The paper examines the role of social media platforms in public relations engagement, focusing on the case of a leading non-profit organization in the UAE, namely Dubai Cares. Drawing on multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA), the paper analyses the textual, paratextual, and visual modes of communication deployed by the organization, and investigates their role as (multimodal) discursive practices in constructing engagement and shaping power relations between the organizations and its publics. A key finding of the paper is that Dubai Cares’ online public relations efforts to promote its international recognition and legitimacy often come at the expense of addressing multiple power differentials between the organization and its stakeholders. The paper demonstrates how approaching engagement as a multimodal discourse, where power relations are at play, helps transcend the limitations of instrumental interpretations of the notion of engagement, thus obscuring its inherent discursive and social dimension.
Al-KandariAAGaitherTKAlfahadMM, et al. (2019) An Arab perspective on social media: How banks in Kuwait use instagram for public relations. Public Relations Review45(3): 101774.
2.
AndersonBSwensonRGilkersonN (2016) Understanding dialogue and engagement through communication experts’ use of interactive writing to build relationships. International Journal of Communication10(24): 4095–4118.
3.
AyishMI (2005) Virtual public relations in the United Arab Emirates: A case study of 20 UAE organizations’ use of the Internet. Public Relations Review31: 381–388.
4.
BashirM (2019) Toward excellence in public relations: Identifying practices and barriers in Kuwaiti corporate, government and non-profit organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research31(3-4): 118–132. DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2019.1679633.
5.
BashirMAldaihaniA (2017) Public relations in an online environment: Discourse description of social media in Kuwaiti organizations. Public Relations Review43(4): 777–787.
6.
BarktusBGlassmanMMcAfeeB (2006) Mission statement quality and financial performance. European Management Journal24(1): 86–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2005.12.01.
7.
BartCK (2001) Exploring the application of mission statements on the World Wide Web. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy11(4): 360–368.
8.
Blair-LoyMWhartonASGoodsteinJ (2011) Exploring the relationship between mission statements and work-life practices in organizations. Organization Studies32(3): 427–450. DOI: 10.1177/0170840610397480.
9.
BrubakerPJWilsonC (2018) Let’s give them something to talk about: Global brands’ use of visual content to drive engagement and build relationships. Public Relations Review44 (3): 342–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.04.010.
10.
ChenY-RRHung-BaeseckeCJChenX (2020) Moving forward the dialogic theory of public relations: Concepts, methods and applications of organization–public dialogue. Public Relations Review46(1): 101878. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101878.
11.
ChoMSchweickartTHaaseA (2014) Public engagement with non-profit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review40: 565–567.
12.
CrandallHCunninghamC (2016) Media ecology and hashtag activism. Explorations in Media Ecology15(1): 21–32(12). DOI: 10.1386/eme.15.1.21_1.
13.
DevinBLLaneAB (2014) Communicating engagement in corporate social responsibility: A meta-level construal of engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research26(5): 436–454.
14.
DhaneshGSDuthlerG (2019) Relationship management through social media influencers: Effects of followers’ awareness of paid endorsement. Public Relations Review45(3): 101765. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.002.
15.
DograN (2012) The Mixed Metaphor of ‘Third World Woman’: Gendered representations by international development NGOs. Third World Quarterly32(2): 333–348.
16.
Du PlessisC (2018) Social media crisis communication: Enhancing a discourse of renewal through dialogic content. Public Relations Review44(5): 829–838.
17.
FaircloughN (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
18.
FaircloughN (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
19.
FaircloughN (2001) Language and Power. New York: Taylor & Francis.
20.
FaircloughN (2004) Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
21.
FranksS (2010) The neglect of Africa and the power of aid. The International Communication Gazette72: 71–84.
22.
HallidayMAK (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
23.
HalvaisA (2008) The hyperlink as organizing principle. In: TurowJTsuiL (eds.) The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp.39–55.
24.
HeathRL (2018) How fully functioning is communication engagement if society does not benefit? In: JohnstonKATaylorM (eds.) The Handbook of Communication Engagement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.34–47. DOI: 10.1002/9781119167600.
25.
