Professor Lee Edwards: Building bridges between theory practice as a driver of innovation

On this episode of Better Business Outcomes, Stephen Waddington from Wadds Inc. welcomes Lee Edwards, Professor of Strategic Communications and Public Engagement in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE.
 
 They discuss:

·       Whether public relations is a force for good or a means for organisations to corrupt the public conversation?

·       Environmental, Societal and Governance concerns as a mean of greenwashing but also a way of building a better society

·       The impact of research on mental health and how to avoid becoming frustrated

·       Small events and communities as a bridge between public relations theory and practice and a means of learning

·       The power dynamic in public relations and its impact on issues related to diversity

Presented by Sarah Waddington and Stephen Waddington

For more information visit https://www.wadds.co.uk/
With thanks to our production partners at What Goes On Media

Transcript

Stephen Waddington:

Welcome to Better Business Outcomes, where we discuss how good communication can transform and grow organisations with a series of global leaders who have set the standard for what great looks like.

I’m Stephen Waddington from Wadds Inc. In this podcast you’ll hear from leaders and senior communicators about their leadership journey and how they create social impact.

You’ll also understand the areas you should be focusing on to build personal and organisational resilience, find out how public relations can unlock value for your business and enjoy a great listen along the way.

Today I’m joined by Professor Lee Edwards. Lee is Professor of Strategic Communications and Public Engagement in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE, where she also serves as Director of Graduate Studies and Programme Director for the MSc Strategic Communications. She teaches and researches strategic communications from a socio-cultural perspective, focusing in particular on how power operates in and through public relations work.

Just to kick off, there's several world views I've discovered of public relations that go along spectrum, from corruption of the public sphere and a threat to democracy through to a means of helping organisations engage with stakeholders in an equal relationship. 

Lee, where do you sit on that continuum?

Professor Lee Edwards:

So, I suppose I'm a bit more towards a recognition of public relations, having the potential to distort public debate. 

So because my research focuses on power and the way that power operates through PR, I always look at practice to work out what kinds of power are being fostered by PR work and what kinds of power being undermined. And I think to some extent, because public relations is focused on organisations and on the voices of organisations and making sure those voices are heard, there is always a potential for the profession to kind of highlight that institutional power, that organisational power over and above the interests of the public, the wider public. And I think, you know, to some extent that might seem rather cynical, but, but I think one of the problems is that there's lots of evidence of that. So if we look at the environmental debate, if we look at tobacco, if we look at you know, big pharma and, and climate.

There's plenty of evidence that where public relations practitioners have really worked hard is to push the debate into spaces where organizations feel less threatened by the issues, which is not to say that PR doesn't also work on the activist side. It absolutely does. And, and you know, I think one of the reasons why the question that you've asked is quite difficult to answer is that it does both. 

It kind of enhances the public sphere because it enables activists to have their voices heard as well. And that activist organisations and, and can be incredibly powerful in the visibility that they give to alternative voices. But it is a constant struggle. I think sometimes there can be a huge amount of benefit when public relations is used by organisations or powerful groups like shareholder organizations, for example, to lobby for change.  And so where the pressure to move towards a more democratic debate actually comes from within the business world or from your friends, rather than your in inverted commas: enemies, for example, which is what, how activists are often seen - the opposition. 

And then, then change can be really quite dramatic. So, you know, shareholder pressure to make things happen, it could be enormous. But in terms of, you know, facilitating power, when public relations is used by corporations, it's most often I think, used to protect and manage any kind of risk to corporations that comes from external debate,

Stephen Waddington:

Lets move that on and then consider the, the sort of issued of the day, which is purpose and the trend in corporate organisations to claim to consider a broader stakeholder concern than shareholders. So this is a shift to environmental, social and governance concerns called ESG. 

Is that meaningful from an investment perspective, do you think? Or is it the latest in the form of reputation washing?

Professor Lee Edwards:

It completely depends on how it's approached. It's very easy for that to become a form of reputation washing because, the institutionalisation of something means that it becomes structured and formalized and easy to orient towards because you have a formula through which to approach it. So, you know, if you're doing ESG, you know, you've got to address three different, three different criteria. You know, you've got to formulate some kind of targets in those areas. Essentially you can formulate them in ways that you wish, so that they can be easier to achieve or more difficult to achieve. They're framed in ways in which necessarily your organisation is going to be able to address them. 

