Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hprr20

Journal of Public Relations Research

ISSN: 1062-726X (Print) 1532-754X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

Growth of public relations research networks: abibliometric analysis

Eyun-Jung Ki, Yorgo Pasadeos & Tugce Ertem-Eray

To cite this article: Eyun-Jung Ki, Yorgo Pasadeos & Tugce Ertem-Eray (2019): Growth of publicrelations research networks: a bibliometric analysis, Journal of Public Relations Research, DOI:10.1080/1062726X.2019.1577739

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2019.1577739

View supplementary material

Published online: 17 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View Crossmark data

Growth of public relations research networks: a bibliometricanalysisEyun-Jung Kia, Yorgo Pasadeosa, and Tugce Ertem-Erayb

aAdvertising and Public Relations, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA; bSchool of Journalism andCommunication, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA

ABSTRACTThis research reported and expanded on a 6-year citation study of publishedscholarly research in public relations that occurred between 2010 and 2015. Thisanalysis built on the work of Pasadeos and his collaborators, who examined theliterature’smost-citedworks from the 2000s and 1990s, respectively, and studiedthe field’s research network. Moreover, this study expanded the scope of cover-age by adding three international journals. Overall, this study found that publicrelations scholarship experienced quantitative and qualitative leaps during thelast decade, and the areas of excellence theory, relationship management, andcrisis communication were heavily researched across the journals examined,whereas stakeholder and corporate communication are major study areas in theinternational journals.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 14 November 2017Revised 3 January 2019Accepted 30 January 2019

KEYWORDSBibliometric analysis;scholarly network; scholarlycommunication; publicrelations scholarship status

Scholarly communication refers to communicative activities among scholars who are creatingoriginal scholarly works (Borgman & Furner, 2002) and is a primary way in which a field of studyevolves. Methods of evaluating a field’s status can be broadly categorized as follows: (a) analysis ofthe contents of scholarly articles published in a field and (b) analysis of these articles’ citations (Ye &Ki, 2012). The first category of studies examines the contents of scholarly articles with a focus ontopics, methodology, and theoretical approaches. Members of the public relations discipline havemade such efforts as early as the 1970s. In one of the first such studies, Grunig and Hickson (1976)evaluated academic research in public relations and concluded that the body of knowledge in thefield was mainly descriptive and lacked theory development. After analyzing the abstracts of articlespublished in Public Relations Review, Ferguson (1984)1 echoed their conclusion. Almost 20 yearslater, Sallot, Lyon, Acosta-Alzuru, and Jones (2003) replicated and expanded Ferguson’s study byanalyzing abstracts and articles published in three public relations journals.2 They demonstrated thatarticles contributing to theory development had increased noticeably since Ferguson presented herfindings. To examine topical areas and methodological approaches in the field; Morton and Lin(1995) evaluated articles published in Public Relations Review from 1975 to 1993 and found thatprofessional topics were covered most frequently; technical topics were covered least frequently.They also noted that quantitative methods were being used more frequently in the field over time.

The citation study technique known as bibliometrics3 is another method of evaluation of scholarlycommunication in a field, and it involves analyzing citation sources (Borgman & Furner, 2002).Kuhn, whose work focuses on paradigms of science, viewed the bibliometric method as a way toidentify a paradigm and changes that occur to it over time (Small, 2003). In public relations,Pasadeos and his collaborators conducted periodic bibliometric analyses of works published from1975 to 2005 to diagnose the status of theory building. Our study conducted a citation analysis tofollow, compare, and expand on the work of Pasadeos and his colleagues.

CONTACT Eyun-Jung Ki ki@apr.ua.edu Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Alabama, Box 870172,Tuscaloosa, 35487-0172© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCHhttps://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2019.1577739

The purposes of this study are twofold: (a) to detect the most-cited authors and the most-influential works and (b) to identify the main research streams of public relations and theirinterrelations in the following six journals: Journal of Public Relations Research, Public RelationsReview, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, International Journal of StrategicCommunication, Journal of Communication Management, and Corporate Communication: AnInternational Journal. Doing this will provide an intellectual structure and illustrate trends, theore-tical evolution, and appearing or disappearing paradigms within public relations scholarship from anobjective and quantitative perspective.

Bibliometrics in theory building

The development of a theory often goes through a life cycle (Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004).The cycle begins with concepts or constructs, conceptualization, operational information, the for-mulation of hypotheses, and the testing and retesting of theories. The steps of theory building arediscursive or parallel, most of the time, rather than linear (Sinkovics, 2016).

Analyzing bibliographic references is a prime tool with which to understand the foundation fortheorizing (Sinkovics, 2016). Bibliographic references to a scientific research article can serve as thetheoretical and empirical grounds of the study (Ramos-Rodriguez & Ruiz-Navarro, 2004). Becausebibliometrics use quantitative analysis of the empirical data in published studies to examine thepatterns of publication within a field (De Bellis, 2009), such analysis reveals the flow of knowledgeand the growth of literature or a theory; such information can indicate how it has developed andwhere it is headed (van Raan, 2005).

Pasadeos and Renfro (1992) highlighted the importance of bibliometric analysis as “a method oftracking publishing patterns: [C]itation indexing makes members of academic disciplines aware of,among other things, which publications cite which other publications” (p. 168). They recommendedthat scholars conduct citation studies periodically to draw a map of publishing activities ina discipline and understand changes in the impact of publications, scholars, institutions, and schoolsof thought of the field and upon each other. More important, such analysis often exposes paradigmsand shifts in paradigms over a period of time (Pasadeos, Berger, & Renfro, 2010).

Citation and cocitation analyses, which are commonly included in bibliometric analysis, drawa literature map and a pool of automatically created concepts and relationships by identifyinglandmark studies and their growth. This visual map provides insight into the developing path ofexisting concepts, a central concept’s relationship with other concepts, or even a proposal of newconcepts and new lineages that developed based on the existing ones in the field examined (DeBakker, Groenewegen, & Den Hond, 2005). The concepts identified through cocitation analysis canguide scholars to investigate underexplored research questions or areas. Furthermore, the relation-ships revealed between and among the concepts enable scholars to differentiate or define theconcepts more accurately (Sinkovics, 2016).

Bibliometrics studies in public relations

Bibliometric studies occur in various disciplines, including the natural sciences (e.g., Bornmann &Mutz, 2015), education (e.g., Heradio et al., 2016), marketing (e.g., Goldman, 1979; Hamelman &Mazze, 1973), management science (e.g., Fu, Ho, Sui, & Li, 2010), and economics (e.g., Eagly, 1975).The public relations domain is not an exception.

In public relations, Pasadeos and his collaborators conducted periodic bibliometric analyses ofworks published from 1975 to 2005. In the first of these studies, Pasadeos and Renfro (1992)evaluated the state of the field through a citation analysis of the published articles in threejournals4 between 1975 and 1986. They claimed that articles published later in the examined periodfeatured a greater number of citations from the public relations field and articles published earlierheavily cited articles from other social science fields. They added that there was a continually

2 E.-J. KI ET AL.

increasing number of academician-authored articles in later years and the number of practitioner-authored articles significantly decreased.5

In a follow-up study, Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily (1999) conducted another citation analysisof the articles published in three journals6 between 1990 and 1995. They noted a dominance ofacademician-authored articles (over 95%) and an emergence of new, young7 productive scholars.They concluded that public relations was a young but growing social science discipline. To trackthe development of the discipline, Pasadeos et al. (2010) conducted a third citation study ofpublished articles in the same three journals from 2000 to 2005. Their findings demonstratedseveral notable changes in the field, including a dramatic increase in public relations research andthe number of citations from public relations journals, newly emerged productive scholars, andnew, popular topics such as global studies, new technologies, crisis communication, and theorydevelopment. They concluded that all these changes indicated that the field had matured over theprevious decade.

The median age of cited literature in social science is 6–8 years (Archambault & Lariviere, 2010).Given that it has been 10 years since the last public relations bibliometric analysis was published, it isnecessary to trace the state of knowledge about the structure and evolution of public relations scholar-ship. This study intends to follow, compare, and expand on the work of Pasadeos and his colleagues.Because their studies used a timeframe of 6 years, this study uses a 6-year period of 2010–2015 for directcomparison with theirs. In the earlier works, analysis primarily focused on three journals: Journal ofPublic Relations Research (JPRR), Public Relations Review (PRR), and Journalism&Mass CommunicationQuarterly (JMCQ).8 However, the relatively newer and more-international journals, InternationalJournal of Strategic Communication (IJSC), Journal of Communication Management (JCM), andCorporate Communication: An International Journal (CCIJ)9 have played important roles in publicrelations literature. Because Pasadeos et al. (2010) suggested including these journals in future studies,this study expanded its scope of examination to a total of six journals.

Research questions

Because this study aimed to replicate the two previous bibliometric analyses in public relations tocompare articles published in the three original journals from 2010 to 2015 with two earlier studies,as well as juxtapose the original journals with three international journals, we adopted the originalresearch questions posed by the two earlier studies (i.e., Pasadeos et al., 1999, 2010) and addedsubsequent research questions for the purpose of a periodic (10 and 20 years earlier) review andcomparison of the journals:

1. What kinds of publications are cited in the public relations literature in the 2010–2015 period?1.1. How do they differ from those from 10 and 20 years ago?1.2. How do the original and international journals differ?

2. Which authors were most cited in published public relations research during the2010–2015 period?2.1. How do they differ from those from 10 and 20 years ago?2.2. How do the original and international journals differ?

