My reflections on Joep P. Cornelissen - “Toward an Understanding of the Use of Academic Theories in Public Relations practice”

I have recently read an interesting article by Joep P. Cornelissen entitled “Toward an Understanding of the Use of Academic Theories in Public Relations practice”. The article focused on analyzing three main models for applying Public Relations academic research and theories in practice (i.e. Instrumental, Conceptual an Translation) and critically assessing the validity of each model. In this paper, I will attempt to briefly appraise Cornelissen’s findings and to also include my personal opinion on validity of each of the covered models.

The first model was the Instrumental Model, which was presented in a rather negative way. According to Cornelissen “the view embodied in the instrumental model that academic research is able to provide rational solutions for any possible problem in a direct and instrumental way has been subject to criticism within the sociology of knowledge literature” (Cornelissen, 2000). Throughout the article the author presented numerous arguments against this model, which in my opinion is fully understandable. Although this is a new field of study for me, common sense makes me believe that every problem is different and in order to resolve it – a practical adaptation of a particular theory or set of theories is required. It might be that this model was more commonly used in the past when PR was still considered a new area of study. However, it is my belief that the more a particular area of study is explored, the more different and sophisticated problems arise. Therefore, this particular model appears to be somewhat outdated – as if it was unfit to work in modern PR environment any more. Hence, I agree with Cornelissen’s criticism.

The second described model was the Conceptual model, in which “abstract academic knowledge is applied to practical cases by more refined means of generalizations, concepts, and ideas” and this model assumes that “science offers ideas, problem definitions, and interpretative schemes as a set of intellectual tools available to the practitioner in understanding and anticipating real-world phenomena” (Cornelissen, 2000). Although this model seems to be better than the aforementioned one, I agree with the author that it is not necessarily the best since only a one-way relationship is established between science and practice. It is not wise to assume that science will definitely produce rational knowledge which will in effect provide a solution to a particular problem – I think at this point in time it is safe to say that nowadays PR practitioners do not only use science to solve problems but, as Cornelissen noted, they “actively use, as well as contribute to, knowledge from both academic and professional sources” (Cornelissen, 2000). Therefore, the criticism is absolutely understandable as the ideas present in the conceptual model do not seem to work in the modern PR environment.

The third and final model covered was the Translation model, which “is characterized by the recognition that scientific knowledge is hardly ever used unaltered in a practical setting”, meaning that “a process of transformation of knowledge is constantly in place” (Cornelissen, 2000). In my opinion the Translation model is unquestionably the best out of the three as it notices the fact that in order for practitioners to solve a problem, the knowledge has to be constantly ‘transformed’ or ‘adapted’ to match that unique problem. It seems rational that different problems require different solutions and while science is unquestionably helpful in dealing with issues, it is evident that it has to be interpreted and transformed to apply to a particular issue. Beck and Bonß seem to confirm this claim by saying that “the most important use of sociological knowledge does not lie in the sphere of concrete solutions, but in general ideas that are consumed by means of active interpretation” (Beck & Bonß in Cornelissen, 2000). I believe that since PR is not a new field of study, not all problems can be solved by ‘raw’ science and it is often require to modify the knowledge by means of active interpretation. Hence, this model appears to be most appealing to modern PR practitioners out of three models covered.

Since Public Relations is a new field of study for me and I hardly have any experience in it, I found the article quite stimulating. It definitely served as a good introduction to the PR Theories field and allowed me to gain valuable insight as to how academic research and theories are actually used in practice.


References:
Cornelissen, J. (2000) Toward an Understanding of the Use of Academic Theories in Public Relations Practice. Public Relations Review, 26(3):315-326