Download Report

Elena Manighetti 4370792 MA Public Relations Public Relations Principles and Foundations Carrie Hodges and Hilary Stepien What is public relations? Public relations in contemporary society. PR as intercultural diplomacy. Connecting (micro) cultures in a diverse world. Public relations (PR) can be interpreted from multiple relevant theoretical perspectives. This is demonstrated by its vast and fragmented literature and the impossibility of finding a universally agreed upon definition of the practice (Tench and Yeomans 2009). Since the initial development of the body of knowledge began in the early 1900s, substantial contributions, occasionally through multidisciplinary frameworks, were made in the field. From the early 2000s, highly critical approaches integrated the ‘dominant (instrumental) paradigm’ further fracturing the scholarship (L’Etang 2008). This essay seeks to suggest a relatively unbiased definition of PR that takes into account the diversity of today’s society. Public relations will be described as intercultural diplomacy. The similarity between PR and public diplomacy has already been noticed by Signitzer and Coombs (1992), Kunczik (cited Dutta-‐-‐-‐Bergman 2006), and L’Etang (2010), whereas the cultural dimension has been explored by authors such as Banks (2000), Hodges (2005, 2012), Daymon and Hodges (2009), L’Etang (2011) and Edwards (2011a). However, not many scholars seem to have recognised the possibility of a combination of the concept of diplomacy and that of PR as a cultural activity, with the exception of L’Etang (2010). Therefore, an attempt to offer a comprehensive account of this particular perspective that includes possible implications and criticisms seems to be valuable. PR will be portrayed here as a communication process whose essential aim is to mediate between different cultural groups. First, the concepts of culture and diplomacy will be defined and linked to PR; subsequently public relations will be recognised as a cultural activity because it shapes and creates culture (Banks 2000). To support this argument, Du Gay’s circuit of culture (Curtin and Gaither 2007) will be outlined. Additionally, the need for an anthropological turn in the discipline that would permit greater understanding of the practice in everyday life will be stressed (L’Etang 2011; Hodges 2012). Finally, PR will be contextualised in today’s diverse world and it will be claimed that generalisations of the 1 Elena Manighetti 4370792 MA Public Relations Public Relations Principles and Foundations Carrie Hodges and Hilary Stepien definition of PR could be detrimental to a thorough understanding of the discipline (Bardhan 2003). Possible criticism, such as the contentious link between propaganda and diplomacy (L’Etang 2010), the supposed homogenisation process entailed in globalisation (Levitt cited Bhawuk 2008) and the hypothetical similarity of the approach presented here to that of the relationship management theory will be taken into consideration. Culture and diplomacy: definitions and implications Although culture is often associated with the concept of ethnicity, its definition is far more complex. There is not an agreed definition of culture; nonetheless, most of the scholars admit that culture incorporates shared values, symbols, myths, rituals and heroes (Jandt 2010). It can be defined as “systems of meaning differentially available to groups of people” (Banks 2000, p.30), ‘mental schemata’ (Hodges 2005, p.19), or as ‘conceptual worlds’ (Carey cited MacManus 2000, p.161). Examples of culture may be activist groups, organisational cultures, virtual communities, journalism cultures, etc. Hence, from this perspective, publics, organisations and stakeholders are cultural groups and can be defined as “groups of people who share systems of meaning about particular issues” (Banks 2000, p.30). According to Banks (2000), public relations is used to transmit the identities of both the organisations (or groups) it speaks for and the audiences that it addresses; it is not only an organisational activity. Culture plays a progressively significant role in PR practice as countries achieve ulterior stages of growth (Tixier cited Grunig and Grunig 2003). Diplomacy could generally be described as the management of a country’s relationships with other nations. Its principal goal is the establishment of mutually beneficial relations (L’Etang 2010). PR and diplomacy detain similar aims and use similar tools (Signitzer and Coombs 1992) as they are both forms of communication that entail promotion, negotiation, representation, dialogue, peace-‐-‐-‐making and peacekeeping. In fact, cultural diplomacy refers to “the exchange of ideas, information, value systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding” (Cummings cited Institute of Cultural Diplomacy 2011). 