Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

Kent (1999) suggest that detailed introspection
may persuade PR practitioners that many
of the assumptions guiding western public
relations are simply not applicable to the growing
field of iPR.
It becomes increasingly critical to assess
ways in which PR professionals can prepare
themselves to meet the growing challenges of
communicating with publics of various countries
and cultures (Krishnamurthy and Dejan,
2001). Perhaps not surprisingly one of the
most interesting trends in recent years has
been the growing use of professional PR consultants
by national governments (Manheim
and Albritton, 1983); Schuybroek noted in
1999 that there were at least fifteen PR networks
offering these services worldwide.
Kruckeberg and Starck suggested (1988)
that the practice of iPR offers an active
attempt to restore and maintain a sense of
community in an increasingly global world – a
world where communities become by the day
ever more disparate and fragmented. PR practitioners
have a social responsibility to understand
and respect the concerns of the diverse
populations with which they communicate
(Guzley, 1995): therefore mutual understanding
is needed between organizations and
international publics (Taylor, 2001).
Public relations only crossed the ocean and
became accepted as a management tool in
Europe after the Second World War (Vercic
et al., 2000). But third world public relations is
largely a communication, information generating
function; not a management function
(van Leuven and Pratt, 1996). However,
Kruckeberg (1996) reports that sophisticated
public relations is being practised in the
Middle East; an emphasis on management
function that reflects the original association
of iPR with business (Zaharna, 2000). Taylor
and Kent (1999) relate that since Independence
in 1963 the Malaysian government 1 has
used PR for nation building – but is slowly
shifting to a new focus on market development.
Grunig et al. (1995) noted that most of the
conditions that foster professional PR in the
United States may not exist in (and around)
organizations in other countries; so, perhaps,
professionals practise different models of
public relations elsewhere in the world. Al-
Enad (1990) suggested that the forces behind
the evolution of public relations in western
societies were not always found in developing
countries. He questioned why, therefore,
public relations is needed in such cases and
asked if professionals may be employing
models that may or may not be effective in the
countries in which they are used.
Sriramesh (1992) found that most Indian
respondents defined public relations as publicity;
while Grunig et al. (1995) found that
Greek practitioners see public relations as
primarily focused on image building. Lyra
(1991) reported that many Greek practitioners
paid media contacts to place news stories!
In other countries, Russia for instance, the PR
profession has only recently begun to evolve
into a recognizable structure (Guth, 2000);
although interest there in public relations does
continue to grow.
Global – or international
There is little consensus about whether it is
realistic to talk of the existence of a truly international,
let alone global, model of PR best
practice (Moss, 2001). But, almost all the PR
theory building activity centres in the United
States or in a few western European countries
(Krishnamurthy and Dejan, 2001). Some
scholars question whether public relations
can be practised in a similar way in different
countries or whether localized approaches are
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors