BUDDHIST PUBLIC RELATIONS MODEL FOR THAI ...

BUDDHIST PUBLIC RELATIONS MODEL FOR THAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: THEORICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

By

Paper submitted to the Public Relations Division 53rd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association May 23-27, 2003 San Diego, CA, USA BUDDHIST PUBLIC RELATIONS MODEL FOR THAI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The dominant public relations research has largely been done in an isolated milieu (McKie, 2001). Its apathy toward sharing connections and exchanging ideas with other fields of inquiry tends to disengage public relations theory and practice from a continually transforming paradigm. Cheney and Christensen (2001) posit that three major biases rooted deeply in dominant public relations theory are “the illusion of symmetrical dialogue, explicit and implicit corporatism, and Western managerial rationalism” (p.180). These concepts have been developed within the context of the

Buddhist Public Relations - ICA-15-11634

2

“Four” models of public relations (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984), the “Excellence” public relations (J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1992), and the modernist approach to organization (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; J. Grunig, 1976; Hayles, 1982). Conceptually, J. Grunig (2001) values public relations as a “management function” that establishes and maintains “symmetrical relations,” or a mutual understanding between the organization and the public. Paradoxically, most excellent research projects have been done mainly in service to big business and state agencies (Karlberg, 1996). In addition, J. Grunig’s dominant view accepts the modernist, or functionalist, approach to organization in which public relations practitioners give priority to the organization’s self-interest, economic orientation, and tangible contributions. This inherent managerial bias seeks to minimize complexity and differences in search of consensus and symmetry (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002). In recent years, contemporary public relations scholars have encountered a new paradigm in which the dominant approaches are being challenged, refined, and elaborated, while alternative theories (i.e., critical, cultural, rhetorical, postmodern, and interpretive) make their strides into the field (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000; Holtzhausen, 2000; Karlberg, 1996; Murphy, 1999). In relation to that, my research aims to study 1) how the alternative orientation to the modernist approach in public relations theory comes to light in a non-Western country, like Thailand, 2) how the dominant public relations can be reconceptualized to serve the broader segments of Thai population in general, community-based organizations in particular, and 3) what constitutes an adequate theory of this alternative public relations. For several years, I have developed my interest in an adequate theory and practice of public relations in the integration process from the sociocultural approach. In my previous research, I argued that the modernist integration themes, such as


3

integrated marketing communications (IMC), marketing public relations (MPR), integrated public relations (IPR), or integrated communication (IC), have lost a considerable amount of sociocultural context by overemphasizing individualistic and instrumental motives while neglecting important ethical, moral, and spiritual aspects. These modernist integration themes fail to recognize the true societal justification for public relations (Martinson, 2001). I contend that the integration themes, which have been the sole domain of “commercial and state communications” (Karlberg, 1996, p. 266), should be “reconstructed” (P. Hanpongpandh, 2000a, 2002a, 2002b) to enhance the social applications of public relations for the broader public interest. About a decade ago, Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) pointed out the need for a holistic framework and dialogical process in public relations. Yet many American public relations practitioners say that Kruckeberg and Starck’s community-building approach is far removed from what they actually do. In my research, I attempt to vindicate Kruckeberg and Starck’s challenge by undertaking the sociocultural perspective that looks beyond a solely Western modernist approach to organization. In particular, I initiate a need to understand the true societal justification for public relations theory and practice in Thai economic, political, social, and cultural contexts. The purpose of this research is three-fold. First, I develop a conceptualbuilding of the alternative voice of “Buddhist public relations” through the buranagarn, or the relational integration, framework and Buddhist interpretive perspective. Second, I take a step forward to verify the proposed concept of Buddhist public relations in the community development context through the integrated research method. Third, I discuss the key important findings and develop these findings into an operational model of Buddhist public relations for Thai community


4

development. I finally present the general contributions of the model to the theoretical and practical knowledge of cultural-based public relations. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK During the past decades, the world has gone through dramatic changes. It is found that the modernization and dependency paradigms fall short in understanding “holistic integration” and “public relationships.” These paradigms brought forward uneven development in which the upper-middle class and “new rich” have benefited materially from decades of modernism. The prevailing mood in modernization and dependency paradigms was to generate the individualist tradition, oppression, environmental degradation, spiritual and moral crisis, and social disintegration (Buddhadasa, 1989; Servaes, 1996). To this extent, the limitation lies in society’s loss of civic virtue, humility, social values, moral sense, and spiritual practice. Scholars from the multiplicity paradigm argue that world and social reality is so complex that it cannot be analyzed from a theory and method of grand narratives. Cultural factors become of prime importance in determining public and social relationships. Values and interests are intrinsic features of social interaction that are especially difficult to recognize from the perspective of dominant frameworks or grand narratives. The door is now open to alternatives, to qualitative approaches that are more relevant to common people and grassroots communities (Arnst, 996). Qualitative Approach and Public Relationship The qualitative scholars from the critical and postmodern camp have emerged from the criticism of the modernization and dependency paradigms. According to Holtzhausen (2000), the public relations discourse is political by its own nature. The term “political” in this sense refers to all forms of action linked to change or resistance to change (Williams, 1998). In the dominant discourse, public relations has


5

been regarded as an “ideology” or a “form of maintaining organizational power structures” (Althusser, 1971). Its purpose is to make people think alike, and then assert power over society. In contrast, postmodern scholars propose people’s strategies and individual power networks, or micropolitics, to counterbalance the ideological domination, or macropolitics (Baudrillard, 1975, 1981; Best & Kellner, 1991; Deleuze & Guattari, 1983; Haltzhausen & Voto, 2002). The understanding of symmetry and consensus concept in dominant public relations theory is currently challenged by the postmodern concepts of dissensus and dissymmetry (Haltzhausen, 2000). Creedon (1993) defined dissymmetry as “symmetry in different directions rather than as a lack of symmetry.” In the same manner, the idea that postmodernists attach to the concept of dissensus is not the lack of consensus, but compromise and negotiation through difference and opposition. Through dissensus, public relations will promote new thinking and new solutions to problems, thus contributing to real changes in the micropolitics of marginalized and powerless people, and the broader society. As change arrives, there are increasing numbers of qualitative scholars who begin to recognize the value of viewing relationships as dialogue and dialectical processes, or a dynamic tie of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between unity and differences. Montgomery and Baxter (1998) hold that relational dialectics differ from monologic (a concept of sameness/unidimensional) and dualistic views (a concept of polarity and binary). Relational dialectics take into account the importance of “the ongoing, indeterminant interplay of complex, contradictory elements” (Montgomery & Baxter, 1998, p. 159). Relational dialectics see power relationships through the lens of a culturally constructive effort, an ongoing process, and the process of discovery. Bakhtin’s (1984) concept of dialogue also supports this point. He stated


