have not adequately dealt with activism (Demetrious, 2006). Activism is a key part of public relations past, present, and future.

Public relations is a multiparadigmatic discipline. Paradigms, or worldviews, are not theories; rather, within each paradigm, theory has a different meaning and function (Rakow, 2005). Public relations is comprised of competing paradigms embodying different questions (theories) about activism and employing diverse means (methods) to answer them. Within each paradigm, activism is theorized and examined differently (for more on public relations paradigms, see Curtin, 2012; Bardhan & Weaver, 2011). Public relations began as a functional discipline, such that the role of teaching and research worked to advance the profession. Conversely, nonfunctional perspectives work to explain, challenge, and deconstruct the practice. Since the end of the twentieth century, these ideological positions have existed in tension with one another. Fitting with Edward’s (2011) analytic division, the following section is divided into functional and nonfunctional perspectives that emphasize the role of public relations from multiple perspectives.

Activism reflects the “contested terrain” (Cheney & Christensen, 2001) of the discipline and represents an instance of “semantic incommensurability” (Kuhn, 1996), where terminology from one paradigm does not neatly translate to another. Activism, therefore, is conceptualized, theorized, and examined in various ways depending on one’s paradigm. The meanings surrounding activism vary paradigmatically, and the following section presents a brief overview of how activism is conceptualized within public relations scholarship. Table 11.1 draws from Curtin’s (2012) communication paradigms and characteristics to contextualize activism within public relations.

Table 11.1 Paradigmatic conceptualizations of activism in public relations

Paradigm Conceptualization of activism and public relations Questions to consider Role of theory Examples of theory
Functional Postpositivist Activists are threats to organizations. The role of PR is to monitor and respond to activist groups. How do we predict publics becoming activists? How does PR manage activists? How should practitioners deal with activists most effectively? Theory is predictive. Excellence
Nonfunctional Constructivist Activist groups are organizational stakeholders. Activism is socially constructed and is important for what it means and conveys in a culture. What is the historical and social context in which activism and public relations intersect? What are the shared social realities? Theory is explanatory. Cocreational approach
Ethnographic research
Framing
Critical Activism is a manifestation of unequal power structures. What role does ideology play in in political and economic structures? How may activism contribute in changes to social power arrangements? Theory is deterministic. Theory drives social change. Political economy
Feminist theory
Critical race theory
Postmodern Activists and PR are not binary; they exist on a continuum and are constructed through discourse. How does context impact the relationship between activism and PR? What role do power and discourse play? Theory is illuminating. Postcolonial theory
Chaos and complexity theory
Queer theory

Functional Perspectives

Functional perspectives are concerned with the effectiveness of an organization and its communication; as such, research and theory serve the interests of the professional practice. Public relations is defined and assessed within the limits of the organization and its objectives, and for functional scholars the context of theory and research is conceptualized within organizational terms. In functional approaches, organizational goals are “paramount,” and systems of public relations (strategies, tactics, and evaluation) are aligned to work in the interest of organizational management (Munshi & Edwards, 2011, p. 355). In this sense, activists are obstacles to corporate goals and are problems or issues that managers need to learn to deal with (J. Grunig, 1989). Activists are conceptualized as “barriers to overcome or challenges to meet,” and, regardless of the size of their group, are potentially damaging to organizations (Coombs & Holladay, 2007, p. 52; Mintzberg, 1983).

Postpositivist Paradigm

Postpositivism, which draws from the scientific method, drives much of the work in public relations research. According to postpositivism, theory is predictive, demonstrated by Ferguson’s (1984) call for theory that “predict[s] future events based upon research findings” (p. 2). Employing statistical tests, researchers measure and analyze data to develop predictive theories. A functionalist foundation places issues management, excellence theory, and the situational theory of publics within the postpositivist paradigm.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, issues management emerged as a way for organizations to preventatively confront matters affecting them, rather than reactively responding, by anticipating change, prioritizing opportunities, and avoiding or mitigating threats (Renfro, 1993). Issues management was born as a corporate business discipline (Chase, 1976), founded with the idea that corporations have the moral and legal right to participate in the formation of public policy – not merely to react or be responsive. Grounded in management processes, issues management is focused on strategic planning, policy, implementation, and evaluation as a way to balance opportunities and threats (Heath, 2010). According to Heath (1997), issues management is “centered on the ability of activists, business entities and government agencies to find common ground and create wise public policy” (p. ix). Ultimately, the goal is for public relations practitioners to identify an issue, mobilize resources, and develop and implement a strategic plan (Heath, 2010).

