running head: rhetoric and resources · pdf filerhetoric and resources 3 rhetoric and...

Rhetoric and Resources 1

Preprinted version of article later published in Journal of Public affairs: Ihlen, Ø. (2002).

Rhetoric and resources: Notes for a new approach to public relations and issues management.

Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4) 259-269.

Running head: RHETORIC AND RESOURCES

Rhetoric and Resources:

Notes for a New Approach to Public Relations and Issues Management

By: Øyvind Ihlen


Abstract

This theoretical essay criticizes the dominant rhetorical approach to public relations and issues

management for not integrating symbolic and material dimensions. It is suggested that public

relations and issues management assist actors to pursue their interests with the help of symbolic

strategies and various types of resources or capital. By drawing on rhetorical and sociological

theories, the essay presents elements for a heuristic analytical device that has the potential to help

both the critic and the practitioner to get a better grasp of such processes.


Rhetoric and Resources:

Notes for a New Approach to Public Relations and Issues Management

This essay will follow up on and focus on some of the aspects that have been criticized

concerning the dominant rhetorical approach to public relations and issues management (e.g.,

Heath, 1997c, 2001a). For a descriptive analytical purpose, public relations might fruitfully be

defined as “the management of communication between an organization and its publics” (Grunig

& Hunt, 1984, p. 6). Issues management on the other hand, could be thought of as a foresight-

oriented, proactive part of public relations (Heath, 1997c). As both areas involve purposeful,

symbolic communication, application of rhetorical theory is valuable in analyzing its strategies.

The essay, however, suggests that rhetorical theory must be supplemented by sociological theory

that pays attention to resources. Thus the essay goes some way to tackle an issue brought up in

the literature: “the future of issues management resides in the distribution of power resources”

(Heath, 1997c, p. 367).

Many of the writings on rhetorical theory and public relations/organizations are faulted

for their lack of discussions of rhetoric and rhetorical concepts (Toth, 1999; Cheney &

Christensen, 2001). A further problem which most of the studies share is that they seldom

contain broad-based, concrete advice for empirical analysis. Although some notable exceptions

exist (e.g., Mickey, 1995; Hearit, 2001; Skerlep, 2001), too often the studies concentrate on

meta-theoretical questions and are satisfied merely to indicate the potential that rhetorical theory

has. Many empirical studies often concentrate on a few selected rhetorical concepts, or they have

an intrinsic character that contributes little to theory building. The essay addresses this problem

by presenting elements for a heuristic analytical device drawing on both rhetorical and

sociological theory.


The dominant rhetorical approach

Robert L. Heath has advocated what has become the dominant “global” rhetorical

approach to public relations and issues management (e.g., Heath, 1980; Heath & Nelson, 1986;

Heath, 1989, 1992b, 1993, 1997c, 1997a, 1997b, 2000, 2001a). That it is the dominant rhetorical

paradigm is evident by, for instance, the prominent position it enjoys in the state-of-the-art work

Handbook of Public Relations, which, to be sure, is edited by Heath (Heath, 2001b).

In rhetoric, Heath sees the possibility of an ethical and pragmatic practice. In keeping

with ancient rhetoric (e.g. Quintilian, 1920/1996), he proposes that the “paradigm for public

relations is the good organization communicating well” (Heath, 2001a, p. 39). Rhetoric is seen as

an interactive dialogical and symmetrical process, which is ethical because it is public and

assumes a dialectic. Even when self-interest is the driving force of an organization, this is

thought to be tempered by the response of the audience--be it other stakeholders or the media.

The underlying assumption is that “no entity can manipulate others forever, if at all,” and thus,

this rhetorical approach is in line with a symmetrical view of public relations (Heath, 1993, p.

143). A public relations practitioner will have to advocate not only the needs of the organization,

but also the needs, concerns, and point of view of the publics.

At the core of this approach is the liberal concept of a marketplace where ideas are put to

the test and the superior ones prevail. Bad ideas and ones that are narrowly self-interested will

supposedly not withstand the public scrutiny of the media and counter-advocates (Heath, 2000,

2001a). In fact, it is said that the debate resulting from advocacy and counter-advocacy can

potentially lead to clearer vision. There is thus no point in condemning rhetoric that has the

potential to protect “any hegemonic expression of community. … The answer to that problem is

to let rhetoric run free, to champion each voice’s opportunity to express views that challenge


other views of community” (Heath, 2000, p. 84). Even so, states Heath, it is crucial that the

rhetoric be critically investigated for standards of truth and knowledge, for its values and

perspectives, and for quality of narrative form (Heath, 1992b).

Nonetheless--and here comes the main criticism--this rhetorical approach fails to account

for how rhetoric works in “real life.” In Heath’s marketplace, all ideas are seen as running the

risk of being ignored or challenged, and big corporations are thought to be disadvantaged

because of their size and questionable credibility (Heath, 1992a). As an illustration, Heath points

to the success of anti-smoking advocates, which he suggests have prevailed in the end despite

being up against an industry with vast resources.

If deep-pockets spending is a fact and if rhetorical manipulation works to the exclusive

advantage of corporations, how can we account for the increasingly tight regulations that

have been placed on myriad corporate activities in this century? (Heath, 1992a, p. 318)

This is of course a timely question and serves to illustrate the complexity of the issue. Public

interest groups are generally regarded as more credible than self-interested industries, and

sometimes such groups might point out indisputable cases of industry-caused damage (Condit &

Condit, 1992). Consumer and other such groups have also acquired media relations-skills, and

this has restored the balance somewhat (Heath, 1997a). This, however, does not automatically

prove the existence of a properly functioning open marketplace of ideas. A better metaphor

might be that of a “supermarket of images in which large establishments offer their customers a

limited number of brands promoted by a few social leviathans” (Sproule, 1988, p. 484). Since the

question of material existence has no role in this rhetorical approach, the ontological dimension

seems at best underdeveloped (Cheney & Christensen, 2001). There is an over-optimistic faith in

the marketplace, and the question of deep pockets is too easily dismissed. By pointing to stronger


industry regulation, the argument runs that it is the good rhetoric that prevails, and resources

don’t matter. However, this sounds too much like the old false dichotomy: if it is not black, it

surely must be white. It would also be easy to cite examples that counter the one used by Heath,

that is, examples of how corporations have managed to avoid tight regulations, and how they

seem to increase their power. The globalization process in general yields an abundance of

examples of how large corporations increase their power on behalf of politicians and citizens.

The argument from Heath, as quoted above, hinges on the word “exclusive.” The important thing

though, is that rhetoric does not function exclusively on behalf of any one group in society. A

much more complex relationship can be envisioned: Rhetoric and resources exert varying

influence in different circumstances at different levels of society for different organizations.

Theory about public relations and issues management has to come to grips with this, and this

gives a reason to look beyond the current dominant approach. First, however, it is worth

revisiting the rhetorical tradition.

Tools from the rhetorical tradition

Definitions of rhetoric abound, and they often differ in their views of the aim of rhetoric:

Is it to convince or to persuade? Many authors insist that rhetoric involves both reason and

emotion, that it attempts both to convince and persuade (Fafner, 1977/1989; Corbett & Connors,

1999). In keeping with this view, rhetoric might usefully be defined as, “the energy inherent in

emotion and thought transmitted through a system of signs, including language, to others to

influence their decisions or actions” (Kennedy, 1991, p. 7).

Attempting to present an overview of the whole rhetorical tradition would be daunting,

especially within the confines of a single paper; still, there are some questions, inspired by

classical rhetoric (e.g., Quintilian, 1920/1996; Aristotle, 1991; Cicero, 2001), that can usefully be


asked:

1. What ethical appeals does the text make? Ethos is the first, and for Aristotle, the

“controlling factor in persuasion” (Aristotle, 1991, 1.2.4). It has to do with the character of the

rhetor: does he or she strike the audience as trustworthy? Does the author seem intelligent, to be

of good moral character? Does he or she show goodwill towards the audience? Is the text of an

appropriate style, given the occasion and the audience?

2. What emotional appeals does the text make? Pathos has to do with awakening the

feelings of the audience. Appeals to human emotions are “based on the assumption that human

beings share similar kinds of emotional responses to events” (Crowley & Hawhee, 1999, p. 148).

Does the text contain vivid descriptions, honorific or pejorative words; is it respectful or

disrespectful?

3. What logical appeals does the text make, and are they valid? To apply logos is to use

arguments to show that something is probable, either through inductive or deductive reasoning.

The rhetor either provides examples or uses an incomplete syllogism, an enthymeme, where the

audience has to add the unstated premise. The latter process can have “the psychological effect

of pleasing listeners by appealing to their intelligence and can help to bring listeners into

identification with the speaker” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 84).

4. What common topics are used? Topics can be thought of as a general method to find

arguments. Does the rhetor use definition, comparison, relationship, circumstance, or testimony

to makes his or her points (see Corbett & Connors, 1999)?

5. What special topics are used? Special topics belong to specific arts and sciences, for

instance, law, politics, or ceremonial speech.

Similarly, the text might be confronted with questions that use newer writers, such as


Kenneth Burke (e.g., Burke, 1945/1969, 1950/1969, 1961/1970). Roderick P. Hart has suggested

the following list drawing on Burke’s work (Hart, 1997):

1. How does the text suggest identification with its audience? People can only be

persuaded if you can identify your ways with the audience’s (Burke, 1950/1969). Important

questions are: whether the text tries to establish a common ground between the rhetor and the

audience; whether it plays up an antithesis—a common enemy of the rhetor and the audience; or

whether it uses a “transcendent we” that includes both the rhetor and the audience (Burke,

1972)?

2. What is considered the foreground and the background ratio in the text? The analyst

first has to identify what the rhetor regards as the scene, agent, act, agency, or purpose (Burke,

1945/1969). Next, the question is which of these terms dominate the others, and which pairing of

the terms (ratio) is the most important? For instance, an act might be explained from the agent’s

purpose (a purpose:act ratio), but it might also be understood in light of the context or scene (a

scene:act ratio). Such a pentadic analysis focuses on how patterns in discourse, “index, construct

and embody motives” (Stillar, 1998, p. 63). The choices the rhetor makes when he or she

describes a situation indicate what perspective the rhetor has, what possibilities he or she sees,

and what he or she eventually will do.

3. Does the text have any principles of hierarchy, and if so, how are values assigned?

What is “good” and what is “bad”? Hierarchy sets up ideals that are possible to strive for, such as

being the best police officer or a criminal mastermind. Burke uses the Aristotelian concept of

entelechy to state that we all strive to achieve the perfection that the top of our “chosen”

hierarchy represents. In his poetic manner, Burke states that humans are “goaded by the spirit of

hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order) / and rotten with perfection” (Burke, 1966, p. 16).


4. Does the text suggest any strategies of transcendence? Does it show how unmet needs

can be met? Rhetoric can be used to tell people why they should strive, and thus provide a

qualitative dimension. It might be seen as a bridging device that lets people transcend their

division or separateness (Burke, 1937/1984).

5. Does the text contain elements of scapegoat processes? The existence of hierarchies

leads to a feeling of guilt. To eliminate the guilt and obtain redemption you can: a) scapegoat

others—claim it was somebody else’s fault or state that the circumstances were out of your

control; or, b) scapegoat yourself—engage in mortification or self-sacrifice (Brock, 1980/1990).

Other modern writers have also proved helpful in analyzing rhetorical strategies in public

relations. Andrej Skerlep (Skerlep, 2001) has, for instance, turned to Stephen E. Toulmin and his

analysis of argument (e.g., Toulmin, 1958). Here, the following questions based on the works of

Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrecths-Tyteca (e.g., Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969/1971;

Perelman, 1982) is suggested:

1. From what premises does the rhetor seem to operate? Are they related to reality, that is,

are they facts or truths that do not demand that the rhetor increase the intensity of adherence

(Perelman, 1979)? Are the premises related to presumptions where no absolute adherence exists,

and hence the rhetor must attempt to strengthen the adherence at key points? Or, are the premises

related to what is preferable: objects of agreement that only hold the adherence of a particular

audience, such as values, hierarchies of values (humans over animals, etc.), or loci of the

preferable (appeals to quantity, appeals to quality, etc.)?