2 Elena Manighetti 4370792 MA Public Relations Public Relations Principles and Foundations Carrie Hodges and Hilary Stepien Likewise, public relations involves the exchange and advancement of information, ideas, and culture through negotiation. It attempts to “maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics” (Chartered Institute of Public Relations 2011). The language of diplomacy has penetrated PRPs’ culture as some of them defined themselves ‘corporate diplomats’ (L’Etang 2010). Furthermore, public relations and diplomacy both employ relationships strategically for the advantage of their representatives. PR could therefore be conceived as a form of diplomacy in a multiplicity of contexts (ibid). Since the actors involved in its processes are cultural groups, PR could be interpreted as intercultural diplomacy, i.e. diplomacy between different (micro) cultures. Diplomacy, public relations, rhetoric and propaganda It could be argued that the controversial association between diplomacy and propaganda (L’Etang 2006 and 2010) makes it hazardous to consider public relations as intercultural diplomacy since it leads to the stern criticisms expressed by the ‘critical paradigm’ (L’Etang 2008) theorists. According to L’Etang (2010), public relations, propaganda and diplomacy have a strong connection with rhetoric because of the crucial part that persuasion plays in these activities. Rhetoric and propaganda are usually associated with unscrupulous deception, manipulation and spin. Although rhetoric is unmistakably employed by propaganda, it must be highlighted that the latter does not apply rhetorical maxims entirely (Heath 2009). According to Heath, rhetoric implies symmetry since it pays substantial attention to listening and it concentrates on the quality of its communication whereas propaganda “is the essence of asymmetry” (ibid p.19). In fact, propaganda is often defined as the “deliberate attempt to influence public opinion through the transmission of ideas and values for a specific purpose” (Cull et al 2003, p. 318). As this definition emphasises, propaganda entails only asymmetrical communication and does not take into consideration the message-‐-‐-‐recipient’s point of view. In contrast, rhetoric, diplomacy, and public relations activities can involve both the use of symmetric and 3 asymmetric interaction and strive to reach mutual understanding (Heath 2009). With reference to the models of public relations elaborated by Grunig and Hunt (1984), the wide variety of activities involved in diplomacy would reflect all the four models. Press agentry, public information, and asymmetrical communication can be used at times in order to diffuse promotional messages, occasionally following an accurate research of the stakeholders’ expectations. The two-‐-‐-‐way symmetrical communication instead is employed for dialogical activities such as negotiation. According to Signitzer and Coombs (1992), there are two schools of thought in public diplomacy: the tough-‐-‐-‐minded and the tender-‐-‐-‐minded schools. The former states that diplomacy’s core goal is to affect the behaviour of foreign publics using propaganda. The latter holds that it is “a cultural function whose goal is to create mutual understanding” (ibid, p.140). Neither school is correct because they work best when integrated (ibid). As L’Etang (2010) admits, diplomacy involves dialogue, intercultural communication, and counsel; thus it cannot be limited to promotion. Therefore a broader definition of diplomacy that incorporates both promotional and negotiating activities could clarify to a greater extent what public relations means in the actual world’s diverse reality. Furthermore, the ‘critical paradigm’, which believes that diplomacy and PR only represent prevailing views as they are merely a form of propaganda, could be criticised as it does not take into account that they are used directly and indirectly by a variety of cultural groups (for example local councils), not only by profit-‐-‐-‐driven organisations or dominant coalitions (Hodges and Denegri-‐-‐-‐Knott 2012). Furthermore, Brown (cited Demetrious 2011) observes that today social media (for example blogs) have introduced a form of ‘direct publishing’ that is now available to common people and have led to a shift in power in favour of ordinary users. This means that a greater number of people can now engage in PR activities. The mediating role of PR Banks (2000) maintains that public relations has a mediating and translating role in the communication activities of a society. In fact, when communicating, organisations (or other cultural groups) first need to examine their publics through stakeholders’ attitudes, investigation and market research and then adapt their identities and shape their 4 messages according to their multicultural external publics’ expectations. From this standpoint, public relations practitioners (PRPs) could be defined as ‘cultural intermediaries’ (Hodges 2005 and 2006) or ‘intercultural diplomats’. According to L’Etang (2011), PRPs need to be capable of decoding and understanding cultural characteristics, rules and taboos. When interacting with publics, they need to ‘translate’ their messages and values according to the different cultures they speak to in order to moderate cultural clashes and maximise communication efficiency (MacManus 2000). For instance, when a corporate PR practitioner engages in dialogue with an activist group representative, they will attempt to negotiate and translate the organisational culture (and