In his book Excellence in public relations and communication management, J. E. Grunig (1992) described the two‐way symmetrical model, which can be traced back to J. E. Grunig and T. Hunt’s (1984) four models of public relations (that is, press agentry/publicity, public information, two‐way asymmetrical, and two‐way symmetrical), as the excellent model for the practice of public relations. The two‐way symmetrical model was deemed most effective when dealing with activist publics (Anderson, 1992; L. Grunig, 1986; Sha, 1995). This perspective was intended to inform practitioners and scholars on the best way to address activist publics in certain situations and to predict the uprising of groups of people. J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (1997) hypothesized that activists would push organizations toward excellence in public relations: “Organizations that face activist pressure would be more likely to assign public relations a managerial role, include public relations in strategic management, communicate more symmetrically with a powerful adversary or partner, and develop more participative cultures and organic structures that would open the organization to its environment” (p. 10).

According to excellence, organizations are most likely to empower public relations when pressured by activists; activism pushes organizations toward excellence as they try to cope with the expectations of their constituency. Excellent PR departments develop programs to communicate effectively and symmetrically with activists. J. E. Grunig (2001) revised his original four‐model typology to account for the activist need for asymmetrical strategies, stating that the two‐way symmetrical model employs both symmetrical and asymmetrical, or mixed motive, elements. The adversarial relationship that activists establish, then, creates a “turbulent, complex environment” in which pressure from activist groups “stimulates organizations” to develop excellent public relations (L. Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 16).

Public relations scholarship has had a resulting “preoccupation” with activism because of the potential consequences of activist groups, which can “directly and immediately threaten the organization’s goals or help to attain them” (Hallahan, 2000, p. 500). Organizations must anticipate activist pressures because activist groups can issue grievances, boycott an organization, participate in or encourage a strike, garner negative media attention, and take other actions that can severely harm the revenue of an organization (L. Grunig, 1992). The situational theory of publics (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) serves as a predictor of activism, categorizing publics as either active information seekers or passive information processors (J. Grunig, 1997). According to this theory, the communication behaviors of activist publics can be best understood by measuring how publics understand the situations in which they are impacted by organizations (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).

Nonfunctional Perspectives

Many scholars agree that the models, especially the two‐way symmetrical stance, do not adequately explain activist public relations (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997; Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Leichty & Springston, 1993; Murphy & Dee, 1992, 1996). Scholars also contest the symmetrical model because they argue that mainstream organizations holding more power than activists will not realistically enact symmetrical strategies, especially if they stand to lose influence (Berger, 2005). Critics of the excellence approach point to the “enormous resource disparity” between activists and organizations (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000, p. 10; Karlberg, 1996), while noting at the same time that “groups without large reserves of professional and financial resources can still … effect change” (Stokes & Rubin, 2010, p. 27). Karlberg (1996) critiqued functionalist, organization‐centered approaches that dominated public relations scholarship, arguing that asymmetry had situated “citizens and public interest groups to the periphery of public relations research” (p. 271). He called for “remembering the public in public relations research.”

Historically, activism was marginalized and positioned as “the Other” by functionalism in public relations theory. Unlike functionalism, nonfunctional approaches are rooted in a sociocultural conceptualization of the discipline, creating theoretical space for considering the intersections between public relations and activism. The following addresses activism within constructivist, critical, and postmodern paradigms.

Constructivist Paradigm

Constructivism is an interpretive framework focused on meaning‐making and sense‐making of the phenomena under investigation. Drawing from anthropology (e.g. Geertz, 1973) and sociology (e.g. Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1959; Mead, 1934), the goal of constructivism is to develop an understanding of the social world. Rather than postpositivism, which conceptualizes the researcher as outside or objective to the phenomena under investigation, constructivist researchers immerse themselves with the object of study, attempting to “see it from the inside” (Charmaz, 2011, p. 366).

Although not many public relations theories have stemmed from this paradigm, it has potential for building theories that have explanatory power. As it relates to activism, research could examine activist culture at formal and informal levels. With the professionalizing of activism since the latter half of the twentieth century, social movement organizations have hired full‐time employees to run campaigns and strategic communication. Through ethnographic methods, research could examine organizational culture and how activists use framing to develop strategic communication to create shared realities.