6

that social conditions are “polyphonic, involving multiple, fully valid voices representing different perspectives, no matter the issue” (p. 158). Seeing themselves as participants in the ongoing, complex societal construction of meaning, public relations practitioners are obliged to realize differences, opposition, and contradictions. In this context, “societal critique and reconstruction” (Gergen, 1995) become a significant challenge for public relations in the interests of community development. Qualitative approaches put forward that the multi-vocality of public relationships, at the mesolevels, microlevels, and macrolevels of analysis, is constituted in the contradictory interplay of opposed forces: centripetal, or forces of unity, and the centrifugal, or forces of diversity. From this paradoxical perspective, it is proposed that human beings develop a coherent sense of self by interrelating with others. Gengen (1999) added that, “knowledge of the world grows from relationships that are embedded not within individual minds but within interpretive or communal traditions” (p. 122). Through qualitative approaches, the public relations practitioner needs to be recognized as a participant in the ongoing societal construction of meaning. The true value of public relations is to understand human interaction under certain conditions and providing a message, which is significant to the participants, in a particular form, for the purpose of social order. The reconceptualized public relations based on the qualitative approaches will open up more cross-cultural applications and alternative models of social interaction. For that reason, it is assumed that public relations practitioners will learn to generate their own inner power; at the same time, they will be able to enhance local people’s “biopower,” (Haltzhausen, 2000) rather than being relegated to obtaining power from organizational dominant coalitions.


7

As the preceding discussion illustrates, it is suggested that more research should be done on enhancing the notion of relationship management and community building by being concern with the socially well-being of the broader publics. The important research issues that need to be highlighted are the nature of social settings, the networks of social interaction, power relationships, conflict resolution, and cultural understanding. In the following sections, I take up these challenges within the public relations context in Thailand. I develop further an alternative approach that is based on the integration of Western qualitative approaches, Thai indigenous knowledge, and their Buddhist way of living. An Alternative Direction of Public Relations for Community Development The multiplicity paradigm necessitates a broad-based integration framework that can provide greater sensitivity to sociocultural issues. As the emphasis begins to move from “the absoluteness” to “the dynamic inter-connectedness,” there is a need to see social reality as a result of “relational processes” that include a profound sense of relationships, including those among people and those between people and their society and natural environment (Buddhadasa, 1988; Gergen, 1999). This “relational process” requires the understanding of the “holistic integration” framework in which social reality is understood as referring to wholeness, inter-connectedness, dynamic relationships, and ongoing constructions that vary in different cultural and historical contexts (Gergen, 1999; Tomer, 1999). It is noted that “holistic integration” can be understood only by widening our view to include the community-building context in which cultures, values, and social relationships become core concepts, encouraging individual actors to take seriously the voices of others—the voices of difference—without forcing these others to share one’s viewpoint (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). The “holistic integration” framework


8

will accentuate power from the “ground up” within and among local actors, communities, neighborhoods, villages, workers’ organizations, and other constituencies (Himmelman, 1996) Seeing Western public relations scholars make their attempts to reestablish public relations as a relationship-building (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Ledingham, & Bruning, 2000) and community-building concept (Kruckeberg & Starck, 1988), I recognize an important role of public relations in the newly developed community-building context in Thai society. After the 1997 economic crisis, a new context of Thai community development began to shift to a humanistic framework of people-centered development in which people across the community live and work through constructive and collaborative relationships to improve their own society. Underlying this people-centered development is the view that “community” is a foundation unity operating in a social system in connection with “environmental constituencies” (Starck & Kruckeberg, 2001). The recent introduction of the buranagarn notion (Wasi, 1998a), a “reconstructive” and “holistic integration” framework based on contemporary Buddhist principles, has great influence on Thai community-building development. The Buddhism-based buranagarn framework originated from grassroots sectors, social thinkers and local theorists who have long been interested in social change and political economic reform (Sriariya, 1999). For these scholars, the new community development context recognizes that “strong community” or “civil society” is a core unit of a healthy society. Despite many sound concepts in the public relations sphere, public relations scholars have not yet contributed much to the community development area in any non-Western setting. The current “community relations” body of knowledge provides a very narrow scope, as it has mainly been done in the United States. The most


9

critical concern brought to bear in today’s society is how the relationship- and community- building notion can fit into disparate cultures, together with their corresponding political and economic systems. While the new paradigm for the 21st Century shifts to where community development theory requires a multi-disciplinary approach, I perceive the Buddhism-based buranagarn framework to be in accord with the norms, values, and beliefs of a predominantly Buddhist society like Thailand. From the synthesis of a critical qualitative perspective with relational Buddhist values, the term “relational integration” is coined as an alternative framework that involves the development of people by people and for people, which takes into account all dimensions important to them. The relational integration framework explicitly brings the concept of the “dynamics of interrelated social factors,” such as power relations, political economic systems, sociocultural justification, and the business-government-civil society engagement, toward the study of a more everyday perspective, a two-way, negotiated, and multi-sensory interaction. The relational integration framework, as offered here, is a holistic and dynamic process, rather than a project basis. Buddhist Public Relations: Theoretical Reflection From the Buddhist interpretive perspective, it is suggested that to change the fundamental view of mainstream public relations, we must change the way we measure public relations outcomes. Mainstream public relations measures progress by financial and economic outcomes; most public relations programs, then, have been governed by money-making motives. It is proposed that the relational integration will open up the space for a true societal justification for public relations (Martinson, 2001), particularly when public relations practitioners accept their responsibility for encouraging the voices of disadvantaged groups, the poor, and powerless group. In

