Draft, final appeared in Public Relations Review 27 (2001), pp.
An “In-Awareness” Approach to International Public Relations
ABSTRACT The skill of cultural “in-awareness” developed within the field of intercultural communication is applied to international public relations to understand culture’s influence on the communication function of public relations. The goal of the in-awareness approach is to expose hidden cultural assumptions and expectations that plague international public relations and allow one to explore national and cultural differences between clients and practitioners in a systematic and non-threatening manner. A three-tiered framework is presented based on a country profile, cultural profile, and communication profile. The country profile provides a broad outline of what may be feasible within a particular country, while the cultural profile speaks to what may be effective in that country. The communication profile further refines cultural generalities by delineating culturally-based communication behaviors that underlie common public relations practices. By examining the communication profiles of both the practitioner and client, one can see how cultural communication differences translate into culturally-defined expectations and assumptions about specific public relations activities.
As more and more public relations professionals and scholars venture into the international arena, many are discovering the paramount role played by culture. Familiar public relations practices such as press releases, speeches and conference planning are all communication-based activities. As such, they tend to reflect the culturally-mediated patterns of communication. A lack of awareness about the culturally prescribed rules and norms of communication behaviors can cause public relations projects to fail, or worse, backfire.
Edward T. Hall, often referred to as the founder of intercultural communication, spoke to the problem hidden cultural assumptions when people step into cross-cultural settings. He introduced the concepts of “in-awareness” and “out-of-awareness” to help distinguish between that which is explicit, known or observable in a culture from that which is implicit, unknown and hidden -- even to members of the culture. The goal of intercultural communication research was to identify culturally-mediated phenomena that were “out-awareness” and bring them “in-awareness.” By bringing aspects of culture “in-awareness,” the many distortions and misunderstandings that plague cross-cultural communication could be explained and even compensated for.
This paper seeks to expand the concept of “in-awareness” developed within the field of intercultural communication and apply it to international public relations to understand culture’s influence on the communication function of public relations practices. A theoretical framework for such an approach is then presented.
I. Shared Lessons: Intercultural Communication & International
In many ways, the trends that have emerged in international public relations parallel those that occurred earlier in a sister field, intercultural communication. In much the same way that intercultural scholars used the “cultural dimension” to distinguish their field, international public relations scholars have used the “international dimension” to distinguish their field. Both fields lamented the anecdotal nature of much of the research. In retrospect, despite the anecdotal nature of these early intercultural communication studies, they played an important role in providing a rich research base. Three identifiable research approaches emerged within intercultural communication: culture-specific; culture-general; and intercultural interaction.
The culture-specific approach focused on documenting the peculiar and distinct features of individual cultures. This work was pioneered by anthropologists such as Margret Mead, Gregory Bateson, and Clifford Geertz who discussed the beliefs and lifestyles within various cultures. In international public relations, the culture-specific approach is very much exemplified by the studies Culbertson termed “comparative public relations.” These comparative studies describe the public relations practices in different countries and geographic regions.
The culture-general approach focused on highlighting features common to all cultures so that broad general frameworks that could be used to compare similar phenomena across a wide spectrum of cultures. An early example is George Murdock’s list of seventy cultural universals. More recent examples include the host of cultural continua such as Hall’s distinction between high-context and low context cultures, Triandis’s division between individualistic and collectivist cultures  or Hofstede’s concept of power distance. Within international public relations, James Grunig’s focus on “excellence,” is an example of a concept-based, culture-general approach.
A third approach within intercultural communication focused on interaction or the process of intercultural communication. Process asks, how do cultural differences between people influence the communication interaction of those people? These works include adaptation theories as well as applications of a cultural continuum to higher-level or more complex communication contexts as negotiations, conflict management and diplomacy. Recently, international public relations scholars have begun applying cultural continua in their public relations analysis. However, few if any studies have examined public relations as a complex, higher-level context comprising multiple communication behaviors. Such an analysis would expose the cultural influences on the communication components inherent in public relations practices.