therefore its principles and objectives) in order to reach an agreement and build a positive relationship with that specific stakeholder. This happens everyday in different contexts and on different levels. PR as a cultural activity When mediating between cultural groups, public relations is essentially acting on, and therefore shaping, culture. According to Hodges (2006), PRPs diffuse cultural messages and contribute to the creation of cultural discourses and, thus, meaning. Bourdieu describes ‘new cultural intermediaries’ as groups of workers who produce and distribute symbolic goods and services (Nixon and Du Gay 2002). Not only can PR practitioners influence and modify culture, but also create it. Public relations generates logos, exhibitions, slogans, events and brands which are all cultural artefacts. It also has social consequences such as the formation of communities of interest (Banks 2000; Hodges 2012). Therefore, public relations could be described as a cultural activity (Banks 2000) that can lead to social change as it has the faculty of altering policies (through lobbying for instance) and encouraging public debate (Hodges 2006). From this perspective, Daymon and Hodges (2009, p.430) define PR as a “cultural practice that forms part of the communicative process by which society constructs its social reality.” Du Gay and Nixon’s circuit of culture (1997, appendix A) offers a valid tool to understand how culture is shaped, created and informed by economic practice; the model can also be applied 5 to PR. The circuit of culture has no beginning or end and it consists of five moments that work synergistically together in order to create meaning. As Curtin and Gaither (2007) explain, identities are meanings that derive from social networks and are thus socially constructed. They are never stable: they evolve and change constantly. Production is the process through which cultural products, for example a PR stunt, are injected with meaning by their creators. This links to the concept of ‘promotional culture’ introduced by Wernick (1991). According to the latter, the pervading consumerism and commodification typical of the end of the twentieth century have generated a promotional culture, so that the publicity of a product is involved even at the production stage. One example of this can be represented by the creation of the first Macintosh. When building Apple’s first computer, Steve Jobs was already considering how to advertise it and therefore chose to develop a user-‐-‐-‐friendly interface and to employ beautiful typography for its design. Representation is the shape an object takes and the messages encoded in that shape. Consumption is the moment at which consumers are reached by a cultural product and in which they decipher the messages it contains. Here, it is worth highlighting the active role of the publics in this process. When the audience receives a cultural product, it does not accept it as it is, but instead deconstructs the meanings it carries and adapts them to its cultural perspective, creating new sense (Curtin and Gaither 2007). This demonstrates that postmodernist accusations of manipulation and mind control brought against the media and public relations do not subsist (MacManus 2000). Finally, regulation involves different forms of control of cultural activities. These differ in their level of formality and can vary from laws to social expectations (Curtin and Gaither 2007). Public relations connects identities with products, offers feedback from potential consumers to producers and creates symbols to represent and promote particular products (L’Etang 2008). As Edwards (2011b) concludes, culture and public relations co-‐-‐-‐construct each other. The need for an anthropological turn Authors like L’Etang (2011) and Hodges (2012) stress the importance of an anthropological turn – specifically through ethnography -‐-‐-‐ in the discipline in order to comprehend to a greater extent the role of PR in everyday life. Ethnographic research offers theories and tools to contribute to an in-‐-‐-‐depth investigation of the role of public relations in 6 cultures (L’Etang 2010). Ethnographers study ordinary human experiences on a macro and micro level in order to gain insight of cultural phenomena (Hodges 2012) as the lifeworld, which is the taken-‐-‐-‐for-‐-‐-‐granted everyday life, is the ground upon which the interaction between culture and structure occurs (L’Etang 2008). In ordinary life, social and cultural differences are perceptible thanks to the manifestation of various lifestyles. The latter are patterns of action that are the products of slight alterations between identities (Cahney cited L’Etang 2008). In contrast with Bourdieu’s work, which fails to recognise the way individuals dialectically oppose and accommodate themselves to dominant ideologies (Mukerji and Schudson 1991), L’Etang (2008) holds that everyday life can be understood as a continual process of adaptation and resistance to promotional cultures. In fact, according to Hall and Williams, and in the context of empirical studies, different audiences may interpret cultural messages in a multiplicity of ways and therefore they play an