And so because you are in control of the agenda that you set for ESG, you can make that agenda harder or easier as you see fit. And I think that's where the potential for manipulation enters the space. 

I think if you are an organisation where you really decide to take ESG seriously you have to be quite humble about it, and you have to open the organisation up to some fundamental change. It is impossible for organizations to make changes that really seriously engage with improving the environment and improving the social world that they, that they kind of impact and improving their internal governance if they don't honestly take a look at themselves and assess what areas of their practice need to need to be shifted quite substantially. And I think all organizations that have that question to ask themselves, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to do it all, all at once, but they have to recognize that if they're gonna take on that agenda, there's an openness to their own practice that they have to adopt as well.

And very often I think that things like ESG, because they're expected now by shareholders because they're very public, because they're talked about a lot by organisational peers it becomes a bit of a, a bit of a tagline, a bit of a buzzword. And when you have something that that kind of moves into, almost into the world of spin in and of itself, then it becomes something you don't really look at to intensely. ESG when done properly, I think is, is an engagement with risk and an engagement with one's own personal reputation and self, not self-image, but self-perception. And I think that's has the potential to be really rich, but is also something that has to be taken really seriously to be done properly.

Stephen Waddington:

That's good As ever, when you ask a researcher a question, you get a range of answers. And <laugh>, I absolutely appreciate it. 

Professor Lee Edwards:

7 in 1!! It's good value!

Stephen Waddington:

<Laugh>, there is never a single answer. And that brings me, I guess onto my next question. 

You seem very well rooted within your own research. And as a first year PhD student, something I've really struggled to come to terms with this year is getting really frustrated and angry even about my own topic of, of research. And it's, it struck me that, you know, if I was investigating something, you know, a, a really challenging social science issues like crime or, or child protection, I could end up, you could end up really tying yourself in, in knots emotionally. How, how do you avoid becoming frustrated about public relations practice because you're, you're peeling back a topic and finding so many issues that, you know, frankly need fixing?

Professor Lee Edwards:

Yeah, it's, I think it is really difficult actually. And it's, it's not so much about being frustrated and angry. It's more about it feeling so big that you can't do it. I think that's the problem. And, and then there's also the danger of it feeling so repetitive that you wonder whether it's worth doing it. I think that's the other question to ask really. 

Some of the things that that I resort to, I suppose and this is the advantage of being in research rather than out in practice, is that I can focus on very small things. And so I can write about one particular thing, which I hope exemplifies the dangers for other spaces, or I can choose one particular case, or I can actually take a break and do something else completely.

So for example, at the moment, one of the strands of work that I'm doing is also in, in, in relation to media literacy, which is actually a much more hopeful space because there's a lot of work going on in, there is some fantastic practitioners. There's lots of difficulties in this space, but the government, it's on the government's radar. And so there is the capacity potentially to, to have some influence there .

With, you know, the critique of public relations and the, the, you know, the refl flagging of the negative impact of PR when it's done badly, the potential for it to be something that distorts public life to some degree.

Stephen Waddington:

Also, also, issues are cyclical. They seem to come up every 10, 15 years.

Professor Lee Edwards:

Yeah. They come and get, yeah, so, you know, when you, so for example, I wrote a couple of years ago about misinformation. One big misinformation was a really big topic. And, you know, how do we deal with misinformation? And if you, if you look back at the history of public relations and, and actually more broadly and you know, it's misinformation has been part of our practice for years and or decades, really. And so if that's the case then we can't come in and say, ‘oh, it's okay, trust us, we'll solve the problem for you’, which is what was happening, you have to then turn around and think, ‘okay, hang on. Can we learn something from the fact that misinformation has been part of our practice? Should we perhaps be a bit more humble about this and offer some, you know, insights into how and why it happens?’

And therefore also, if we are genuinely interested in public health and the wider public sphere, the health of the wider public sphere, then what might we say we could do differently? Or what might we, might we say that other people could do differently? Or how might people track it, for example, you know, rather than stepping back and saying ‘it's nothing to do with us’. I think that, as you say, the debates are cyclical, but the practices are cyclical as well. And you do end up thinking, ‘okay, well where do I, where do you, where do you then insert your insights in order to generate change’? If change simply seems so elusive over such a long period of time? I think that's quite, that's quite challenging. But then, you know, you then you'll have a chat with people like you, and it'll be a fascinating chat. And, and I go back to this idea that individual practitioners themselves are really interested and interesting an awful lot of the time. And some of these dynamics are dynamics that many people want to change. That's where that incremental shift I think can happen.