TOWARD AN “IN-AWARENESS” APPROACH
The literature review provides the basis for developing an “in-awareness” approach to international public relations as a process of intercultural communication between client and practitioner. The pivotal question is: How do communication differences between the practitioner and client influence the communication function of public relations?
There are two primary ways of describing client-practitioner differences in international public relations: national differences and cultural differences. Thus, the approach advocates developing both a “Country Profile” as well as “Cultural Profile” for identifying client-practitioner differences. The following two sections, Country Profile and Cultural Profile, respectively highlight key features inherent in each. The third section presents a “Communication Profile” that exposes the culturally-mediated communication behaviors embedded in various public relations activities.
I. COUNTRY PROFILE
Several international public relations scholars have highlighted the structural components of a country or national entity that influence international public relations. Edward Stanton identified geo-political and economic factors, stating, “We . . . must be alert to the effect the economic and political developments may have on the strategies we propose for clients, and on the implementation of the strategies they direct . . .” Botan suggested four factors in his matrix: level of national development; type of primary clients; level of legal protection along with a political role of practice; and uniqueness of history of practice. Van Leuven and Pratt introduced development of communication infrastructure and mass media; level of development of a market economy; degree of political stability; and linguistic and cultural integration. Culbertson and his colleagues provided an in-depth view of social, political and economic factors. To synthesize these works, there appears to be six basic categories that can help one systematically explore the structural parameters of a country. These six categories of a Country Profile include political structure, economic structure, mass media, infrastructure, legal structure, and social structure.
Political Structure: The political structure focuses on the institutions that govern decision-making and power relationships. While all cultures have political institutions, the means for attaining power can vary from birth right, such as a tribal leader, to complex political rituals, such as an election. The American public relations models assume a democratic political structure with competing groups vying for legitimacy, power and audience attention. This decentralized power structure is ripe for lobbying, managing issues publicly, and open public advocacy. Other political structures that are more authoritarian may view such public relations activities as public agitation activities. In more controlled, centralized political environments, there may be a greater desire for how to use image restoration strategies or promote political solidarity.
Economic Structure: The American public relations model assumes an economic structure based on a decentralized, free market economy. Both advertising and public relations have their roots in America’s industrial revolution, when the means for mass production created a need for a mass market. American entrepreneurship, marketing, advertising, technology and private ownership are all pivotal components fueling both mass production and mass demand. In other countries, the economy may be more centralized in the hands of the government or a particular class, such as landholders or prominent families. Additionally, domestically-produced goods may still come primarily from “cottage industries.” Without the domestic capacity for mass production, indigenous forms of advertising and public relations rely primarily on interpersonal communication strategies such as the owner’s personal reputation or word-of-mouth promotion. In such economic settings, mass media based public relations may not be as valued or developed as in those with an economic history of highly competitive, mass consumer markets. In fact, instead of promoting demand, the government may be more interested in a campaign to reduce reliance on costly consumer imports. Similarly, countries interested in increasing foreign investment may aggressively use public relations to promote their image abroad or with an external audience, yet discount the need for any type of public relations with its own internal audience.
Mass Media: In assessing the structure of the mass media, one may consider the level of technological development, the relationships among the major media outlets as well as their prominence as a means for reaching the public. For example, in countries with a high literacy rate, newspapers may assume a particular degree of prestige and hence be the medium of choice. Learning fundamentals of media relations, including how to write a good press release is critical. In countries with low literacy rates or where the oral/aural experience is prized, radio may be the medium of choice. In fact, in some contexts, the mass media may not even be an effective or credible vehicle. A more credible medium may be direct interpersonal channels such as parades, puppet shows, trade fairs or public speeches. Additionally, American public relations models assume a “free and independent” press. For political, economic and other reasons, the mass media in some countries may be concentrated in the hands of a few who may have their own agenda. While American practitioners tend to focus on the mass media as the primary tool for reaching the public, the government instead may be the first audience to persuade.