3. What were the most-cited works during the 2010–2015 period, and how can they betaxonomized?3.1. How do these most-cited works differ from those from 10 and 20 years ago?3.2. How do the original and international journals differ?

4. What is the cocitation network of the most-cited works from the 2010–2015 period?4.1. How does this network differ from those from 10 and 20 years ago?4.2. How do the original and international journals differ?

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 3

Method

This study considered all articles (N = 1,139) published from 2010 to 2015 in PRR and JPRR, aswell as all articles indexed as public relations in JMCQ,10 IJSC, JCM, and CCIJ. We assessed 761articles from the three original journals and 378 from the three international journals. Wecollected the dataset from each journal’s website. Each journal listed the latest articles publishedduring the 2010–2015 period on their websites. After determining the target articles, we accessedthem from their affiliated universities’ library databases, which gave us access to all of the targetarticles.

We selected a 6-year timeframe and a method to provide 30-year comparisons with Pasadeoset al. (1999) and Pasadeos et al. (2010). This study reviewed all types of citations in public relationsscholarship. We recorded all author names from all of the articles. Moreover, all the citations in eacharticle were coded based on the following:

(1) Year of citing work and year of cited work.(2) Type of cited work: Journal, book, conference paper or proceedings, thesis or dissertation,

newspaper or magazine, and any other source; we took these category definitions verbatimfrom Pasadeos et al. (1999).

(3) Name(s) of author(s) of cited work and title of cited work.

We obtained the set of cited works from each article’s references pages. Only one of the itemscoded—the publication type—required subjective coding, and only in some categories. We assignedcited works to categories based on their citation formats. These journals used either the AmericanPsychological Association or Harvard style. If the type of cited work was an online resource, wechecked it to verify its accuracy—especially for online magazines, articles, and newspapers. Coderreliability of trained naive coders was at an acceptable level in the previous studies, whose method weadopted for this study, which did not employ naive coders (i.e., all data in this study were handled byPh.D.-level public relations academicians).

We conducted our analysis using Microsoft Excel. We coded each cited work into categories inaccordance with their order in the reference pages. We used the “Data → Sort” Excel function toidentify the most-cited authors and most-cited works. That procedure also provided an opportunityto correct input errors, as well as identify some authors’ incorrect references to names, titles, andyears. After identifying the most-cited works and most-cited authors, we also checked each of theircitations to ensure that the works and authors matched up across references. We corrected orremoved any discrepancies from the analysis.

A list of all works-cited pairs was accessible as soon as all the citations in a document wererecorded. To examine the cocitation networks and frequencies, we repeated this process for all thedocuments we selected based on our discrete criteria (i.e., all articles in the journals from 2010 to2015). We recorded a total of 81,001 citations in a Microsoft Excel file. We deleted self-citations(approximately 3.2% of all citations) from the dataset to offer a better picture of the impact of certainauthors on researchers, rather than their impact on their own work. We then analyzed the remaining78,345 citations.

Findings and discussion

Types of citations

Three original journalsRQ1 examined the number and types of citations during the study period. The number of citationsin the dataset including the three original journals grew exponentially compared to the two previouscitation studies. For example, the original three journals from 2010 to 2015 contained a total of

4 E.-J. KI ET AL.

43,888 citations, which was 296% larger than the 14,798 citations in the studies from 2000 to 2005and 573% larger than the 7,659 citations in the studies from 1990 to 1995.

Table 1 displays the frequency of different types of citations from 2010 to 2015, which wecompared with earlier periods. Like 2000–2005, journal article was the largest category in2010–2015 in the original journals (57%), followed by books (29.2%). Citation of books decreasedfrom 39.9% in the 2000–2005 period to 29.2% in the 2010–2015 period. This decrease was accom-panied by an increase in the relative incidence of journal citations. Citations of public relationsjournals also displayed a continual increase from 10.6% in the 1990–1995 period to 21.4% in the2000–2005 period to 23.2% in the 2010–2015 period. Citations of theses, dissertations, magazines, ornewspapers demonstrated a continual decrease from 13.9% to 4.0% of all citations from 1990–1995to 2010–2015.

As in the previous studies, PRR had the most citations among the public relations journals(11.6%, up from 7.9% during 2000–2005). However, citations of JPRR decreased from 7.8% to6.1%. Overall, citations of public relations journals slightly increased from 21.4% to 23.2%, whereascitations of public relations books decreased from 16.8% to 9.8%.

Three international journalsThe number of citations in the three international journals for the 2010–2015 period is 34,457, whichwas 21% smaller than the number of citations found in the original journals. As in the three originaljournals, journal article was the largest category in the international journals (63.3%), followed bybooks (27.1%). Citations of public relations journals account for 15.5%, which was a smaller portioncompared to the 23.2% found in the three original journals. Citations of theses, dissertations,magazines, and newspapers made up 2.4%, which was smaller than the figure found in the originaljournals. Again, PRR had the most citations among the public relations journals (6.39%), followed byJPRR (3.67%).

All six journalsOverall, utilizing all six journals provided almost twice as many citations as the original three journals.Journal article (59.7%) accounted for the largest cited work category in the six journals combined from2010 to 2015, followed by books (28.3%). However, in all six journals, citations of public relations journalsdecreased slightly from 21.4% to 19.8% during the 2000–2005 period. Citations of theses, dissertations,magazines, or newspapers made up a small portion during this same period (9.9% to 3.5%, respectively).

In general, we noted a decline in the number of book sources and an increase in the number of journalsources in both the original journals and the international journals. Because the books category includedmany didactic volumes, this finding indicated that there was a tendency for more original research to becited. The international journals in particular were moving more in this direction than the original

Table 1. Public relations citations by type of cited work.

Cited Work1990–95#

(N = 7,659)2000–05a

(N = 14,798)

2010–15(N = 43,888)

The Original Journals

2010–2015(N = 34,457)

The International Journal

2010–15(N = 78,345)Six JournalsCombined

Journals 35.3% 41.4% 57% 63.3% 59.7%(PR journals) (10.6) (21.4) (23.2) (15.5) (19.8)Books 38.7 39.9 29.2 27.1 28.3(PR books) (12.5) (16.8) (9.8) (6.16) (8.2)Conferences/Proceedings 6.1 2.5 2.5 1.7 2.2Theses/Dissertations 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.3Magazines/Newspapers 12.7 8.9 3.6 1.8 3.2Other sources 4.8 7.8 6.9 5.5 6.3

a Source: Pasadeos et al. (2010).# Source: Pasadeos et al. (1999).

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 5

journals. One reason may be that PRR, one of the original journals, has not been as purely research-oriented for the past few years as in the other years.

Most-cited authors

The second research question examined the most-cited authors. Table 2 (for original journals), Table 3(for international journals), and Table 4 (for all six journals) listed the authors receiving 50 or morecitations for three journals or 60 or more citations for the six journals during the 2010–2015 period.

The original journalsAs shown in Table 2, in the data from the three original journals, a total of 68 authors received 50 ormorecitations. Upon closer examination, 14 of those who appeared as the most-cited public relations authorsduring the 1990–1995 period and 30 who appeared during the 2000–2005 period were also listed in the2010–2015 period. All of the top-20most-cited authors from 2010 to 2015 were listed in either or both ofthe 1990–1995 and 2000–2005 lists, with a couple of exceptions: Sherry J. Holladay (222 citations) andKirkHallahan (127 citations). At the same time, more than half of the names (38 authors, 56%) were newto the lists, with Bryan H. Reber (115), Yan Jin (109), and Maxwell E. McCombs (108) leading the rosterof newcomers.

Table 2. Most cited public relations authors (Journal of Public Relations Research, PublicRelations Review, and Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly).

Cites Author Cites Author

739 James Grunig#* 87 Linda Aldoory493 W.Timothy Coombs* 83 Tom Kelleher378 Maureen Taylor* 81 Eyun-Jung Ki273 Larissa A. Grunig#* 76 Brooke F. Liu255 Michael L. Kent* Sung-Un Yang247 Glen T. Cameron#* 75 Bey-Ling Sha245 Robert L. Heath#*

242 David M. Dozier#* 74 Todd Hunt#*

222 Sherry J. Holladay Michael A. Mitrook205 John A. Ledingham* Betteke van Ruler193 William Benoit* 72 Ruthann Lariscy185 Linda C. Hon* 67 Allen H. Center#*

Dejan Vercic* 63 William J. White183 Krishnamurthy Sriramesh* 61 Shannon Bowen180 Stephen D. Bruning* Matthew W. Seeger178 Glen M. Broom#* Piet Verhoeven139 Elizabeth L. Toth#* 60 Jae-Hwa Shin130 Yi-Hui Huang* 58 Øyvind Ihlen128 Jacquie L’etang* 57 Timothy L. Sellnow127 Kirk Hallahan Judy V. Turk#*

117 Lynne M. Sallot* 56 Elizabeth J. Avery115 Bryan H. Reber Edward Bernays#109 Yan Jin Ralph Tench108 Maxwell E. McCombs 55 Chun-Ju F. Hung104 Scott M. Cutlip#* Dean Kruckeberg*

93 Bruce K. Berger Ansgar ZerfassCharles J. Fombrun 54 Candace L. WhiteRichard D. Waters Robert UlmerDonald K. Wright#* 52 Karla K. Gower

92 Kaye Sweetser Ángeles Moreno90 Carl Botan#* 51 Shawna Casey*

89 Patricia A. Curtin Yungwook Kim*

88 Derina R. Holtzhauzen* James Ritchey*

Trent Seltzer 50 Robert M. EntmanSpiro Kiousis

# Also on list of most cited PR authors in 1990–1995* Also on list of most cited PR authors in 2000–2005Underlined authors indicate that they are also listed in the international journals.