Buddhist Public Relations - ICA-15-11634 10

such extent, the relational integration framework proposes a new way of thinking for public relations, the so-called “Buddhist public relations” (Hanpongpandh, 2002a, 2002b). In the community development context, the main focus of Buddhist public relations is to help promote thrift, self-sufficiency, and cooperation to achieve common goals based on long-term relationships. A self-sufficient economy is not about money alone. It means an economy, which is interconnected with the wellbeing of our selves, families, communities, cultures and environments. It is a socioeconomic development that maintains a balance of politics, economic well-being, ethics, morality, and spirituality. The tentative purposes of Buddhist public relations are 1) to establish and maintain fundamentally spiritual values, that is, trust, honesty, integrity, virtue, shared meaning, community, and ownership, 2) to promote the coexistence of all living entities, 3) to foster civic relationships and civic movements, and 4) to enhance collaborative alliances. This study of public relations is rooted in an acceptance of the reality of a community-based context that is full of difference, difficulty, and multiplicity. It is proposed that Buddhist public relations built upon the relational framework is an effort in understanding the community-based organization in its true condition, a collection of dynamic relationships of diverse but interrelated factors. The essence of Buddhist public relations, as a way to express and practice social conditions, lies in the heart of the “threefold training development,” (Buddhadasa, 1989) that is, proper behavior or speech, mental training, and insight or spiritual development. The main purpose in reconceptualizing the relational integration framework for Buddhist public relations is that Thai modern development has let its attention wander from the “threefold training development” and the links between individual


and macro-social analyses of power. In the relational integration framework, Buddhist public relations emphasizes the social applications of the “threefold training development” in both individual and macro-social dimensions. At the individual level, Buddhist public relations initiates the “looking from within” metaphor that can help a community-based organization develop its good behavior to the fullest extent in respect of body, mind, and spirit (Barrett, 1998). In this context, an organization is seen as a living entity that displays the full range of humanistic essences; as a consequence, it becomes a learning and self-reflective organization that knows how to enhance its consciousness and inspiration for social and cultural change. At a macro-social level, Buddhist public relations encourages the organization to recognize its role as a corporate citizen by maintaining its responsibility to establish a dhammic socialist society1 where the voices of grassroots organizations and civil societies have the opportunity of being heard. Theoretically, this conceptual proposition of Buddhist public relations draws attention to the true value of morality and spirituality as a springboard to the socioeconomic strength of community-based organizations. In short, the relational integration framework for Buddhist public relations focuses on the learning processes, moral practices and spiritual inner power of community-based organizations that will further the achievements made by local networks, government, business, and other environmental constituencies in improving the quality of life for the Thai people. As the Thai government attempts to promote a self-sufficient economy and community enterprise campaign to the Thai community, it is proposed that Buddhist public

1

Buddhadasa (1989) speaks about dhammic socialism in terms of the principles of natural balance of things. Therefore, in a dhammic socialist society, it is believed that if all things recognize the importance of interconnectedness, there will be a balance in nature among human beings, animals, trees, earth, and water (p. 195).


relations will become an important tool for the Thai communities to group themselves and work on community enterprise projects together. To this end, the research initiates the theoretical discussion on the relational integration framework of Buddhist public relations for community development. Another important step of this research is to answer the following general research questions: How can Buddhist public relations be applied to the practical settings? What does Buddhist public relations mean to community-based organizations in terms of concept, principle, process, and practice? What are the qualities of Buddhist public relations?

REVISING PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Research on communication in Thailand has recently echoed a sign of conceptual transition. In the pre-economic crisis era, communication discourse reinforced the dominance of marketing and the economic framework. Traditionally, modern public relations research on community development has simply based its studies on the optimistic position or a normative model. Rothenbuhler (2001) posits that the normative community development research mainly “contributes on the commonality and happiness in the communities, but is unable to offer any advice for improving them” (p. 159). According to Rothenbuhler (2001), an alternative model for the realistic community should also contend with the differences, problems, and difficulties inherent in community development context. In the post-economic crisis era, the Western qualitative research including its critical, cultural, and postmodern perspectives has been introduced to the Thai


community development context as a viable avenue to challenging Western-style modernization. Western critical and postmodern discourses, for example, take a pessimistic position on modern communication by identifying mass-distributed and commercial communication as threats to community (Rothenbuhler, 2001); however, they pay little attention to the moral and spiritual contexts (Steeves, 2001). As the Buddhist perspective accepts that in reality a community is full of differences, difficulties, problems, suffering, injustice, and inequality, a search for the accomplishment of community must go beyond the desire for sensual or materialistic pleasure and strive for moral and spiritual development. With its highly contextbased nature, spiritual and moral development usually involves the “hermeneutic understanding” to argue for emancipation from oppressive conditions (Steeves, 2001). To achieve my research purpose, I propose that the highly context-based Buddhist public relations can be fully developed through the co-operative experiential inquiry (Reason, 1994), as it pays attention to the inter-relatedness of theory, research methods, and social practice. According to Reason (1994), the rationale for conducting co-operative experiential inquiry can be justified as follows. First, to the extent that community development is an area of holistic integration, the research needs to account for the natural balance of material, mental and spiritual practices. Second, to the extent that community development is an area that deals with differences and problems, the research needs to include direct involvement with people (Steeves, 2001). Third, to the extent that community development is a process of social accomplishment and spiritual awakening that takes matters of mind, value, consciousness, insight, or genuine quality as its foundation, the research needs to reflect on communicative performance, relational meaning-making, and social interaction processes.