Infrastructure: The level of development of a country’s infrastructure – transportation, communication, technology – greatly influences all aspects of public relations programming. Most Americans think at Internet speed, counting the seconds to download a page or make a transaction. Additionally, many tend to see technological advancements as going hand-in-hand with creative advertising and public relations; the more the sizzle, the better the sell. At the opposite end of the spectrum, one can count the hours for the phones or electricity to come back on. In such instances, technology can seem like a crouch, dependency or got-to-have-it addiction that Western practitioners cannot work without.
Legal Structure: Every society has its means for regulating and enforcing behavior among its citizens. In the U.S., legal codes are an important facet of everyday life and the laws are explicit. In many public relations programs, students are required to take communication law to familiarize themselves with the legal restrictions affecting media and advertising. In other countries, the legal structure may appear to be more nebulous and embedded in the social or religious codes. Although unwritten, infringing upon these codes may result in punishment as severe as in nations who rely on written legal codes.
Social Structure: Determining the complex web of social
interaction can be daunting. However, gathering demographic data
can help one develop a preliminary working outline of a country’s social
structure. Similarly, documenting the nature of a country’s social institutions,
such as education, family, or religion can also provide important clues
for identifying target audiences.
II CULTURAL PROFILE
While a Country Profile provides a broad outline of what may be feasible within a particular country, a Cultural Profile speaks to what may be effective in that country. As Hyman and Sheatley observed in their classic study of why public campaigns fail, it is not enough to increase the flow of information, one must also overcome psychological barriers as well. In international public relations, the psychological barriers can be viewed as cultural barriers. Cultural barriers represent the cultural differences that a practitioner must overcome in order to effectively engage the client and communicate with diverse audiences. While cultural differences abound on many levels, the more cultural phenomena a practitioner can bring “in-awareness,” the more effectively she will be able to navigate cultural barriers. As Vasquez and Taylor have recently noted, American practitioners need to be more cognizant of their cultural values.
Borrowing from intercultural scholarship, cultural continua provide a ready tool for identifying cultural differences in the client-practitioner relationship. Accordingly, several prominent cultural continua are highlighted below.
High-context & Low-context: Hall distinguished between high-context and low-context cultures, depending on how much meaning is found in the context (external factors) versus in the code (message). Low-context cultures, such as the American culture, tend to place more meaning in the language code and very little meaning in the context. For this reason, communication tends to be specific, explicit, and analytical. In high-context cultures, "most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message." A high-context message may sound deliberately vague to a low-context listener. However, a high-context audience would look for contextual cues buried in the message or situation in order to grasp the full meaning of the message.
Monochronic & Polychronic: Hall also distinguished between monochronic cultural patterns in which individuals tend to segment time and activities from polychronic cultures in which individuals may be engaged in several different activities at once. Using a “daily planner” to schedule appointments or even juggle appointments are characteristic features of a monochronic individual who tends to do one thing at a time. To even try to do several things at one time, which is characteristic of the polychronic culture, may seem unprofessional or even inconceivable to the monochronic individual.
Doing & Being: Florence Kluckhohn’s classic value orientation study noted the differences between activity-oriented cultures and being-oriented cultures. Activity-oriented cultures place a premium on "activity which results in accomplishments that are measurable.” Stewart substituted “activity” for “doing,” and noted that America was very much a doing-oriented culture with its emphasis on achievement, visible accomplishments, and products of doing. For being-oriented cultures, achievement is not as important as an individual's birth, family background, age and rank. As Okabe observed, for an individual of being cultures, "what [an individual] is carries greater significance than what he does.” For the savvy practitioner, such an awareness of “doing” versus “being” notions of self can serve to guide how she cultivates client relations or proposes new projects.
Future-tense & Past-tense: Kluckhohn also distinguished between future-oriented cultures and past-oriented cultures as a value orientation related to time. Future-oriented cultures place a premium on change and innovation. New is good, and the promise of the future is better and brighter. Public relations practitioners from future-oriented cultures may easily engage in such future-oriented activities as forecasting, scheduling, planning and strategizing, yet have little patience for historical detail. In contrast, past-oriented cultures may find planning awkward and may, in fact, have considerable difficulty visualizing activities that have not yet happened. However, past-oriented cultures might insist on extensive historical contexts for all aspects of a project, to which a future-oriented individual may view as time consuming and irrelevant.