2. How does the rhetor attempt to create presence in his or her rhetoric? By choosing

certain elements for presentation, the rhetor draws attention to them, and thereby gives them

presence. A skilled rhetor has several techniques with which to achieve this, including repetition,


accumulation of detail, accentuation of particular passages (Perelman, 1982).

3. What association techniques are evident in the argumentation? Association techniques

should be understood as “schemes which bring separate elements together and allow us to

establish a unity among them, which aims either at organizing them or at evaluating them,

positively or negatively, by means of one another” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969/1971, p.

190). Does the rhetor use quasi-logical arguments that resemble the formal reasoning of logic?

Does the rhetor base his or her arguments on the structure of reality, such as by applying

relations of succession or coexistence? Does the rhetor use arguments that try to establish the

structure of reality, for instance through inductive reasoning?

4. Does the rhetor attempt to use dissociation techniques? Dissociation techniques are

“techniques of separation which have the purpose of dissociating, separating, disuniting elements

which are regarded as forming a whole or at least a unified group within some system of thought:

dissociation modifies such a system by modifying certain concepts which make up its essential

parts” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969/1971, p. 190). Dissociation is the attempt to remove

an incompatibility that arises from confrontation between propositions. One idea is split in two in

order to avoid an incompatibility. The prototype of dissociation is the appearance/reality pair,

which can be found directly or indirectly in all dissociations (Perelman, 1982). One discriminates

between appearances that are merely “appearance” and those that represent “reality.”

These are some very brief examples of questions that might be asked of a text with the help

of ancient and modern understandings of rhetoric. Readers must refer to the original sources for

further explanations of the concepts sketched out. It is obvious that the above lists are not

exhaustive, indeed cannot be, and their presentation must not be read as an attempt to reduce the

inherent richness of qualitative analysis to a single-tracked cookie-cutter methodology. Rather,


the lists provide examples and serve as starting points for analyses that will necessarily end up

concentrated on only a few of these concepts. Not all of the above questions will be relevant for

grasping the characteristics of a particular text or a particular rhetorical strategy.

A further caution is that these concepts have an individualistic basis, and might have to

be modified to be applied in an organizational context. Generally, the following considerations

have to be made (Sproule, 1988):

First, the studied rhetors are often organizations or representatives of organizations, not

single speakers. The organizational message can have an unclear author or origin. The self or the

individual is often de-centered, the acting subject is absent, and passive voices are preferred. It is

not only the ethos of individual persons that must be accounted for; rather, whole structures and

social processes have to be dealt with. Further, the purpose of an organization might differ from

that of the individual in many situations. Given a crisis, the organization will try to satisfy

stakeholders, whereas individuals might be more concerned about personal safety, for example

(Cheney, 1991).

A second point is that modern rhetors use a variety of media, and the research object

comprises not only speeches, but text in the broad sense. Scholars have examined, for instance,

annual reports (Conrad, 1992), trade journals (Measell, 1992), and promotional material

(Dionisopoulos & Goldzwig, 1992). Rhetoric distributed by the mass media is also included.

Although journalists filter this text, what is stated by or about an organization becomes part of

the rhetorical debate (Toth, 1992). The choice of channel will also influence the message and

constrain it in radical new ways. For instance, to obtain coverage in the mass media, details and

connections otherwise required might have to be suppressed (Cheney, 1991).

Third, by way of the mass media, modern rhetors also reach a mass audience. Rhetors


lack direct contact with this audience, and hence cannot obtain immediate reactions from it.

