Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations

This paper follows a critical approach in exploring the philosophical underpinnings and key features of dialogue in public relations practice and thinking. It argues that dialogue has been uncritically equated to two-way symmetrical communication, which has not done justice to the nature of dialogue, and has effectively stifled concrete development of a dialogic theory in public relations. The paper draws from a range of literature, including mainstream public relations and communication philosophy—in particular the philosophy of Martin Buber. The purpose of this paper is to inform public relations thinking by encouraging debate rather than proposing a new theoretical approach. As such, it sets out to explore the concept of dialogue and its philosophical underpinning, considers its practical application and suggests that it should not be seen as superior to persuasion.

► We highlight philosophical differences between dialogue and two-way symmetrical communication. ► Dialogue in its philosophical sense poses risks to organizations. ► It has the potential to expose the true identity of the organization. ► Other risks include a lack of control over the outcome, a lack of predictability, and the possibility of exposing disagreement. ► There is no incentive to engage in dialogue. ► Dialogue is not “better” than persuasion.