OPR and its corruption of “publics”: A critique

Abstract

This paper advances existing critiques of the organization-public relationship (OPR) research tradition by explicating the poor ontological conceptualization of publics in OPR research as well as related methodological concerns. The authors critically analyze the publics and OPR literature, furthering past criticisms and raising new questions about the heuristic value of OPR research. The paper points out three major weaknesses of the OPR tradition in its use of publics: (1) serious vacillation in terms resulting in conceptual inconsistencies, (2) inappropriate operationalization of variables and the use of probability sampling, and (3) a lack of insightful context and inclusion of relationship factors in OPR studies, to which publics are inextricably bound. The critique cautions scholars engaged in OPR research to improve their literature reviews and to enlarge their methodologies beyond a narrow scope of relational variables, which are theoretically fragile if not devoid of research value. Finally, the critique suggests the importance of conceptualizing publics in ways that acknowledge their agency.