This paper aims to illustrate a contrast between two writings, namely, from the dominant paradigm's point of view, and writing with notions of the critical paradigm. It also demonstrates the differences between the two paradigms. The focus will be on expounding the purposes and objectives of the pieces of writing, as well as on the assumptions, arguments and the evidence presented in them.
By comparing the articles ‘Public Relations Theory in Practice’ from Heath and Coombs (2006) and ‘Public Relations Models and Persuasion Ethics: A New Approach’ from Fawkes (2007), it is important to keep in mind, that the first text is written from the dominant paradigm's point of view, whereas the latter espouses the notions of the critical paradigm.
To be able to contrast the two texts, first it is necessary to provide simple definitions of the paradigms. In general, a paradigm is a worldview, which influences the way in which people understand the world around them. Therefore, a dominant paradigm is the most popular worldview which is adopted by most people and dominates the debate. It is also regarded as the most important approach, which comprises a set of beliefs (assumptions), that the discipline represents.
The most essential point of a critical paradigm from the perspective of this paper is that it aims to challenge the dominant paradigm. A desirable result would be a paradigm shift, which is usually the aim of moving between two paradigms, for example the shift from traditional environmental paradigm to the paradigm of sustainable development. This knowledge can be applied to the discipline of Public Relations and helps to contrast both articles.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Comparison of Functionalist and Critical Paradigms
2.1 Analysis of Heath and Coombs (2006)
2.2 Analysis of Fawkes (2007)
3. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to critically contrast two distinct scholarly perspectives within the field of Public Relations—the functionalist and the critical paradigm—by examining the works of Heath and Coombs (2006) and Fawkes (2007).
- Comparison of functionalist and critical research paradigms.
- Evaluation of Heath and Coombs (2006) regarding PR theory and practical application.
- Examination of Fawkes (2007) and the attempt to build an integrated ethical framework.
- Reflection on assumptions, reflexivity, and the role of PR in society.
- Critique of the limitations inherent in both dominant and critical viewpoints.
Excerpt from the Book
Comparison between articles from functionalist and critical viewpoint
Heath and Coombs' (2006) article ingrains a functionalist point of view. It analyses Public Relations (PR) in terms of how it functions and examines its causes and effects. In other words, the main purpose of the text is to show the importance of practical skills in PR, disguised under the term ‘critical thinking skills’ (Heath and Coombs 2006). Whether this purpose is appropriate for an introduction into the discipline of PR, should be considered critically. The questions which underpin the leitmotiv in this text are predominantly: What are theories, how are they conceptualised, and how can they be applied to PR? In order to answer these, Heath and Coombs (2006) simply offer guidelines for the PR-practitioners in order to provide 'excellent' PR (Edwards 2006).
The text is very much based on the assumptions of systems theory, excellence theory and quantitative paradigm, which are typical for pieces of writing from a functionalist viewpoint. In addition, the text says that practice is the same as theory, and PR is reduced to the definition of managing relationships between markets, audiences, publics and organisations. Another assumption is that the obscure definition for theories as an 'abbreviation for theory and principles' (Heath and Coombs 2006) is there to solve problems. This is the only truth which is deemed necessary in order to understand PR. The limitations of this text are that the theories are only described without being entrenched into the broader context; their utilisation is focusing on risk and crisis management only; without presenting any alternative views or real arguments, it claims to reveal the universal truth. The most striking example is the appeal to use Grunig’s (1984) two-way symmetrical model of Public Relations in order to do excellent PR, ignoring the fact that the author himself holds this model for impossible and introduces the mixed-motive strategic symmetry instead.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the theoretical framework of critical thinking and sets the stage for comparing functionalist and critical perspectives in PR literature.
2. Comparison of Functionalist and Critical Paradigms: This section deconstructs the specific approaches of the chosen authors, highlighting how Heath and Coombs focus on practical functionality while Fawkes challenges these norms with a critical, ethical lens.
3. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while the critical approach offers more reflexivity, all academic perspectives must be continuously questioned for their inherent biases.
Keywords
Public Relations, Functionalist Paradigm, Critical Paradigm, Critical Thinking, Persuasion Ethics, Systems Theory, Excellence Theory, Reflexivity, PR Models, Marxism, Propaganda, Discourse, Theoretical Framework, Academic Debate, Social Role of PR.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on contrasting two different paradigms in Public Relations: the functionalist perspective represented by Heath and Coombs, and the critical perspective represented by Fawkes.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Central themes include the definition of paradigms, the role of PR in society, the relationship between persuasion and ethics, and the importance of reflexivity in academic writing.
What is the primary objective of this analysis?
The primary objective is to demonstrate the differences between functionalist and critical approaches to PR and to evaluate the underlying assumptions and objectives of the selected articles.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative literature review and critical analysis, drawing on concepts from critical theory and social science to evaluate the validity of the chosen texts.
What does the main body cover?
The main body covers the definitions of dominant and critical paradigms, followed by an in-depth critique of Heath and Coombs' functionalist approach and Fawkes' critical ethical framework.
Which keywords define this academic work?
Key terms include Public Relations, Functionalism, Critical Paradigm, Persuasion Ethics, Systems Theory, and Reflexivity.
How does the author evaluate the "excellence theory" within the functionalist approach?
The author argues that the reliance on models like Grunig's two-way symmetrical model is problematic, as it ignores the complexity of real-world power dynamics and the author's own subsequent revision of the model.
What is the author’s critique of the critical paradigm?
The author notes that while the critical paradigm is more reflexive, it is also susceptible to critique for ignoring forces of power and the unequal access to resources, suggesting that even critical writings are not beyond question.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anonym (Autor:in), 2011, Articles from functionalist and critical viewpoints in PR. A comparison, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/972392
