Power, Diversity and Public Relations

Lee Edwards

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135088071
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Business
• Categoria: Business General

Power, Diversity and Public Relations addresses the lack of diversity in PR by revealing the ways in which power operates within the occupation to construct archetypal practitioner identities, occupational belonging and exclusion. It explores the ways in which the field is normatively constructed through discourse, and examines how the experiences of practitioners whose ethnicity and class differ from the 'typical' PR background, shape alternative understandings of the occupation and their place within it.

The book applies theoretical perspectives ranging from Bourdieuvian and occupational sociology to postcolonial and critical race theory, to a variety of empirical data from the UK PR industry. Diversity emerges as a product of the dialectics between occupational structures, norms and practitioners' reactions to those constraints; it follows that improving diversity is best understood as an exercise in democracy, where all practitioner voices are heard, valued, and encompass the potential for change.

This insightful text will be essential reading for researchers and students in Public Relations, Communications, Media Studies, Promotional Industries, as well as all scholars interested in the sociology of race and work relations.

1 Introduction

This book addresses the intransigent problem of improving the level of diversity in public relations. Since at least the early 1990s, the lack of diversity in the field has been recognized by academics and the need to broaden the range of people entering PR has been a regular, if minor theme for research. Practitioners too, have been prompted by legislative and social change to consider how they might open up their doors to people from a wider set of backgrounds and treat them equitably once they are included. ‘Ethnic’ communications has emerged as a PR specialism, with an increasing number of consultancies, and divisions within consultancies, set up to cater to the need to communicate with diverse communities (Weber Shandwick, 2007; Bourne, 2003).

However, this apparent integration has its limits. Ethnic communication is rarely integrated into mainstream PR strategies, and is instead treated as an adjunct to campaigns that take whiteness as the benchmark reference for messages and tactics (Bourne, 2003). Black, Asian and other minority ethnic (BAME) practitioners still only comprise 7 per cent of the industry (Wyatt, 2013), a significant under-representation given that the majority of the PR industry is located in London, where 40 per cent of the population is from non-white ethnic minority communities (Office for National Statistics, 2012). Informal and formal class distinctions remain a defining characteristic of the occupation, and while women dominate the occupation overall, men are still paid more and reach disproportionately higher levels of seniority (Wyatt, 2013; Edwards, 2008). In other words, PR is still very much an ethnically stratified industry, and is also marked by gender and class distinctions that are reminiscent of the advantageous subjectivities that men and members of the middle and upper class in the United Kingdom have historically enjoyed. Consequently, while BAME practitioners may be sought after as evidence of improved occupational diversity, or as a resource to connect with a valuable market, they remain ‘outsiders-within’ (Hill-Collins, 1990) the occupational field.

How are we to explain this? The formal criteria for entering PR are broad, rather than specific – and therefore perhaps more inclusive than exclusive. And it is not as if minority practitioners are not recognized: industry associations expound the benefits of improving diversity for business success. Something else must be going on.

I argue in this book that the reason diversity remains an issue in PR is to do with the ways in which the occupation itself operates. It is an institution that is driven to constantly legitimize its existence; the people within it must serve that purpose. The problem is that some people are perceived to be more useful than others in this endeavour, and those that are perceived to be less useful become marginalized. The process is implicit, hard to pin down, specify and combat. It is also invisible to those who ‘fit’ with what the occupation thinks it wants, who feel that their inclusion is part of the natural order of things. Processes of marginalization only become clear once the occupation is seen through the eyes of practitioners who experience them.

To put things a slightly different way, I am suggesting that the lack of diversity in PR is a result of the need to preserve occupational power. The latter is a function of the economic and social environment: occupations exist in competitive contexts, and people who join them enter with particular social, cultural and economic identities and assets that may be used to support the occupation’s case for its existence. Once improving diversity is understood from this perspective, then assumptions that diversity will increase because targets are put in place, or because clients¹ want more diverse consultants, or because audiences are more diverse, become fragile. What really matters is whether a more diverse practitioner body, as the visible manifestation of the field’s expertise, efficacy and talent, will reinforce the status of the occupation in relation to other competitive fields, and to those who lend it legitimacy (government and clients, for example). If the answer is no, the field will tend towards remaining largely homogenous.