Formulating the Integrated Research Design My attempt, so far, is to visualize Buddhist public relations theory-developing research through the co-operative inquiry process. Based on the co-operative rationale, I make use of the integrated research methods of critical-qualitative ethnography and the collaborative action method as I examine a particular community-based organization that claims the relational integration framework and Buddhist perspectives as its core values. However, it should be noted at this point that this study has not been conducted with a focus on the selected community-based organization, but on the social actions and social system of that organization. The objectives for conducting the integrated research method are “to understand, not predict; to analyze, not generalize” (Wendt, 2001, p. 56) and “to ferret out” (Geertz, 1973, p. 26) social interactions and power and community relationships taking place between the community-based organization and its local communities. In addition, it is also designed to elicit insight on subjective experiences common to the community actors and to determine the significance of the communicative actions discovered with respect to the social system at large. Unlike extreme postmodernism, marked by excessive relativism and subjectivism, Wendt (2001) suggested that the critical-qualitative hermeneutics seek to examine “power dynamics in terms of freedom, equity, and a sense of justice, then argue for social change that will enact this equity” (p. 16). To this extent, the qualitative perspective brings an alternative way of knowing to a critical research by attempting to understand social conditions and social order as a less-than-rational or subjective dynamic. Viable critical-qualitative ethnographic research relies on observing what local people do and say in everyday life situations. It sees qualitative human inquiry as a


production of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. The objective is to interpret the social interaction of community actors by examining the “inside story,” through processes of deep attentiveness and of narrative understanding. In addition, in co-operative framework there is a need to take into consideration the interaction between those involved by regarding each individual as a co-subject or co-actor in the social research setting. Reason (1994) states that people involved in the community-building context become “co-subjects,” or “co-actors,” in the “co-created meaning process” (Heath, 2001). However qualitative scholars assure us that ethnographic research can be subjective by intent (Arnst, 1996; Simbulan, 1985) simply because of their interests in human inquiry into social reality, through observation, sensitivity to participants’ concerns, descriptive data, non-standardized instrumentation, a holistic perspective, and a search for underlying themes or patterns. To reduce the subjective problems of traditional ethnographic research, collaborative action research (Oja & Smulyan, 1989) suggests that the researcher needs to collaborate with and learn from the community. In this sense, the researcher becomes a co-actor who has a direct, articulated social purpose. In collaborative action research, co-actors focus on the products of relationships and shared meaning, rather than on their own individual participation. The collaborative action approach can help co-subjects discover the interrelations among the various systems and subsystems in the community or program under study. Collaborative action research focuses on sociocultural processes in which meaning is constructed, shared, and reconstructed by the co-actors of social groups in the course of everyday interaction (Oja & Smulyan, 1989). Through this process, coactors from both inside and outside organizations—who, it should be noted, can hold


different views of social reality—will focus on the process of how certain shared meanings and understandings of the particular sociocultural context are created, and the process of ongoing constructions of multiple ontological claims. Incorporated with the critical-qualitative ethnography, this new integrated research method emphasizes “the use of action-related constructs, and intellectual emancipation through unpacking taken-for-granted views and detecting invisible but oppressive structures” (Mile & Huberman, 1994, p. 9). Early in 1999, while I was reading the business section of The Nation newspaper Web site, I came across an autobiographical article by S.W. (I have changed some names, such as people, organization, and projects, in my research, especially those related directly to the subject under study), a wealthy corporate executive and prominent social activist whose business ideology is to support rural cooperatives and community-based organizations. S.W. said all his works were inspired by the goodness of his family and His Majesty King Bhumibol (the current King of Thailand and ninth of his dynasty), who has been working with the rural people and the poor for many years. I became interested in one of S.W.’s community business projects, called the CB co-operatives. Founded by a group of social thinkers, the CB is an urban retail cooperative that aims to stimulate Thailand’s socioeconomic community development based on the relational integration framework by turning self-sufficiency schemes into reality. Its novel public relations and marketing strategy concentrates on building relationships between urban and rural communities and encourages the formation and interaction of community-based organizations to distribute and sell their products to the CB co-operative. After a year and a half of keeping pace with the CB co-


operative stories and a preliminary study of CB co-operative, I went back to Thailand for my six-month research fieldwork during January to June 2001. Defining Core Concepts and Specific Research Questions CB co-operative operates within a web of social relationships that already exist between urban and rural communities. CB co-operative and its web of communities is the subject of my study. In this study, the CB co-operative is called a “social site,” while the related communities are called “locales.” According to Carspecken (1996), social sites are “specific spatial and temporal regions within society where people interact…a social site will be characterized by routine activities” (p. 37). Being a member of CB co-operative gave me a visa into two major locales and social settings: 1) customer membership communities and their patterned activities, and 2) local community and civil societies and their social formation and interaction. “Social setting” in this study refers to a tacit understanding, meaning, or power relation constructed and shared by the community actors from CB co-operative’s web of communities. Carspecken (1996) stated that social settings “do not depend on physical surroundings but are usually influenced and conditioned by many factors associated with the physical surroundings” (pp. 37-38), for example, cooperative rules, relations between sites, and cultural, economic, and political conditions. Carspecken (1996) defined “social system” as “the result of external and internal influences on [human] action that are very broadly distributed throughout a society…they are reproduced through patterned activity stretching across wide reaches of space and time” (p. 38). I adapt Carspecken’s diagram to explain the integration of core concepts placed in my study: social sites, locales, social settings, and social systems (see Appendix: Figure 1).


INSERT FIGURE I: THE RELATIONAL INTEGRATION DIAGRAM OF CB CO-OPERATIVE The Integrated Research Method My preliminary research began during June and July 1999 in which sources at the CB co-operative allowed me to take place in the form of observation experience, documentation, and interviews. In this preliminary study, I was able to formulate a list of questions about CB co-operative and the problems to be investigated: What part does Buddhist values play in the community-building process of CB co-operative and its locales? What kind of relationships and cultural forms existed between a) the CB co-operative and its locales, b) community actors and their social settings, and c) community actors and broader social-economic forces? What types of communicative activities have been done in the CB co-operative and within its communities? How do community actors benefit from the social integration system of CB co-operative explicitly and implicitly?

