‘No Turtles’ Revisited: Higher Ed Public Relations, Critical Theory and The Public Sphere
At the beginning of my career as a public relations practitioner in higher education, I read an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that helped me shape the faculty experts program at my institution. In “No Turtles: Faculty-Media Relations,” Michael Munger encourages faculty members at colleges and universities to participate in media interviews, rather than to retreat from media opportunities by “draw[ing] their heads and limbs inside a protective shell” the way a turtle might (Munger).
Munger, a political scientist, uses an argument frequently made by PR practitioners in higher ed: Sharing research through the media can help demonstrate the relevance of a scholar’s research in ways that can benefit an academic’s personal brand and draw positive attention to the institution. He also identifies some of the reasons faculty members are reluctant to speak to the media or to write for popular audiences. For example, being quoted in non-academic publications may not be regarded as serious in ways that contribute to career advancement. Additionally, unless media engagement is recognized and incentivized by administrators, it may not readily appear to be part of a scholar’s job. These are important (and, in my experience, accurate) practical objections to overcome. However, the persuasive resources offered by critical rhetorical theory, with its focus on “constantly challeng[ing] the status quo,” (McKerrow 75) may assist the higher ed practitioner in convincing faculty members to participate in media relations efforts by appealing to the desire some may have to use their scholarship in a way that affects the world for greater good—or, as Asen might say, a “melioristic” sense (Asen 133).
Munger, a political scientist, uses an argument frequently made by PR practitioners in higher ed: Sharing research through the media can help demonstrate the relevance of a scholar’s research in ways that can benefit an academic’s personal brand and draw positive attention to the institution. He also identifies some of the reasons faculty members are reluctant to speak to the media or to write for popular audiences. For example, being quoted in non-academic publications may not be regarded as serious in ways that contribute to career advancement. Additionally, unless media engagement is recognized and incentivized by administrators, it may not readily appear to be part of a scholar’s job. These are important (and, in my experience, accurate) practical objections to overcome. However, the persuasive resources offered by critical rhetorical theory, with its focus on “constantly challeng[ing] the status quo,” (McKerrow 75) may assist the higher ed practitioner in convincing faculty members to participate in media relations efforts by appealing to the desire some may have to use their scholarship in a way that affects the world for greater good—or, as Asen might say, a “melioristic” sense (Asen 133).
Engaging Theory and Practice
Asen’s reading of Horkheimer emphasizes the latter’s argument that critical theory values practice. This means that theory and practice can coexist in ways that are mutually beneficial: “While theory may enable scholars to understand practice, practice may offer lessons and insights for theory” (Asen 135). The self-critique and reflexivity that characterize critical approaches, along with the critical scholar’s openness to valuing multiple epistemologies, can potentially broaden one’s openness to generating helpful solutions to social issues. Pollock and Cox identify a positive end toward critical theory: its focus on thinking about “how to read the world with an eye towards shaping it” (qtd in Asen 135). When applied to higher ed PR, appealing to these critical motivations—re-shaping the word through one’s research or expertise, and contributing to mutually generative interactions between scholarship and practice—may be more effective ways to convince faculty members to engage in media efforts.
Enlarging the Public Sphere
Public sphere theory explores the ways that the exchange of ideas can affect politics and society. What is “the public sphere?” Fraser summarizes Habermas’ definition as “a theater in modern societies in which political participation is enacted through the medium of talk…the space in which citizens deliberate about their common affairs” (Fraser 57). Based on this definition, the news media may be seen as having elements of a public sphere—although, as Frazer observes, the idea of the public sphere as originally articulated does not offer equal access to all members of a society. This is also true of the corporatized news media. While still finding the foundation of a public square useful, Fraser posits that “subaltern counterpublics”—groups of marginalized publics—develop important parallel discourses through which they generate “oppositional” readings that highlight their concerns. By publicizing these concerns, these counterpublics “help expand discursive space” (Fraser 67). Fraser argues that this expansion from “public” to “publics” offers a partial correction of the structural realities that offer some publics a greater voice than others.
The idea of participating in the generation or developments of oppositional readings by voicing the concerns of counterpublics may appeal to faculty members—particularly those who are activistic in nature or whose work challenges the status quo. The lesson here for higher ed practitioners is that offering faculty members opportunities to counteract views they find harmful may be a way of overcoming resistance to media outreach through interviews or editorials.
