Post #4: Reading Response on Chapter Three (Chia and Synnott, 2009).

Chapter 3: Theoretical Contexts

This chapter discusses the various theoretical concepts that influence the field of public relations. I shall list the various theories and elements covered here before proceeding with anything else.

1. Systems theory

--> Cybernetics, Requisite variety, Boundary spanning.

2. Communications theory

--> Transmission models, Persuasion, Attitude & behaviour change, Source credibility, Two-step/multistep flow, Emotional appeals, Coorientation theory, Agenda setting, Framing.

3. Public Relations theory

--> The Excellence Theory, Grunig and Hunt's four models + variations, situational theory of publics, relationship management.

4. Rhetorical and interpretive perspectives

5. Cultural theory

6. Critical perspectives

I believe we have been introduced to what has been covered here in our Introduction to Communication Studies (CMNS1110) and Managing the Organisation (IRHR1001) modules. That said, there were a few new points that piqued my interest:

Firstly, under Communications theory, where the text introduces us to Newcomb, McLeod and Chaffee (1973)'s coorientation theory. Since different individuals have different opinions on a single issue, coorientation theory allows us to draw up a diagram of the different stakeholders' stand to see whether they are aligned in thought and action. I suppose we can then use it to determine the thrust of the PR campaign/strategy.

Chia and Synnott (2009) lists the four variables in achieving consensus. Firstly, accuracy, which is related to the level of accuracy of two (or more) parties' perception of each other's views. Next is understanding, which is how well both parties know the stiuation. Following that is agreement, explained as the level of similarity between the actual views on the issue at hand for both parties, and lastly, congruence, which is whether the actual view of one party is aligned with his or her perception of the view of the other party.

The example shown in our text, incidentally from PRIA's Golden Target Awards, let me understand how this theory works in a real-life situation. In summary, I think that coorientation theory is about facilitating understanding between different stakeholders; although an excellent campaign will also depend in part on the willingness of all parties involved to be proactive and to listen to the other party, and be ready to make concessions so in the big picture, everybody benefits.

Grunig and Hunt's four models of public relations was finally talked about in this chapter. In today's context, it seems that all four models are in use simultaneously. The first model of PR is press agentry. In this, the mass media is a tool used by organisations (through PR practitoners) to send messages to their audience in a single directional flow of information. I think this is quite easily observable; we can see instances of press agentry everywhere. I dare venture that the media release is an example of this? Since it contains all the information a journalist would need to write a story and thus achieve the PR effect. Media releases are sometimes lifted wholesale and plunked into the papers, even.

The public information model, like press agentry, is also singular in direction, however, according to Chia and Synnott (2009) the information provided here are hard facts and truths, so as to inform the public about certain issues that we need to take note of. This is probably heavily used by government agencies, like in Singapore where the Traffic Police releases accident statistics from time to time to get the public to drive carefully. Perhaps the single biggest example of this model could be during national health crises, such as SARS in 2003 and the H1N1 epidemic in 2009, where the Ministry of Health, as well as hospitals provided daily updates of the situation through the various media and provided information on symptoms and any action to be taken.

Thirdly we have the two-way asymmetric model. It's two-way because not only does the organisation send information to the target audience, the feedback from the audience also makes it back to the organisationand determines the development of the next round of publicity efforts. It is somewhat similar to the reception model of communication which we learnt back in Trimester 3 in 2010. This model allows the organisation to slowly shape the behaviour of the target audience though, and my guess is it raises some issues about ethics. As for examples of this model, could it be that product surveys are part of this? The PR practitioner could design one and go out into the streets to collect data about a certain product or, say, the public impression of the organisation, then use the feedback to create a better product or service that would "manipulate" the public to do business with the organisation in question?

The last model postulated by Grunig and Hunt is the two-way symmetric model. The most ideal model, it discusses mutual understanding between both the organisation as well as the target audiences, where both are of equal stature and are able to influence each other in some way or another. Personally, like what is stated in the textbook, I feel this model is a little irrelevant because a perfect balance of power is close to impossible in real life, the situations are usually give-and-take of some sort, or when one party dominates the other. Perhaps coorientation theory could be used to smooth out the differences between the groups but otherwise, this is very much just an ideal in my opinion.

Chia and Synnott do talk about extra variations to these four models, of which personal influence is quite a lot like the guanxi concept in Chinese culture which I blogged about 2 weeks ago or so. Mixed motive, on the other hand, is rooted in game theory and has the PR practitioner try to steer the organisation towards a Nash equilibrium for both the organisation and the public.

My reflection on some of the theories covered in this chapter thus ends.