Stephen Waddington:

Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>, that gives us all hope. Right?

Let's talk about engagement between theory and practice. It strikes me as very limited in public relations. Yeah. You know, fundamentally there's a need within practice for research. How do we better bridge the gap between the two communities, do you think?

Professor Lee Edwards:

Invite us in,

Stephen Waddington:

Invite us in?!

 Professor Lee Edwards:

<Laugh>. Really? Yeah. I mean, you know, academics love, love talking about their research. We don't get asked very often. We publish research in small, small publications that about 10 people read. So <laugh>, it's always nice if somebody else has to come and chat. 

Stephen Waddington:

Is it that simple though?

 Professor Lee Edwards:

I think that's part of it. Yeah. I mean, do think that's part of it. But if you ask us in, then you have to listen to us, right? <Laugh>, and it has to be useful, you know? Right. So there's no point in asking us in to perform engagement if you're not really gonna engage. And I have been in discussions in the past where it is been really interesting and it, and it, you know, I've been involved in, you know, conversations around diversity, but then it, you know, you give up your time and your kind of intellectual effort to, to attend these discussions. And then if nothing happens after that, you think, well, I don't think I, first of all, I don't think I'm value valuable and I don't think I'm being valued, so I'm not gonna do that again, because it takes out a chunk of time, you know, when, you know, it might be our practitioners will all incredibly busy people.

So there's a, there's a, a weighing up of the pros and cons of participation if that, if that's what happens. But some of the most interesting conversations I've had have been with really micro type events where you go into an organisation, you have a brown bag lunch, and you throw around a few ideas from your work and they respond. And, and, and I think, you know, some of those spaces can be really productive. It doesn't need to be a big massive event or a huge conference, although those are interesting, you know, it can be that kind of tiny, tiny space as well.  I mean, the other thing that I think is important for the combination of research and practice is in spaces where we are really behind because we, we don't get the funding or we don't have the time to go and do the research that needs to be done.

So a huge area in my view is how public relations is now working with technology and AI. There's almost nothing written on that. There's some theoretical stuff written on that by clear born at Goldsmiths, which is great, but we need to do the ethnographic in organization research to find out what's actually happening. You know, that that's a year of funding a PhD student to be in an organisation for 12 months. It's almost impossible to get that funding now. But if we had a way in to kind of collaborate with organizations and, and explore what was actually happening, then insights into, first of all what is being done and what the implications are of that activity would be much more readily available. And I think that's a huge challenge at the moment.

Stephen Waddington:

Sorry. You think funding should come from practice into research and then the idea the knowledge exchange comes might?

Professor Lee Edwards:

No, no. Well, I mean, it would be lovely if it did, but I dunno whether it would. I think the, the, or institutional associations would be, the professional associations could do that. I think that would be a really important place to invest some money you know, with no strings attached, obviously it would've to be independently done. 

But I think the other thing to know is that external funding is much easier to get if you already have partnerships and collaborations in place. And if you're working with an industry to explain what the impact of your research is gonna be and how it might be able to inform what industry does as well. So that kind of thing could be really useful to be able to write in a bid, and that helps you with your bid. So those kinds of, you know, and that's, that would happen at the organisational level. But that would be supportive of that connection. I think. 

I know that when I did I mean this is a decade ago now, over a decade ago, but when I did the diversity research that I did in the 2010s, one of the best things about it was that not just talking to the individual practitioners, but doing the industry event at the end of the year with Edelman, where we brought people in, the CIPR was there, the PRCA was there, you know, Edelman Robert Phillips was actually at the head of Edelman at the time, and they were just fantastic. And it just meant it had some visibility that it wouldn't have otherwise had within the industry. And I think that was great.

Stephen Waddington:

Let's talk about diversity, because it, it's the issue of the day in practice, both representation of all forms. It strikes me, you know, you've been writing about this for 10 years or more, you know, the issue probably first surfaced in the sixties and seventies within public relations. How is it we finally realised that diversity within public relations teams is a good thing? And actually, and here's the thing. Organisations are hiring against diverse criteria, finally. Why’s it taken so long?

