公共关系学术中的社交媒体:基于数据库的 2015 年至 2020 年已发表文章的系统性回顾

IF 4.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Public Relations Review Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102470
Hui Zhang
{"title":"公共关系学术中的社交媒体:基于数据库的 2015 年至 2020 年已发表文章的系统性回顾","authors":"Hui Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This systematic review examined social media research in public relations scholarship in English language between 2015 and 2020 by analyzing 380 articles from 143 journals sampled from multidisciplinary research databases. The analysis focused on research methods, data collection sources, type of social media being studied, use of theoretical frameworks, and differences between PR journals and non-PR journals. Key findings include: (a) PR journals and a few communication journals, which have often been sampled in the existing review studies, contributed to less than half (46.84 %) of the articles included, (b) significant differences between PR journals and non-PR journals in use of survey (<em>X</em><sup>2</sup> (1, <em>N</em> = 380) = 4.33, <em>p</em> = .04), and use of theoretical frameworks (<em>X</em><sup>2</sup> (1, <em>N</em> = 380) = 12.70, <em>p</em> &lt; .001), (c) social media (<em>N</em> = 380, 36.6 %), together with platforms that are off social media but online (<em>N</em> = 380, 37.1 %), was the most frequently used data collection source, and (d) about half (<em>N</em> = 380, 47.2 %) of the articles belonged to the lower level on the extent of theoretical framework use continuum. Implications of these findings for future systematic review studies in public relations are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48263,"journal":{"name":"Public Relations Review","volume":"50 4","pages":"Article 102470"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social media in public relations scholarship: A database-based systematic review of published articles from 2015 to 2020\",\"authors\":\"Hui Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This systematic review examined social media research in public relations scholarship in English language between 2015 and 2020 by analyzing 380 articles from 143 journals sampled from multidisciplinary research databases. The analysis focused on research methods, data collection sources, type of social media being studied, use of theoretical frameworks, and differences between PR journals and non-PR journals. Key findings include: (a) PR journals and a few communication journals, which have often been sampled in the existing review studies, contributed to less than half (46.84 %) of the articles included, (b) significant differences between PR journals and non-PR journals in use of survey (<em>X</em><sup>2</sup> (1, <em>N</em> = 380) = 4.33, <em>p</em> = .04), and use of theoretical frameworks (<em>X</em><sup>2</sup> (1, <em>N</em> = 380) = 12.70, <em>p</em> &lt; .001), (c) social media (<em>N</em> = 380, 36.6 %), together with platforms that are off social media but online (<em>N</em> = 380, 37.1 %), was the most frequently used data collection source, and (d) about half (<em>N</em> = 380, 47.2 %) of the articles belonged to the lower level on the extent of theoretical framework use continuum. Implications of these findings for future systematic review studies in public relations are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48263,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Relations Review\",\"volume\":\"50 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 102470\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Relations Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811124000493\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811124000493","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统性综述通过分析从多学科研究数据库中抽取的 143 种期刊中的 380 篇文章,考察了 2015 年至 2020 年间英语公共关系学术中的社交媒体研究。分析的重点是研究方法、数据收集来源、研究的社交媒体类型、理论框架的使用以及公共关系期刊与非公共关系期刊之间的差异。主要发现包括(a) 在现有的综述研究中,公关期刊和少数传播期刊经常被抽样调查,但这些期刊所收录的文章不到一半(46.84 %);(b) 公关期刊和非公关期刊在使用调查方法(X2 (1, N = 380) = 4.33, p = .04)和使用理论框架(X2 (1, N = 380) = 12.70,p <.001),(c) 社交媒体(N = 380,36.6%)以及非社交媒体但在线的平台(N = 380,37.1%)是最常用的数据收集来源,(d) 大约一半的文章(N = 380,47.2%)属于理论框架使用程度连续体中的较低水平。讨论了这些发现对未来公共关系系统性回顾研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Social media in public relations scholarship: A database-based systematic review of published articles from 2015 to 2020

This systematic review examined social media research in public relations scholarship in English language between 2015 and 2020 by analyzing 380 articles from 143 journals sampled from multidisciplinary research databases. The analysis focused on research methods, data collection sources, type of social media being studied, use of theoretical frameworks, and differences between PR journals and non-PR journals. Key findings include: (a) PR journals and a few communication journals, which have often been sampled in the existing review studies, contributed to less than half (46.84 %) of the articles included, (b) significant differences between PR journals and non-PR journals in use of survey (X2 (1, N = 380) = 4.33, p = .04), and use of theoretical frameworks (X2 (1, N = 380) = 12.70, p < .001), (c) social media (N = 380, 36.6 %), together with platforms that are off social media but online (N = 380, 37.1 %), was the most frequently used data collection source, and (d) about half (N = 380, 47.2 %) of the articles belonged to the lower level on the extent of theoretical framework use continuum. Implications of these findings for future systematic review studies in public relations are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
19.00%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: The Public Relations Review is the oldest journal devoted to articles that examine public relations in depth, and commentaries by specialists in the field. Most of the articles are based on empirical research undertaken by professionals and academics in the field. In addition to research articles and commentaries, The Review publishes invited research in brief, and book reviews in the fields of public relations, mass communications, organizational communications, public opinion formations, social science research and evaluation, marketing, management and public policy formation.
期刊最新文献
“Being a Burson Person is something special”: Burson-Marsteller’s influence in the Americanization of the public relations industry in Latin America (1980s – 2010s) The effects of crisis type and CSR fit on organizational outcomes: The moderating role of authentic leadership in shaping organizational reputation, word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions Artificial intelligence for internal communication: Strategies, challenges, and implications Communicating strategic CEO activism to promote employee prosocial behaviors: Understanding the mediating role of employee prosocial sensemaking Optimizing organizational corrective communication: The effects of correction placement timing, refutation detail level, and corrective narrative type on combating crisis misinformation narratives
×
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