6 E.-J. KI ET AL.

All of the top-20 most-cited authors in the original journals were also listed in the internationaljournals (Journal of Communication Management, International Journal of Strategic Communication,and Corporate Communication: An International Journal). However, a majority of names indexedbelow the top 20 were listed only in the original journals.

The three international journalsAs displayed in Table 3, the data from the three international journals (Journal of CommunicationManagement, International Journal of Strategic Communication, and Corporate Communication: AnInternational Journal) indexed a total of 46 authors who received 50 or more citations. Examiningthe list closely revealed that nine of them appeared in the 1990–1995 period and 22 in the 2000–-2005 period. All of the top-20 most-cited authors in these journals were listed in either or both of the1990–1995 and 2000–2005 lists, with a few exceptions. Half of the names (23, 50%) were new to thelists, with John M. T. Balmer (104), Charles J. Fombrun (104), and Betteke van Riel (97) leading theroster of newcomers. Additionally, 14 names appeared only in the international journals.

The six journals combinedTable 4 displays the data from all six journals combined. With minor variations, a similar pattern of thetop-20 most-cited authors was shown as in the other two tables. James E. Grunig was the most-citedauthor with 1,161 citations, followed by Timothy Coombs (722), Maureen Taylor (518), and LarissaA. Grunig (436). Out of the 101 most-cited authors in the six journals combined, 15 authors and 35authors were on the 1990–1995 and 2000–2005 lists, respectively. A majority of the authors (64, 63%)were new to the list. Being frequently cited suggested that an author’s body of workmay have had amajorimpact on a discipline, but it does not indicate whether a particular work by an author has beeninfluential. For that, we turned to the list of most-cited works.

Table 3. Most cited public relations authors (Journal of Communication Management, InternationalJournal of Strategic Communication, and Corporate Communication: An International Journal).

Cites Author Cites Author

421 James Grunig#* 80 Lars T. Christensen229 W.Timothy Coombs* 78 Joep P. Cornelissen185 David M. Dozier#* 77 Jeong-Nam Kim163 Larissa A. Grunig#* 72 Chitra B. Bhattacharya150 Dejan Vercic* Mette Morsing138 Maureen Taylor* 70 Yi-Hui Huang*

123 William Benoit* 68 George Cheney#

120 Glen M. Broom#* 67 Sankar Sen108 Robert L. Heath#* 66 Majken Schultz104 John M. T. Balmer 65 Todd Hunt#*

Charles J. Fombrun 63 Bryan H. Reber102 Krishnamurthy Sriramesh* Lynne M. Sallot*

98 Glen T. Cameron#* 59 Bruce K. BergerLinda C. Hon* Timothy L. Sellnow

97 John A. Ledingham* 56 Jacquie L’etang*

Betteke van Ruler Karl E. Weick95 Derina R. Holtzhauzen* 54 Wim J. L. Elving94 Ansgar Zerfass Ralph Tench91 Stephen D. Bruning* Elizabeth L. Toth#*

90 Kirk Hallahan Robert R. Ulmer87 Michael L. Kent* 53 Matthew W. Seeger85 Cees B. M. Van Riel Richard D. Waters82 Sherry J. Holladay

52 Geert Hofstede*

51 Sora Kim

# Also on list of most cited PR authors in 1990–1995* Also on list of most cited PR authors in 2000–2005Underlined authors indicate that they are also listed in the original journals.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 7

Most-cited works

The three original journalsThe third research question examined the most-cited works. As shown in Table 5, 141 works werecited 12 or more times during the 2010–2015 period. This was almost three times greater than thetwo earlier studies; the number of most-cited public relations works was only 51 during the

Table 4. Most cited public relations authors (six journals).

Cites Author Cites Author

1160 James Grunig#a 109 Piet Verhoeven722 W.Timothy Coombsa 108 Robert R. Ulmer516 Maureen Taylora 106 George Cheney#a

436 Larissa A. Grunig#a 105 Bey-Ling Sha427 David M. Dozier#a 104 A. Parsu Parasuraman353 Robert L. Heath#a 101 Chitra B. Bhattacharya345 Glen T. Camerona Joep P. Cornelissen342 Michael L. Kenta 100 Ángeles Moreno335 Dejan Vercica 99 Michael A. Mitrook316 William Benoita 94 Allen H. Center#a

304 Sherry J. Holladay Karl E. Weick302 John A. Ledinghama Sora Kim298 Glen M. Broom#a 93 Geert Hofstedea

285 Krishnamurthy Sriramesha Yungwook Kima

283 Linda C. Hona Majken Schultz271 Stephen D. Bruninga 90 Ruthann Lariscy217 Kirk Hallahan Mette Morsing200 Yi-Hui Huanga 86 Shannon Bowen197 Charles J. Fombrun Sankar Sen193 Elizabeth L. Toth#a Jae-Hwa Shin184 Jacquie L’etanga 85 William J. White183 Derina R. Holtzhauzena 83 Priscilla Murphya

180 Lynne M. Sallota 82 Judy V. Turk#a

178 Bryan H. Reber 81 Lance V. Porter171 Betteke van Ruler 80 Candace L. White152 Bruce K. Berger 79 Edward Bernays#

149 Yan Jin James Ritcheya

Ansgar Zerfass 78 Shawna Caseya

146 Richard D. Waters Anselm Strauss142 Donald K. Wright#a 77 Øyvind Ihlen139 Todd Hunt#a 76 Chun-Ju F. Hung130 Maxwell E. McCombs Magda Pieczka129 Eyun-Jung Ki 75 Jürgen Habermasa

128 Patricia A. Curtin Vincent Hazelton#

Cees B. M. Van Riel 73 Jon White#a

126 Carl Botan#a 72 Dean Kruckeberga

123 Lars T. Christensen 71 Keith M. Hearita

Sung-Un Yang Augustine Pang119 Michael J. Palenchar Don Schultz

Kaye Sweetser 69 R. Edward Freeman118 Brooke F. Liu Karla K. Gower117 John M. T. Balmer Michelle D. Hinson116 Tom Kelleher Elizabeth J. Avery

Timothy L. Sellnow 67 Robert M. EntmanTrent Seltzer Spiro Kiousis

114 Matthew W. Seeger 66 Jaesub Lee110 Linda Aldoory 63 Samsup Jo

Ralph Tench Friederike SchultzJeong-Nam Kim 62 Archie B. Carroll

Juan-Carlos MolledaDon Stacks

61 Denise Bortree

# Also on list of most cited PR authors in 1990–1995a Also on list of most cited PR authors in 2000–2005

8 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Table 5. Most cited public relations works (Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, and Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly).

80 Cutlip, Center, and Broom 16 Diga and Kelleher (2009)(1952, 1971, 1985, 1994, 2000, 2006)#a

72 Grunig and Hunt (1984)#a Eyrich, Padman, and Sweetser (2008)67 Grunig et al. (2002)a Ledingham (2006)60 Hon and Grunig (1999) L’Etang (2004)51 Kent and Taylor (1998)* Moloney (2006)48 Coombs (2007a) Schultz, Utz, and Göritz, (2011)45 Benoit (1995)a Taylor and Perry (2005)44 Ledingham and Bruning (1998)* Botan and Hazleton (2006)39 Ledingham (2003) Bruning (2002)38 Ferguson (1984)* 15 Glaser and Strauss (1967)

Kent and Taylor (2002) J. Grunig (2009)36 Grunig and Huang (2000) Heath (2006)35 Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) Heath and Coombs (2006)34 Benoit (1997)* L’Etang (2008)33 J. Grunig (1992)#a Strauss and Corbin (1998)32 Broom et al. (1997*, 2000) Avery et al. (2010)31 J. Grunig (2006) Coombs and Schmidt (2000)30 Coombs (2007b) 14 Coombs and Holladay (2007)

Waters et al. (2009) Curtin and Gaither (2005)28 J. Grunig (1997) Dozier and Broom (1995)a

Hofstede (1980, 1984, 2001)a J. Grunig (1993)Huang (2001) J. Grunig (1989)#a

Kelleher (2009) L. Grunig, J. Grunig, and Ehling (1992)27 Sriramesh and Verčič (2009) Hair et al. (2006)26 Coombs and Holladay (1996) Hung (2005)

Coombs and Holladay (2002) Kent (2008)Wilcox and Cameron (2000, 2003, 2004, Newsom et al. (1985, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2013)a

2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)25 Coombs (1995) Roper (2005)

Dozier et al. (1995)a Sha (2006)Entman (1993) Shoemaker and Reese (1996)Hu and Bentler (1999) Smith and Ferguson (2010)Kent et al. (2003) Vercic, L. Grunig, and J. Grunig (1996)a

Ki and Hon (2007a) Yang (2007)Miles and Huberman (1994) Zoch and Molleda (2006)

24 Coombs (1998)* Bruning and Ledingham (2000)Cutlip (1994) Byrne (2001)Heath (2009) 13 Coombs (2012)Yin (2014) Dozier (1992)#a

23 Botan and Taylor (2004) J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1992)#a

Heath (1988, 1997)a L. Grunig, Toth, and Hon (2001)Kline (2005) Holtzhausen and Voto (2002)