After gaining access to the CB co-operative setting, I applied the snowball technique as a way to gain my access routes to the related locales. Two local groups in the North-East (or Isan) of Thailand: Amnat Charoen Civil Society (ACCS) and Isan Wise Locals and Associates Network (WLAN) were purposefully selected to be studied based on the output from the interviews with sources at the CB co-operative. The audit of these community-based groups was carried out through personal relations and in-depth interviews with core group members, for example, key organizers, local leaders, and participating citizens. At the level of concept verification, my fieldwork was pursued in the cooperative and dialectic inquiry setting in which the interaction with communities under study (e.g., CB co-operative and its local network in Northeast region) played


an important part in developing the “telling” practices (Goffman, 1989) of Buddhist public relations for the community development. My narrative understandings focused on what was happening in the heart of each community and how the sense of community has been restored, developed, and sustained. I employ several measures recommended by Carspecken (1996) and Lincoln and Guba (1985) to explain techniques of supporting validity claims. First, I triangulate my study by applying more than my own senses when compiling the record. I usually take notes with a tape recorder running, and if possible, have other observers take notes with me so that our records can be compared. I also take photographs when I attend and participate in community activities. In addition, the integration of local intellectuals’ autobiographical narratives and documentation related to the CB co-operative and its locales provides me a wider perspective. Second, I use a flexible observation schedule to interrupt unconscious biases in attention. And finally, I use peer-debriefing and member checks to verify possible biases in attention and vocabulary. My peer debriefer is a colleague who also teaches public relations and is a public officer at the Amnaj Charoen (AC) community. We shared a common interest in public relations and community development projects in general. I also stay in contact with a few local intellectuals after a set of field notes has been compiled to share personal interests and ideas about community development strategies and the role of public relations in such a context. Having undertaken a preliminary study during June and July 1999, I have been well exposed to and have become familiar with the situation and problems of community development in North-East Thailand. Exogenously, there is currently extensive research being conducted on community development from both the public and private sectors in Thailand, which has facilitated the process of my study. This is


particularly so in terms of a very positive response from the communities under study and those actors involved. In addition, being well acquainted with the sites of study and those who are involved in the rural communities, I have the advantage of easy access to the required information and data. My relatives who are both villagers and rural development workers from the selected sites have been ready to extend their helping hands to my study. This is important as getting valid information and data from the rural communities without knowing them in person or being introduced to them by someone they know is generally difficult, if not impossible. GENERAL FINDINGS: THE PRACTICAL REFELCTION The analysis shows that practitioners from these community-based organizations are already engaged in Buddhist public relations discourse, although it is not recognized as such. An overview of the narrative analysis of CB co-operative and Isan civic network shows that their community-building practices deeply are engaged in dynamic cultural processes constituted by symbols, beliefs, rituals, social capital, local wisdom, and cultural norms. It also shows that Buddhism-based community building practices of CB co-operative and Isan civic network aim to open up channels for moral and spiritual awakening, civic engagement, social interaction, experiential learning process, and shared values among members. Through these channels, the social practitioners from these community-based organizations commonly intend to: 1) provide a base for the development of natural resources, local wisdoms, and traditional cultures, 2) generate courtesy within group members, 3) develop strong community, 4) encourage collaboration with their alliances, such as private sectors, non-governmental organizations, and governmental agencies, (5) exchange knowledge and expertise, and (6) constitute community relationships. .


Going beyond the scope of the conventional research, I address the value of public relations theory and practice for people’s organizations in which its focus move beyond the bottom-line justification to societal justification. Public relations theory, research, and practice from this perspective offer an alternative way of understanding and perceiving social reality through the on-going communicative interaction process and social meaning-constructing process (Heath, 1999), rather than simply sending message to the public. Based on the specific research questions mentioned earlier, I develop a relational integration model (see Figure 2) to illustrate how an on-going process of Buddhist public relations takes place in everyday practice of community-based organizations under study. This process is not an end in itself. Some important implications for Buddhist public relations become apparent as the process develops. However, the snapshot of this on-going process primarily provides the overview of Buddhist principles’ contribution to public relations for community-based organizations. INSERT FIGURE 2: THE REINTEGRATED MODEL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NETWORK

Buddhist Values as Moral and Spiritual Groundwork The reintegrated model of CB co-operative and Isan civic network illustrates that Buddhist values lie at the very heart of CB co-operative and the Isan civic network (ACCS, KK Village, SCDF and WLAN). The main emphasis is to advocate physically, mentally, and spiritually meaningful courses for community development and collaborative society. In such a framework, the essence of Buddhist public relations is to facilitate the development of reality perception through the threefold


training development process, including encouraging proper behavior or speech, developing mental training, and fostering spiritual awakening. The reintegrated model suggests two integral approaches, which are the “hard approach” and the “soft approach” (Barret, 1998). The hard approach represents the primary needs (or the physical well-beings) of the organization. The model illustrates that the physical well-beings are determined by health and safety (i.e., productivity, quality, and efficiency), economic status (i.e., finance, profits, funding, sales, service, and product excellence), and good environmental conditions (i.e., air, water, food, and earth). The “soft approach” represents the mental well-beings (i.e., interaction, mutual learning process, participation, involvement, communicative innovation, corporate culture and values, vision and mission, and employee fulfillment) and the spiritual well-beings (i.e., co-operation, collaborative alliances, partnership, social responsibility, and social accountability) of the organizations. As the “hard approach” is mainly practiced by marketers and those from hardcored functions, the “soft approach” is more related to social practitioners, such as public relations and communication practitioners (P. Hanpongpandh, 2000a). Traditionally, the modernist scholars and professionals, especially those who work for big businesses, have attempted to associate public relations roles to the hard approach. Therefore, many Thais think of public relations as an organizational tool to help achieve the organization’s self-interest and physical well-beings. Some people even see public relations as a “dirty business,” serving mainly to fulfill organizational economic goals. When such a perspective is applied to the community building context, it usually represents the downfall of spirituality, or a lack of the moral dimension (Buddhadasa, 1989).


As an alternative to the mainstream approach, the reintegrated model shows that the community-based organizations under study pay much attention to moral and spiritual purposes, which are the meanings of happiness, moral understandings, mutual learning processes, and proper behavior in relation to themselves and other people. These groups of people contend that the lack of a moral dimension in mainstream economic development can be seen in the extent of selfish behavior, which people take advantage of one another, and dispute between groups pursuing only their own self-interests. The research findings indicate further that to address the uncertainty and inequality in the multicultural or postmodern society, there is a need for Thai public relations practitioners to draw more on the “Buddhism-based soft approach,” the openness of the organization to internal and external interactions, the ability to learn from each other, and the higher level of the organization’s internal and external connectedness with and contribution to the society and community (Barrett, 1998). It is found that the Buddhism-based soft approach of CB co-operative and Isan civic network highlights the two important stages of community development. The first stage is the interaction with the spiritual communities, both internal and external—that is, public-minded leaders and organization’s members, wise locals, spiritual community actors, community enterprises, and governmental agencies. The second stage is the practice of critical and systematic reflection (Payutto, 1995), the so-called mindfulness. It is a way to practicing the application of thought and to coming to know the correct method of thinking in a critical, systematic, and deep manner through the creation of alternative understanding, openness to new information, and awareness of multiple perspectives (Banks, 2000; Payutto, 1995). Developing Dialectic Dialogue through Community Culture and Social Relationships