HungKLiSYTseKD (2011) Interpersonal trust and platform credibility in a Chinese multibrand online community. Journal of Advertising40(3): 103–116. DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400308.
26.
IhlenOVerhoevenP (2015) Social theories for strategic communication. In: HoltzhausenDZerfassA (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication. New York: Routledge, pp.127–140.
27.
InceJRojasFDavisCA (2017) The social media response to black lives matter: How twitter users interact with lack lives matter through hashtag use. Ethnic and Racial Studies40(11): 1814–1830.
28.
IyerAWebsterJHornseyMJ, et al. (2014) Understanding the power of the picture: The effect of image content on emotional and political responses to terrorism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology44(7): 511–521. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12243.
29.
Jelen-SanchezA (2017) Engagement in public relations discipline: Themes, theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Public Relations Review43(5), 934–944. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.002.
30.
JohnstonKA (2018) Toward a theory of social engagement. In: JohnstonKATaylorM (eds.) Handbook of Communication .Engagement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
31.
JohnstonKALaneAB (2019). An authenticity matrix for community engagement. Public Relations Review45: 10181. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101811.
KangM (2014) Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research26(5): 399–416. DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107.
34.
KennedyKASommerfeldtEJ (2015) A postmodern turn for social media research: Theory and research directions for public relations scholarship. Atlantic Journal of Communication23: 31–45. DOI: 10.1080/15456870.2015.972406.
35.
KressGvan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
36.
L’EtangJ (2009) Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist53(4): 607–626. DOI: 10.1177/0002764209347633.
37.
LeeSYChungS (2018) Effects of emotional visuals and company – cause fit on memory of CSR information. Public Relations Review44: 343–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.02.001.
38.
LemonLPalencharbM (2018) Public relations and zones of engagement: Employees’ lived experiences and the fundamental nature of employee engagement. Public Relations Review44: 142–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.01.002.
39.
LoveTTilleyE (2014) Acknowledging power: The application of Kaupapa Māori principles and processes to developing a new approach to organisation–public engagement. Public Relations Inquiry3(1): 31–49. DOI: 10.1177/2046147X14521198.
40.
MachinDMayrA (2012) How to do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE.
41.
MartinJRWhiteP (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
42.
MenLRTsaiWHS (2014) Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research26: 417–435. DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047.
43.
MorehouseJSafferAJ (2018) A bibliometric analysis of dialogue and digital dialogic research: Mapping the knowledge construction and invisible colleges in public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research3: 1–18.
44.
NapoliPM (2008) Hyperlinking and the forces of “massification”. In: TurowJTsuiL (eds.) The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp.56–69.
45.
NaylorT (2011) Deconstructing development: The use of power and pity in the international development discourse. International Studies Quarterly55: 177–197.
46.
O’HalloranK (2013) Multimodal discourse analysis. In: HylandKPatridge (eds.) The Bloomsbury Companion to Discourse Analysis. London: Bloombsbury, pp.120–137.
47.
PageR (2012) The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication6(2): 181–201.
48.
PressgroveGJanoskeMHaughtMJ (2018) Editors’ letter: New research and opportunities in public relations and visual communication. Public Relations Review44: 317–320.
49.
SalazarE (2017) Hashtags 2.0 – An annotated history of the hashtag and a window to its future. Icono15(2): 16–54. DOI: 10.7195/ri14.v15i2.1091.
SmithGSmithSBKnightonD (2018) Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media. Public Relations Review44: 562–573. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.005.
52.
TaylorMKentML (2014) Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research26(5): 384–398.
TsaiaWSMenbRL (2018) Social messengers as the new frontier of organization–public engagement: A WeChat study. Public Relations Review44(3): 419–429.
56.
van DijkT (2008) Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
57.
WrightDKHinsonMD (2014) An updated examination of social and emerging media use in public relations practice: A longitudinal analysis between 2006 and 2014. Public Relations Journal8(2): 1–35. Available at: https://apps.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/past-editions/Vol8/No2/ (accessed 15 April 2019).
58.
YudarwatiGA (2019) Appreciative inquiry for community engagement in Indonesia rural communities. Public Relations Review45: 101833. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101833
59.
ZappavignaM (2015) Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics25(3): 274–291. DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2014.996948.
