The association between the concept of dialogue and the expansion of digital media in public relations started as a theoretical ‘promise’ and was later followed by a feeling of disappointment. This article argues that the dialogic promise of new media was in great measure a consequence of a well-established belief according to which the field was rapidly moving from a ‘functional’ to a ‘cocreational’ approach, whereas in fact both cocreational and functional imperatives persist and coexist in complex manners that need to be disentangled. This idea is explored through a critical analysis of highly cited literature about dialogue and digital technology in public relations. Implications for future theory-building, research and practice are discussed.
AndersonBSwensonRGilkersonN (2016) Understanding dialogue and engagement through communication experts’ use of interactive writing to build relationships. Journal of International Communication10: 4095–4118.
2.
AndersonRCissnaKN (2008) Fresh perspectives in dialogue theory. Communication Theory18(1): 1–4.
3.
AronczykMEdwardsLKantolaA (2017) Apprehending public relations as a promotional industry. Public Relations Inquiry6(2): 139–155.
4.
BotanC (1997) Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. Journal of Business Communication34: 188–202.
5.
BotanCHHazletonV (2006) Public relations in a new age. In: BotanCHHazletonV (eds) The Public Relations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.1–18.
6.
BotanCHTaylorM (2004) Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication54(4): 645–661.
7.
BrionesRLKuchBLiuBF, et al. (2011) Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review37(1): 37–43.
8.
BroomGMCaseySRitcheyJ (2000) Concept and theory of organization–public relationships. In: LedinghamJABruningSD (eds) Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.3–22.
9.
BuberM (1970) Thou (Translated by KaufmannW). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
10.
CapizzoL (2018) Reimagining dialogue in public relations: Bakhtin and open dialogue in the public sphere. Public Relations Review44(4): 523–532.
11.
CapriottiPMorenoÁ (2007) Corporate citizenship and public relations: The importance and interactivity of social responsibility issues on corporate websites. Public Relations Review33(1): 84–91.
12.
CapriottiPPardo KuklinskiH (2012) Assessing dialogic communication through the Internet in Spanish museums. Public Relations Review38(4): 619–626.
13.
CheneyGChristensenLTConradC, et al. (2004) Corporate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In: GrantDHardyCOswickC, et al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: SAGE, pp.79–104.
14.
ChengY (2020) The social-mediated crisis communication research: Revisiting dialogue between organizations and publics in crises of China. Public Relations Review46(1): 101769.
15.
ChengYShenHJiangQ (2020) Corporate dialogue in crises of China: Examining dialogic strategies and communicative outcomes in a child abuse scandal. Public Relations Review46(1).
16.
ChristiansCG (1990) Social responsibility: Ethics and new technologies. In: JohannesenRL (ed.) Ethics in Human Communication. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, pp.265–278.
17.
CissnaKN (2000) Editor’s note. Southern Communication Journal65(2–3): 6–7.
18.
CiszekELoganN (2018) Challenging the dialogic promise: How Ben & Jerry’s support for black lives matter fosters dissensus on social media. Journal of Public Relations Research30(3): 115–127.
19.
CoombsWT (1998) The Internet as potential equalizer: New leverage for confronting social irresponsibility. Public Relations Review24(3): 289–303.
20.
CoombsWTHolladaySJ (2018) Innovation in public relations theory and practice: A transmedia narrative transportation (TNT) approach. Journal of Communication Management22(4): 382–396.
21.
de BeerE (2014) Creating value through communication. Public Relations Review40(2): 136–143.
22.
DemetriusK (2011) Bubble wrap: Social media, public relations, culture and society. In: EdwardsLHodgesCEM (eds) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. London: Routledge, pp.118–132.
23.
DhaneshGS (2017) Putting engagement in its proper place: State of the field, definition and model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review43(5): 925–933.
24.
EdwardsL (2018) Culture and Society. London: SAGE.
25.
EdwardsLHodgesCEM (2011) Introduction: Implications of a (radical) sociocultural ‘turn’ in public relations scholarship. In: EdwardsLHodgesCEM (eds) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. London: Routledge, pp.1–14.
26.
GreenbergJMacAulayM (2009) NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal: Canadian Edition2(1): 63–88.
27.
GrunigJE (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
29.
HabermasJ (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
30.
HeathRL (2006) Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research18(2): 93–114.
31.
HodgesCEMMcGrathN (2011) Communication for social transformation. In: EdwardsLHodgesCEM (eds) Public Relations, Society and Culture: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations. London: Routledge, pp.90–104.
32.
HuangJYangA (2015) Implementing dialogic communication: A survey of IPR, PRSA, and IABC members. Public Relations Review41(3): 376–377.
33.
HuangYH (2001) OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research13: 61–90.
34.
IhlenLevenshusA (2017) Panacea, placebo or prudence: Perspectives and constraints for corporate dialogue. Public Relations Inquiry6(3): 219–232.
35.
Jelen-SanchezA (2017) Engagement in public relations discipline: Themes, theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Public Relations Review43(5): 934–944.
36.
JohannesenRL (1990) Ethics in Human Communication, 3rd edn.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
37.
JohnstonKALaneAB (2019) An authenticity matrix for community engagement. Public Relations Review45(4).
38.
KentML (2013) Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relations Review39: 337–345.
39.
KentMLLaneAB (2017) A rhizomatous metaphor for dialogic theory. Public Relations Review43(3): 568–578.
40.
KentMLLaneAB (2021) Two-way communication, symmetry, negative spaces, and dialogue. Public Relations Review47(2).
41.
KentMLTaylorM (1998) Building dialogic relationships through the World wide web. Public Relations Review24: 321–334.
42.
KentMLTaylorM (2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review28(1): 21–37.
43.