22 Seltzer and Mitrook (2007) Hung (2006)Sweetser and Metzgar (2007) Hutton (1999)

21 Bortree and Seltzer (2009) Jin (2010)Ewen (1996) Karlberg (1996)a

J. Grunig (2001)a Ki and Hon (2007b)Ledingham and Bruning (2000)a Pompper (2005)L’Etang (2006) Taylor and Kent (2010)

20 Bruning and Ledingham (1999) Babbie and Mouton (2001)Curtin and Gaither (2007) Briones et al. (2011)Gandy (1982)#a 12 Cameron, Sallot and Curtin (1997)Holtzhausen (2000)a The Commission on Public Relations Education (2006)McCombs and Shaw (1972) Coombs and Holladay (2009)Reber and Kim (2006) Fombrun and Shanley (1990)Yang and Lim (2009) Goffman (1974)

19 Fombrun and Van Riel (2003, 2004) Hiebert (1966)Fombrun, Gardberg, and Sever (2000) Lattimore et al. (2012)Hallahan (1999) Ledingham (2001)Hutton (2010) L’Etang (2011)Wimmer and Dominick (2000, 2003, 2006)a Lovejoy, Waters, and Saxton (2012)

18 Aldoory and Toth (2004) McKie & Munshi (2007)Coombs and Holladay (2008) Nye (2004)

(Continued )

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 9

1990–1995 period and 57 in the 2000–2005 period. This indicated that the field has been noticeablyexpanding and diversifying. Moreover, this increase contributed to an even more complicatedtaxonomy of research, which was already complex in the last study. Seven of the works were listedduring the 1990–1995 period, and 29 are listed in the 2000–2005 period. A majority of the publicrelations works (112, 79%) that were most often cited in the three original journals during the2010–2015 period were new.

Although some research area categories in this study overlapped with the last study, this analysisdemonstrated several noticeable patterns. In the last study (Pasadeos et al., 2010), relationshipmanagement was not a topic listed under most-cited works. However, it was the largest new areaand was undergoing significant improvement as a general theory. Crisis communication and newtechnologies were new categories in the last study (Pasadeos et al., 2010), but these two areas of studywere at the center of the most-cited works during the period under study.

Changes in categories of research

During 1990–1995, Pasadeos et al. (1999) listed 'public relations roles', 'corporate management', 'issuesmanagement', and 'models' as the most frequently researched topics (pp. 39-42). A later study (Pasadeoset al., 2010) identified the most frequently cited topics as 'public relations roles', 'international studies', 'newtechnologies', 'gender studies', and crisis communication that emerged during the 2000–2005 period”(pp. 144-147) Our study uncovered more complex and diverse topics that overlapped somewhat with thelast study. The following four categories were the most-research topics: excellence theory, relationshipmanagement, crisis communication, and new technologies.

Excellence theorySupported by the International Association of Business Communicators, James E. Grunig and hiscolleagues integrated numerous concepts into excellence theory, a descriptive and normative theorythat helps identify the factors behind best public relations practices and excellent organizations. Thefruits of Grunig’s projects were published as several heavily cited books, including Excellence inPublic Relations and Communication Management (J. E. Grunig, 1992), Manager’s Guide toExcellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995),and Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Managementin Three Countries (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). We identified excellence theory as a dominanttopic in public relations scholarship for more than three decades. A major reason for its dominancewas that the theory was a basis of several primary areas, including relationships and diversity.Although his scholarly activities have not been as prolific since his retirement, J. Grunig’s legacy hascontinued in the works of other scholars.

Table 5. (Continued).

Dozier and Lauzen (2000)* Park and Reber (2008)Heath (2001)a Sallot and Johnson (2006)Kelleher and Miller (2006) Semetko and Valkenburg (2000)Sallot et al. (2003) Wang (2006)

17 Burke (1969) Ware and Linkugel (1973)Cancel et al. (1997)a

Carroll and McCombs (2003)Choi and Lin (2009)Cutlip (1995)Lamme and Russell (2010)Lindlof and Taylor (2002)Rybalko and Seltzer (2010)

# Also on list of most cited PR works in 1990–1995a Also on list of most cited PR works in 2000–2005Underlined works indicate that they are also listed in the international journals.

10 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Relationship management, also known as organization-public relationships (OPRs), was thelargest category of new work appearing in the most-cited works list. Guidelines for MeasuringRelationships in Public Relations (Hon & Grunig, 1999), published by the Institute for PublicRelations, was the most widely cited book in evaluating relationship quality as evidence of publicrelations effectiveness and its outcomes. A growing number of studies tested and expanded OPRtheory, and most studies measuring relationship quality adopted Hon and Grunig’s (1999) scale.

Although several other relationship quality outcome scales (e.g., Huang, 2001; Ki & Hon, 2007a;Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) are available, three reasons might explain the dominant usage of the Honand Grunig (1999) scale: (a) It is freely and fully accessible; (b) it provided detailed guidelines for whatand how to measure; and (c) there were two versions (long and short) of relationship quality outcomemeasures. Several other OPR studies appeared in the 2010–2015 period for the first time: (a) Ledingham(2003) demonstrated relationship management as a general theory of public relations. (b) Grunig andHuang (2000) proposed antecedents and outcomes of quality relationship in their book chapter. (c)Waters, Burnett, Lamm, and Lucas (2009) conducted one of the first studies examining how nonprofitorganizations used social networking sites. (d) Huang (2001) developed the OPR assessment. (e) Kelleher(2009) tested the effects of conversational voice and relationship cultivation strategies on relationshipoutcomes in the social media sphere. (f) Ki and Hon (2007b) tested the effect of the perception ofrelationship quality on the public’s attitude and behavioral intention. And (g) Bortree and Seltzer (2009)analyzed environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles to understand their dialogic strategies andthe effects of those strategies.

Crisis management and response studies represented a second area of research. In this area, twodominant theories, image restoration theory (IRT) and situational crisis communication theory(SCCT), were widely tested and applied to various crisis types. Benoit (1995, 1997) developed andexpanded IRT, whereas, in the 2010–2015 period, Coombs’s SCCT was widely applied to test theeffects of crisis response strategies on outcome variables, including organizational reputation(Coombs, 1995, 1998, 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 1996, 2002).

New technologiesIn the last bibliometric study, the use of new technologies, especially the Internet, was amajor area of newresearch. In our current study, new technologies were still a popular area of study. However, instead ofexamining Web 1.0, studies in the field moved to examine social media as a platform for managingrelationships or crisis communications. For example, Sweetser and Metzgar (2007) examined blogs asa relationship management tool used in times of crisis, and Waters et al. (2009) studied nonprofitorganizations’ Facebook usage.

Although not as frequently cited as the other major clusters, three topics—publics, global orinternational public relations, and framing and agenda-setting—were noteworthy. A few works ineach of these topics were cited as much as other works.

Publics had a link with relationship management through the work of Bruning and Ledingham(1999). Grunig (1966) originally developed the situational theory of publics (STP), which was laterused as a template for a new theory of organizational public relations behavior, which eventuallyevolved into a key element of excellence theory (Grunig, 1976); thus, STP is one root of excellencetheory (Dozier et al., 1995; Grunig, 1992). STP classifies publics into different groups according totheir level of problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition. Becauseactivist publics are believed to influence other types of publics more effectively through newcommunication technology, this group of publics has received more scholarly attention. Managingpositive relationships with active publics is a particularly important topic in the field. The works byDozier and Lauzen (2000) and Reber and Kim (2006) were examples of the focus on managingpositive relationships.

In international/global public relations, frequent citations of works by Hofstede (1980, 1984,2001) and Sriramesh and Verčič (2009) confirmed the popularity of global public relations research.Regarding framing and agenda-setting studies, scholars interested in public opinion often cited

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 11

framing and agenda-setting together. McCombs and Shaw (1972) developed agenda-setting theory,and their work was cited as the first study that used agenda-setting. Entman (1993) explicitlydiscussed the roles and benefits of framing theory in the communication disciplines. Based onframing theory, Hallahan (1999) developed models of framing that are applicable to public relations.Public relations studies applying framing often cited those three studies.

The three international journals

The dataset from the three international journals showed 62 works cited 12 times or more, as shown inTable 6. More than half of these works were also listed in the original journals; furthermore, four wereindexed during the 1990–1995 period, and 15 were indexed in the most-cited works from the 2000–-2005 period. Additionally, 30 works (46% of all works) were cited only in the international journals.The works cited only in these international journals could be broadly grouped into two categories:stakeholder and corporate communication.

StakeholderHallahan, Holzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, and Sriramesh (2007) defined strategic communication as “thepurposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission” (p. 3). As an umbrella term,strategic communication covers public relations, advertising, management, and marketing. Within thedomain of strategic communication, the “stakeholder” refers to “any person or group that has an interest,right, claim, or ownership in an organization” (Clarkson, 1995, p. 106). Works published in internationaljournals often applied stakeholder theory, which explains how organizations interact with diversestakeholders (e.g., Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).

Stakeholder theory was often applied to better understand the impact of corporate socialresponsibility (CSR). For instance, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) evaluated customers’ reaction toCSR. In a similar vein, Morsing and Schultz (2006) investigated CSR communication strategies,which could better inform and involve key stakeholders.

Corporate communicationIn European scholarship, corporate communication was used as an overarching term that incorpo-rates marketing communications, public relations, employee relations, investor relations, and so on;public relations was regarded as a function of corporate communications (van Riel & Fombrun,2007). The popularity and citation frequency of several books, including Essentials of CorporateCommunication (van Riel & Fombrun, 2007), Corporate Communications: Convention, Complexity,and Critique (Christensen, Morsing, & Cheney, 2008), and Corporate Communications: Theory andPractice (Cornelissen, 2004) might reflect the level of acceptance of the term corporatecommunication.

