The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication

Derina Holtzhausen, Ansgar Zerfass, Derina Holtzhausen, Ansgar Zerfass

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781136207112
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Relaciones públicas

The Routledge Handbook of Strategic Communication provides a comprehensive review of research in the strategic communication domain and offers educators and graduate-level students a compilation of approaches to and studies of varying aspects of the field. The volume provides insights into ongoing discussions that build an emerging body of knowledge.

Focusing on the metatheoretical, philosophical, and applied aspects of strategic communication, the parts of the volume cover:

• Conceptual foundations,

• Institutional and organizational dimensions,

• Implementing strategic communication, and

• Domains of practice

An international set of authors contributes to this volume, illustrating the broad arena in which this work is taking place. A timely volume surveying the current state of scholarship, this Handbook is essential reading for scholars in strategic communication at all levels of experience.

Part I
Conceptual Foundations of Strategic Communication

---

1
Strategic Communication

Opportunities and Challenges of the Research Area¹

Derina Holtzhausen and Ansgar Zerfass

---

Strategic communication is a term that has become quite popular in communication science education in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Originally only used for a niche, that is, communication programs in the domain of national governments and the military (Farwell, 2012; Paul, 2011), it is now increasingly popular as an umbrella concept embracing various goal-directed communication activities usually covered by public relations, marketing and financial communications, health communications, public diplomacy, campaigning, and so forth. In the United States, many universities have merged formerly distinct public relations and advertising programs into strategic communication curricula. In Europe, strategic communication is often used to signal a managerial approach to the field of integrated communications for all kinds of organizations. In Asia and Australia, strategic communication is a concept used in the professional field, in education and in literature alike (e.g., Mahoney, 2013).

However, strategic communication is not just a term used in substitution for disliked or ill-reputed concepts. It is a distinct approach focusing on the process of communication which offers complementary insights and open up new fields for interdisciplinary research. This chapter will review the original definition (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, Van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007) and its expansion (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013). Subsequently it will reflect on those perspectives on the field’s theoretical foundation that have emerged over the past few years, and consider the factors that contribute to successful strategic communication practice.

Evolution of the Concept

Since the publication of the article “Defining Strategic Communication” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 243) in the inaugural issue of the International Journal of Strategic Communication, the definition put forward in that article has been used to explore, limit, argue, debate and study strategic communication. By the end of 2013 the article had been cited numerous times in other journal articles and had been downloaded more than 2,000 times. Not much has changed since 2007 in terms of the definition of strategic communication. However, much has been clarified and at this time a better picture emerges of what goes into a strategic communication process, what defines its success, what the impact is on the public sphere and what the commonalities are among different areas of strategic communication practice.

The 2007 article brought about an identity crisis, particularly in the public relations scholarly community, which has long held that strategic communication is its specific domain. This anxiety is unnecessary because the study of strategic communication has never been intended to replace other areas of practice but has merely tried to explore what the different communities of practice can learn from each other and so break down the silos we have erected around ourselves.

Four reasons why the study of strategic communication is necessary and prudent were provided in the 2007 article: problems in differentiating between traditional communication activities; the changes in technology that makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate between different forms of communication; the increase in methods organizations use to communicate directly to stakeholders; and the fact that purposeful communication is “the fundamental goal of communication by organizations” (Hallahan et al., 2007, p. 10).

There is indeed a great deal of overlap between the different domains of practice, as this volume shows, and many of the developments in the field of strategic communication have emerged from public relations scholars. On the other hand, scholars of advertising, political, health and crisis communication, public diplomacy, management communication and marketing have since 2007 made important contributions to researchers’ understanding of strategic communication.

Defining the Field

Hallahan et al. (2007) defined strategic communication “in its broadest sense, (as) communicating purposefully to advance (the organization’s) mission” (p. 4). They also held that strategic communication “implies that people will be engaged in deliberate communication practice on behalf of organizations, causes, and social movements” (p. 4). The article further elaborated on the concept of strategy and argued that being strategic does not necessarily mean being manipulative, because practitioners often decide that being inclusive and collaborative will be more strategic and effective than being propagandistic or manipulative. However, influencing the levels of knowledge, changing or maintaining attitudes and influencing the behaviors towards issues, products or services remain the preferred outcomes for strategic communication.

Yet another property of the first definition was a focus on practice or action and on the role of the practitioner who serves as an agent communicating on behalf of others. Thus, rather than merely concentrating on the strategic communication process it also focused on the factors that enable or prevent communicators to execute a communication plan. Finally, the article pointed to the importance of communication in the strategic communication process as opposed to a strategic organizational process that does not necessarily revolve around communication. The strategic communication process typically is a communication process that follows from an organization’s strategic plan and focuses on the role of communication in enabling the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. Two communication models were discussed. The transmission model followed from Shannon and Weaver (1949) and eventually evolved in discussions of two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical communication in public relations literature (L. A. Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). The interactive or ritualistic model of communication, following Carey (1989), has its foundation in symbolic interactionism and organizational communication and focuses on how messages and people themselves are shaped during the communication process.