active role in the formation of culture (Mukerji and Schudson 1991). An anthropological approach to public relations research would also offer a means to appreciate PR as a culture itself (L’Etang 2008; Hodges 2012). Daymon and Hodges (2009) assert that the essence of public relations is formed by society’s cultural beliefs and principles. Consequently, there will be different public relations cultures all around the world. It is crucial to recognise that PRPs are immerged in cultures that influence their practice and that, therefore, generalisations about public relations are detrimental to a thorough comprehension of the subject (Bardhan 2003). Extremely inclusive theories such as the Excellence Theory by Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier would compromise the understanding of PR in the diverse world we live in (Hodges 2012). This becomes evident when comparing public relations practice in different parts of the world. For instance, whilst for Mexico City’s PRPs ethics is a primary concern and ‘confianza’ (trust) and transparency are given high relevance in the establishment of positive relationships (Hodges 2005), in China PRPs cultivate inter-‐-‐-‐ organisational and interpersonal relations (‘guanxi’) with the explicit and specific aim of exercising personal influence; these entail the exchange of gifts, favours and hospitality. Therefore, in this context, it is difficult to distinguish standard PR practices from corruption (Hung and Chen 2004). As Gower (cited Wakefield 2010 p.664) states, “cultural differences in the way public relations is practiced have been found in every country”. An ethnographic 7 research method in the field would lead to a new definition of PR, a definition that considers the cultural implications involved in public relations practice and avoids privileging totalising Western models and categorisations. This would involve an in-‐-‐-‐depth immersion of researchers in different PR cultures in order to gain enhanced understanding of the role of the practice in everyday life (Hodges 2012). An application of anthropology in PR would, in fact, permit the exploration of cultural diversity in public relations occupational culture, such as ‘in-‐-‐-‐house culture’ or ‘consultancy culture’. It could be interesting, for instance, to examine the culture shock a consultant experiences when moving from one client to another or from an organisation to another (L’Etang 2011). Scholars such as Pieczka (2002), Daymon and Hodges (2009) and Hodges (2006) started a shift towards this direction in the discipline. For instance, the latter conducted ethnographic research in Mexico City exploring the lifeworlds of Mexican PR practitioners. However, a lack of academic work that explores PR’s cultural dimension is still evident today. This could be due to the fact that this kind of research method requires a considerable amount of time to be dedicated to long-‐-‐-‐stay participant observation (Daymon and Hodges 2009). PR as intercultural diplomacy in a globalised world One could argue that, today, cultural differences are gradually becoming irrelevant as a result of the phenomenon of globalisation. There is not an agreed definition of the term; nevertheless, when talking about globalisation, one usually refers to “the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections that transcend the nation-‐-‐-‐states (and by implication the societies) which make up the modern world system. It defines a process through which events, decisions, and activities in one part of the world can come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe” (McGrew 1992 p.65). This occurs through developments in technology, improvements in communication and enhancement to transport systems; and it manifests in different sectors (economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and environmental). Levitt believes that homogeneity is the 8 consequence of globalisation (Bhawuk 2008). Similarly, Wernick (1991) claims that in this globalised world where promotional cultures are dominant a process of standardisation is taking place. Therefore, according to him, the prevailing (Western) cultures are being passively assimilated all around the world. This would mean that, today, intercultural diplomats are not needed and that a cultural turn in the discipline of public relations is not necessary. However, cultural studies exclude this colonial mind-‐-‐-‐set and suggest that globalisation does not entail homogenisation (Bhawuk 2008) but, instead, hybridisation. When a culture encounters another culture, its elements mix, blend, and synthesise with those of the other in order to form a hybrid. This leads to cultural change (Wang and Yeh 2005). Therefore globalisation does not correspond to standardisation, but to an increased ‘interconnectedness’ and transformation (Bhawuk 2008). Wakefield (2010) acknowledges that local cultures can exercise resistance, or even hostility, against the influence of global entities. Raising the example of the significant impact that activist groups have as stakeholders in shaping PR practice today, he claims that, thanks to globalisation, local cultures are increasing their