Cocitation network

Figure 1 demonstrates the cocitation network for the 2010–2015 period.11 The thin lines connectworks that are cited together 12–15 times; the thicker lines connect works that are cited togethermore than 16 times. Not all of the most-cited works in Tables 5 and 7 appear in Figure 1. However,this does not suggest that such works had a lesser impact on the field. Furthermore, the findings ofthis study were based on a much larger dataset than the earlier studies. Consequently, works cocitedfewer than 11 times do not appear in Figure 1.

Only citations directly connected to the primary streams of research during the period understudy were shown in Figure 1, which showed three large primary cocitation clusters. The second-from-the-left cluster was largely a network of publications dealing with crisis communications. In the2000–2005 cocitation network, only Coombs (1998) and Benoit (1995, 1997) were visible. However,during the 2010–2015 period, works by Coombs (1995, 1998, 1999) and Coombs and Holladay

12 E.-J. KI ET AL.

(1996, 2002) heavily cited one another. Although the two sources of IRT work cited were by Benoit(1995, 1997) and were about 20 years old, Coombs’s and Coombs and Holladay’s relatively newerworks gained more scholarly attention. This cocitation network might indicate that SCCT was moredominantly applied or tested in the period examined than IRT.

The largest cluster at the bottom is a network of cocitations dealing with relationship manage-ment. Since Ferguson’s (1984) call for relationship as a unit of study in the field, relationshipmanagement has been a popular topic in the scholarship; in addition, relationship managementwas a primary paradigm in the scholarship. Scholars widely embraced the notion of public relationsas the management of OPR, which was highlighted in the popular textbook, Cutlip and Center’sEffective Public Relations (most-recent edition: Broom & Sha, 2013). In the 1990s, scholars developedmeasurement scales of relationship quality, and several reliable and valid scales became available.Two clusters of relationship scales are worth mentioning here. First, Hon and Grunig’s (1999) widelyapplied relationship quality outcome dimensions included control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, andcommitment. The personal, professional, and communal dimensions described by Ledingham andBruning (1998) were almost as popular. In the years between 2010 and 2015, based on the developedmeasurement scale of relationship quality, scholars dedicated themselves to advancing relationshiptheory by searching for antecedents or outcomes of relationship quality, as shown in Figure 1.Specifically, J. E. Grunig and Huang (2000) offered a framework that outlines the antecedents of

Table 6. Most cited public relations works (Journal of Communication Management, International Journal of StrategicCommunication, and Corporate Communication: An International Journal).

60 J. Grunig and Hunt (1984)#a 14 DiMaggio and Powell (1983)55 Grunig et al. (2002)a Glaser and Strauss (1967)37 Hon and Grunig (1999) J. Grunig (1992)#a

34 Hallahan et al. (2007) Kelleher and Miller (2006)32 Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1952, 1971, 1985, 1994,

2000, 2006)#aLedingham (2003)

29 Coombs (1999) Ledingham and Bruning (2000)a

Cornelissen (2004) Wilcox and Cameron (2000, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009,2010, 2011, 2012)

25 J. Grunig (2006) 13 Broom et al. (1997)*

Ledingham and Bruning (1998)* Brown and Dacin (1997)24 Morsing and Schultz (2006) Coombs and Holladay (2002)

Benoit (1997)* Coombs (2007a)Dozier et al. (1995)a Donaldson and Preston (1995)Freeman (1984) Fombrun and Van Riel (2003, 2004)

22 van Riel and Fombrun (2007) Grunig and Repper (1992)a

20 Kent and Taylor (1998)* Hearit (2006)18 Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) Suchman (1995)

Zerfass, et al. (2007) Weick (1995)17 Christensen et al. (2008) 12 Berger (2005)

Fombrun (1996) Clarkson (1995)J. Grunig and Huang (2000) Coombs (1998)*Habermas (1984) Coombs (1995)

16 Botan and Taylor (2004) Dozier and Broom (2006)Kent and Taylor (2002) Du et al. (2010)Mitchell et al. (1997) Goodman and Hirsch (2010)

15 Dozier (1992)#a Hallahan (1999)Hofstede (1980), 1984, 2001)a Hofstede (1991)Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) Holsti (1969)Miles and Huberman (1994) Huang (2001)Morgan and Hunt (1994) Ki and Hon (2007a)

Lee (2004)van Riel (1995)Waters et al. (2009)Wimmer and Dominick (1983, 2000, 2003, 2006)a

Yin (2003)

# Also on list of most cited PR works in 1990–1995a Also on list of most cited PR works in 2000–2005Underlined works indicate that they are also listed in the original journals.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 13

Table 7. Most cited public relations works (six journals).

132 J. Grunig and Hunt (1984)#* 27 Curtin and Gaither (2007)122 Grunig et al. (2002)* Seltzer and Mitrook (2007)112 Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1952, 1971, 1985, 1994, 2000, 2006)#* 26 Botan and Hazleton (2006)

Broom (2009) Broom and Sha (2013)97 Hon and Grunig (1999) Gandy (1982)#*

82 Coombs (2007) Grunig and Repper (1992)*

72 Benoit (1995)* Morsing and Schultz (2006)71 Kent and Taylor (1998)* Rybalko and Seltzer (2010)66 Ledingham and Bruning (1998)* 25 Aldoory and Toth (2004)55 Benoit (1997)* Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000)

J. Grunig (2006) Cancel et al. (1997)*

van Riel and Fombrun (2007) Coombs and Holladay (2008)54 Kent and Taylor (2002) Reber and Kim (2006)53 J. Grunig and Huang (2000) 24 Dozier and Broom (1995)*

Ledingham (2003) Dozier and Lauzen (2000)*

Yin (1994) Eyrich, Padman, and Sweetser (2008)51 J. Grunig (1992)#* Mitchell et al. (1997)49 Ferguson (1984)* Schultz, Utz, and Göritz, (2011)48 Dozier et al. (1995)* Yang and Lim (2009)45 Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) 23 Briones et al. (2011)43 Coombs (2007) Hearit (2006)

Cornelissen (2004) Hung (2005)42 Broom et al. (1997)* Kaplan and Haenlein (2010)41 Hallahan et al. (2007) Kent (2008)

Waters et al. (2009) Lindlof and Taylor (2002)40 Huang (2001) 22 Berger (2005)

Miles and Huberman (1994) Carroll and McCombs (2003)39 Coombs (1998)* Ewen (1996)

Coombs and Holladay (2002) Fombrun, Gardberg, and Sever (2000)Sriramesh and Verčič (2009) J. Grunig (1993)Zerfass, et al. (2009) J. Grunig (2009)

37 Coombs (1995) Hutton (1999)Fombrun (1996) Sen and Bhattacharya (2001)J. Grunig (1997) Yang (2007)Ki and Hon (2007a) 21 Berger and Reber (2006)

36 Coombs and Holladay (1996) Cutlip (1995)Kelleher (2009) Diga and Kelleher (2009)Wilcox and Cameron (2006) J. Grunig and L. Grunig (1992)#*

35 Kent, Taylor, and White (2002) Hair et al. (2006)34 Entman (1993) Heath (2006)

Hu and Bentler (1999) Holsti (1969)Ledingham and Bruning (2000)* Lamme and Russell (2010)

33 Freeman (1984) Ledingham (2006)Hofstede (1980, 1984, 2001)* Lee (2004)

32 Botan and Taylor (2004) L’etang (2008)Fombrun and Van Riel (2014) Strauss and Corbin (1998)L’Etang (2004) Weick (1995)

31 Bortree and Seltzer (2009) Zoch and Molleda (2006)J. Grunig (1989)#* 20 Choi and Lin (2009)Hallahan (1999) Christensen et al. (2008)McCombs and Shaw (1972) Coombs and Schmidt (2000)Wimmer and Dominick (2000, 2003, 2006)* Dawkins (2004)

30 Kelleher and Miller (2006) Donaldson and Preston (1995)Kline (2005) Habermas (1984)

29 Bruning and Ledingham (1999) Heath (2001)*

Cutlip (1994) Heath (1994)J. Grunig (2001)* Heath and Coombs (2006)Sweetser and Metzgar (2007) Ki and Hon (2007b)

28 Dozier (1992)#* Krippendorff (1980)Glaser and Strauss (1967) Lovejoy, Waters, and Saxton (2012)Holtzhausen (2000)* Moloney (2006)Morgan and Hunt, (1994) Smith and Ferguson (2010)Sallot et al. (2003)

# Also on list of most cited PR works in 1990–1995* Also on list of most cited PR works in 2000–2005

14 E.-J. KI ET AL.

relationship quality, public relations strategies, and relationship outcome, all based on the work byBroom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997, 2000). The two advanced statistical works by Hu and Bentler(1999) and Kline (2005), which were often cited by studies using structural equation modeling,might confirm such efforts. It is notable that scholars in the relationship area cited other relationshipstudies. In the past, scholars in relationship studies cited Grunig’s excellence theory to explain thatrelationship management was derived from excellence theory. This might indicate that relationshiptheory matured as a stand-alone theory or even a general theory of public relations, as claimed byLedingham (2003).

The second-right cluster was a network of cocitations that were largely concerned with examiningdialogic communication in new technology platforms, especially social media. In 1998, Kent andTaylor developed a concept of dialogic communication as “a particular type of relational interaction—one in which a relationship exists” (p. 323). With the evolution of social media, dialogic communica-tion seemed to gain momentum because social media could be an ideal channel for dialogic andsymmetrical communication. Several scholars investigated new communication channels (e.g., web-sites and social media) as a platform to engage with stakeholders or cultivate relationships with them(e.g., Kelleher, 2009; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Waters et al., 2009). Kelleher

Figure 1. Cocitation network of most cited public relations works in the six journals (cocites 12 times or more).