And yet, that is not the whole story. The perspective I am adopting shifts the focus from numbers, or statistics, to struggles over the construction and valuation of identity. Identity is fluid, constantly being (re)constructed and a function of both structure and agency, not one or the other. Consequently, it is inaccurate to conceptualize ‘diversity’ as a static property of a field (although this is frequently done). It is better understood as a dynamic reality. While occupations may try to govern practice and identity in their own interests, individuals who are thereby marginalized find ways through the barriers they face and, very often, construct their desired careers regardless. In the subjectivities imposed upon them, are contained the clues that guide them to successfully challenge their liminal status, secure recognition and establish the right to belong in the field.

To fully understand how the issue of diversity (or rather, the lack of it) emerges, is experienced, and is sustained over time, we therefore need to investigate both sides of this dialectic: the structural and processual conditions that limit openness and the resistance of those who are ‘othered’ to systems of closure. This is the task I address in the following pages. Through a critical investigation of the occupational field, I aim to answer three fundamental questions about diversity in PR: In what ways does the occupation marginalize the lives and identities of ethnic minority practitioners? How does marginalization shape the experience of ethnic minority practitioners? And how do ethnic minority practitioners respond to marginalization as they pursue their careers?

I take ‘race’² as my point of departure for analysing diversity in PR, although I regard identity as intersectional and how race articulates with class and gender is fundamental to the observations I make. Nonetheless, race is an important focus in its own right for three reasons. First, improving the racial diversity of the occupation has been an intermittent focus for the industry for some years (Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), 2013c, 2009b, 2006) and so this particular dimension of identity has clear relevance to the field. Second, focusing on race allowed me to manage the methodological difficulties presented by intersectionality, by offering a clear criteria for recruiting practitioners who were different in at least one dimension of their identity from the occupational norm (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of the normative occupational identity). But perhaps most importantly, race remains a marginalized area of concern in the field of the communications industries, and in PR in particular. We struggle to keep issues of race, racialization and racial discrimination on the scholarly and practitioner agenda, and this means that important and significant inequities are ignored. This study is one way of bringing such issues into the spotlight.

In this introductory chapter, I set out the key concepts and theoretical framework that underpin my argument as I elaborate it further in the rest of the book. I begin by reflecting on how diversity is treated in policy and practice, before considering the conceptualizations of identity, race and racism that underpin the book. For those who have studied the sociology of occupations, many of the points I make will be familiar. However, they have yet to be integrated fully into an understanding of the way diversity issues have evolved in PR. This book is an opportunity to set out such an understanding, and perhaps push diversity scholarship and practice in PR into a wider, more creative arena.

Diversity in policy and practice

To put the subject of this book in context, it is important to understand how and why ‘diversity’ has been treated as a matter of political and economic concern. To begin with, how might we define ‘diversity’ within PR? Who counts as diverse? We all differ from each other in different ways, so it could be regarded as nonsensical to speak of improving diversity, since diversity exists across the human race, and managing diversity then becomes a matter of maximizing individual potential (Noon, 2007). Ely and Thomas (2001) suggest that managing diversity is a means of differentiating groups, usually based on demographic characteristics, and note the importance of power dynamics as underlying factors in how diversity is perceived and understood in organizations. Given that articulations of difference are fundamentally about the relative power of different subjectivities (Flintoff et al., 2008), a productive starting point for investigations of diversity in PR would be one that foregrounds diversity as an important dimension of power, a political issue. Rather than asking who counts as diverse, we might better ask who is disadvantaged or privileged by virtue of their identity?