Linear & Nonlinear: Dorothy Lee was one of the first to describe important cognitive differences between linear and nonlinear cultures. A linear cultural pattern, such as that found in the American culture, stresses beginnings and ends of events, focuses on unitary themes, and relies primarily on empirical evidence. In contrast, the non-linear thought framework that normally has multiple themes, is expressed orally and heightened by nonverbal communication. As Dodd noted, communication in non-linear cultures involves the "simultaneous bombardment and processing of a variety of stimuli.” To the linear individual, the nonlinear “pattern” may appear random or chaotic. Further, time is not segmented, nor sequential. Because public relations planning and programming involve time elements coordinated with activity, these cultural characteristics may confound public relations tasks.
Table 1: Cultural Profile presents the contrasting ends of various cultural
continua suggested by scholars. Again, cultures are spread out along
continua with each representing cultural preferences rather than absolutes.
III COMMUNICATION PROFILE
Viewed together, both country and cultural profiles provide a broad overview of client-practitioner differences. However, how do cultural differences affect specific, individual public relations practices?
To understand the process in terms of specific practices, it is possible to borrow again from intercultural scholarship. In much the same way that intercultural scholars viewed negotiations and conflict resolution as complex, higher-level communication activities, so too can public relations practices be viewed. As complex activities, each individual practice may consist of several different communication behaviors, all of which are shaped by culture.
For example, suppose a Western practitioner agrees to assist a non-Western client with an international conference. The practitioner may suggest an array of public relations activities that may include planning the conference, writing press releases, preparing brochures, drafting public speeches, etc. On the surface, each activity may be standard fare for the practitioner. However, buried in each public relations activity is a myriad of cultural assumptions. It is culture that defines what a “good” brochure looks like, what the “proper” business relationship is with a client, or who is the “right” person to for making decisions.
From an intercultural perspective, each public relations activity represents a higher-level or complex pattern of several culturally-mediated behaviors. It is because of this complexity that public relations practices are ripe for hiding cultural assumptions. However, one can expose cultural assumptions by breaking these complex activities into basic communication components.
For those concerned more with management-based activities of public relations, the same systematic breakdown of basic components applies. For example, conference planning may involve questions of leadership, group coordination of activities, decision-making, etc. Each of these components is touched by culture. The more one can break the process down into basic culturally-mediated components, the more one can bring in-awareness the process of how public relations practices will be affected.
Much work has been done within intercultural scholarship to identify cross-cultural variations among the various communication components. Several communication components are particularly key to public relations practices. These include verbal behaviors, nonverbal behaviors, visual communication, persuasive appeals (rhetoric strategies), and communication matrix.
Verbal Communication: For many, the verbal component, language, is the most prominent feature of a culture. Not surprisingly, language or “mistranslations” are the most frequently cited examples from failed international public. A fundamental awareness of the structure of the client’s language can greatly enhance a practitioner’s effectiveness. For example, in languages that have an economy of words, translated copy can seem totally out of proportion to the original text. Some languages read from right to left, others left to right, others up and down. For some, calligraphy is embedded in the notion of language. Others may have a rich tradition of word plays, rhymes or metaphors. Still others may be soaked in religious phrases or gender-specific qualifiers which may indicate how the people view their relations with each other and their environment. While it may not be possible to learn the language in order to converse with clients or translate projects, some linguistic knowledge can give the practitioner not only a professional edge, but a personal edge with the client.