power. Furthermore, he explains that cultural frameworks continue to be crucial for public relations practitioners to acknowledge, comprehend and accommodate. Likewise, Lerbinger (2001 cited Theaker 2004 p.339) states: “The essence of PR is cultural context”. It is therefore short-‐-‐-‐sighted to think that culture should not be central in the public relations discourses today. Moreover, it could be argued that the increased ‘interconnectedness’ generated by globalising processes renders PR practitioners further essential to the success in the nurturing of positive relationships with other cultures. Additionally, assuming that globalisation corresponds to (Western) homogenisation, a wide cultural diversity would still be present in society since, as previously stressed, micro-‐cultures such as occupation, science, and health would still exist. Therefore, it could be claimed that ‘intercultural diplomats’ are needed today as much as in the past, as cultural difference is an irrefutable feature of human societies (Jandt, 2010). 9 Intercultural diplomacy and relationship management It may be argued that conceiving public relations as intercultural diplomacy could present several similarities with the relationship management literature that arose in the late 1990’s. The focus on relations, dialogue and mutual understanding could make them seem alike at first glance. Nevertheless, the two conceptions are rather dissimilar. The theory of relationship management maintains that “effectively managing organisational-‐-‐-‐public relationships around common interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting organisations and publics” (Ledingham 2003, p.190). As evident in the statement and elsewhere (Ledingham and Bruning 2000; Dozier et al. 1995), the majority of the relationship management literature appears to be centred on organisational public relations and regards PR as a strategic management function. Therefore, the context in which PR is defined is strictly connected to that of corporations and businesses. In fact, some scholars insist on the benefits a managerial training could offer to PR practitioners (Dozier 1984 cited Ledingham 2003). Conversely, the intercultural diplomacy framework proposed here admits that public relations can be employed, sometimes unknowingly, by a wide range of cultural groups, on different levels of formality (for instance when youngsters organise a flash mob) and therefore reflects the nature of society to a greater extent. Moreover, the relational perspective does not acknowledge the cultural dimension (and thus cultural diversity) and the significant consequences it implies for PR practice, such as the role it plays in the creation of meaning. Conclusion This essay proposed to define public relations as intercultural diplomacy, presenting what seems (to the writer) a comprehensive account of its implications, drawing from the cultural approach already presented elsewhere (Banks 2000; MacManus 2000; Hodges 2005, 2012). Moreover, it has attempted to defend this perspective from possible criticisms such as the 10 supposed phenomenon of homogenisation entailed in globalisation and the controversial connection between diplomacy and propaganda. It has been argued that the intercultural diplomacy approach amplifies the scope of relationship management theory as it recognises the actual world’s micro and macro cultural diversity and explains how PR influences culture and consequently acts on society. It could, therefore, be claimed that this perspective might constitute a reasonable way to define public relations avoiding extreme generalisations. WORD COUNT: 3,498 (Title from the brief not included) 11 REFERENCES Banks, S. P., 2000. Multicultural Public Relations: A Social-‐-‐-‐Interpretative Approach. 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Bardhan, N., 2003. Rupturing Public Relations Metanarratives: The Example of India. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 225-‐-‐-‐248. Bhawuk, D. P. S., 2008. Globalization and Indigenous Cultures: Homogenization or Differentiation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 32(4) 305-‐-‐-‐17. Chartered Institute of Public Relations, 2011. What is PR? Available at: http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/careers-‐-‐-‐cpd/careers-‐-‐-‐pr/what-‐-‐-‐pr [Accessed 4 December 2011]. Cull, N., Culbert, D. and Welch D., 2003. Propaganda and Mass Persuasion. A Historical Encyclopedia. 1500 to the Present. Santa Barbara: ABC-‐-‐-‐CLIO. Curtin, P. A., and Gaither, T. K., 2007. International Public Relations: Negotiating Culture, Identity, and Power. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Daymon, C., and Hodges, C. E. M., 2009. Researching Occupational Culture of Public Relations in Mexico City. Public Relations Review. 35, (4) 429-‐-‐-‐33. Demetrious, K., 2011. Bubble Wrap: Social Media, Public Relations, Culture and Society. In: Edwards, L. and Hodges, C. E.M., eds. Public Relations Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge. Dozier, D. M., with Grunig L. A. and Grunig, J. E., 1995. Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dutta-‐-‐-‐Bergman, M., J., 2006. U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach. Journal of Communication Inquiry. 