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 15

(2009) demonstrated the public relations outcomes in interactive online communication, and otherstudies (e.g., Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Waters et al., 2009) investigatingoutcomes of online communication often cited him. Several works in the two clusters at the bottom ofthe figure—dialogic communication and relationship management—were connected. Because dialogiccommunication is fundamental to establishing better relationships with stakeholders, these twotheories are compatible.

The small cluster with the two works by van Riel and Fombrun (2007) and Cornelissen (2004)was not tied to the other clusters; however, both works offered fundamental information to under-stand corporate communication, including its definitions, functions, the ranges it covers, ways toimprove effective communications, and so on. Both of the works described corporate communica-tion as an inclusive and comprehensive function to communicate with both internal and externalstakeholders. In this context, the term public relations was often used to refer to communication withthe press, which is a similar concept to media relations in North American scholarship. The threenewer journals, CCIJ, JCM, and IJSC, seemed to welcome this perspective of corporate communica-tion because these two works are widely cited among the articles published in these journals.

In the previous two studies, excellence theory, gender, public relations models, and publicrelations roles were dominantly cocited categories (Pasadeos et al., 1999, 2010). Excellence theoryhas continued to be the main source of cocited work over the past 3 decades because it is anumbrella theory that is connected to most of the works cited in the clusters identified in this study.Gender studies and public relations models may seem to be disappearing from the scholarship.However, these two important research problems may have been absorbed into broader categories.For example, gender possibly joined the larger and more inclusive topic diversity, whereas the publicrelations models might have been absorbed into relationship management because they are con-nected to relationship cultivation strategies.

The international journalsTo more closely examine the cocitation network in the international journals, we created a cocitationnetwork with six times or more citations, as shown in Figure 2. Most of the citations on the topics ofrelationship management, crisis communication, and excellence theory overlap with the ones shown inFigure 1. There are three distinct, small clusters in the cocitation networks in the international journals.

The cluster at the bottom left that is tied to Coombs’s works include three works that are not shownin Figure 1: Morsing (2006); Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen (2010); and Sturges (1994). They coveredstrategies, roles, and ethics that corporations could effectively use during or after times of crisis.

The small cluster of three works in the middle of the figure was related to the stakeholdercategory. The book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach by Freeman (1984), was oneof the first works to explicate the stakeholder concept. Later, the two works by Mitchell et al. (1997)provided a comprehensive review of stakeholder theory, identification of the stakeholder, anddescription of the concept. Clarkson (1995) established a stakeholder framework that can analyzeand evaluate corporate social performance.

The cluster in the bottom right was connected with corporate communication. All four workswere books that covered the concepts, values, roles, and principles of corporate communication(Christensen et al., 2008; Cornelissen, 2004; van Riel, 1995; van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). These fourbooks included the term corporate communication in the title, showing how much space corporatecommunication received in the international journals.

Conclusion

Public relations scholarship experienced consistent and continuous growth and advancement as anacademic discipline in the period under study. Although some similarities to the previous biblio-metric studies were evident, there were several noticeable changes in the 2010–2015 period. Thescholarship made quantitative and qualitative leaps during the last decade. In terms of quantitative

16 E.-J. KI ET AL.

growth, the number of citations from the last decade to this period increased almost threefold.Moreover, the percentage of refereed journal article citations showed a continual increase in each ofthe past two bibliometric studies. This quantitative growth demonstrated that the field of publicrelations has matured. Qualitatively, although many new theories may not have been introducedduring this decade, existing theories (e.g., SCCT, OPR, dialogic theory) were extensively tested,developed, and expanded by applying different contexts that helped enhance their generalizability.A few research perspectives especially experienced some momentum, including crisis communica-tion, relationship management, new technologies, and dialogic communication.

In consideration of the quantum leap in the number of citations compared to the last study, thepercentage of refereed journal article citations was remarkable. Almost two-thirds of the citationswere for journal articles: About 23% of the citations within the three original journals were in thefield of public relations, whereas 16% of the citations within the three international journals and 20%within the six journals combined for public relations journals. This indicated that public relations

Figure 2. Cocitation network of most cited public relations works (cocites 6 times or more) in the international journal.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 17

literature experienced quantitative growth. More importantly, although the field was mature enoughto rely on the literature as a primary source of public relations perspective and theory, it wasreceptive to perspectives from other fields. In fact, the public relations field was moving in thedirection recommended by Broom (2006), who noted that the public relations field would notbenefit from operating in a closed system. Instead, he recommended that scholars in the field shouldbe more open to seeing “other publications cited by scholars in other fields” (p. 149). The growingnumber of new journals and public-relations-specific handbooks and textbooks, coupled withincreased citations from journals outside the discipline (particularly in the case of the internationaljournals), might explain this phenomenon.

Furthermore, almost 80% (112 out of 141 within the original journals, 47 out of 62 within theinternational journals, 98 out of 124 within the six journals) of the most-cited works had newlyemerged, meaning they were not on the 2000–2005 or 1990–1995 lists. Only one of the 37 works inFigure 1 was from the 1980s. All these results indicated that the field was moving fast, and thediscipline was maturing further, with young scholars building on the work of older scholars. Scholarsin young disciplines heavily cite textbooks, but reliance on textbooks has continuously decreased,even more so in the period under study. Grunig and Hickson (1976) outlined the four stages12 ofeducation and research development, and they found that the field was at the second stage duringthe 1970s. Based on the findings from this study, we could conclude that the field has gone farbeyond the final stage where theory “begins to evolve out of situation-bound research” (Grunig &Hickson, 1976, p. 33). Moreover, all of this is evidence enough to answer the question: “Has publicrelations, as a field, entered a tertiary phase of its development, with a broader set of researchquestions and research streams in evidence?” (Pasadeos et al., 2010, p. 152). The answer isobviously yes.

Across the analyses, four main areas—crisis communication, relationship management, newtechnologies, and dialogic communication—were at the center of the public relations scholarship,and excellence theory continued to be influential. All of these areas gradually become more theory-driven over the past 2 decades. In the 2010–2015 period, instead of developing new theories for thefield, scholars advanced and expanded existing theories in these areas. One notable pattern was thatthese topical areas were merged and integrated. For example, SCCT was tested in social mediaplatforms (e.g., Ki & Nekmat, 2014), and the relationship perspective was applied to crisis manage-ment (e.g., Park & Reber, 2011). This might be an indication that the existing theories in these fourareas were saturated. It might be time for researchers in these areas to bring new perspectives fromwhich to develop new theories or frameworks. For example, within crisis communication, SCCT andIRT have arguably been the prevalent frameworks. In the last decade, SCCT seems to have beenmore thoroughly and heavily researched, which resulted in researchers advancing the theory.Recently, Liu, Bartz, and Duke (2016) claimed that crisis communication scholars should look fora different perspective and suggested that “uncertainty is central in crisis definitions, but it is notcentral in existing crisis communication research and theory development” (p. 484).

Although relationship management and crisis communication largely overlapped with the worksin international journals, two areas—stakeholder and corporate communication—appeared moreoften in these journals. In consideration of the international journals examined in this study, thesetopic areas were natural. The IJSC welcomed the strategic communication perspective that consid-ered public relations as its subfield (Hallahan, Holzhausen, van Ruler, Vercic, & Sriramesh, 2007). Instrategic communication, the term stakeholder is used to define the group of people who affect or areaffected by the organization. Although the key difference between stakeholder and publics is thatstakeholders are treated as individuals and publics as collectives (Broom & Sha, 2013; Cutlip, Center,& Broom, 1994), the definition of publics as groups of individuals who are formally or informallyimpacted by an organization or vice versa (Grunig & Hunt, 1984) arguably displays similarities tothe definition of stakeholders. Moreover, in these journals, corporate communication was similar topublic relations, defined as a management function that offers a framework for the effectivecoordination of all internal and external communication to establish and maintain favorable

18 E.-J. KI ET AL.

relationships with the stakeholder groups upon which the organization depends (van Riel, 1995).Our inclusion of CCIJ in the analysis can explain the popularity of “corporate communication” asa topic.

Citation analysis findings can provide the basis for tracking theory development in a discipline.First, at the simplest level, a look at the chronology of cited works offered a glimpse at works thatcould be considered foundational. The findings of this study, together with findings from its twoantecedents, identified works that provided foundations for theory building in public relations andpassed the test of time in terms of relevance. Second, analyzing citation patterns among most citedworks could also draw a picture of which works could be considered the logical progenitors ofcurrent thinking. Examining citations that specified most cited scholars or works that cited eachother revealed whose works guided the literature in a particular direction within a specific area ofscholarship. Third, replication provided a longitudinal dimension that enabled researchers toidentify rising and waning influences in a given area. Future analyses of the most cited woksidentified here can help map the progression of theory development over the decades.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, it only included six journals. Public relations is an inter-disciplinary field, and public relations scholars tend to publish their works in other disciplines,including nonprofit, management, business, and other communication journals. Other scholarsmight want to expand the scope of coverage. Second, this study covers only peer-reviewed articlespublished in journals. Hicks (2004) argued that books shape a substantial part of publication insocial sciences, and they are often cited more frequently than other forms of publication. Therefore,the impact of books cannot be assumed to be null; several public-relations-specific books havemoved the field forward. It would be meaningful to conduct a citation analysis using references inbooks. Last, the analysis could not control for how specific works were cited. This would potentiallyshift the citation counts in this study.