The idea of participating in the generation or developments of oppositional readings by voicing the concerns of counterpublics may appeal to faculty members—particularly those who are activistic in nature or whose work challenges the status quo. The lesson here for higher ed practitioners is that offering faculty members opportunities to counteract views they find harmful may be a way of overcoming resistance to media outreach through interviews or editorials.
Enhancing the Repertoire
In her book Reality Bites: Rhetoric and the Circulation of Truth Claims in U.S. Political Culture, Dana Cloud offers a puglistic proclamation: One reason the political left is less effective than the right is because of its failure to use the combination of rhetorical tools she refers to as “The big five:” narrative, myth, affect, embodiment, and spectacle” (Cloud 9). Cloud’s recommendation is that those on the left should not remain “mired in the epistemic” (Cloud 9); to do so is to erroneously focus on fact-checking at the expense of the larger political questions at stake. Instead, they should forcefully use the big five to emphasize the frames in play in the political arena.
This strategy—of creating a broader repertoire of communication strategies and tactics—is an intriguing one in light of the precision and restraint many scholars take pains to cultivate. As a result, it may be difficult for media relations professionals to enlist the support of faculty members for these approaches. However, faculty who desire to “bite back” (Cloud 168) in light of a post-truth culture may be willing to consider cultivating media attention through Cloud’s “big five.” For example, a practitioner might work with faculty in the arts whose compositions or artwork reflect “spectacular” forms of engagement with important political themes, or critical scholars whose work speaks to issues of public concern in surprising or counterintuitive ways.
An effective higher ed PR professional must have the ability to collaborate with faculty in service of institutional goals. At times, these institutional goals may not align with the core elements of faculty work, including research, teaching and service. However, the tools offered by critical theory, theories of the public sphere, and critical rhetorical theory may provide ways to gain faculty participation by providing ways to engage with the media that assist them in their academic goals and speak to the impulses that motivate their scholarship.
This strategy—of creating a broader repertoire of communication strategies and tactics—is an intriguing one in light of the precision and restraint many scholars take pains to cultivate. As a result, it may be difficult for media relations professionals to enlist the support of faculty members for these approaches. However, faculty who desire to “bite back” (Cloud 168) in light of a post-truth culture may be willing to consider cultivating media attention through Cloud’s “big five.” For example, a practitioner might work with faculty in the arts whose compositions or artwork reflect “spectacular” forms of engagement with important political themes, or critical scholars whose work speaks to issues of public concern in surprising or counterintuitive ways.
An effective higher ed PR professional must have the ability to collaborate with faculty in service of institutional goals. At times, these institutional goals may not align with the core elements of faculty work, including research, teaching and service. However, the tools offered by critical theory, theories of the public sphere, and critical rhetorical theory may provide ways to gain faculty participation by providing ways to engage with the media that assist them in their academic goals and speak to the impulses that motivate their scholarship.
Works Cited
Asen, Robert. “Critical Engagement through Public Sphere Scholarship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 101, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 132–44. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.999983.
Cloud, Dana L. Reality Bites: Rhetoric and the Circulation of Truth Claims in U.S. Political Culture. The Ohio State University Press, 2018.
Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, vol. 25/26, 1990, pp. 56–80. https://doi- org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.2307/466240.
McKerrow, R. “Critical Rhetoric in a Postmodern World.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 77, no. 1, 1991, pp. 75–78.
Munger, Michael C. “No Turtles: Faculty-Media Relations.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 June 2009, https://www.chronicle.com/article/no-turtles-faculty-media-relations/.
Cloud, Dana L. Reality Bites: Rhetoric and the Circulation of Truth Claims in U.S. Political Culture. The Ohio State University Press, 2018.
Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text, vol. 25/26, 1990, pp. 56–80. https://doi- org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.2307/466240.
McKerrow, R. “Critical Rhetoric in a Postmodern World.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 77, no. 1, 1991, pp. 75–78.
Munger, Michael C. “No Turtles: Faculty-Media Relations.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 June 2009, https://www.chronicle.com/article/no-turtles-faculty-media-relations/.