Critical Paradigm

Critical theory moves away from the dichotomization of activism vs. public relations to explore the relationship between public relations and activism. Coombs and Holladay (2012a) argue that activism is the key to the next step in advancing the discussion of critical ideas in PR away from fringe and toward mainstream – critical theory allows us to move beyond a corporate‐centric view to consider activism and public relations.

Within the critical paradigm, the researcher is an activist, putting forth social critique for social change: “the goal is not to learn more about the world but to change it, to revise history as given” (Curtin, 2012, p. 37). The goal is to develop research and theory that will bring to light the relationship between public relations and ideology, illustrating the role PR plays in creating, maintaining, or challenging power structures in society. Critical theory considers how power is symbolically and discursively deployed through public relations; organizations project certain goals and values to publics, thus practicing public relations discursively. Research on activism from this perspective has examined the use of strategic communication by groups to “promote, maintain, and resist dominant political and economic ideologies” (Motion & Weaver, 2005, p. 64). Recognizing that interactions take place in social, cultural, and political spaces, research considers how power is symbolically and discursively deployed through public relations; organizations project certain goals and values to publics, thus practicing public relations discursively. Organizations express symbolic power through public relations (Benoit & Czerwinski, 1997; Edwards, 2009; Maguire & Hardy, 2009; Motion, Leitch, & Brodie, 2003; Motion & Weaver, 2005), and activism often emerges as a result of ideological contests, drawing attention to inequality.

Postmodern Paradigm

Postmodernism developed as response to the determinism of critical perspectives (Curtin, 2012), focusing on context and the flow of power and discourse. It emphasizes multiple truths, deconstructing processes of power that impact social reality and questioning how and why knowledge comes to be (Holtzhausen, 2002). A postmodern approach challenges dominant narratives and ideologies, and, within public relations, it questions the role of consensus in symmetrical public relations (Holtzhausen, 2000). A handful of scholars have established a framework for a postmodern theorizing of public relations, including Mickey (1998), Holtzhausen (2000, 2002) and Kennedy and Sommerfeldt (2015), building the foundation for empirical research that applies chaos and complexity theories (e.g. Gilpin & Murphy, 2008; McKie, 2001; Murphy & Dee, 1996), dissensus (e.g. Ciszek, 2015), and postcolonialism (e.g. Bardhan, 2003; Dutta, 2009; Munshi, 2005).

Recognizing communication as both contextual and cultural, and recognizing identity as relational (Stewart, 1991), postmodern inquiry considers the importance of relationships and dialogue in public relations. It provides a space for “listening to the voices of the multiple publics that are complexly layered within and outside the organization” (Pal & Dutta, 2008, p. 171), including activists. Power is relative, and the relationship between activists and organizations is fluid and implicated in power relations. With an emphasis on nonbinary relationships and fluidity, postmodernism positions activists as both internal and external to an organization. A postmodern perspective “opens the door for public relations practitioners to act as community activists, an approach that is not only radical but also ethical and desirable” (Holtzhausen, 2000, p. 99).

Examples of Theory Used with Activism

Postpositivist Paradigm

An example of postpositivism is Hallahan’s (2001) issues processes model, which provides insights into how activist publics form. Using Hallahan’s model of issues processes, J. Kim and Cho (2011) examine the protests against US in Seoul, South Korea, by focusing on an activist public: “stroller moms.” J. Kim and Cho found that online community websites were critical in converting these women from an inactive public to an active public by enhancing their knowledge of and involvement in the issue. As J. Kim and Cho (2011) concluded, the unique characteristics of the internet (e.g. interactivity, duplicability, and ubiquity) allow active publics to “spread information immediately and extensively, with almost no limitations” (p. 19), impacting organizational reputation. The research concludes with theoretical considerations and strategic lessons for organizations and communicative entities.

Constructivist Paradigm

While public relations research has been slow to adopt constructivism, social movement scholars have embraced this perspective. Sociologist Alberto Melucci (1989) argues that a movement is “always a composite action system, in which widely differing means, ends and forms of solidarity and organization converge in a more or less stable manner” (p. 28). Constructivism recognizes that activists’ interests are not fixed, representing the complex network of activists comprising a social movement and its corresponding organizations and collectives. According to constructivism, a social movement is “a result rather than a starting point,” and solidarity and sovereignty cannot be assumed (Melucci, 1996, p. 40).