Furthermore, the audience is more diverse--far more so--when the rhetor is an organization. A

multiple audience will also have multiple organizational identifications. This is a problem for the

organization when a strategy designed to communicate with one group of stakeholders, alienates

others (Crable, 1990; Ice, 1991; Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998).

The rhetorical activity of an organization might be fruitfully analyzed with the use of the

above concepts and tools, but such an analysis should also pay close attention to the context, the

topic of the next section.

Tools from sociological theory

Sociological theorists regularly draw attention to resources in order to explain

relationships; some even take issue with what they perceive as a tendency to perceive the

symbolic as a separate domain and calls for inclusion of material and ideal interests in analytical

endeavors (e.g., Miller, 2002). Indeed, some studies of public relations and the media also focus

on the influence of resources (e.g., Schlesinger & Tumber, 1994; Davis, 2000). Resources come

into play in a number of different ways for public relations and issues management: To be able to

hire or employ expertise and establish a significant presence in the public arena over time

generally requires resources, and to roll out a large-scale campaign costs money. When an

organization has a large, competent public relations staff this increases the likelihood of properly

managing the organization’s relations to its environment. The best-connected and most

knowledgeable personnel can be thought of as commodities, and that the highest bidder often

walks away with them should come as no surprise. In an organizational context, the economy of

an organization is a conditioning factor that also should be highlighted. Inspiration to extend the

analysis in this direction can be found in parts of the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, notably that


concerning field and capital (e.g., 1994/1998):

A field is regarded as a structured arrangement of positions, where the positions and their

relationships with each other are determined by the type and amount of capital. Bourdieu

distinguishes between economic capital (money, property, etc.), cultural capital (knowledge,

skills, and its/their presentation), symbolic capital (prestige, honor, etc. and its presentation), and

social capital (connections, membership in a group) (Bourdieu, 1986, 1991). At the root of all

these types of capital is the economic, although they cannot be entirely reduced to this. Bourdieu

stresses that one has to go beyond both the notion of economism and the notion that social

exchanges are reducible to phenomena of communication:

It is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world

unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form recognized

by economic theory. (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 242)

A leading motive of the individuals in the field is the knowing or unknowing pursuit of interests,

be they economic, cultural, symbolic, or social. Capital is decisive in this respect. The field is the

site of the continuous struggle of individuals to maintain or alter the distribution of capital, or

convert the type of capital. The task of the researcher then is to expose this logic of competing

interests in a field and the conflicts they generate. This can only be done by plunging “into the

particularity of an empirical reality, historically located and dated, but with the objective of

constructing it as a ‘special case of what is possible’” (Bourdieu, 1994/1998, p. 2). Public

relations and issues management can be seen as practices that assist actors in particular fields in

their struggle to pursue their interests with the help of symbolic strategies and various types of

resources.

Bourdieu is indeed referred to in some papers on public relations (e.g., Hazelton Jr. &


Kennan, 2000). Here, however, the focus has been solely on social capital and its proposed

structural, communication, and relational dimensions. Further, no connections to rhetoric or

other types of capital are made. Instead, it is possible to seek inspiration from researchers of the

sociology of journalism who have focused on the strategic work of sources. Philip Schlesinger

has, for instance, pointed out how sources can be seen as competing for access to the media and

for symbolic dominance in this field (Schlesinger, 1990; Schlesinger & Tumber, 1994).

Schlesinger et al. denounce the notion that some sources are predetermined as primary definers

(e.g., Hall, Critcher, Jefferson, Clarke, & Roberts, 1978). The work of the sources should rather

be seen as a continual struggle to mobilize unequally distributed resources. The ability groups

have to access the media is influenced by factors such as, “group size, geographical location,

news-management skills, expert knowledge, and finance,” as these influence the credibility

journalists ascribe to a would-be source (Goldenberg, 1975, as cited in Schlesinger & Tumber,

1994).

When presenting a model of source activity, Schlesinger says attention should be paid to

the following aspects:

Resources are seen as coming into play, first, in the way a source is institutionalized.