Nonverbal communication: Nonverbal communication deals with those behaviors such as gestures, body movements, facial expressions, eye behavior, etc. Nonverbal communication is often the most notorious culprit in intercultural communication because so much is performed and perceived “out-of-awareness.” While (verbal) language dictionaries abound, nonverbal dictionaries are rare. For a practitioner, missing important nonverbal cues may hamper the practitioner’s ability to develop client trust, respect and confidence. As one scholar noted, “an innocent gesture made in response to a simple question may be an unwitting insult, or worse.” Nonverbal communication also covers paralinguistics, or vocal behaviors. This aspect can be particularly relevant for cross-cultural training in public speaking. Proxemics, or how people use space, can inadvertently cause arguments over seating arrangements at public relations functions, confound practitioner-client relations, and help define cultural norms of gender or power relations. Chronemics explores how people communicate through the use of time. This includes how they organize and react to time, how they use it to convey interest or power, as well as what meaning they attach to others’ time frames. As a communication component, time can be found in a multitude of public relations activities, from planning, to scheduling, to coordinating priorities, to determining the length of speeches.
Visual Communication: Most communication scholars would include visual communication within nonverbal communication. While visual communication has not received as much attention as other components, it is noted here because visuals are often an integral part in promotional materials. Advertisements in an American magazine or scenes from a Norman Rockwell painting reveal the American aesthetic preference for visual simplicity. Consequently, a brochure with "style" for an American may have a single, dramatic image on the cover, lots of white space, consistency in the typeface, and balanced lines and images. In contrast, a culture with an artistic tradition of elaborate and intricate patterned details might view the American notion of “white space” as “empty space” and thus proceed to fill it with as many different typefaces, borders, and images as possible. For a nonlinear culture, there may be no discernable pattern to the arrangement of the design, leaving an impression of total visual chaos. Linear cultural description of such a design is called busy, if not frenetic.
Rhetorical Style: Intercultural scholars have found that different cultures have distinct preferences for constructing "logical" arguments and persuasive messages. Western culture is built upon the linear model; point A is tied to point B to point C, and so forth. In an effort to place things in their “logical” order, the points may be arranged in terms of time (first to last), space (closest to farthest), significance (most important to least important) or complexity (simple to complex, easy to difficult, general to specific), etc. In nonlinear cultures, the arrangement may appear totally random. The need to impose order or place things “in order” is not automatic nor a sign of unprofessionalism. In fact, pointing out the direct link between the points may be seen as an insult to the audience’s intelligence in high-context cultures. Knowledge of rhetorical styles can sensitize practitioners to why official speeches might include some facts and omit other “unimportant” detail or why survey questionnaires may have disconnected items or “odd” coding labels.
Communication Matrix: The communication matrix considers how the various components of communication fit together in a particular culture. For example, how important is the role of interpersonal communication versus the mass media? What channel is most commonly used to convey what types of messages? In the American communication matrix, the media often play the central role in most public relations campaigns; hence, the importance of learning how to write a strong press release. In other cultures, interpersonal communication may be the pivotal feature of the communication matrix. As such, messages may be more effectively delivered interpersonally via a parade, story tellers or a traveling theater troupe. Similarly, cultivating personal relations over endless cups of coffee would be a more valued professional attribute than developing printed materials.
Table 2 presents a comprehensive view of the “in-awareness” approach
in terms of how Country Profile, Cultural Profile and Public Relations
Activities relate to each other. Table 3 looks at how individual
public relations practices may be affected by the process.
Among the predictions for public relations in the new millennium, practitioners Sparks-FitzGerald and Spagnolia suggest that globalization will become one of the four dominant features. As they noted, the increased emphasis on technology and instant access to world wide audiences demands “a greater sensitivity to cultural differences.”
In speaking about the many stumbling blocks in intercultural communication,
LaRay Barna commented that, “much to people’s surprise,” good intentions
are not enough to be successful interculturally. He cautioned against
being blinded by the similarities and missing the differences:
“ . . . many of us naively assume there are sufficient similarities among peoples of the world to enable us to successfully exchange information and/or feelings, solve problems of mutual concern, cement business relations, or just make the kind of impression we wish to make.”