In fact, this formulation does not take us much further on: we could all argue that aspects of our identity disadvantage us at some time in some way. However, questions of diversity in occupations and organizations are important because they address systemic disadvantage, not the occasional difficult experience. To be more specific in this context, the question of ‘who counts’ might become ‘who is systematically disadvantaged or privileged, across different social institutions, by virtue of their identity?’. Anthias (2001) suggests that we should consider the primary social definers of gender, race and class when analysing disadvantage. Other aspects of identity may also generate discrimination, but to avoid the trap (and analytical nightmare) of endless proliferation, gender, race and class can be justifiably prioritized as the ‘primary organizing principles of a society which locates and positions groups within that society’s opportunity structures’ (Zinn and Thornton Dill, 1996: 322–323). In PR, diversity research has traditionally addressed discrimination facing women and ethnic minorities (Daymon and Demetrious, 2013, 2010; Aldoory, 2007; Aldoory and Toth, 2002; Hon and Brunner, 2000) as well as, more recently, class (Waymer, 2012), sexuality (Tindall and Waters, 2012) and age (Pompper, 2013).

Diversity as disadvantage is commonly treated as a matter about which something should be ‘done’. It is a locus for action, both imagined – strategies should improve diversity at some point in the future – and real – we implement policies and practices that are, in themselves, changes in the present. It is, as Ahmed (2012) argues, both a performative term and a performance. It ‘does’ things, it prompts doing, and it is a way of being seen to do things. In this sense, diversity initiatives serve the interests of organizations as much as (if not more than) those of the individuals they are supposed to serve and frequently do little to change fundamental relations of power (Johns and Green, 2009; Creegan et al., 2003; Webb, 1997). From a societal perspective, diversity is also pragmatic: ‘more’ diversity leads to other good things: a larger share of the national economic pie, social mobility and its attendant benefits such as better education, inherited wealth and happier and more engaged citizens.

Managing diversity is neither simple nor necessarily productive – diversity initiatives have been around for a long time in different guises and, in PR and other professional and semi-professional occupations, not a lot has changed (Professional Associations Research Network, 2010; The Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, 2009). Speaking about diversity, managing diversity or improving diversity in occupations, then, is to engage with a complex problematic operating on a number of levels. However, at face value the word diversity itself suggests numerical variety, and many industry and policy initiatives relating to ‘improving diversity’ tend to suggest that numerical improvements are a desired outcome. If diversity is about numbers, then improving diversity can be realized by improving access to formerly exclusive occupations: attracting more people, and making it easier for them to enter and remain in the field, will ensure ‘diversity’ is realized.

Improving access is most frequently interpreted as structural reform. For example, in the United Kingdom, equal opportunities legislation has outlawed explicit discrimination across a range of social categories (Equality Act, 2010) and government endorsement of widening participation initiatives in the Higher Education (HE) sector continues. The corresponding growth in the number of highly qualified women and ethnic minority individuals, has indeed facilitated their participation in professional workforces (Atewologun and Singh, 2010; Muzio and Ackroyd, 2005; Davidson and Burke, 2004; Sommerlad and Sanderson, 1998). Occupations across the board have responded to the impetus of government policy with programmes to address diversity as a means of playing their part in efforts to distribute economic and cultural wealth more evenly throughout the population (Muzio and Tomlinson, 2012; British Medical Association, 2009; Farmbrough, 2009; The Law Society, 2009; Arts Council England, 2008). Meanwhile, organizations enthusiastically adopt diversity management policies as a means of realizing business interests, remaining competitive in a diverse market and tapping into the ‘brown’, ‘pink’ or ‘grey’ pound.

However, improving diversity is not simply a question of manipulating a mathematical equation. A second important assumption underpinning diversity initiatives is that if occupations make it easier for ‘different’ people to join and work in their fields, diversity will happen. Thus, improving and managing diversity involves acknowledging the different life circumstances of those who differ from the standard professional, the ‘unencumbered (white) man’ (Acker, 2006: 450) and the ways in which the structures of occupational fields work against their participation.³ To paraphrase a well-known movie line, it is a matter of ‘if you build it in the right way, they will come’. Diversity should grow, once encouraged through changes to access and structural working conditions.

In normative PR research on diversity, the idea of ‘counting’ diversity is reflected in the notion of requisite variety, where the level of diversity in the profession is determined by the variety of audiences that need to be addressed (Sha and Ford, 2007; Hon and Brunner, 2000; Dozier and Broom, 1995; Grunig, 1992). The assumption is that communication is enhanced when receivers can relate in some way to the sender (Perloff, 1993) and while ‘matching’ PR professionals with the characteristics of their audiences may not be required, an ability to understand the world in which those audiences live is necessary if communication is to be effective (Holtzhausen, 2012; Sriramesh and Verčič, 2009; Sriramesh, 2002; Banks, 2000). Given this apparent enthusiasm for the business case, it is no surprise that the industry has implemented various policy initiatives to address the problem of diversity in PR, improve access and increase the numbers of ethnic minority practitioners working in the field (see, for example, Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), 2013a; CIPR, 2012).