Institutionalization bestows legitimacy and credibility. Further, if there is some form of

permanent activity, this most often leads to the routinization of public relations. A concrete

example from the Norwegian environmental field is how an ad hoc-group fighting the

construction of a specific hydro power plant got comparatively less coverage than older and

more established environmental organizations (Ihlen, 2001b).

Second, the financial base of the source should be taken into account. How much is the

source willing or able to invest in media relations? Even in a free market system, free speech can


only be effective if the actors can establish a substantial presence, and this most often requires

resources, often of the financial kind (Rakow, 1989; Condit & Condit, 1992; Coombs, 1993). Is

the source able to supply what Oscar Gandy has called “information subsidies,” that is, press

packages, press releases, and other tools to facilitate journalists’ writing up of stories (Gandy,

1980)? What kinds of investments are made in media strategies? Do the sources have the ability

to hire expertise from public relations agencies?

A third factor is another Bourdieu notion, namely that of cultural capital. Cultural capital

is here understood as “legitimacy, authoritativeness, respectability and the contacts which these

bring” (Schlesinger, 1990, p. 81). An organization’s location in the institutional field will

influence its cultural capital; that is, journalists will take official sources seriously.

The picture, however, is complex. The position and the amount of media coverage that

relatively resource-poor environmental organizations have secured over the years is a case in

point. Public relations has in general, at least according to Aeron Davis, given rise to two

conflicting trends (Davis, 2000). On the one hand, already powerful sources have used public

relations to consolidate their privileged access. On the other hand, alternative sources have also

been able to utilize public relations to gain media access. Public relations, or at least media

relations, are relatively cheap and bound up in the cost of labor--something that even poor

volunteer organizations could theoretically accommodate. A steady accumulation of this type of

social capital, by slowly establishing positive media profiles, may go some way to overcoming

traditional institutional advantages. Thus, public relations offers far greater potential for non-

official sources than previously acknowledged. In fact, it can be argued that the dissemination of

professional public relations has potential to broaden, rather than restrict, media access for non-

official source groups.


An important point to bear in mind, however, is that this focus on public relations and the

media might lead to an overemphasis of the importance of the latter. First of all, media research

has shown how there is no one-to-one relationship between either media content on the one hand,

and public attitudes on the other. Even for the so-called agenda-setting hypothesis, results are

divergent, and the causal direction has been questioned and a new perspective has emerged

which sees the process as transactional (McCombs & Shaw, 1993; Dalton, Beck, Huckfeldt, &

Koetzle, 1998; Ihlen, 2001a). Further, as empirical data shows, having “won” in the media arena

does not guarantee the outcome of a political debate (Cracknell, 1993; Ihlen, 2001b). Therefore,

some caution researchers not to equate definitional power with political and economic power,

and remind the research community to look beyond the headlines and front pages to see what the

coverage actually results in (Miller, 2002). Using the vocabulary of Bourdieu, one has to look to

other fields besides the one constituted by the media and its sources in order to grasp the

significance of public relations. For instance, what influence does public relations have in the

political field, in research communities, or in the bureaucratic field?

Drawing together the above sources, questions for an empirical analysis might be

grouped like this:

1. Institutionalization: What human resources does the organization have? How large is

the administration? How many members or employees does the organization have? How many

have been specifically engaged in public relations work? How does this compare to similar

organizations or competitors?

2. Economic capital: What budget does the organization have? How much of the budget

is channeled towards public relations? Does the organization have sufficient means to supply

information subsidies? Does the organization have sufficient means to engage external public


relations expertise? How does the organization compare in this regard to similar organizations or

competitors?

3. Cultural capital: How is public relations knowledge represented? How many years

have its public relations personnel worked in this field? Do the personnel have any kind of public

relations education or experience from similar organizations? How does this compare to the

expertise possessed by similar organizations or competitors? What rhetorical techniques are used

to communicate the cultural capital?

4. Symbolic capital: What kind of prestige is associated with the organization? What kind

of legitimacy does the organization enjoy? How does this compare to the symbolic capital

possessed by similar organizations or competitors? What rhetorical techniques are used to

express the symbolic capital?