As Barna observed, there is a tendency for people to believe that “people are people” and that “deep down we’re all alike.” To extend the analogy to public relations, there would be the tendency “to see public relations as just public relations,” and be vulnerable to stumbling blocks and blind spots encountered when crossing national and cultural boundaries.
The “in-awareness” approach looks at public relations as defined by national parameters and refined by cultural nuances. It seeks to highlight areas of potential differences that may intrude upon public relations practices. As Norman Daniels noted, when differences are not perceived as different, there is a tendency to perceive them as right and wrong. In much the same way, a speech, brochure, or campaign message that is culturally different can be perceived as right and wrong, or professional and unprofessional.
Both the Country Profile and Cultural Profile help expose the potential cultural and national differences between a client and practitioner. The Country Profile seeks to bring “in-awareness” the scope and domain of public relations practices within different national contexts. The Cultural Profile seeks to bring “in-awareness” the unique cultural features of practices that may be effective.
The approach stresses the need for preparing both Country Profile and Cultural Profile as the two — country and culture — are often not the same. Countries have defined national boundaries; cultures do not. It is quite possible that one country can contain several different cultures within its national borders. Yugoslavia is a ready example. On the other hand, one culture can expand across several countries. The Arab culture, for example, is dominant in 21 different cultures. For this reason, relying solely on the Country Profile or the Cultural Profile alone will not provide an adequate picture.
Also stressed is the need to look at one’s own culture as well as the client’s. As anthropologist Ralph Linton once quipped, “The last thing a fish would notice is water.” Similarly, cultural assumptions are notoriously elusive to its own members. It is often easy to spot the contradictions in another culture, while remaining immune to the glaring paradoxes of one’s own. It is for this reasons that the in-awareness approach advocates profiling the cultural background of both the client and practitioner as a means for heightening awareness.
The “in-awareness” approach highlights the basic features or components of international public relations. Rather than viewing individual public relations practices as a primary activity, each is viewed as a complex set of basic communication and management behaviors. By breaking public relations practices into their basic communication or management components, one can then look for corresponding features of either the Country or Cultural profiles that directly influence a basic component. Once the basic components are identified, it becomes easier and more meaningful to discuss how public relations practices might be affected by culture and how alternative strategies may be devised. The approach provides a tool for exploring and discussing complex projects in culturally-sensitive, specific terms.
The approach or framework is not exhaustive, but rather serves as a
preliminary guide for increasing awareness and cultural sensitivity.
Various components of the approach beg future research and refinement.
One area of intriguing research for both international public relations
and intercultural communication is to identify cultural myths and symbolism
hidden in persuasive messages. Such culture-specific research will
bring a new level of analysis to how cultures define, create and assess
persuasive messages in public communication campaigns. Another area
of joint research is how cultural differences between a practitioner and
client may cause tensions in the cultural identity of both.
1. W. Leeds-Hurwitz. “Notes in the History of Intercultural Communication: The Foreign Service Institute and the Mandate for Intercultural Training,” in J. Martin, T. Nakayama, and L. Flores (eds.), Readings in Cultural Contexts (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1998), p. 16.
2. R. S. Zaharna, “Intercultural Communication and International Public Relations: Exploring Parallels,” Communication Quarterly 48 (2000), pp. 85-100.
3. Hugh M. Culbertson, “Introduction,” in Hugh Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996), p. 2.
4. George P. Murdock, “The Common Denominator of Cultures,” in Ralph Linton (ed.), The Science of Man in the World of Crisis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945), pp. 123-142.
5. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976).
6. C. Hui and Harry Triandis, “Individualism-collectivism: A Study of Cross-Cultural Research,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 17 (1986), pp. 225-248.
7. G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980).
8. James E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992).
9. See, for example, Raymond Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures (Washington, DC: US Institute for Peace, 1991); and Filipe Korzenny and Stella Ting-Toomey (eds.), Communicating for Peace: Diplomacy and Negotiation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990).
10. See, for example, G. Vasquez and Maureen Taylor, “What Cultural Values Influence American Public Relations Practitioners?” Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 433-449; and D. Vercic, L. Grunig and James Grunig, “Global and Specific Principles of Public Relations: Evidence from Slovenia,” in Hugh Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996), pp. 31-65.
