Search

The ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has changed society are the source of widespread discussion. But references to a ‘new normal’ are mostly confined to hybrid working and a possible four-day working week. Should future-scoping remain so narrow, a major opportunity for fundamental rethinking will be lost. This commentary seeks to take up and expand the argument of a 2021 article on the effects of COVID-19 by exploring the wider social implications and the opportunity presented by this existential crisis. Specifically, this critical analysis explores whether COVID-19 and its impacts have created a moment of liminality – a time of “transition during which the normal limits to thought are relaxed, opening the way to novelty and imagination, construction, and destruction” potentially leading to what Victor Turner refers to as communitas in which we can rethink the issues of our time and in which new social structures and understandings can form.

Ethical conduct is a maxim in scholarly research as well as scholarly endeavour generally. In the case of research involving humans, few if any question the necessity for ethics approval of procedures by ethics boards or committees. However, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of ethics approval processes for social science research arguing that the orientation of ethics boards and committees to biomedical and experimental scientific research, institutional risk aversion, and other factors lead to over-protection of research participants and overly restrictive processes that delay and sometimes prevent important social science research. This is particularly significant when social science research is required to respond to social, environmental, or health emergencies and in contract research projects for the reasons explained. This analysis of an ethics approval case study adds to increasing concerns that ethics approval processes can have perverse effects in the social sciences. While a single case study does not provide generalizable findings, in-depth analysis of a significant case can identify issues that need to be further explored. Recommendations offer pathways for facilitating social science research including in emergency situations in which timeliness is important and in collaborative approaches such as participatory action research, while maintaining high ethical standards.

Digitalization is fundamentally changing media ecosystems and posing ethical challenges for media and communication practitioners. One of the professions affected is public relations (PR), which today can analyze target groups based on their digital data traces or spread messages via paid digital channels. Although these practices are effective, they raise ethical concerns. However, it remains unclear whether PR practitioners around the world perceive such practices as morally challenging and whether their perceptions are shaped by individual dispositions or national backgrounds. This study analyzed data collected in 4 cross-national surveys involving 5,970 communication practitioners from 52 countries. Results from multilevel modeling indicate that individual predispositions, that is, personal values and beliefs and age, influence ethical perceptions far more than national context. These findings are interpreted as an indicator of the ongoing globalization of PR ethics, which presumably leads to similar perceptions in different regions.

Communication is a term that rolls easily off the tongue, which is symbolic in light of the following discussion. Eminent sociologists, psychologists, democratic political theorists, and others have described communication as “the organizing element of human life” (Littlejohn and Foss 2011, 4) and the basis of human society (Carey 2009, 5). Eminent American philosopher and psychologist John Dewey said succinctly: “Society exists … in communication.” (Plate 1916, 5). Communication provides the ‘glue’ that holds groups, teams, communities, societies, and organizations together, even when they face challenges and conflict (Cho 2020; Maneerat, Hale, y Singhal 2005). However, starting with the oratory and the ‘art of rhetoric’ proselytised by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian (Atwill 1998; Kennedy 1994), communication has been widely conceptualized as voice and speaking. In Book 1 of Politics, Aristotle wrote that “nature ... has endowed man alone among the animals with the power of speech” and identified speaking as a key attribute that defines humans (Haworth 2012, 43). Renaissance political philosopher Thomas Hobbes echoed Aristotle’s trope in saying “the most noble and profitable invention of all others was that of speech” . In comparison, listening has languished in scholarship and practice, particularly in relation to organizations. Recent research has reported that “most organizations listen sporadically at best, often poorly, and sometimes not at all”(Macnamara 2016, 236). There is growing evidence that this is causally related to the “crisis of trust” (Flew 2019; Garland 2021; Macnamara 2020) that plagues many of our institutions as well as many inequities, crises, and catastrophes. There is an urgent need to turn attention to listening in our organized society.

Evaluation is an essential part of strategic communication practices including public relations and corporate, government, and organizational communication. Evaluation can potentially demonstrate effectiveness and value, facilitate learning to improve practice, and provide insights to inform future strategy. In the age of digitalization of media and information, there are more readily available data to enable evaluation than ever before. However, despite half a century of theorizing and discussing measurement and evaluation (M&E), literature reports “stasis” and a “deadlock” well into the 21st century In some cases, invalid practices such as advertising value equivalents (AVEs) continue to be used. Furthermore, when M&E collectively is part of communication practice, evidence shows that reports continue to focus on outputs and algorithm-generated fake impact scores, rather than genuine outcomes and impact. Despite the body of literature on M&E, it is clear that more needs to be said – and done. This discussion calls for reconfiguring common evaluation models to overcome false logics and for a reconfiguring and broadening of pedagogy and practice to break the deadlock and realize the benefits of evaluation.

Human communication theory and disciplinary theory in corporate communication and cognate fields such as organisational communication and public relations, emphasise two-way, dialogic interaction. As communication scholar Robert Craig, succinctly says, communication involves speaking and listening. But research reveals a dominant focus on speaking in corporate communication and related fields, and a lack of listening. Addressing this gap in corporate communication is a challenge due to scale (the large number of stakeholders with whom many organisations need to engage); delegation to various departments such as customer relations and HR; and mediation of the voice stakeholders in many forms such as submissions, reports, and written complaints, as well as online. However, digital corporate communication provides new opportunities not only to ‘speak’ to stakeholders, but to listen to them. This chapter examines how organisational listening can be enhanced as part of digital corporate communication to gain increased understanding, insights, and stakeholder engagement.