The reintegrated narrative analysis of CB co-operative and Isan civic network elicits that the Buddhism-based soft approach works best in the “dialogic complexity” setting (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) that composes the sustainable interplay of different voices. In this extent, the dialogic complexity brings forward the contexts of “community culture” and “social relationships” to public relations discipline. As it is found, community culture that displays the full range of humanistic essences tends to bring about a healthy environment, mutual caring, loving families, vibrant cultures, shared values, self-reliant community, and cultural networks. In a nutshell, these essences constitutes a mutual learning and self-reflective community that knows how to enhance its harmony, mindfulness, and inspiration for social and cultural change. Accordingly, the community cultures of the two organizations under study are likely to construct the dialogic view of social relationships. The on-going social interaction process and the shared understanding, which captures the spirit of Buddhist values, are at the core of the dialectic social relationships. The new context of social relationships lives the Buddhism-based soft approach out at both individual and societal levels. In the course of community development efforts, CB co-operative and Isan civic network perform the fostering and catalyzing role in developing community enterprises. They try to collaborate with social agents from other community networks to create a sense of community belonging, self-awareness, and learning from the experiences of each other. In addition, they play roles of liaison to build up collaborative alliances among communities, external institutions, and governmental agencies. The collaborative alliances will lead those involved to the “reciprocal relationships.” The lesson learned from the case study reflects that the true value of public relations should go beyond the understanding of a relationship as a transaction


market, where people get what they want, toward the understanding of a relationship as serial reciprocity, where people will get if they learn how to give. According to P.W., the chairperson of CB co-operative, the true democracy must be a reciprocal relationship-based community, not a democracy of individualism that fosters selfcenteredness. To keep up with the Buddhist principles of respecting society and nature, people should take only what they need, thereby respecting the rights of all beings. Kruckeberg and Starck’s (1988) community-building theory indicates that “public relations practitioners can help individuals to root themselves in the community, to grow with it, gaining in depth, significance, flavor, and absorbing the local tradition and spirit” (p. 116). What the Buddhism-based soft approach of CB co-operative and Isan civic network reflects is much of what Kruckeberg and Starck had to say. This is directly relevant to the practice of Buddhist public relations, not as it is usually practiced nor as it is presented theoretically in the existing discourse, but as it could be practiced for the purpose of maintaining moral and spiritual dimensions in the community development context. Communicative Interaction: Put Buddhist Public Relations into Practice In the framework of relational integration, the five-staged model of Buddhist public relations process (see Figure 3) recaps how the dialectical dialogues of community culture and social relationships are established and sustained through the communicative interaction between organizations and communities. The model suggests the following stages in the process: Stage 1: establishing local base and context diagnosis; Stage 2: facilitating co-operative setting; Stage 3: fostering communicative activities; Stage 4: linking community networks; and Stage 5: encouraging collaborative alliances.


INSERT FIGURE 3: MODEL OF BUDDHIST PUBLIC RELATIONS PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION The essence of Buddhist public relations model highlights the interactive engagement, the co-creation of social meaning, and the development of mutually beneficial relationship (Heath, 1999) between the organization and its communities, both internal and external. The social meaning-making process narrates and renarrates different voices in an on-going flow of social context in a particular setting. Through these aspects, both the organization and its community members who are engaged in the communicative interaction learn how to recognize the broader interests and the importance of others. The purpose of presenting this model is not to draw a universally applicable model, but more to initiate some thought and further analysis of public relations in the community development context. This model illustrates that Buddhist public relations process is not just a phenomenon to be described. It is regarded as a process, or a way of thinking to better understand the key elements that nurture individuals within and outside the organization toward a proper conduct in body and speech, followed by proper mind, which in its turn leads to insight and right understanding. This model is grounded in both theory and research, and forms the basis for a new theoretical model. It allows for public relations scholars and practitioners to improve their understanding of social ground and cultural network. What is emerging clearly is that Buddhist public relations discipline has evolved through a series of stages and through an integration of different factors. Primarily, the Buddhist public relations discipline takes into account the importance of the local wisdom, the moral and spiritual leadership, and the values-driven community culture, which inspires the community-based organization to cultivate the respect to itself and others, the acceptance and appreciation of differences, the


involvement of community actors in researching and planning the project activities, and the full measure of the right knowledge of the social reality. As the Buddhist public relations process is proposed and developed, its approach and knowledge expands far beyond the conventional practicalities. Buddhist public relations discipline recognizes the importance of theory, research, and practice as interconnected, not separate matters. Therefore, it is essential that Buddhist public relations for community development evolves in the co-operative experiential setting wherein scholars, community-based organizations, social practitioners, and community members are situated as co-actors within the circle of a social learning process. The Buddhist public relations process gradually builds from the simple communicative interaction within the group to the more complex and larger-scale communicative ties outside the group. Throughout the process, community members are no longer regarded as "the passive audiences," who have merely been taught to wait for someone to solve their own problems. The community members should be encouraged to have a say about their desired future. For example, CB co-operative and Isan civic network make their efforts to enhance the roles of community leaders and active citizens in community development programs. The case study shows that community leaders and active citizens can be instrumental in fostering the sense of community culture, preserving the indigenous knowledge, and stabilizing the reciprocal social relationships through the forms of group meeting, group discussion, public forum, participatory training, learning group, community network, and collaborative alliances. In short, the Buddhist public relations discipline aims to achieve self-awareness, communities of choice, valuedtransferred processes, reciprocal relationships, and sustainable public sphere through


