2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

management types has flourished since 1990 in presumably due to the early initial demand from
both practitioners and researchers. Since then, the research has been rapidly growing both in
numbers and contents.
Mostly, with the greatest number of research, relationship management recognizes itself
as PR effectiveness research stating that relationship management improves PR effectiveness in
an organization. The number of conflict management was relatively considerable, but it rarely
stated PR effectiveness in its research. However, Shin, Cameron, and Cropp (2006) asserted that
‘one of the propositions in the contingency theory … is that organizational effectiveness and
ethical consideration of its public result from’ the utilization of the Contingency theory”(p. 282).
In spite of importance of reputation and image, the findings of the portion in research revealed
that neither theoretical nor empirical research has done much in reputation and image
management. Hutton et al. (2001) asserted that reputation management had emerged in both
academic and practice. However, the results in this study show little research has been done in
neither reputation nor image management literature in public relations academic journals
compared to conflict management or relationship management.
Regarding the applied theories, various theories and theoretical models were applied.
Interestingly, for relationship management, seven articles out of nine that used Bruning and
Ledingham’s OPR model were published in Public Relations Review, and eight articles (out of
ten) which used Hon and J. Grunig’ OPR model were published in Journal of Public Relations
Research. It seems like each journal prefers one over the other. It might be necessary to
incorporate two models into one refined one. Compared to relationship management, there is no
model or construct to measure images, as is the case in reputation management. The reason
might be the lack of consensus of conceptualization and definition of image. Regarding the
contexts in which PR effectiveness research has been applied, despite of increasing attention for
international public relations, the four management types have not been researched in a global
context.
Overall, this study shows that PR effectiveness research has just started and is growing
rapidly and widely. This implies that there is more uncovered knowledge in this area. Second,
among three management philosophies for PR effectiveness in this study, relationship
management stands out in the public relations discipline. However, no single theory shapes the
body of knowledge. PR effective research needs to be developed by incorporating those four
concepts. Finally, the present study shows the organizational level of PR effectiveness. Further
study should focus on societal level of PR effectiveness. Recent research suggested the need to
develop and measure inter-organizational linkages in civil society (Taylor & Doerfel, 2005).
Since this study examines academic journals, it lacks practical implementations.
Conclusion
The value of public relations is obvious, but it is hard to probe its results in an
organization. This causes devaluing in public relations as supporting parts for other functions
such as marketing or human resources. PR effectiveness is critical to survive in an organization.
Regardless of its importance, few researchers have tried to offer clear pictures of PR
effectiveness research. The logic explored for PR effectiveness in this study is based on
organizational-level of effectiveness and features of four management philosophies (i.e., conflict,
relationship, reputation, and image management) as public relations’ roles for PR effectiveness.
They are all equally important for public relations. The results of content analysis of 77 articles
from four perspectives show that PR effectiveness research started and has flourished in the past
16