WEEK 1a: Introduction Strategic Communication
1. Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–
178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810Links to an external site.
2. Lee, S. T., & Kee, A. (2017). Testing an environmental framework for understanding public
relations practitioners’ orientation toward relationship management. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 29(6), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1408465Links
to an external site.
WEEK 1b: Sensemaking and discourse
1. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-
421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133Links to an external site.
2. Yeomans, L., & Bowman, S. (2020) Internal crisis communication and the social construction
of emotion: university leaders’ sensegiving discourse during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 196-
213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0130Links to an external site.
WEEK 2: Organizational Identity and Culture
1. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-
374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059.
2. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
113011-143809.
WEEK 3: Leadership communication
1. Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership,
communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication
Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524536Links to an external
site.
2. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-
318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002Links to an external site.
3. Micro lectures – system theory
WEEK 4: Visibility and Transparency
1. Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Leonardi, P. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the
paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10.
2. Treem, J. W., Leonardi, P. M., & van den Hooff, B. (2020). Computer-mediated
communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 25(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz024
WEEK 5: Mediatization
1. Jacobs, S., & Wonneberger, A. (2019). Dealing with increasing complexity: Media
orientations of communication managers in public sector organizations. International
Journal of Communication, 13, 918–937.
2. Erzikova, E., Waters, R., & Bocharsky, K. (2018). Media catching: A conceptual framework for
understanding strategic mediatization in Public Relations? International Journal of Strategic
Communication, 12(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1424713
WEEK 6: Employees as ambassadors
1. Verhoeven, J. W. M. & Madsen, V. T. (2022). Active employee communication roles in
organizations: A framework for understanding and discussing communication role
, expectations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(1), 91-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.2014503
2. Van Zoonen, W., Bartels, J., van Prooijen, A. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2018). Explaining online
ambassadorship behaviors on Facebook and LinkedIn. Computers in Human Behavior, 87,
354-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.031
, WEEK 1a: Introduction Strategic Communication
1. Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research,
30(4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810Links to an
external site.
2. Lee, S. T., & Kee, A. (2017). Testing an environmental framework for understanding
public relations practitioners’ orientation toward relationship management. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 29(6), 259–
276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1408465Links to an external site.
Reading 1:
Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a
This article suggests that agreement on a paradigm focus for public relations scholarships would
enhance the probability of productive theory development. The goal is to agree on the focus of
public relations research and theory development
Three foci in the paradigm
1. Social responsibility and ethics
2. Social issues and issue management
3. Public relationships
WHAT IS A THEORY
Types of Theories:
1. Set-of-Laws: A collection of well-supported empirical generalizations or laws.
2. Axiomatic: An interrelated set of definitions, axioms, and derived propositions.
3. Causal Process: Descriptions of causal processes that explain relationships between
variables.
Distinction: A theory is not merely conjecture or untested hypothesis; it is a framework for
understanding events and predicting future occurrences based on empirical research.
Importance of Theory in Public Relations:
The significance of theory becomes evident as it enables practitioners to make informed
decisions based on empirical evidence rather than intuition or conjecture. This empirical
basis allows for more reliable decision-making and strategic planning.
For example, research in psychophysiology shows that specific message delivery methods
(e.g., print vs. interpersonal communication) can influence learning and recall, providing
valuable insights for PR practitioners.
Challenges in Theory Building:
There is often skepticism about the necessity and validity of developing theories specific to
public relations. Critics argue that PR may merely apply theories from other disciplines
(communication, management, psychology) without establishing its own theoretical
foundations.
The need to identify a clear unit of analysis within PR is highlighted, suggesting that without
this, the field may struggle to gain recognition as a legitimate scholarly discipline with its
own theoretical constructs.
, HOW IS A THEORY BUILT?
Paradigm Communities
Kuhn (1970) introduced the concept of paradigm communities, defined as groups of scholars who
share a common paradigm. Within the broader scientific fields—such as physics, chemistry, or
biology—there are various subgroups that focus on specific areas. For example, organic chemists
and solid-state physicists are subsets within the community of chemists and physicists, respectively.
These paradigm communities are critical in shaping research topics and guiding scholars on what
constitutes acceptable problems to investigate and legitimate solutions to pursue.
