Draft, final appeared in Public Relations Review 27 (2001), pp. 135-148.

An In-Awareness Approach to International Public Relations

R.S. Zaharna
American University

ABSTRACT The skill of cultural in-awareness developed within the field of
intercultural communication is applied to international public relations to understand
cultures 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.[1] 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 cultures 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 PR
In many ways, the trends that have emerged in international public relations parallel
those that occurred earlier in a sister field, intercultural communication.[2] 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.[3] 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 Murdocks list of
seventy cultural universals.[4] More recent examples include the host of cultural
continua such as Halls distinction between high-context and low context cultures,[5]
Triandiss division between individualistic and collectivist cultures [6]or Hofstedes
concept of power distance.[7] Within international public relations, James Grunigs
focus on excellence, is an example of a concept-based, culture-general approach.[8]
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.[9] Recently, international public relations scholars have
begun applying cultural continua in their public relations analysis.[10] 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 . . .[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] Culbertson and his colleagues provided an in-depth view of
social, political and economic factors.[14] 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 Americas 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 owners 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.[15]
Infrastructure: The level of development of a countrys 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 countrys social structure. Similarly, documenting the nature of a
countrys social institutions, such as education, family, or religion can also provide
important clues for identifying target audiences.

I I CULTURAL PROFI LE
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.[16] 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.[17]
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).[18] 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."[19] 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.[20] 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 Kluckhohns classic value orientation study noted the
differences between activity-oriented cultures and being-oriented cultures.[21]
Activity-oriented cultures place a premium on "activity which results in
accomplishments that are measurable.[22] 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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27] 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.

I I I COMMUNI CATI ON PROFI LE
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.[28] 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.[29] A fundamental
awareness of the structure of the clients language can greatly enhance a practitioners
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 practitioners 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.[30]
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.[31] 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 audiences intelligence in high-
context cultures.[32] 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.



CONCLUSION
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.[33] As they noted, the increased emphasis on technology and
instant access to world wide audiences demands a greater sensitivity to cultural
differences.[34]
In speaking about the many stumbling blocks in intercultural communication, LaRay
Barna commented that, much to peoples 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.[35]
As Barna observed, there is a tendency for people to believe that people are people
and that deep down were all alike.[36] 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.[37] 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 ones own culture as well as the clients. 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 ones 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.

REFERENCES NOTES
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, Cultures 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, PRs 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.
36. Ibid.
37. Norman Daniels, The Cultural Barrier: Problems in the Exchange of Ideas
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1975).