Between progress and struggle: young PR-scholars’ contribution to theory building and progress in public relations research

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Communication Management Pub Date : 2022-10-04 DOI:10.1108/jcom-12-2021-0150
Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Laura S Hackl, Øyvind Ihlen
{"title":"Between progress and struggle: young PR-scholars’ contribution to theory building and progress in public relations research","authors":"Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Laura S Hackl, Øyvind Ihlen","doi":"10.1108/jcom-12-2021-0150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe paper aims to analyze the contribution of young academics to the field of public relations (PR) and shows which authors exert most influence on them. The study thereby contributes to the assessment of the state of the art of theory building in the field. The authors analyzed the study data against the background of two approaches on progress in the field: Nothhaft et al.’s (2018) idea of strategic communication as an elusive concept and Winkler et al.’s (2021) narrative approach.Design/methodology/approachThe study comprises two parts. First, the authors conducted a survey among participants of the EUPRERA PhD-workshops between 2007 and 2019, asking respondents about their perception of the state of the field. Second, the authors performed a bibliometric (co-)citation analysis of the young scholars’ most important works.FindingsResults indicate that though the field has progressed in terms of quantity and diversified with regard to established paradigms, it has not matured in a sense that it has settled on a generally accepted theoretical underpinning. However, the data show how the dominant paradigms in the field map onto the co-citation networks that emerged out of the works of young scholars. The authors’ findings imply that this new generation might signal their allegiance to a paradigm by citing the works of its emblematic authors.Originality/valueUnlike most bibliometric studies, this one uses an author-centered approach, thus studying works that matter most to young academics themselves. Not only do the authors thereby contribute to the analysis of the state of theory building in PR research, but also expand the scope in looking at research as a social system, in which young researchers need to position themselves.","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-12-2021-0150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to analyze the contribution of young academics to the field of public relations (PR) and shows which authors exert most influence on them. The study thereby contributes to the assessment of the state of the art of theory building in the field. The authors analyzed the study data against the background of two approaches on progress in the field: Nothhaft et al.’s (2018) idea of strategic communication as an elusive concept and Winkler et al.’s (2021) narrative approach.Design/methodology/approachThe study comprises two parts. First, the authors conducted a survey among participants of the EUPRERA PhD-workshops between 2007 and 2019, asking respondents about their perception of the state of the field. Second, the authors performed a bibliometric (co-)citation analysis of the young scholars’ most important works.FindingsResults indicate that though the field has progressed in terms of quantity and diversified with regard to established paradigms, it has not matured in a sense that it has settled on a generally accepted theoretical underpinning. However, the data show how the dominant paradigms in the field map onto the co-citation networks that emerged out of the works of young scholars. The authors’ findings imply that this new generation might signal their allegiance to a paradigm by citing the works of its emblematic authors.Originality/valueUnlike most bibliometric studies, this one uses an author-centered approach, thus studying works that matter most to young academics themselves. Not only do the authors thereby contribute to the analysis of the state of theory building in PR research, but also expand the scope in looking at research as a social system, in which young researchers need to position themselves.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在进步与奋斗之间:青年公关学者对公共关系理论建设与研究进步的贡献
本文旨在分析青年学者对公共关系领域的贡献,并指出哪些作者对他们的影响最大。因此,这项研究有助于评估该领域理论建设的现状。作者在该领域进展的两种方法的背景下分析了研究数据:Nothhaft等人(2018)认为战略沟通是一个难以捉摸的概念,以及Winkler等人(2021)的叙事方法。设计/方法/方法本研究包括两部分。首先,作者对2007年至2019年euprea博士研讨会的参与者进行了一项调查,询问受访者对该领域现状的看法。其次,作者对青年学者最重要的著作进行了文献计量(共被引)分析。研究结果表明,尽管该领域在数量和多样化方面取得了进展,但在某种意义上,它还没有成熟到建立一个普遍接受的理论基础。然而,数据显示了该领域的主导范式如何映射到从年轻学者的作品中出现的共引网络。作者的发现暗示,新一代可能会通过引用其标志性作者的作品来表明他们对范式的忠诚。原创性/价值与大多数文献计量学研究不同,该研究采用以作者为中心的方法,因此研究对年轻学者自己最重要的作品。因此,作者不仅有助于分析公关研究的理论建设状况,而且还扩大了将研究视为一个社会系统的范围,年轻研究人员需要在其中定位自己。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Subjective well-being perceptions of Portuguese Public Relations practitioners: a gender and stages of life analysis Loneliness, office space arrangement and mental well-being of Gen Z PR professionals. Falling into the trap of an agile office? The influence of leaders’ motivational language on employee well-being through relatedness in remote work environments Subjective well-being of public relations and communication professionals in the context of perceived organisational support Understanding subjective well-being across a multi-generational workforce in public relations: a qualitative study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1