Shared Education and Literature
Members of a paradigm community typically undergo similar educational experiences and
professional training, absorbing a common body of technical literature. This shared knowledge base
fosters a sense of collective identity and purpose among scholars. They recognize their unique role in
pursuing shared goals, including mentoring the next generation of practitioners and researchers.
The Disciplinary Matrix
Kuhn suggested that a paradigm consists of a "disciplinary matrix," which includes four essential
elements that define the boundaries of a paradigm group:
Symbolic Generalizations: These are foundational concepts accepted by all members, such
as the Stimulus-Response (S-R) framework in psychology, providing a common language and
understanding.
Shared Models: The community’s commitment to specific models or theories provides
metaphors and analogies that guide explanation and research.
Shared Values: Paradigm communities emphasize the importance of accurate predictions,
with a preference for quantitative predictions. The theories must facilitate problem
formulation and solutions while being simple, consistent, and compatible with existing
theories.
Concrete Problem Solutions: Members share “exemplars” or concrete examples that
illustrate how specific tasks should be executed. These examples serve as benchmarks for
best practices and teach students to recognize similarities in various situations, applying
proven solutions to new problems.
Maturity of a Field
Kuhn noted that the establishment of a paradigm indicates a field's maturity. A mature discipline,
like public relations, benefits from a shared framework that allows for systematic inquiry and
knowledge accumulation. Without a common paradigm, scholars might face difficulties in developing
cohesive theories, as seen in the chaotic state of physical optics before Newton's contributions.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AS A SCIENCE
The Need for a Paradigm in Public Relations
Public relations can be viewed as a community of scholars capable of developing a paradigm focus,
which is essential for establishing the discipline as a recognized science. Kuhn (1970) observed that
pre-Newtonian scientists lacked a common body of belief, forcing them to reconstruct their fields
from the ground up. This historical perspective underlines the challenges faced by public relations
scholars in creating a coherent theoretical framework.
Critique of Existing Scholarship
Van Slyke (1980) echoed these concerns in his analysis of public relations research. He noted that
many scholars mistakenly treat outdated facts and views as new, leading to a failure in evaluating
the significance of contemporary movements and methodologies. This "pirating" of concepts from
social sciences, merely rephrased, has resulted in public relations' contributions to communication
1. Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships
as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research, 30(4), 164–
178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810Links to an external site.
2. Lee, S. T., & Kee, A. (2017). Testing an environmental framework for understanding public
relations practitioners’ orientation toward relationship management. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 29(6), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1408465Links
to an external site.
WEEK 1b: Sensemaking and discourse
1. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of
Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-
421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133Links to an external site.
2. Yeomans, L., & Bowman, S. (2020) Internal crisis communication and the social construction
of emotion: university leaders’ sensegiving discourse during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 196-
213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0130Links to an external site.
WEEK 2: Organizational Identity and Culture
1. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325-
374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059.
2. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
113011-143809.
WEEK 3: Leadership communication
1. Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership,
communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication
Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524536Links to an external
site.
2. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting
leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-
318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002Links to an external site.
3. Micro lectures – system theory
WEEK 4: Visibility and Transparency
1. Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Leonardi, P. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the
paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10.
2. Treem, J. W., Leonardi, P. M., & van den Hooff, B. (2020). Computer-mediated
communication in the age of communication visibility. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 25(1), 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz024
WEEK 5: Mediatization
1. Jacobs, S., & Wonneberger, A. (2019). Dealing with increasing complexity: Media
orientations of communication managers in public sector organizations. International
Journal of Communication, 13, 918–937.
2. Erzikova, E., Waters, R., & Bocharsky, K. (2018). Media catching: A conceptual framework for
understanding strategic mediatization in Public Relations? International Journal of Strategic
Communication, 12(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1424713
WEEK 6: Employees as ambassadors
1. Verhoeven, J. W. M. & Madsen, V. T. (2022). Active employee communication roles in
organizations: A framework for understanding and discussing communication role
, expectations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(1), 91-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.2014503
2. Van Zoonen, W., Bartels, J., van Prooijen, A. M., & Schouten, A. P. (2018). Explaining online
ambassadorship behaviors on Facebook and LinkedIn. Computers in Human Behavior, 87,
354-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.031
, WEEK 1a: Introduction Strategic Communication
1. Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Journal of Public Relations Research,
30(4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810Links to an
external site.
2. Lee, S. T., & Kee, A. (2017). Testing an environmental framework for understanding
public relations practitioners’ orientation toward relationship management. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 29(6), 259–
276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2017.1408465Links to an external site.
Reading 1:
Ferguson, M. A. (2018). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a
This article suggests that agreement on a paradigm focus for public relations scholarships would
enhance the probability of productive theory development. The goal is to agree on the focus of
public relations research and theory development
Three foci in the paradigm
1. Social responsibility and ethics
2. Social issues and issue management
3. Public relationships
WHAT IS A THEORY
Types of Theories:
1. Set-of-Laws: A collection of well-supported empirical generalizations or laws.
2. Axiomatic: An interrelated set of definitions, axioms, and derived propositions.
3. Causal Process: Descriptions of causal processes that explain relationships between
variables.
Distinction: A theory is not merely conjecture or untested hypothesis; it is a framework for
understanding events and predicting future occurrences based on empirical research.
Importance of Theory in Public Relations:
The significance of theory becomes evident as it enables practitioners to make informed
decisions based on empirical evidence rather than intuition or conjecture. This empirical
basis allows for more reliable decision-making and strategic planning.
For example, research in psychophysiology shows that specific message delivery methods
(e.g., print vs. interpersonal communication) can influence learning and recall, providing
valuable insights for PR practitioners.
Challenges in Theory Building:
There is often skepticism about the necessity and validity of developing theories specific to
public relations. Critics argue that PR may merely apply theories from other disciplines
(communication, management, psychology) without establishing its own theoretical
foundations.
The need to identify a clear unit of analysis within PR is highlighted, suggesting that without
this, the field may struggle to gain recognition as a legitimate scholarly discipline with its
own theoretical constructs.
, HOW IS A THEORY BUILT?
Paradigm Communities
Kuhn (1970) introduced the concept of paradigm communities, defined as groups of scholars who
share a common paradigm. Within the broader scientific fields—such as physics, chemistry, or
biology—there are various subgroups that focus on specific areas. For example, organic chemists
and solid-state physicists are subsets within the community of chemists and physicists, respectively.
These paradigm communities are critical in shaping research topics and guiding scholars on what
constitutes acceptable problems to investigate and legitimate solutions to pursue.
Shared Education and Literature
Members of a paradigm community typically undergo similar educational experiences and
professional training, absorbing a common body of technical literature. This shared knowledge base
fosters a sense of collective identity and purpose among scholars. They recognize their unique role in
pursuing shared goals, including mentoring the next generation of practitioners and researchers.
The Disciplinary Matrix
Kuhn suggested that a paradigm consists of a "disciplinary matrix," which includes four essential
elements that define the boundaries of a paradigm group:
Symbolic Generalizations: These are foundational concepts accepted by all members, such
as the Stimulus-Response (S-R) framework in psychology, providing a common language and
understanding.
Shared Models: The community’s commitment to specific models or theories provides
metaphors and analogies that guide explanation and research.
Shared Values: Paradigm communities emphasize the importance of accurate predictions,
with a preference for quantitative predictions. The theories must facilitate problem
formulation and solutions while being simple, consistent, and compatible with existing
theories.
Concrete Problem Solutions: Members share “exemplars” or concrete examples that
illustrate how specific tasks should be executed. These examples serve as benchmarks for
best practices and teach students to recognize similarities in various situations, applying
proven solutions to new problems.
Maturity of a Field
Kuhn noted that the establishment of a paradigm indicates a field's maturity. A mature discipline,
like public relations, benefits from a shared framework that allows for systematic inquiry and
knowledge accumulation. Without a common paradigm, scholars might face difficulties in developing
cohesive theories, as seen in the chaotic state of physical optics before Newton's contributions.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AS A SCIENCE
The Need for a Paradigm in Public Relations
Public relations can be viewed as a community of scholars capable of developing a paradigm focus,
which is essential for establishing the discipline as a recognized science. Kuhn (1970) observed that
pre-Newtonian scientists lacked a common body of belief, forcing them to reconstruct their fields
from the ground up. This historical perspective underlines the challenges faced by public relations
scholars in creating a coherent theoretical framework.
Critique of Existing Scholarship
Van Slyke (1980) echoed these concerns in his analysis of public relations research. He noted that
many scholars mistakenly treat outdated facts and views as new, leading to a failure in evaluating
the significance of contemporary movements and methodologies. This "pirating" of concepts from
social sciences, merely rephrased, has resulted in public relations' contributions to communication