Professor Lee Edwards:

Well, it hasn't really, I mean, you know, Anne Gregory was talking about when the CIPR got its charter in the early two thousands, and Gregory was talking about diversity then that's fi well, nearly 20 years ago now. 

So I don't think it's new. I mean, my view about diversity isn't, is not that it's about numbers necessarily. It is about numbers. The numbers are important, but I think if you only treat it as an issue of numbers, then any efforts to improve diversity will fail. Mm-Hmm. And there is already con, there are already conversations about this in terms of the fact that, you know there has to be the right kind of environment to welcome people who come from different backgrounds, who have different abilities, who, who are, you know, diverse in all sorts of different ways, and mul and diverse on multiple kind of intersectional criteria as well.

For me, diversity is really though, it's about being more democratic in the profession and sharing power. It's not about sharing space, although that's part of it. It's about fundamentally sharing power and listening to people who come in from very different backgrounds, with different worldviews, with different experiences under, and understanding them when they say the profession is not as you think it is, the profession for me is a very different world, and this is what I think needs to happen. And, and taking their perspectives and positions seriously and making change based on that. I don't think that we can expect change to happen even now. I don't think that we can expect change to happen unless we take the initiative for that change from the people who come into the profession from those other spaces, and they can say how things could change.

So that diversity I was gonna say is, is not, is more than just a flash in the pan, I think. I don't think there's even been a flash in the pan really so far. I mean, nothing has changed in the stats, but they would be the people who would say, okay, if you really want to make a difference, this is what you need to do. It's a bottom up change that needs to happen, not a top down one. That's, I think there is some good practice. I know some people have hired blind. I think that's great. But it's not widespread.

Stephen Waddington:

No. And yet much of your work focuses on power dynamics and the power of the client, well, the, the, the client in the wider sense within a public relations consulting engagement.

You know, you point to the client as as, as creating these imbalances right the way through the profession. Are we ever gonna have an equitable relationship with management, do you think from a client perspective?

Professor Lee Edwards:

I think, you know, and again, I would say that people know what's to be done. Really. They know what's supposed to happen there. They know that if you want an equitable relationship with management, you need to understand business as much as you need. You understand communication. You need to make contributions that are valued and valuable rather than just staying in your own spot. And to some extent, that means you kind of have to fragment around the edges. You can, you have to move out of being just the communicator, in inverted commas, and you have to become the strategic advisor. And again, there's lots of work around that. Practitioners know this already. 

There's an argument that and I think it's a historical argument. I don't think it stands up so well now that communication is an add-on to business. I think people know now that that's not the case.

So there's an opportunity there that, that the public relations profession can grasp and argue for. And I think there's maybe a tension here, and this is why it hasn't happened. There's maybe a tension between wanting to retain your territory, wanting to claim the fact that you're a PR practitioner, because that enables you to have some kind of status within the profession. And actually knowing that once you step outside, if people don't really care what you call yourself, as long as you help 'em communicate effectively, <laugh> Yeah. So you know, that kind of self-interest versus, you know, the, the broader business or client interest or the organizational interest, although they usually align, I think that's one space where they kind of pull against each other a little bit maybe.

Stephen Waddington:

Okay. Final question. And it's the, the headline of the podcast. What one thing do you think leads to be better business outcomes?

Professor Lee Edwards:

Well, one thing leads to better business outcomes. Oh, well, you've asked an academic, and so obviously I'm gonna come back by saying, well, it depends on how you define better <laugh>.

Stephen Waddington:

What's the range?

Professor Lee Edwards:

<Laugh>? So it, so my definition of better would be better ethically, morally, and for the planet and people, you know people being included in planet. And I think from that perspective, the argument will be a more honest business and holistically honest business about what it means to be an honest organisation in the social world and in specific social spaces. And being honest about the impact that you have and then working with, you know, the communities around you, human and non-human to decide what's to be done about that impact and how you can make it better.

Stephen Waddington:

A very elegant answer. Thank you, Lee Edwards.

Professor Lee Edwards:

Thank you very much for having me.

Stephen Waddington:

Well, that is the perfect wrap to today’s Better Business Outcomes podcast. Thanks to Professor Lee Edwards for joining me. Please don’t forget to subscribe wherever you usually find your podcasts and if you enjoy what you hear, please also leave us a review.

See you next time.