As we have demonstrated, the field of public relations has matured and is large enough that otherscholars might want to consider conducting similar bibliometric analyses in a particular subfield ofpublic relations. Specifically, crisis management, relationship management, and new technologies area few new, key players in the field. Scholars in each of these areas should consider bibliometricanalyses to understand the state of each area. Finally, future comparisons between citations indifferent publications or groups of publications could reveal the genesis of particular theoreticalapproaches in term of geography (e.g., American vs. European journals) or professional orientation(e.g., academic vs. trade publications).

Overall, this study provided insights into the changes in the public relations field over the past30 years. It could help reshape how we think about public relations and provide a window into whatthe future of the discipline may hold.

Notes

1. See Ferguson (2018/1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178.

2. The three journals they analyzed were Public Relations Review, Journal of Public Relations Research, andJournalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. In 1992, Public Relations Research Annual was renamedJournal of Public Relations Research.

3. Pritchard (1969) invented the term bibliometrics and defined it as “the application of mathematics andstatistical methods to books and other media of communication” (p. 348).

4. The three journals used were Public Relations Review, Journalism Quarterly, and Journal of Public RelationsResearch (JPRR published as Public Relations Research Annual in 1990s).

5. In their study, academicians and practitioners were identified based on author affiliations. Those withacademic affiliations (e.g., academic title and/or name of university) were designated as academicians;

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 19

those with nonacademic affiliations (e.g., companies, public utilities, nonprofits) were designated aspractitioners.

6. The three journals analyzed were Public Relations Review, Journal of Public Relations Research, and Journalism& Mass Communication Quarterly.

7. Young scholars were those with assistant professor status whose academic career spanned only a few years.8. These three journals that were included in the two previous bibliometric analyses are referred to as the original

journals throughout this article.9. These three journals with more international perspective are referred to as the international journals in this

article.10. Although the JMCQ is not a public-relations-specific journal, we included public-relations-indexed articles

published in the journal for comparison with the previous two studies (Pasadeos et al., 1999, 2010).11. Because the most cited works display a similar pattern in the analysis of the original journals and in the analysis

of the six journals combined, we created one figure combining all of the six journals.12. The four stages of professional education and research development are as follows: The first stage is apprentice-

ship, in which a new practitioner is directly trained by an experienced practitioner; educational institution is thestage that an experienced practitioner teaches students in a group setting and knowledge is mainly descriptive;the research and analysis stage is when scholars conduct research and analysis of practices and ideas; the laststage, situation-bound research, is discovery of regularity in situational findings that turns into models andtheories. For a detailed explanation, see Grunig and Hickson (1976).

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the two anonymous reviewers and the editor, Bey-Ling Sha, who meticulously reviewedour manuscript and gave constructive feedback. Their comments significantly improved this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research inorganizational behavior (pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformationand transactional leadership styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(2), 157–183.

Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimate endeavors: Impression management strategies used by anorganization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61(1), 44–62.

Archambault, E., & Lariviere, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences andhumanities literature. In UNESCO (Ed.), World social science report 2009/2010 (pp. 251–254). Paris, France:Author.

Avery, E. J., Lariscy, R. W., Kim, S., & Hocke, T. (2010). A quantitative review of crisis communication research inpublic relations from 1991 to 2009. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 190–192.

Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). Practice of social research. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Barton, L. (1993). Crisis in organizations: Managing and communicating in the heat of chaos. Cincinnati, OH: South-

Western Publishing.Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2005). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on

consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany: State University of

New York Press.Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186.

doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0Benoit, W. L., & Pang, A. (2008). Crisis communication and image repair discourse. In T. Hansen-Horn & B. Dostal

Neff (Eds.), Public relations: From theory to practice (pp. 244–261). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Berger, B. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections of public relations, the dominant

coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5–28.Berger, B., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining influence in public relations: The role of resistance in practice. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Birth, G., Illia, L., Lurati, F., & Zamparini, A. (2008). Communicating CSR: Practices among Switzerland’s top 300companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(2), 182–196.

Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of InformationScience and Technology, 36, 3–72. doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102

Bornmann, L. M., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number ofpublications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11),2215–2222. doi:10.1002/asi.23329

Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002

Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (Eds.). (2006). Public relations theory II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661.Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses

social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37–43.Broom, G. M. (2006). An open-systems approach to building theory in public relations. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 18(2), 141–150. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_4Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization public relationships.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0902_01Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization–Public relationships. In

J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach tothe study and practice of public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Broom, G. M., & Sha, B. L. (2013). Cutlip and center’s effective public relations (11th ed.). Pearson, UK: Harlow.Broom, G. M., & Smith, G. D. (1979). Testing the practitioner’s impact on clients. Public Relations Review, 5(3), 47–59.Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product

responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction

evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 39–48.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration

of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85–95.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a

multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(7), 157–170. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80160-X

Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L., & Curtin, P. (1997). Public relations and the production of news: A critical review and a

theoretical framework. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 111–155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Cancel, A., Cameron, G., Sallot, L., & Mitrook, M. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory of accommodation in

public relations. Journal of Public Relations, 9(1), 31–63.Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions

about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 36–46.Choi, Y., & Lin, Y.-H. (2009). Consumer responses to the Mattel product recalls posted on online bulletin boards:

Exploring two types of emotion. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 198–207.Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications: Convention, complexity, and

critique. London, UK: Sage.Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance.

Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the appropriate

crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 447–476. doi:10.1177/0893318995008004003

Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of thesituation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177–191. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1003_02

Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of PublicRelations Research, 11(2), 125–142. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1102_02

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of

situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.Coombs, W. T. (2012). Crisis management: Advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning

(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management (pp. 73–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis

communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 279–295. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0804_04

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 21

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of thesituational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165–186. doi:10.1177/089331802237233

Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It’s not just PR: Public relations in society. Madison, MA: Blackwell.Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying

apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 252–257.Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis communication: Effects of media and

response strategies on perceptions and intentions. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 1–6.Coombs, T., & Schmidt, L. (2000). An empirical analysis of image restoration: Texaco’s racism crisis. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 12(2), 163–178.Cornelissen, J. P. (2004). Corporate communications: Theory and practice. London, UK: Sage.Curtin, P., & Gaither, T. K. (2005). Privileging identity, difference, and power: The circuit of culture as a basis for

public relations theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(2), 91–115.Curtin, P., & Gaither, T. K. (2007). International public relations: Negotiating culture, identity, and power. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.Cutlip, S. (1994). The unseen power: Public relations, a history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cutlip, S. (1995). Public relations history from the 17th to the 20th century. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (2005). Corporate social responsibility practices, corporate identity, and purchase

intention: A dual-process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 291–313.Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and

resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112.De Bakker, F. G., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005). A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory

on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Business & Society, 44(3), 283–317.doi:10.1177/0007650305278086

De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Lanham,Maryland: The Scarecrow Press.

Diga, M., & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decision-making power, and public relations roles.Public Relations Review, 35(4), 440–442.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationalityin organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, andimplications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992

Dozier, D. A. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In J. E. Grunig(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 327–355). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of PublicRelations Research, 7(1), 3–26.

Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (2006). The centrality of practitioner roles to public relations theory. In C. H. Botan &V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 137–170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and commu-nication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations activism,and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(3), 3–22. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1201_2

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): Therole of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x

Eagly, R. (1975). Economics journals as a communications network. Journal of Economic Literature, 13(3), 878–888.Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4),

51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.xEwen, S. (1996). PR!: A social history of spin. New York, NY: BasicBooks.Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication

technology. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 412–414.Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Paper presented at the

Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.Ferguson, M. A. (2018/1984). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 30(4), 164–178. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2018.1514810Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of

corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241–255.

22 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33(6), 233–258.

Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2014). Fame & fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations.Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Fu, H., Ho, Y., Sui, Y., & Li, Z. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of solid waste research during the period 1993–2008.

Waste Management, 30, 2410–2417. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.008Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine.Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Goldman, A. (1979). Publishing activity in marketing as an indicator of its structure and disciplinary boundaries.

Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 485–494. doi:10.2307/3150809Goodman, M. B., & Hirsch, P. B. (2010). Corporate communication: Strategic adoption for global practice. New York,

NY: Peter Lang.Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31

(5), 695–702.Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs, 3, 1–51.Grunig, J. E. (1976). Organizations and public relations: Testing a communication theory. Journalism Monographs, 46,

1–63.Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.Grunig, J., & Grunig, L. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in

public relations and communication management (pp. 312–320). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grunig, J. E., & Hickson, R. H. (1976). An evaluation of academic research in public relations. Public Relations Review,

2(2), 31–43. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(76)80013-6Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of

relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.),Public relations as a relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp.23–53). Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of

communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grunig, J., & Repper, F. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public

relations and communication management (pp. 117–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Grunig, J. E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public relations theory. In C. H. Botan & V.

Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 17–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2),

121–139.Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D.

Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 4–48). London,UK: International Thomson Publishing.

Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook ofpublic relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function.Journal of Public Relations Research,18, (2), 151–176. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1802_5

Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism, 6(2), 1–19.Grunig, L., Toth, E., & Hon, L. (2001). Women in public relations: How gender influences practice. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization?. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellent

public relations and communication management (pp. 65–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Boston,

MA: Beacon.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research,

11(3), 205–242. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1103_02Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues processes model. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 13(1), 27–59.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 23

Hallahan, K., Holzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication.International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. doi:10.1080/15531180701285244

Hamelman, P. W., & Mazze, E. W. (1973). Cross-referencing between AMA journals and other publications. Journal ofMarketing Research, 10, 215–218. doi:10.1177/002224377301000217

Hearit, K. H. (2006). Crisis management by apology: Corporate responses to allegations of wrongdoing. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Heath, R. L. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Heath, R. L. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations’ research directions. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114.Heath, R. L. (2009). The rhetorical tradition: Wrangle in the Marketplace. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer

(Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 17–47). New York, NY: Routledge.Heath, R. L., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). Today’s public relations: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Dormido, S. (2016). Virtual and remote

labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 98, 14–38. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010Hicks, D. M. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. Moed (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative sciences and

technology research (pp. 476–496). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Hiebert, R. E. (1966). Courtier to the crowd: The story of Ivy Lee and the development of public relations. Ames, IA:

Iowa State University Press.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors institutions, and organizations across nations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Holtzhausen, D. R. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93–114.Holtzhausen, D., & Roberts, G. (2009). An investigation into the role of image repair theory in strategic conflict

management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(2), 165–186.Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioner as

organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57–84.Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for

Public Relations.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multi-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61–90. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_4Hung, C. F. (2005). Exploring types of organization–Public relationships and their implications for relationship

management in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(4), 393–426.Hung, C. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How to cultivate quality

relationship?. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp.443–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimensions and domain of public relations. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 199–214.Hutton, J. G. (2010). Defining the relationship between public relations and marketing: Public relations’ most

important challenge. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. 509–522). Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publications.

Jin, Y. (2010). Emotional leadership as a key dimension of public relations leadership: A national survey of publicrelations leaders. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(2), 159–181.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.

Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry.Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 263–278.

Kelleher, T. (2009). Conversational voice, communicated commitment, and public relations in interactive onlinecommunication. Journal of Communication, 59, 172–188. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01410.x

Kelleher, T., & Miller, B. M. (2006). Organizational blogs and the human voice: Relational strategies and relationaloutcomes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 359–414. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00019.x

Kent, M. L. (2008). Critical analysis of blogging in public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 32–40.Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review,

24, 321–334. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-XKent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.

24 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and organizational respon-siveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29(1), 66–77. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00194-7

Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. (2007a). Reliability and validity of organization-public relationship measurement and linkagesamong relationship indicators in a membership organization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84,419–438. doi:10.1177/107769900708400302

Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. (2007b). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and behavioralintentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/10627260709336593

Ki, E.-J., & Nekmat, E. (2014). Situational crisis communication and interactivity: Usage and effectiveness of Facebookfor crisis management by fortune 500 companies. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 140–147. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.039

Kim, J.-N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problemsolving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain: A history of professional practice in the twentieth century. London, UK:

Lawrence Erlbaum.L’Etang, J. (2006). Public relations and propaganda: Conceptual issues, methodological problems and public relations

discourse. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 23–40).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

L’Etang, J. (2008). Writing PR history: Issues, methods and politics. Journal of Communication Management, 12(4),319–335.

L’Etang, J. (2011). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK: Sage.Lamme, M., & Russell, K. (2010). Removing the spin: Toward a new theory of public relations history. Journalism and

Communication Monographs, 11(4), 281–362.Lattimore, D., Baskin, O., Heiman, S. T., Toth, E. L., & Van Leuven, J. K. (2012). Public relations: The profession and

the practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Ledingham, J. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extending the relational theory of public relations.

Public Relations Review, 27(3), 285–295.Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198. doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1502_4Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an

organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9Ledingham, J. A. (2006). Relationship management: A general theory of public relations. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton

(Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 465–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to

the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Lee, B. K. (2004). Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication. Communication Research, 31(5), 600–618.Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Liu, B. F., Bartz, L., & Duke, N. (2016). Communicating crisis uncertainty: A review of the knowledge gaps. Public

Relations Review, 42(3), 479–487. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.03.003Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How non-profit organizations

are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 313–318.Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. (2012). Social media communication in organizations: The challenges of balancing

openness, strategy and management. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(4), 287–308.McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2),

176–187. doi:10.1086/267990McKie, D., & Munshi, D. (2007). Reconfiguring public relations. London, UK: Routledge.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the

principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. doi:10.2307/259247Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking public relations: PR propaganda and democracy. London, UK: Routledge.Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 58(3),

20–38.Morsing, M. (2006). Corporate moral branding: Limits to aligning employees. Corporate Communication: An

International Journal, 11(2), 97–108. doi:10.1108/13563280610661642Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response

and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 323–338. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x

Morton, L. P., & Lin, L. Y. (1995). Content and citation analyses of public relations review. Public Relations Review, 21(4), 337–349. doi:10.1016/0363-8111(95)90117-5

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 25

Newson, D., VanSlyke Turk, J., & Kruckeberg, D. (2013). This is PR the realities of public relations. Boston, MA:Wadsworth.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Park, H., & Reber, B. H. (2008). Relationship building and the use of web sites: How fortune 500 corporations use their

web sites to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 409–411.Park, H., & Reber, B. H. (2011). The organization-public relationship and crisis communication: The effect of the

organization-public relationship on publics’ perceptions of crisis and attitudes toward the organization.International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 240–260. doi:10.1080/1553118X.2011.596870

Pasadeos, Y., Berger, B., & Renfro, B. R. (2010). Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on researchnetworks. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(2), 136–158. doi:10.1080/10627261003601390

Pasadeos, Y., & Renfro, B. (1992). A bibliometric analysis of public relations research. Journal of Public RelationsResearch, 4(3), 167–187. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0403_03

Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, B., & Hanily, M. L. (1999). Influential authors and works of the public relations scholarlyliterature: A network of recent research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1), 29–52. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1101_02

Pompper, D. (2005). Difference’ in public relations research: A case for introducing critical race theory. Journal ofPublic Relations Research, 17(2), 139–169.

Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.Ramos-Rodriguez, A.-R., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management

research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25,981–1004. doi:10.1002/smj.397

Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2006). Finding influence: Examining the role of influence in public relations practice.Journal of Communication Management, 10(3), 235–249.

Reber, B. H., & Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms.Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 313–333. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1804_2

Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony?. Journal of PublicRelations Research, 17(1), 69–86.

Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companiesengage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004

Sallot, L., & Johnson, E. (2006). Investigating relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners: Worktogether to set, frame and build the public agenda, 1991–2004. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 151–159.

Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Jones, K. O. (2003). From aardvark to zebra: A new millennium analysisof theory development in public relations academic journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 27–90.doi:10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1501_2

Sandhu, S. (2009). Strategic communication: An institutional perspective. International Journal of StrategicCommunication, 3(2), 72–93.

Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Goritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis commu-nication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 20–27.

Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility within corporate commu-nications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: AnInternational Journal, 15(1), 9–29.

Seltzer, T., & Mitrook, M. (2007). The dialogic potential of weblogs in relationship building. Public Relations Review,33(2), 227–229.

Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and televisionnews. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporatesocial responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), 434–446. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838

Sha, B.-L. (2006). Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An emerging theory of intercultural public relations.Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 45–65.

Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. White Plains,NY: Longman.

Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks,California: Sage.

Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping. International MarketingReview, 33(3), 327–350. doi:10.1108/IMR-10-2014-034

Small, H. (2003). Paradigms, citations, and maps of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, 54(5), 394–399. doi:10.1002/asi.10225

Smith, M. F., & Ferguson, D. P. (2010). Activism 2. 0. In L. R. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (pp.395–408). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (2009). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY:Routledge.

26 E.-J. KI ET AL.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing groundedtheory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610.

Sturges, D. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 7(3), 297–316. doi:10.1177/0893318994007003004

Sweetser, K., & Metzgar, E. (2007). Communicating during crisis: Use of blogs as a relationship management tool.Public Relations Review, 33(3), 340–342. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.05.016

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization. Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ:Sage.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A contentanalysis of PRSA’s public relations tactics. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 207–214.

Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the internet to build relationships.Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284.

Taylor, M., & Perry, D. C. (2005). Diffusion of traditional and new media tactics in crisis communication. PublicRelations Review, 31(2), 209–217.

The Commission on Public Relations Education. (2006). The professional bond: Public relations education for the 21stcentury. Retrieved from: http://www.commpred.org/theprofessionalbond/

van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities bybibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6

van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London, UK: Prentice Hall.van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective

reputation management. London, UK: Routledge.Vercic, D., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1996). Global and specific principles of public relations: Evidence from

Slovenia. In H. M. Culbertson & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 31–66).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wang, J. (2006). Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited.Public Relations Review, 32(2), 91–96.

Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59(3), 273–283.

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: Hownonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychology Review, 92(4), 548–573.Wilcox, D., & Cameron, G. (2006). Public relations: Strategies and tactics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education/Allyn &

Bacon.Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher

Education.Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 758–769.Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization–Public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and

their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91–121.Yang, S. U., & Lim, J. S. (2009). The effects of blog-mediated public relations (BMPR) on relational trust. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 21(3), 341–359.Ye, L., & Ki, E.-J. (2012). The status of online public relations research: An analysis of published articles in 1992–2009.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(5), 409–434. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2012.723277Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zerfass, A., Ruler, A. A., van Rogojinaru, A., Vercic, D., & Hamrefors, S. (2007). European Communication Monitor

2007. Trends in communication management and public relations – Results and implications. Leipzig, Germany:University of Leipzig/Euprera.

Zoch, L. M., & Molleda, J.-C. J.-C. (2006). Building a theoretical model of media relations using framing, informationsubsidies and agenda building. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 279–309).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH 27