This chapter discusses new approaches that can overcome the “stasis” and “deadlock” observed in measurement and evaluation (M&E) of public relations, and open the door to an evidence-based, value-adding role at a strategic level. Based on recent studies and new research, this chapter supports and advances ‘learning about’ M&E by offering translational and practical tools, including two simple tests and a formula to elevate practice from reporting basic metrics that record outputs to identifying outcomes and impact. Furthermore, this analysis advocates and advances ‘learning from’ M&E to the extent of reconceptualizing the practice as measurement, evaluation and learning (MEL) that contribute to creation of a learning organization and lead to transformational benefits at a functional, organizational, stakeholder, and societal level.

A collection of short stories and poems

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the world, requiring emergency management by health authorities and providers, it created flow-on crises and ‘crisis contagion’ for organizations ranging from international airlines and tourism operators to local businesses, schools, and universities. In addition to the risks directly associated with the health emergency, many organizations were plunged into crisis because of severe restrictions to their operations and income losses. This analysis examines crisis communication in an organization faced with major financial losses, staff redundancies, and disruption. It analyses how these and necessary crisis responses were communicated to stakeholders, using situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), as its analytical framework. While noting alternative perspectives such as crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) theory, SCCT is identified as the most widely applied theory of crisis communication, and thus warrants ongoing review in an era of media fragmentation, disinformation, and low public trust. Furthermore, this analysis provides a relatively rare ‘inside’ (emic) perspective through ethnography and autoethnography conducted by a senior decision-maker in the organization studied, which expands traditional outside (etic) perspectives and offers new insights into crisis communication.

Communication in and by organizations is ostensibly managed under a plethora of titles and functions including public relations, communication management, corporate communication, marketing communication, organizational communication, and strategic communication. Theory in a number of these fields claims to include all internal and external communication in and by organizations. Building on previous literature, this analysis of the internal and external communication of three companies operating in three different countries explores the boundaries of contemporary communication management. In doing so, it challenges disciplinary ‘siloes’ and normative theories and suggests ways to reimagine the future. While three cases do not provide generalizable findings, this analysis adds weight to arguments for broadening understanding of strategic communication and contributes to discussion of paradigms and theories of public relations, as well as the future of corporate communication.

The inter-related and integrated processes of measurement and evaluation have long been a challenge for public relations and communication management practitioners, with reviews showing “stasis”, the use of invalid methods, and even a “deadlock” in the reporting of results of projects and campaigns. In particular, the field has struggled to present credible evidence of outcomes and impact, most often reporting activities and outputs. These terms derive from program logic models that are increasingly being applied, together with theory of change and other performance measurement theories and concepts to develop frameworks, models, and standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations and communication. This chapter reviews the current state of practice and the latest frameworks and models used internationally and outlines the key concepts and principles for the three stages of formative, process and summative evaluation. It concludes by identifying best practice and new directions for the future of measurement and evaluation, which researchers refer to as “the alpha and omega of strategy”.

Since declaration of post-truth as Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year in 2016, studies show that ‘fake news’, ‘alternative facts’, and disinformation have continued unabated—and even increased. Fingers have pointed at individuals such as Donald Trump and the activities of Russian ‘troll farms’. Also, global outrage has risen in relation to the deceptive and manipulative practices of organisations such as Cambridge Analytica and social media oligopolies, notably Facebook. However, transdisciplinary research challenges the ‘few bad apples’ argument and proposes that a wide range of culprits are responsible for what this study calls post-communication. Based on review of reports and commentary related to public communication practices, and key informant interviews, this discussion proposes that reforms are required at three levels: top-down, such as updated regulation and legislation; bottom-up, including new approaches to media literacy; and increased attention to ethics and standards by those in the middle of the post-truth phenomenon—professionals in advertising, marketing, public relations, government and political communication, and journalism.

Purpose – While the voice of customers, employees, and other stakeholders have been identified as key components of corporate and marketing communication, comparatively little attention has been paid to how organizations listen to, make sense of, and use information provided. Research reported in this article examined how a multinational corporation and its subsidiaries listen to their customers, employees, and other stakeholders and explored how corporate listening can be improved for mutual benefits. Design/methodology/approach – This article reports participatory action research within a multinational corporation operating in Europe, Canada and Australia which set out to become a ‘listening organization’ to improve its relationships and performance. The research was informed by interviews, observation, content analysis of relevant documents, and critical reflection. Findings – This analysis illustrates the need for and benefits of looking beyond statistical data to analyze textual, aural and visual data available from call centers, open-end survey comments, complaints, correspondence, social media and other sources, and it identifies methods, tools and technologies for ethical insightful corporate listening. Research implications – This article advocates a ‘turn’ from focus on voice to focus on listening, noting that expression of the voice of customers, employees, and other stakeholders has no value to them or organizations without active listening. Originality – This paper reports an in-depth study of corporate listening to multiple stakeholders and identifies opportunities for increased insights and understanding that can lead to tangible benefits for both organizations and their stakeholders. Paper type – Research paper.

Speaking and listening are recognized and receive considerable attention in studies of interpersonal communication and related fields such as leadership studies. However, how organizations listen to their stakeholders has not been examined until recently, and studies show that public communication by organizations is predominantly focussed on speaking to disseminate their messages. Organizational listening poses special challenges such as the issue of scale. Large organizations such as government departments and agencies, national and multinational corporations and large non-government organizations need to be able to listen to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of voices, which is beyond the capability of interpersonal listening. This chapter examines this communication gap in theory and practice, and proposes concepts and methods to operationalize effective organizational listening necessary to create meaningful engagement and participation, which can invigorate democracy and contribute to social equity.