付费游说但有待商榷:公共事务顾问的角色概念和客户选择

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Communication Management Pub Date : 2023-05-31 DOI:10.1108/jcom-12-2022-0147
Elin Helgesson
{"title":"付费游说但有待商榷:公共事务顾问的角色概念和客户选择","authors":"Elin Helgesson","doi":"10.1108/jcom-12-2022-0147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article addresses recent calls in the literature for advancing our understanding of public affairs consultants and their role conceptions. By testing and further exploring self-perceptions of public affairs consultants the study aims to offer new insight into how consultants define and view their occupational role.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on a nationwide survey with public affairs consultants in Sweden.FindingsFour main role conceptions were identified (advocate, do-gooder, expert and intermediary). Further, the study tests how personal and professional characteristics correlate with different role conceptions, by viewing professional experience and consultants' selection of clients. Data also suggest that consultants' background in politics does not promote any specific role perception. Finally, the findings also show that how consultants choose clients is a divider in the industry, where some act as passive intermediaries while other take a more active role in their choice of clients.Originality/valueThe findings enhance our understanding of public affairs as a field, and specifically about the modelling of professional roles amongst consultants. The empirical results in this study show how contemporary role typologies needs to be extended to better capture the specificities of consultants' roles in public affairs. By addressing the issue of how consultants choose clients the study engages with the complex debate of whether consultants ought to act as objective or subjective agents and hence join the conversation on ethics in public affairs.","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paid to lobby but up for debate: role conceptions and client selection of public affairs consultants\",\"authors\":\"Elin Helgesson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcom-12-2022-0147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis article addresses recent calls in the literature for advancing our understanding of public affairs consultants and their role conceptions. By testing and further exploring self-perceptions of public affairs consultants the study aims to offer new insight into how consultants define and view their occupational role.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on a nationwide survey with public affairs consultants in Sweden.FindingsFour main role conceptions were identified (advocate, do-gooder, expert and intermediary). Further, the study tests how personal and professional characteristics correlate with different role conceptions, by viewing professional experience and consultants' selection of clients. Data also suggest that consultants' background in politics does not promote any specific role perception. Finally, the findings also show that how consultants choose clients is a divider in the industry, where some act as passive intermediaries while other take a more active role in their choice of clients.Originality/valueThe findings enhance our understanding of public affairs as a field, and specifically about the modelling of professional roles amongst consultants. The empirical results in this study show how contemporary role typologies needs to be extended to better capture the specificities of consultants' roles in public affairs. By addressing the issue of how consultants choose clients the study engages with the complex debate of whether consultants ought to act as objective or subjective agents and hence join the conversation on ethics in public affairs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Communication Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"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-12-2022-0147\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-12-2022-0147","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

摘要

目的这篇文章回应了最近文献中的呼吁,以提高我们对公共事务顾问及其角色概念的理解。通过测试和进一步探索公共事务顾问的自我认知,该研究旨在为顾问如何定义和看待自己的职业角色提供新的见解。设计/方法/方法这项研究借鉴了瑞典公共事务顾问的一项全国性调查。发现了四个主要的角色概念(倡导者、行善者、专家和中介)。此外,该研究通过观察专业经验和顾问对客户的选择,测试了个人和职业特征如何与不同的角色概念相关。数据还表明,顾问的政治背景不会促进任何特定的角色认知。最后,研究结果还表明,咨询师如何选择客户是行业中的一个分歧,一些人充当被动中介,而另一些人在选择客户时扮演更积极的角色。原创性/价值研究结果增强了我们对公共事务这一领域的理解,特别是对顾问专业角色建模的理解。本研究的实证结果表明,需要如何扩展当代角色类型学,以更好地捕捉顾问在公共事务中角色的特殊性。通过解决顾问如何选择客户的问题,该研究涉及到顾问是否应该充当客观或主观代理人的复杂辩论,从而加入公共事务中的道德对话。
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
Paid to lobby but up for debate: role conceptions and client selection of public affairs consultants
PurposeThis article addresses recent calls in the literature for advancing our understanding of public affairs consultants and their role conceptions. By testing and further exploring self-perceptions of public affairs consultants the study aims to offer new insight into how consultants define and view their occupational role.Design/methodology/approachThe study draws on a nationwide survey with public affairs consultants in Sweden.FindingsFour main role conceptions were identified (advocate, do-gooder, expert and intermediary). Further, the study tests how personal and professional characteristics correlate with different role conceptions, by viewing professional experience and consultants' selection of clients. Data also suggest that consultants' background in politics does not promote any specific role perception. Finally, the findings also show that how consultants choose clients is a divider in the industry, where some act as passive intermediaries while other take a more active role in their choice of clients.Originality/valueThe findings enhance our understanding of public affairs as a field, and specifically about the modelling of professional roles amongst consultants. The empirical results in this study show how contemporary role typologies needs to be extended to better capture the specificities of consultants' roles in public affairs. By addressing the issue of how consultants choose clients the study engages with the complex debate of whether consultants ought to act as objective or subjective agents and hence join the conversation on ethics in public affairs.
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
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