30(2), 102-‐-‐-‐22. Edwards, L., 2011a. Diversity in Public Relations. In: Edwards, L. and Hodges, C. E.M., eds. Public Relations Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge. Edwards, L., 2011b. Public Relations and Society. In: Edwards, L. and Hodges, C. E.M., eds. Public Relations Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge. Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T., 1984. Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 12 Grunig, L. A. and Grunig, J. E., 2003. Public Relations in the United States. In: Sriramesh, K. and Verčič, D., eds. The Global Public Relations Handbook: Theory, Research, and Practice. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 323-‐-‐-‐55. Heath, R.L., 2009. The Rhetorical Tradition: Wrangle in the Marketplace. In: Heath, R.L., Toth, E. L. and Waymer, D., eds. Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. New York: Routledge, 17-‐-‐-‐47. Hodges, C. E. M., 2005. Relaciones Humanas: The Potential for Public Relations Practitioners as Cultural Intermediaries in Mexico City. Unpublished PhD thesis. Bournemouth University, Bournemouth. Hodges, C. E. M., 2006. “PRP culture”: A Framework for Exploring Public Relations Practitioners as Cultural Intermediaries. Journal of Communication Management, 10 (1), 80-‐-‐-‐93. Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-‐-‐-‐254X.htm [Accessed 12 November 2011]. Hodges, C. E. M., 2012 – in review. The meaning(s) and making(s) of PR. The Potential for Ethnography Within Public Relations Research. To be published in: Frame, A. and Carayol, V., eds. Studying Communication Practices from a Cross-‐-‐-‐Cultural Standpoint: Practical and Methodological Issues. Bournemouth Media School, Bournemouth University. Hodges, C. E. M. and Denegri-‐-‐-‐Knott, J., 2012 – in review. Transforming the City: the Potential for Urban Ethnographies of PR: the Case of Latin America. Public Relations Review, Special Edition – The application of Anthropology and Ethnography in Public Relations research. Hung, F. L. and Chen, Y. R., 2004. Public Relations in China in the Era of Change. In: Sriramesh, K., ed. Public Relations in Asia: An Anthology. Singapore: Thomson Learning, 29-‐-‐-‐62. Institute of Cultural Diplomacy, 2011. What is Cultural Diplomacy? Available at: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy [Accessed 24 November 2011]. Jandt, F. E., 2010, An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. 6th ed. London: Sage. Ledingham, J. A., 2003. Explicating Relationship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2) 181-‐-‐-‐98. Ledingham, J. A. and Bruning, S. D., 2000. Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. L’Etang, J., 2006. Public Relations as Diplomacy. In: L’Etang, J. and Pieczka, M., eds. Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice. Mahwah: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, 373-‐-‐-‐89. 13 L’Etang, J., 2008. Public Relations: Concepts Practice and Critique. London: SAGE L’Etang, J., 2010. “Making it Real”: Anthropological Reflections on Public Relations Diplomacy and Rhetoric. In, R. Heath eds. The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage. 145-‐-‐-‐62. L’Etang, J., 2011. Imagining Public Relations Anthropology. In: Edwards, L. and Hodges, C. E.M., eds. Public Relations Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. Abingdon: Routledge. MacManus, T., 2000. Public Relations: The Cultural Dimension. In: Moss, D., Vercic, D., and Warnaby, G. eds. Perspectives on Public Relations Research. London: Routledge. McGrew, A., 1992. A global society, In: Hall, S., Held D., and, McGrew T., eds. Modernity and its futures, Polity Press: Cambridge, 1–102. Mukerji, C., and Schudson, M., 1991. Rethinking popular culture: contemporary perspectives in cultural studies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Nixon, S. and du Gay, P. (2002). Who needs cultural intermediaries? Cultural Studies, 16(4), 495-‐-‐-‐500. Pieczka, M., 2002. Public Relations Expertise Deconstructed. Media, Culture and Society. 24(3), 301-‐-‐-‐23. Signitzer, B. H., and Coombs, T., 1992. Public Relations and Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 137-‐-‐-‐47. Tench, R. and Yeomans, L., 2009. Exploring Public Relations. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Theaker, A., 2004. The Public Relations Handbook. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge. Wakefield, R. I., 2010. Why Culture is Still Essential in Discussions About Global Public Relations? In: Heath, R. L. ed. The Sage Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage, 659-‐-‐-‐70. Wang, G. and Yeh E. Y, 2005. Globalization and Hybridization in Cultural Products: The cases of Mulan and Crouching Tiger. International Journal of cultural studies, 8(2), 175-‐-‐-‐93. Wernick , A., 1991. Promotional culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression. London: Sage. 14 Appendix A Du Gay and Nixon’s circuit of culture (1997). The Circuit of Culture. In: Tench, R. and Yeomans, L., 2009. Exploring Public Relations. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, p. 168. 15