This foundation remains largely intact at this time, although Holtzhausen and Zerfass (2013) proposed a more comprehensive, single definition incorporating most of the attributes above, with the inclusion of the public sphere. They proposed the following definition: “Strategic communication is the practice of deliberate and purposive communication that a communication agent enacts in the public sphere on behalf of a communicative entity to reach set goals” (p. 74). Following Holtzhausen (2008), communicative entities “cover the full spectrum of economic and social sectors, such as trade and industry, politics, nonprofit and government agencies, activist groups, and even celebrities in the sports and entertainment industries” (p. 4849). While strategic communicators indeed do a great deal of work outside of the public sphere, such as managing communication programs and communicating with internal stakeholders, the ultimate aim is to maintain a healthy reputation for the communicative entity in the public sphere.

Set against this more advanced definition, this chapter will review each of the attributes of the definition with the purpose of assessing previous and new theoretical approaches to the study of the field. First, it will review the philosophical foundations of strategic communication, particularly as they pertain to the public sphere, before moving to the role of practitioners and the organizational environment in which strategic communication is practiced, and finally to an assessment of the actual communication process in its various contexts.

Strategic Communication and the Public Sphere

The notion of control of public dialogue has always been inherent in the debate on the role of strategic communication. Habermas (1979, 2006) in particular has been critical of the ability of those in power to hire powerful agents to communicate on their behalf and so influence and skew public debate. His work was largely influenced by the reality that, at that time, the media were crucial in shaping and instigating public discourse, with the assumption that the media were neutral in this role and thus open to influence by strategic communicators.

Popular understanding of the public sphere has changed, particularly during the past decade, with the increasingly important role of the Internet, which brought a radical expansion of the public sphere and a marginalization of the major public media. While Bentele and Nothhaft (2010) argued the virtual sphere can only exist in a solid and real society that surrounds it, they also contended that

The dominant characteristic (of the public sphere) is that the communication sphere, to a degree, collapses structural constraints, such as time, distance, technical limitations, and physical handicaps of the person, to mention a few. The public sphere is not a place of gathering as the Tingstead any more (sic). Neither is it a force field of media attention constituted by a limited amount of actors. It is a network of points of interest. Something, e.g., a brand, the swine-flu, a politician or any other topic, is in the public sphere because communicators, who are points in the network of communications, communicate about it.

p. 112

They argued that the public sphere is now controlled by the truthfulness of the statements issued in the public communication sphere as perceived by the public. If strategic communicators can argue that their communication is in the public interest and contributes to the wellbeing of society, and if their arguments are accepted as such, they will make a contribution to the public sphere, even if they use their own communication platforms to do so.

In an analysis of the contribution of Dewey to the understanding of the public sphere, Self (2010) argued that Dewey believed discourse in the public sphere already was action, which was preserved in the form of shared meaning. Thus, for Dewey, discourse was already action that shaped the public sphere and subsequently society. Similar to Bentele and Nothhaft (2010), Self (2010) argued that the public became activists through participating in the public sphere, which eventually led to solving society’s problems. Whereas in the past the consequences of public deliberation, because of mediators, only vaguely reflected the public debate “now the relation between public communication and public action seems to grow more and more ominous” (Bentele & Nothhaft, 2010, p. 114).

What sets the current public sphere apart from that of the 20th century is that it is more participative rather than representative. There still are some major media who contribute to the public sphere but contribute here is the key word rather than mediate. Whereas the media was the main force in presenting different viewpoints representing society in the 20th century, digital media now allows members of the public to directly participate in public debate without going through these mediated channels. Thus the public sphere has become participative rather than representative. Now everybody matters in what is a communication sphere rather than a public sphere.

Public versus Private

To understand the role of strategic communication in the public sphere it is important to briefly review the difference between the public and the private, which also is called “The good Life” (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1984, pp. 229–230). Traditionally the public sphere was viewed as the arena where the wealthy, aristocratic and well-connected were expected to make a contribution. Women, peasants and tradespeople were typically excluded from the public sphere because they were viewed as second-class citizens who did not have the necessary competency, education and background to make decisions for themselves. Thus, the public sphere belonged to a very select group of people; it was a place where equals met, that is, the free and the privileged. This perspective led to the well-known quote that “The Personal is Political” (Hanisch, 1970), also often presented as “The private is political.”

Although this scenario has now changed with a public sphere that is more accessible to a variety of voices than ever before, it nonetheless highlights the split between the public and the private, which also frames the role of strategic communication in the public sphere. If strategic communicators are participants in the public sphere and the role of the public sphere is to solve society’s problems, they have a responsibility to present debatable issues to the public sphere. If not, their work will be ridiculed. Individuals who wish to manipulate the public sphere to their own benefit...