Mandating dialogue? International perspectives on differences between theory and practice

Abstract

This paper replicates an Australian study (Lane, 2018) into how public relations practitioners understand dialogue in practice. The original study found practitioners believed they were carrying out dialogue legally required by government, but what they were doing was no more than two-way communication. It also found practitioners’ operating environments meant they could never actually undertake dialogue, even if mandated to do so. These empirically-based insights revealed the existence of gaps between theory and practice in dialogue in public relations. The study was repeated in Austria to determine if these findings were consistent internationally, and to consider what this might mean for the place of dialogue in public relations. Examples of so-called mandated ‘dialogue’ provided by Austrian public relations practitioners in semi-structured interviews were analyzed using Kent and Taylor’s (2002) five principles of dialogue. This analysis showed that despite the Austrian practitioners’ familiarity with the work of Habermas on dialogue, the mandated communication they carried out was not dialogue. The Austrian experience also showed that the nature of the underlying context of mandated communication—the need to achieve agreement between parties in varying levels of conflict; and conducting communication within boundaries of time and non-negotiable pre-existing decisions—meant dialogue could never occur. Comparing the two studies demonstrated high levels of similarity between the countries’ results, which we hope can provide the starting point for the development of a longitudinal and international perspective. This paper concludes that the place of dialogue in the theory and practice of public relations is dependent on the education of practitioners in its implementation; and a re-thinking of the role of the aspirational in situations where it can never be attained.