In PR, entry criteria (broadly, a good undergraduate degree and some experience in the industry) have remained largely unchanged, perhaps because they are already relatively open. Only one recruitment-related area has prompted significant attention: that of unpaid internships, with a campaign initiated by the PRCA to ensure that all hopeful graduates have a chance to gain valuable on-the-job experience, not just those few whose families can afford to subsidize them while they work for free (PR Week, 2013b; PRCA, 2013b).⁴ For the most part, in fact, a brief review of diversity policies reveals that ‘improving diversity’ has become a matter of addressing wider issues of practice and process in recruitment and progression. These include altering recruitment processes so that a wider pool of applicants are seen; ensuring equity in pay, promotion and career opportunities; and promoting flexible working practices.

The rhetoric surrounding such initiatives is celebratory: diversity policies are couched in terms that emphasize the benefits of a diverse society, and the value that integrating diversity can bring to the occupation. Diversity is a Good Thing. In the United Kingdom, for example, both the CIPR and the PRCA have instituted comprehensive diversity policies and established formal working groups.

The CIPR is committed to improving diversity and equality as an integral part of all its activity. In addition, we aim to ensure that the PR Industry is aware that we all work in a richly diverse society, and that the profession can benefit from diversity. Ultimately our aim is to have diversity embedded in public relations activity and recognized as a core resource for the industry.

(CIPR, 2009b)

The Diversity Network works to open up access to the communications profession and make it more representative of the nation. […]

Tanya [Josephs, Chair of the Diversity Network] said: ‘I believe that the question of diversity will be integral to the success or failure of the PR industry in the next five years. Only with a workforce that is truly representative of the nation will we be taken seriously. This is a call to arms and we challenge PRCA members who want to see this happen to join our Network and get involved in enabling the next generation of PR talent’.

(PRCA, 2013a)

Such statements are a powerful recognition that the industry itself needs to be educated and recognize the importance of diversity, indeed that diversity is a matter of occupational life and death. They place the onus on the occupational field, rather than the ‘diverse’ individual, to make a difference to diversity. However, rhetoric is easily constructed, particularly by PR experts; what matters is the extent to which such ambitions are realized, or, alternatively, the extent to which they constitute an ‘empty shell’ that generates little significant change (Hoque and Noon, 2004).

Some practical changes in working conditions have emerged. Part-time working, job sharing and flexible working are now common practice in many occupations, and certainly in PR. But no matter how much of a Good Thing diversity is, and no matter how skilful the rhetoric, a lack of diversity remains an intractable problem for the industry. Diversity in PR in the United Kingdom has increased only marginally, from 6 per cent to 7 per cent in eight years, and with a slight decrease over the last two years (Wyatt, 2013; PR Week/PRCA, 2011; Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd., 2005). At that rate, we would have to wait another 30 years before the level reached just 20 per cent – and even this would still be only half the current level of diversity in the population of London and the South East, where the majority of the UK industry is located (Office for National Statistics, 2012). Diversity policies are clearly not as effective as they might be. Perhaps, as Ahmed (2007b) found in her study of higher education, demonstrating diversity has become a simple matter of setting out a policy for PR practitioners and recruiters. Perhaps the existence of the policy eases the pressure to take genuine and concrete action that will produce lasting change.⁵ Indeed, diversity policies can be non-performative: merely the act of articulating them confirms that we are serious about diversity, and they need not generate other forms of action (Ahmed, 2012, 2007a).

Part of the problem lies in the fact that diversity initiatives underpinned by business rationales fail to address the systemic disadvantage that derives from historical prejudice and discrimination (see Chapter 2) because they are grounded in the needs of organizations in the present and largely separated from any sense of political, moral or rights-based argument to recognize and remedy systemic discri...