Critical Paradigm

In a study of internal activism, Curtin (2016) presents a critical examination of the Girl Scouts, exploring the emergence of competing discourses that arose during a campaign. The case surrounds an activist campaign over seven years mounted by two scouts who asked Girl Scouts USA to take palm oil out of their cookies because of its association with environmental damage. Curtin presents articulation theory to explore the processes and meaning of multiple discourses that emerged throughout the campaign, demonstrating individual‐level and structural constructs, blurring organizational boundaries, and rejecting the organization/activist binary.

Postmodern Paradigm

Embracing postmodernism, Holtzhausen and Voto (2002) advocate for the emancipatory potential of public relations, arguing that practitioners are often the moral compass of an organization. Through in‐depth interviews with public relations practitioners, findings reveal that practitioners can function as organizational activists, resisting dominant power and embracing a desire for change. Holtzhausen and Voto present dissensus and dissymmetry (Docherty, 1993; Lyotard, 1992, 1993) as alternatives to the consensus and symmetrical communication that have been heralded as the gold standard in public relations theory and practice.

Major Topics/Questions Needing to Be Addressed by Public Relations Theorists Working with Activism

While the paradigmatic landscape of public relations is diverse, postpositivist theories dominate much of the research on activism. Additional theory development is needed to provide a more robust account of the intersections between public relations and activism. To advance the theoretical landscape of activism, further research is needed that builds theory within public relations and draws from other disciplines. L’Etang (2016) recognized the opportunities for theory building and empirical exploration: “There is room for considerable theoretical expansion in terms of reflections upon the connections between societal change, social movements and activism and the role of communicative action” (p. 211).

Research is needed that explores activism and public relations at multiple levels: individual, discipline, social, and global. Future theorizing is needed in three main areas: (1) activism as public relations (conceptualizing social movement organizations as strategic communicators); (2) public relations as activism (conceptualizing public relations practitioners as organizational change agents); and (3) activism and strategic communication (considering how key stakeholders engage with communication materials aimed at them).

Suggested Cases to Explore to Demonstrate Theory at Work with Activism

The following are two short overviews of some cases involving activism. More than 160 corporations (including Apple, Time Warner Cable, Microsoft, Visa, and Google) condemned the passage of House Bill 2 (HB2) in North Carolina that effectively forces transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than with their gender identity. In response to HB2, organizations and corporations became activists, taking a stand. Deutsche Bank announced a freeze on its plan to create 250 jobs at its Cary, North Carolina facility, and PayPal pulled out of a $3.8 million deal to expand in Charlotte, North Carolina. The National Basketball Association pulled the 2017 All‐Star Game from Charlotte, which would have had an estimated $100 million in regional economic impact.

On the heels of a new generation of public relations, Ripple Strategies, a strategic communication agency that engages in “PR with purpose,” partnered with more than a hundred organizations nationwide to demand that Dollar Stores stop selling products containing chemicals known to cause cancer, learning disabilities, obesity, and other serious illnesses. Ripple (2015) released a report – A day late and a dollar short – resulting in two dozen TV stories and several nationwide high‐profile online stories, over half of which appeared in the Spanish‐language press. Two days after the campaign launch, the Consumer Product Safety Commission requested the product testing results, forcing Dollar Stores to respond.

Discussion Questions

  1. 1 What role has activism played in the development of public relations practice and theory?
  2. 2 What role do new media play in theorizing public relations, activism, and power?
  3. 3 How do activists practice public relations and strategic communication? How do public relations practitioners engage in activism?
  4. 4 How does a researcher’s paradigm affect empirical and theoretical work?
  5. 5 What discourses surround activism in other disciplines (business, management, sociology, anthropology, etc.)? How does this compare with public relations?
  6. 6 What might an embrace of activism and public relations mean for the future of public relations theory and research?

Suggested Readings

  1. Allagui, I. (2017). Towards organisational activism in the UAE: A case study approach. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 258–266.
  2. Ciszek, E. L. (2016). Digital activism: How social media and dissensus inform theory and practice. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 314–321.
  3. Curtin, P. A. (2016). Exploring articulation in internal activism and public relations theory: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(1), 19–34.
  4. Henderson, A. (2005). Activism in “Paradise”: Identity management in a public relations campaign against genetic engineering. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 117–137.
  5. Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2005). Framing analysis of activist rhetoric: How the Sierra Club succeeds or fails at creating salient messages. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 185–195.
  6. Stokes, A. Q., & Rubin, D. (2010). Activism and the limits of symmetry: The public relations battle between Colorado GASP and Philip Morris. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 26–48.
  7. Veil, S. R., Reno, J., Freihaut, R., & Oldham, J. (2015). Online activists vs. Kraft foods: A case of social media hijacking. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 103–108.
  8. Weaver, C. K. (2010). Carnivalesque activism as a public relations genre: A case study of the New Zealand group Mothers Against Genetic Engineering. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 35–41.