11. Edward Stanton, “PR’s Future is Here: Worldwide, Integrated Communications,” Public Relations Quarterly 39 (1991), pp. 46-47.
12. Carl Botan, “International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation,” Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 149-159.
13. James K. Van Leuven and Cornelius B. Pratt, “Public Relations’ Role: Realities in Asia and in Africa South of the Sahara,” in Hugh Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996) pp. 93-106.
14. Hugh Culbertson, D. Jeffers, D. Stone, and M. Terrell, Social, Political and Economic Contexts in Public Relations: Theory and Cases (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993).
15. Maureen Taylor and M. Kent, “Challenging Assumptions of International Public Relations: When Government is the Most Important Public,” Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 131-143.
16. Herbert Hyman and Paul Sheatsley, “Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail,” Public Opinion Quarterly 11 (1947), pp. 50-61.
17. G. Vasquez and Maureen Taylor, op. cit.
18. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture, op. cit., pp. 106-116.
19. Edward T. Hall, “Context and Meaning,” in Larry Samovar and Richard Porter (eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1983), p. 98.
20. Edward T. Hall, Beyond Culture, op. cit., pp. 17-24.
21. Florence Kluckhohn, “Dominant and Variant Value Orientations,” in Clyde Kluckhohn and H. Murray (eds.), Personality in Nature, Society and Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), pp. 342-357.
22. Florence Kluckhohn, op. cit., p. 351.
23. Edward Stewart, American Cultural Patterns (Chicago: Intercultural Press, 1972), pp. 31-48.
24. Roichi Okabe, “Cultural Assumptions of East and West: Japan and The U.S.,” in William Gudykunst (ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983), p. 24.
25. Florence Kluckhohn, op. cit., p. 249.
26. Dorothy Lee, “Lineal and Nonlineal Codification of Reality,” Psychosomatic Medicine 12 (1950), pp. 89-97.
27. Carley H. Dodd, Dynamics of Intercultural Communication (Debuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1992), p. 163.
28. Because the literature review focuses on intercultural communication, the communication components are highlighted here. Important cultural research has been conducted that relates more specifically to the management component of public relations. See, for example, M. Erez and P. Earley, Culture, Self-Identity and Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); G. Hofstede, op. cit.; and M. Tayeb, Organizations and National Culture: A Comparative Analysis (London: Sage, 1988).
29. Joseph Schuler, “Trivet! Kak, u tebya?” Public Relations Journal (1990, November), pp. 10 and 16; and Humberto Valencia, “Point of View: Avoiding Hispanic Marketing Blunders,” Journal of Advertising Research 23 (1983), pp. 19-22.
30. Donald W. Klopf, Intercultural Encounters: Fundamentals of Intercultural Communication (Englewood, CO: Morton, 1998), p. 218.
31. See, for example, Stanley Deetz, “Metaphor Analysis,” in W. Gudykunst and Y. Kim (eds.), Methods for Intercultural Communication Research (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984), pp. 215-228; E. Glenn, D. Witmeyer, and K. Stevenson, “Cultural Styles of Persuasion,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 1 (1977), pp. 52-56; and William Starosta, “On Intercultural Rhetoric,” in W. Gudykunst and Y. Kim (eds.), Methods for Intercultural Communication Research (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984), pp. 229-238.
32. Barbara Mueller, “Standardization vs. Specialization: An Examination of Westernization in Japanese Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research 32 (1992), p. 17.
33. S. Sparks FitzGerald and N. Spagnolia “Four Predictions for PR Practitioners in the New Millennium,” Public Relations Quarterly 44 (1999), pp. 12-14.
34. Ibid., p. 12.
35. LaRay Barna, “Stumbling Blocks in Intercultural Communication,” in Larry Samovar and Richard Porter (eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1988), p. 322.
37. Norman Daniels, The Cultural Barrier: Problems
in the Exchange of Ideas (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1975).