community involvement, social interaction, mutual learning, and communicative innovation. POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO CULTURAL-BASED PUBLIC RELATIONS The major challenge of this research is the reconstruction of the public relations approach that is well-adjusted to the Thai context and the articulation of how the new context of public relations can be brought forward to the Thai communitybased organizations and the society as a whole. The review of Buddhist values, community culture and social relationships, and communicative interaction through the communities under study raise interesting heuristic issues for Thai public relations and suggests important areas of future research for scholars and professionals in the filed. The Buddhism-based soft approach for community development, the so-called Buddhist public relations, emphasizes the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to public relations, and draws the attention to the importance of understanding the impact of broader social, political, and cultural contexts on public relations practice and research. This perspective takes the hermeneutic journey back to the reality of cultural-based context, which involves daily struggles, conflict, difficulty, political motives, power relations, resistance, and the negotiation of meanings. Opposed to the mainstream public relations practice that gives privileges to the quantitative and more tangible or physical outcomes, Buddhist public relations is associated with a critical qualitative perspective and sociocultural issues, such as quality of life, healthy environments, family togetherness, mutual caring and generosity, civic culture, strong communities, indigenous knowledge, and selfsufficient economies. According to Oakley et al. (1991), the qualitative perspective


deals with difficult conceptual problems, which capture the variable dimensions of the dynamic and evolving social orders. Given the complexity and qualitative nature of cultural-based relationship and community development, public relations scholars and practitioners should “be critical thinkers and responsible, literate citizens than to be skilled in any of the task requirements of beginning public relations professionals” (Bank, 2000, p. 117). Cultural awareness, sensitivity, and diversity, as well as social-interpretive approach, cross-cultural communication, ethical communication, and multicultural community relationships need to be incorporated into the core public relations curricula. In addition, it is essential for the scholars and professionals who practice Buddhist public relations to recognize that there are no absolute or universal guidelines. The cooperative learning and experimentation is the spirit of Buddhist public relations discipline. During the writing of my research, it has been clear to me that it would not be easy to completely translate my idea of Buddhist public relations and Thai cultural context into English. As Wendt (2001) says, “language itself and the logic of a good argument are inherently wrought with bipolar ideas (good versus bad), and this is the symbol system and rhetorical strategy scholars are expected to use” (p. 161). Therefore, at times I have tended to fall back on the binary opposition (e.g., West versus East, modern versus postmodern, critical versus non-critical, and mainstream versus non-mainstream). However, the applications of the Buddhist middle path, which reflects the qualitative aspects or “the contingencies of language, of selfhood, and of community” (Vidich & Lyman, 1998, p. 78) help constitute the bridge between the binary


opposition. The approach assures that social reality can be understood through these extremely biased perceptions, doctrines, or theories. Even though the Buddhist public relations is particularly relevant to the Buddhist communities in the Thai context, I believe that the general findings presented here can be seen as distinctive guidance for the practice of various relationship and community development projects. I acknowledge that applying “Buddhism” to public relations practice might, unintentionally, make other nonBuddhists in Thai society and elsewhere feel excluded. However, as I proposed, the “Buddhist public relations” term essentially signifies an alternative way of thinking and understanding the non-rational and complex social reality. Therefore, its general purpose does not limit to the context of “Buddhism” as the theology, but more as a way to comprehend and not predict; to analyze, not generalize; and to experience the nature of the complex conditions in a given locality. Bank (2000) suggested that the alternative way to deal with this complex condition is to open up to the “creation of new categories of understanding, openness to new information and awareness of multiple perspectives” (p. 121). Therefore, the key to the progress in the field of public relations in the postmodern society is to facilitate little narratives to recognize the different approaches to public relations practice around the world. Through the differences, public relations will promote new thinking and new solutions to problems, thus contributing to real changes in the society. The major contribution of Buddhist public relations discipline is to enhance the inner power and growth of the community-based organizations and their local communities, as well as to bring their local narratives into the public relations discourse. In such case, the traditional public relations strategy is changing from the


powerful networking or political influence to relationship and community building, building goodwill of all key publics, complete transparency, and management accountability. In addition, Buddhist public relations discipline can encourage big change in the leadership and people management approach. In that extent, the new leadership and people management has more to do with communication and relationship building skills (e.g., building goodwill, fostering social knowledge, establishing mutual benefit, and sustaining collaborative relationships) than the political connection. More enlightened public relations scholars are becoming aware of the need to change their organizations into a new form to best serve Thai citizens. They begin to recognize that the development process is a two-way street. The recognition of both economic motivation and moral integrity is a step towards the humility and the willingness to learn from the full concreteness of actual human beings. The shift of values from self-interest and competition to cooperation and social justice, from material acquisition to inner growth would be prime importance in creating a new world order. Through this changing process, public relations scholars and professionals have inevitably played a key role in community and national development. Exploring Buddhist public relations as a process which Thai values are reconstructed provides an alternative perspective that chronicles the need to expand the knowledge of public relations for community development practiced in other parts of the world. It also has emphasized the need to link economic, political, social, and cultural context with the public relations theory and practice so that we can understand the native’s point of view when we observe and practice it globally. Through the Buddhist public relations process, good economic and financial


management does not necessarily have to be in conflict with social harmony. A successful development can occur without an exclusion focus on money and profits. In short, the Buddhist public relations process is considered a positive way to handle the true global-local integration, the so-called glocalization.

Economic, political, and cultural structure

CB Cooperative

Social Settings (action, interaction, negotiation and interactive power)

Social Site

Locales 1. Urban community 2. Rural community

Figure 1. The Relational Integration Diagram of CB Co-operative __________________________________________________________________


Note: The diagram is adapted from Carspecken’s (1996, pp. 34-39) TRUST study

THREEFOLD TRAINING DEVELOPMNET

URBAN CUSTOMERS

ISAN NETWORK

(CB co-operative’s members, customers)

SUPPLY

PHYSICAL 1) Health & Safety 2) Economic Status 3) Better Environment -Water -Food -Air

MENTAL 1) Social Interaction 2) Mutual Learning Process 3) Participation and Involvement 4) Communicative Innovation

QUALITY OF LIFE • Organic Farming and Community Produce • Avoid using chemical pesticide/herbicide • Help Family and Unemployed

NATURAL FOODS • Organic Vegetable and Product • Native Product

MEMBER ACTIVITIES • Learn and Understand the Poor and Give Support • Valued-transferred Activities • Strong Values-driven Culture

INCOME

CIVIL SOCIETY • Encourage Moral Leadership • Strengthen Community Culture • Promote Local Wisdom • Maintain Community Culture