References

  1. Anderson, D. S. (1992). Identifying and responding to activist publics: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(3), 151–165.
  2. Bardhan, N. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of India. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 225–248.
  3. Bardhan, N., & Weaver, C. K. (Eds.). (2011). Public relations in global cultural contexts: Multi‐paradigmatic perspectives. New York: Routledge.
  4. Baron, D. P., & Diermeier, D. (2007). Strategic activism and nonmarket strategy. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 599–634.
  5. Benoit, W. L., & Czerwinski, A. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir’s image repair discourse. Business Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 38–57.
  6. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5–28.
  7. Blumer, H. (1969). Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. Sociological Quarterly, 10(3), 275–291.
  8. Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 31–63.
  9. Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 359–380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  10. Chase, H. W. (1976). Corporate public issues and their management. Leesburg, VA: IAP.
  11. Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Public relations as contested terrain. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 167–182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  12. Ciszek, E. L. (2015). Bridging the gap: Mapping the relationship between activism and public relations. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 447–455.
  13. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It’s not just PR: Public relations in society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  14. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012a). Fringe public relations: How activism moves critical PR toward the mainstream. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 880–887.
  15. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012b). Privileging an activist vs. a corporate view of public relations history in the US. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 347–353.
  16. Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public policy. Public Relations Review, 11(2), 3–16.
  17. Curtin, P. A. (2012). Public relations and philosophy: Parsing paradigms. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 31–47.
  18. Curtin, P. A. (2016). Exploring articulation in internal activism and public relations theory: A case study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(1), 19–34.
  19. Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., & Zald, M. N. (Eds.). (2005). Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Demetrious, K. (2006). Active voices. In J. L'Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 93–107). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  21. Demetrious, K. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, new activism and public relations. Social Responsibility Journal, 4(1/2), 104–119.
  22. Demetrious, K. (2013). Public relations, activism, and social change: Speaking up. New York: Routledge.
  23. Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924.
  24. Docherty, T. (Ed.). (1993). Postmodernism: A reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
  25. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  26. Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 3–22.
  27. Dutta, M. J. (2009). On Spivak: Theorizing resistance – applying Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in public relations. In Ø. Ihlen, B. Van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 278–299). New York: Routledge.
  28. Edwards, L. (2009). Symbolic power and public relations practice: Locating individual practitioners within their social context. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 251–272.
  29. Edwards, L. (2011). Critical perspectives in global public relations: Theorizing power. In N. Bardhan & C. K. Weaver (Eds.), Public Relations in global cultural contexts: Multi‐paradigmatic perspectives (pp. 29–49). London: Routledge.
  30. Edwards, L. (2012). Defining the “object” of public relations research: A new starting point. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 7–30.
  31. Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
  32. Geertz, G. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
  33. Gilpin, D. R., & Murphy, P. J. (2008). Crisis management in a complex world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
  35. Greenwood, C. A. (2015). Whistleblowing in the Fortune 1000: What practitioners told us about wrongdoing in corporations in a pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(4), 490–500.
  36. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra Club study shows who become activists. Public Relations Review, 15(3), 3–24.
  37. Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  38. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 4–48). London: International Thomson.
  39. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two‐way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  40. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1997). Review of a program of research on activism: Incidence in four countries, activist publics, strategies of activist groups, and organizational responses to activism. Paper presented at the Fourth Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.
  41. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: CBS College.
  42. Grunig, L. A. (1986). Activism and organizational response: Contemporary cases of collective behavior. Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
  43. Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism: How it limits the effectiveness of organizations and how excellent public relations departments respond. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 503–530). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  44. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  45. Hallahan, K. (2000). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 499–515.
  46. Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues processes model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27–59.