5. Social capital: What connections does the organization have to politicians, to

journalists, to bureaucrats, to researchers? How do these connections compare to those possessed

by similar organizations or competitors?

A combined approach

The main proposition in this essay is that an approach to public relations and issues

management should be grounded in a notion of several fields where actors compete to get their

issues discussed and defined with the help of both rhetoric and various types of resources. The

following closely linked dimensions should be paid attention to:

First, the rhetoric of the actors has to be analyzed. Ancient as well as modern rhetorical

theory can assist in determining, for example, what ethical, emotional and logical appeals are

being made, what topics are being drawn on, what identification strategies are being used, what

premises the rhetor is attempting to create, and what association and dissociation techniques are


being used.

Second, the issue of resources, or the context of the rhetorical activities, has to be

considered. This involves looking at the degree of institutionalization of the organization, and its

economic, cultural, symbolic, and social capital. As regards the necessary expression of cultural

and symbolic capital, rhetorical tools become crucial for the analysis.

The elements for a heuristic analytical device outlined above is a good starting point for

the critic who wants to understand the practice. Similarly it is something that helps the manager

to analyze his or her organization and competitors, and plan public relations and issues

management taking into account both rhetoric and resources. The potential strength of the

approach is the implied broad expansion of traditional rhetorical analysis beyond the mere

positing of a rhetorical ideal for public relations and issues management. Nonetheless, further

theoretical concretization and careful empirical analysis is called for in order to test the

credibility of such an approach.


References

Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.).

Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Bourdieu, P. (1994/1998). Practical reason. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Brock, B. L. (1980/1990). Rhetorical criticism: A Burkeian approach. In B. L. Brock & R. L.

Scott & J. W. Chesebro (Eds.), Methods of Rhetorical Criticism (pp. 348-360). Detroit,

MI: Wayne State University Press.

Burke, K. (1937/1984). Attitudes towards history (3 ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Burke, K. (1945/1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1961/1970). Rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology. Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1972). Dramatism and development. MA: Clark University Press.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities.

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Public relations as contested terrain: A critical


response. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 167-182). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cicero. (2001). On the ideal orator (J. M. May & J. Wisse, Trans.). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Condit, C. M., & Condit, D. M. (1992). Smoking OR health: Incremental erosion as a public

interest group strategy. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations (pp. 241-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Conrad, C. (1992). Corporate communication and control. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.),

Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 187-204). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Coombs, W. T. (1993). Philosophical underpinnings: Ramifications of a pluralist paradigm.

Public Relations Review, 19(2), 111-119.

Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4 ed.). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Crable, R. E. (1990). "Organizational rhetoric" as the fourth great system: Theoretical, critical,

and pragmatic implications. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 18(2), 115-

128.

Cracknell, J. (1993). Issue arenas, pressure groups and environmental agendas. In A. Hansen

(Ed.), The mass media and environmental issues (pp. 3-21). Leicester, UK: Leicester

University Press.

Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1999). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (2 ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., Huckfeldt, R., & Koetzle, W. (1998). A test of media-centered agenda


setting: Newspaper content and public interests in a presidential election. Political

Communication, 15, 463-481.

Davis, A. (2000). Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the

British national media. Media, Culture & Society, 22(1), 39-59.

Dionisopoulos, G. N., & Goldzwig, S. (1992). The atomic power industry and the "NEW"

Woman. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public

relations (pp. 205-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fafner, J. (1977/1989). Retorik: Klassisk og moderne [Rhetoric: Classic and modern].

Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag.

Gandy, O. (1980). Information in health: Subsidised news. Media, Culture & Society, 2, 103-

115.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis:

Mugging, the State, and law and order. London: Macmillan.

Hart, R. P. (1997). Modern rhetorical criticism (2 ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hazelton Jr., V., & Kennan, W. (2000). Social capital: Reconceptualizing the bottom line.

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5(2), 81-86.

Hearit, K. M. (2001). Corporate apologia: When an organization speaks in defense of itself. In R.