KentMLTaylorM (2016) From homo economicus to homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review42(1): 60–67.
44.
KentMLTaylorMWhiteWJ (2003) The relationship between web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review29(1): 63–77.
45.
KentMLTheunissenP (2016) Elegy for mediated dialogue: Shiva the destroyer and reclaiming our first principles. Journal of International Communication10: 4040–4054.
46.
LaneABBartlettJL (2016) Why dialogic principles don’t make it in practice—And what we can do about it. Journal of International Communication10: 1–21.
47.
LedinghamJBruningS (eds) (2000) Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
LeeLWYYipLSCChanK (2018b) An exploratory study to conceptualize press engagement behavior with public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review44(4): 490–500.
49.
LeeNMVanDykeMS (2015) Set it and forget it: The one-way use of social media by government agencies communicating science. Science Communication37(4): 533–541.
50.
LeeNMVanDykeMSCumminsRG (2018a) A missed opportunity? NOAA’s use of social media to communicate climate science. Environmental Communication12(2): 274–283.
51.
LemonLL (2019) The employee experience: How employees make meaning of employee engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research31(5-6): 176–199.
52.
L’EtangJ (2005) Critical public relations: Some reflections. Public Relations Review31(4): 521–526.
53.
LinvillDLMcGeeSEHicksLK (2012) Colleges’ and universities’ use of twitter: A content analysis. Public Relations Review38(4): 636–638.
54.
LovejoyKSaxtonGD (2012) Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17: 337–353.
55.
McAllisterSM (2012) How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review38(2): 319–327.
56.
McAllister-SpoonerSM (2008) User perceptions of dialogic public relations tactics via the Internet. The Public Relations Journal2(1): 1–18.
57.
McAllister-SpoonerSM (2009) Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective survey on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review35(3): 320–322.
58.
MacnamaraJ (2016) Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research28(3–4): 146–169.
59.
MeisenbachRFeldenerS (2009) Dialogue, discourse ethics and Disney. In: HeathRTothEWaymerD (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. New York: Routledge, pp.253–271.
60.
MenLRTsaiWHSChenZF, et al. (2018) Social presence and digital dialogic communication: Engagement lessons from top social CEOs. Journal of Public Relations Research30(3): 83–99.
61.
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 Research30(3): 65–82.
62.
NahSSaxtonGD (2013) Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society15(2): 294–313.
63.
ParkHReberBH (2008) Relationship building and the use of web sites: How Fortune 500 corporations use their web sites to build relationships. Public Relations Review34(4): 409–411.
64.
PearsonR (1989) A theory of public relations ethics. PhD Thesis, Ohio University, Athens.
65.
PieczkaM (2009) Public relations as dialogic expertise? In: Stirling 21 – CIPR academic conference, Stirling, 10–11 September 2009.
66.
PieczkaM (2019) Looking back and going forward: The concept of the public in public relations theory. Public Relations Inquiry8(3): 225–244.
67.
PieczkaMWoodE (2013) Action research and public relations: Dialogue, peer learning, and the issue of alcohol. Public Relations Inquiry2(2): 161–181.
68.
RiceRE (2002) Primary issues in Internet use: Access, civic and community involvement, and social interaction and expression. In: LievrouwLLivingstoneS (eds) Handbook of New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.105–129.
69.
RogersCR (1992) The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change: 1957. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology60(6): 827–832.
70.
RybalkoSSeltzerT (2010) Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review36(4): 336–341.
71.
SaxtonGDWatersRD (2014) What do StakeholdersLikeon Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research26(3): 280–299.
72.
SeltzerTMitrookMA (2007) The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relations Review33(2): 227–229.
73.
SmithBGSmithSBKnightonD (2018) Social media dialogues in a crisis: A mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media. Public Relations Review44(4): 562–573.
74.
SommerfeldtEJKentMLTaylorM (2012) Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: Why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise?Public Relations Review38(2): 303–312.
75.
SommerfeldtEJYangA (2018) Notes on a dialogue: Twenty years of digital dialogic communication research in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research30(3): 59–64.
76.
Susanne JohansenTEsmann AndersenS (2012) Co-creating ONE: Rethinking integration within communication. Corporate Communications An International Journal17(3): 272–288.
77.
TaylorMKentML (2014) Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research26(5): 384–398.
78.
TaylorMKentMLWhiteWJ (2001) How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review27(3): 263–284.
79.
ThelanderSäweF (2015) The challenge of internal stakeholder support for co-creational branding strategy. Public Relations Inquiry4(3): 323–341.
80.
TheunissenP (2014) Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review40(3): 612–614.
81.
TheunissenPWan NoordinWN (2012) Revisiting the concept ‘Dialogue’ in public relations. Public Relations Review38(1): 5–13.
82.
TomblesonBWolfK (2017) Rethinking the circuit of culture: How participatory culture has transformed cross-cultural communication. Public Relations Review43(1): 14–25.
83.
ValentiniC (2015) Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review41(2): 170–177.
84.
ValentiniCKruckebergDStarckK (2012) Public relations and community: A persistent covenant. Public Relations Review38(5): 873–879.
85.
Van RulerB (2005) Co-creation of meaning theory. In: HeathRL (ed.) Encyclopedia of Public Relations, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.135–138.
86.
WatersRDJamalJY (2011) Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review37(3): 321–324.
87.
WatkinsBA (2017) Experimenting with dialogue on Twitter: An examination of the influence of the dialogic principles on engagement, interaction, and attitude. Public Relations Review43(1): 163–171.
88.
WirtzJGZimbresTM (2018) A systematic analysis of research applying ‘principles of dialogic communication’ to organizational websites, blogs, and social media: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research30(1–2): 5–34.
89.
YangSUKangMChaH (2015) A study on Dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public Dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research27(2): 175–192.