BUDDHIST PUBLIC RELATIONS PROCESS 1) Self-awareness 2) Community of Choice 3) Valued-transferred Process 4) Reciprocal Relationships 5) Sustainable Public Sphere

SPIRITUAL 1) Co-operation 2) Partnership 3) Collaborative

SELF-DEVELOPMENT/ HELP ONE ANOTHER • Volunteers

SELF-DEVELOPMENT/ HELP ONE ANOTHER • Viable Community


Figure 2: The Reintegrated Model of the Community Development Network

Buddhism-based Groundwork

STAGES

1

Local Wisdom/ Community Culture

THEORY

Group Preparation

2

Moral Leadership

Group Learning

3 Action/Activity Group

CO-OPERATIVE RESEARCH

CO-OPERATIVE PLAN

COMMUNICATIVE ACTIONS


Group

Group

COMMUNITY NETWORK

4

Group

Group

5

COLLABORATIVE ALLIANCES

Governmental Agents

Business Sectors

NGOs

Stabilization Figure 3. Model of Buddhist Public Relations Process for Community-based Organization

REFERENCES

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B.Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left Books. Arnst, R. (1996). Participation approaches to the research process. In J. Servaes, T. Jacobson, & S. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for social change, (pp. 109-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bakhin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhin. (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Banks, S. (2000). Multicultural public relations: A social-interpretive approach. (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Barrett, R. (1998). Liberating the corporate soul: Building a visionary organization. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann. Baudrillard, J. (1975). The mirror of production. St. Louis, MO: Telos. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacres et simulation [Signs and simulation]. Paris, France: Galilee.


Baxter , L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford. Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York: Guilford Press. Broom, G., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83-98. Buddhadasa, B. (1988). Handbook of mankind. Bangkok: Supanit Press. Buddhadasa, B. (1989). Me and mine: Selected essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Burrel, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge. Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. (2001). Public relations as contested terrain: A critical response. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 167-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creedon, P. (1993). Acknowledging the infrasystem: A critical feminist analysis of systems theory. Public Relations Review 19, pp.157-166. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Dozier, D., & Lauzen, M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism, and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (1), pp. 3-22. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. (1995). Relational theory and the discourses of power. In D-M. Hosking, H. Dachler, & K. Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 29-50). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage Publications. Goffman, E. (1989, July). On Fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 18 (2), 125-133. Grunig, J. (1976). Organizations and public relations: Testing a communication theory. Journalism Monographs, 46.


Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Grunig, J., & Grunig, L. (1992). Models of public relations excellence. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heath, R. (1999, November). Rhetorical enactment: Building a holistic sense of the organization as enactor of relationships. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Hanpongpandh, P. (2000a, August). Integrated relationship management as a reforming paradigm of Thai corporations during the post-crisis: The case study and the [Re]construction of social values. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Phoenix, AZ. Hanpongpandh, P. (2000b, June). Toward relationship management integration concept: Building cooperative relationships in the global business market. Paper presented to Public Relations Division of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.

Hanpongpandh, P. (2002a, May). Conceptualizing relational integration and Buddhist public relations: Critical and cultural perspectives of community development in Thailand. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division of the International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea. Hanpongpandh, P. (2002b, March). Linking morality and spirituality to community enterprise success: A need for local network and state-civic collaborative alliances. Paper presented to Communication Sciences Division of the Fifth International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL. Hayles, M. (1982). Science or society: The politics of the work of scientists. London: Pan Books. Himmelman, A. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: from social service to social justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage (pp. 19-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 12(1), 93-114. Holtzhausen, D., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations practitioners as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-82. Karlberg, M. (1996). “Remembering the public in public relations research: From


theoretical to operational symmetry.” Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(4), 263-278. Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public relations and community. New York: Praeger. Ledingham, J., & Bruning, S. (2000). Introduction: Background and current trends in the study of relationship management. In J. Ledingham & S. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. xi-xvii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Martinson, D. (2001). Teaching public relations students to place public interest before client/management concern. PRUpdate, 36(1), 1-2. McKie, D. (2001). Updating public relations: New science, research paradigms, and uneven developments. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 75-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Montgomery, B., & Baxter, L. (1998). Dialogism and relational dialectics. In B. Montgomery & L. Baxter (Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 155-184). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Murphy, P. (1999). Symmetry, contingency, complexity: Accommodating uncertainty in public relations theory. Paper presented to Public Relations Division at the National Communication Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Oakley, P. et al. (1991). Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural development. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Oja, S., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative Action Research: A developmental approach. (Social Research and Educational Studies Series, 7). London: Falmer. Payutto, P (1995). Buddhadhamma: Natural laws and values for life (G. Olson, Trans.). New York: State University of New York Press. Reason, P. (1994). Inquiry and alienation. In P. Reason (Ed.), Participation in human inquiry (pp. 9-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Reason, P. & Heron, J. (1995). Co-operative inquiry. In J. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Psychology: Volume 2: Evolving methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Rothenbuhler, E. (2001). Revising Communication Research for Working on Community. In G. Shepherd & E.W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and Community (pp. 159-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Servaes, J. (1996). Participatory communication research with new social movements: A realistic utopia. In J. Servaes, T. Jacobson, & S. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for social change (pp. 82-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Sriariya, Y. (1999). Poom panya buranagarn [Buranagarn wisdom]. Bangkok: Amarin Book Publishing. Starck, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2001). Public relations and community: A reconstructed theory revisited. In R. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 51-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Steeves, H. (2001). Liberation, feminism, and development communication. Communication Theory, 11(4), 397-414. Tomer, J.F. (1999). The human firm: A socio-economic analysis of its behavior and potential in a new economic age. New York: Routledge. Vidich, A., & Lyman, S. (1998). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology, In N Denzin and Lincoln, The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues, (pp. 41-85) California: SAGE Publications.

Wasi, P. (1998a). Setthakij Chumchol: Tang lurk puer tang rod sang kom [Community Enterprise: An Alternative for Thai Society]. Bangkok: Amarin Printing Publication. Wendt, R. (2001). The paradox of empowerment: Suspended power and the possibility of resistance. London: Praeger. Williams, J. (1998). Lyotard: Towards a postmodern philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.