  47. Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organisations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  48. Heath, R. L. (2010). Mind, self, and society. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  49. Heath, R. L., & Waymer, D. (2009). A case study of Frederick Douglass’ Fourth of July address. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 195–215). New York: Routledge.
  50. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93–114.
  51. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(3), 251–264.
  52. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public relations as activism: Postmodern approaches to theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
  53. Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57–84.
  54. Jones, B. L., & Chase, W. H. (1979). Managing public policy issues. Public Relations Review, 5(2), 3–23.
  55. Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 263–278.
  56. Kennedy, A. K., & Sommerfeldt, E. J. (2015). A postmodern turn for social media research: Theory and research directions for public relations scholarship. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23(1), 31–45.
  57. Kim, J., & Cho, M. (2011). When the “stroller moms” take hold of the street: A case study of how social influence made the inactive publics active in anti‐US beef protest in Seoul – an issues processes model perspective. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(1), 1–25.
  58. King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3), 395–421.
  59. Kuhn, T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  60. Leichty, G., & Springston, J. (1993). Reconsidering public relations models. Public Relations Review, 19, 327–339.
  61. Lenox, M. J., & Eesley, C. E. (2009). Private environmental activism and the selection and response of firm targets. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(1), 45–73.
  62. L’Etang, J. (2016). Public relations, activism and social movements: Critical perspectives. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(3), 207–211.
  63. Lyotard, J.‐F. (1992). Answering the question: What is postmodernism? In C. Jencks (Ed.), The postmodern reader (pp. 138–150). London: Academy.
  64. Lyotard, J.‐F. (1993). Libidinal economy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  65. Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178.
  66. McKie, D. (2001). Updating public relations: “New science,” research paradigms, and uneven developments. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 75–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  67. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society (Vol. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  68. Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. London: Hutchinson Radius
  69. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  70. Mickey, T. J. (1998). Selling the internet: A cultural studies approach to public relations. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 335–349.
  71. Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3–15.
  72. Morris, A., & Braine, N. (2001). Social movements and oppositional consciousness. In J. J. Mansbridge & A. Morris (Eds.), Oppositional consciousness: The subjective roots of social protest (pp. 20–37). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  73. Motion, J., Leitch, S., & Brodie, R. J. (2003). Equity in corporate co‐branding: The case of Adidas and the All Blacks. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1080–1094.
  74. Motion, J., & Weaver, C. K. (2005). A discourse perspective for critical public relations research: Life sciences network and the battle for truth. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 49–67.
  75. Munshi, D. (2005). Postcolonial theory and public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (Vol. 2, pp. 631–632). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  76. Munshi, D, & Edwards, L. (2011). Understanding “race” in/and public relations: Where do we start and where should we go? Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 349–67.
  77. Murphy, P., & Dee, J. (1992). DuPont and Greenpeace: The dynamics of conflict between corporations and activist groups. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4, 3–20.
  78. Murphy, P., & Dee, J. (1996). Reconciling the preferences of environmental activists and corporate policymakers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 1–33.
  79. Pal, M., & Dutta, M. J. (2008). Public relations in a global context: The relevance of critical modernism as a theoretical lens. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(2), 159–179.
  80. Rakow, L. (2005). A generative grammar of communication theories. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
  81. Rehbein, K., Waddock, S., & Graves, S. B. (2004). Understanding shareholder activism: Which corporations are targeted? Business & Society, 43(3), 239–267.
  82. Renfro, W. L. (1993). Issues management in strategic planning. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
  83. Ripple Strategies. (2015). A day late and a dollar short. Retrieved from https://www.ripplestrategies.com/2015/02/10/day‐late‐dollar‐short/
  84. Sha, B.‐L. (1995). Intercultural public relations: Exploring cultural identity as a means of segmenting publics (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Maryland, College Park.
  85. Smith, M. E. (2005). Activism. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 5–9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  86. Smith, M. F., & Ferguson, D. P. (2010). Activism 2.0. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 395–408). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  87. Stewart, K. (1991). Corporate identity: A strategic marketing issue. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 9(1), 32–39.
  88. Stokes, A. Q., & Rubin, D. (2010). Activism and the limits of symmetry: The public relations battle between Colorado GASP and Philip Morris. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 26–48.
  89. Taylor, M., & Das, S. S. (2010). Public relations in advocacy: Stem cell research organizations’ use of the internet in resource mobilization. Public Relations Journal, 4(4), 1–22.
  90. Weaver, C. K., & Motion, J. (2002). Sabotage and subterfuge: Public relations, democracy and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society, 24(3), 325–343.
  91. Zoller, H. M. (2005). Health activism: Communication theory and action for social change. Communication Theory, 15(4), 341–364.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.226.251.70