L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 501-511). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (1980). Corporate advocacy: An application of speech communication perspectives

and skills–and more. Communication Education, 29, 370-377.

Heath, R. L. (1989). Corporate issues management: Theoretical underpinnings and research


foundations. Public Relations Research Annual, 2.

Heath, R. L. (1992a). Epilogue: Visions of critical studies in public relations. In E. L. Toth & R.

L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 315-319).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (1992b). The wrangle in the marketplace: A rhetorical perspective of public

relations. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to

public relations (pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L. (1993). Toward a paradigm for the study and practice of public relations: A

rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogative. Public Relations

Review, 19(2), 141-155.

Heath, R. L. (1997a). Consumerism: Advocacy in the interest of consumers. In J. D. Hoover

(Ed.), Corporate advocacy: Rhetoric in the information age (pp. 148-169). Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Heath, R. L. (1997b). Legitimate ‘perspectives’ in public relations practice: A rhetorical solution.

Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 55-63.

Heath, R. L. (1997c). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heath, R. L. (2000). A rhetorical perspective on the values of public relations: Crossroads and

pathways toward concurrence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 69-92.

Heath, R. L. (2001a). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good

organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations

(pp. 31-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (Ed.). (2001b). Handbook of public relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Heath, R. L., & Nelson, R. A. (1986). Issues management: Corporate public policymaking in an

information society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbide's Bhopal

crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3), 341-362.

Ihlen, Ø. (2001a). Medier, miljø og påvirkning [Media, environmental issues, and effects].

Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 42(1), 65-88.

Ihlen, Ø. (2001b). Miljømakt og journalistikk: Retorikk og regi [Environmental power and

journalism: Rhetoric and direction]. In M. Eide (Ed.), Til dagsorden! Journalistikk, makt

og demokrati [To the agenda! Journalism, power and democracy] (pp. 304-328). Oslo,

Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.

Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Introduction to Aristotle's On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A.

Kennedy, Trans.) (pp. 3-22). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, G. A. (1999). Classical rhetoric & its Christian & secular tradition: From ancient to

modern times. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The Evolution of Agenda Setting Research: Twenty-

Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-67.

Measell, J. S. (1992). Trade associations: Whose voice? Whose vice? In E. L. Toth & R. L.

Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations (pp. 225-240).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mickey, T. J. (1995). Sociodrama: An interpretive theory for the practice of public relations.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Miller, D. (2002). Media power and class power: Overplaying ideology. Socialist Register 2002,

246-265.


Perelman, C. (1979). The new rhetoric and the humanities: Essays on rhetoric an its

applications. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.

Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of

Notre Dame Press.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969/1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on

argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). London: University of Notre Dame.

Quintilian. (1920/1996). Institutio oratoria: Books I-XII (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Rakow, L. F. (1989). Information and power. In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Information campaigns:

Balancing social values and social change (pp. 164-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schlesinger, P. (1990). Rethinking the sociology of journalism: Source strategies and the limits

of media-centrism. In M. Ferguson (Ed.), Public communication: The new imperatives:

Future directions for media research (pp. 61-83). London: Sage.

Schlesinger, P., & Tumber, H. (1994). Reporting crime: The media politics of criminal justice.

Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis.

Communication Yearbook, 21, 231-275.

Skerlep, A. (2001). Re-evaluating the role of rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies

of corporate discourse. Journal of Communication Management, 6(2), 176-187.

Sproule, J. M. (1988). The new managerial rhetoric and the old criticism. Quarterly Journal of

Speech, 74, 468-486.

Stillar, G. F. (1998). Analyzing everyday texts: Discourse, rhetoric and social perspectives.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Toth, E. L. (1992). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical, and

systems perspectives. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations (pp. 3-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Toth, E. L. (1999). Public relations and rhetoric: History, concepts, future. In D. Moss & D.

Vercic & G. Warnaby (Eds.), Perspectives on public relations research (pp. 121-144).

London: Routledge.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. London: Cambridge University Press.

running head: rhetoric and resources · pdf filerhetoric and resources 3 rhetoric and...

Documents