Public relations’ “Relationship Identity” in research: Enlightenment or illusion

• Examines the problems of translating the concept of relationship from interpersonal to public relations.
• Considers the limitation of focusing on close relationships in public relations research.
• Highlights the need for relationship research to focus on meaning.
• Posits that parasocial interaction is a more accurate term to guide relationship research in public relations.

Public relations’ identity in research sets parameters that can limit or illuminate the field. In this paper we consider how public relations have been developing a “relationship identity” in research. General public relations research, as opposed to sub-disciplines such as crisis communication, is dominated by a relationships approach. The focus on relationship was designed to enlighten public relations research and even improve the practice. But has the emphasis on relationships and focus on the organization–public relationship (OPR) as an outcome really enlightened public relations research? This paper explores four concerns about the application: (1) problems associated with applying a concept from interpersonal communication to public relations, (2) how identities affect the formation of close relationships, (3) the value of close relationships for publics, and (4) the parasocial nature of organization–public relationships. While of some heuristic value, the relationship focus should not be embraced uncritically. Public relations researchers should be cautious about concentrating on close relationships between organizations and publics and seek appropriate re-formulations and alternatives that more accurately depict organization–public connections. We should consider the value of weak relationships and parasocial relationships if we are to maximize the value of a relationship approach to public relations.