Oct 20, 2014 - new media tools, specifically websites, indicated that organizations develop .... media tools employed, and maturity of online communication efforts. ..... the added responsibility of social media monitoring, one communication.
20 Foundations Creating Social Change through Technological Innovation Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever For nearly two decades, scholars have lauded the potential and lamented the failure of the Internet to achieve civic and social engagement (e.g., Kelemen & Smith, 2001; Mitra & Watts, 2003). Early research on the adoption of new media tools, specifically websites, indicated that organizations develop Web presences because they feel they need to in order to stay competitive (Miller, 2001). Further, research indicates that public relations practitioners, who were often asked to provide input for this new medium, joined the cyber-bandwagon without research-based target audience driven objectives (White & Raman, 2000). The rush to join the online cloud accelerated in the first decade of this century, when the Web entered a second generation of participatory online activity, commonly referred to as Web 2.0. This era was marked by the rise in popularity of user-generated content in the form of blogs, and the birth of free social networking sites defined by their ability to create social connections through user participation (Song, 2010). In recent years, the exponential expansion of digital communication tools has captured the attention of public relations scholars and practitioners alike. Most studies about the public relations uses of new media for civic and social engagement focus on service-oriented nonprofits or corporate social responsibility campaigns of profit-seeking entities. Although an important part of the nonprofit sector, foundations have been largely overlooked in this research. Yet, these philanthropic organizations provide instrumental support to service-oriented nonprofits in terms of grant funding for programmatic efforts, training to develop leadership capacity, advocacy on their behalf in policy discussions, and education to enhance the viability of the sector. As a result, nonprofit organizations look to foundations not only as a source of funding but also as a resource for innovation. Through foundation funding and shared knowledge, nonprofits are able to empower stakeholders toward behavioral change, engage the public sphere in the democratic process through discussion of policy implications, invest in social change within their communities of influence, and affect media coverage of key issues (Holtz, 1999). For these reasons, this study examines foundations’ use of Web 2.0 strategies as a public relations tool to advance civic and social engagement.
6244-475.indb 310
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 311 LITERATURE REVIEW Quantitative inquiry has begun to explore and document the Web 2.0 strategies used by public relations in the nonprofit sector to stimulate social and behavioral change. However, this line of inquiry has focused almost exclusively on service-oriented Section 501(c)(3) entities (see e.g., Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Waters et al., 2009). Across the board, findings have indicated that nonprofits are not using the interactive power of the Web to its full potential and often fail to acknowledge and invest the necessary ongoing resources to take full advantage of this important communication vehicle. However, these types of quantitative inquiry are insufficient for documenting the motivations and expectations surrounding the use of new media strategies, and how these strategies are managed online. In light of foundations’ leadership positions in cause-related research as well as their role as a primary funding source for a wide array of nonprofits, it is important to gather perspective on these issues from the professionals who work for these organizations. The Role of Foundations. First, distinctions between foundations and service- oriented 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations are worth noting. Although rarely providing direct service in the public domain, these grant makers rely on and invest heavily in the nonprofit sector to achieve success related to their missions. According to the Communications Consortium (2004), foundations are making unprecedented investments in communication strategies in order to educate and mobilize Americans in support of social and/or behavioral change. However, the benefactors of this substantial investment, nonprofit organizations, need more than grant funding from foundations to achieve success. As the next generation of citizens comes of age in a time of online and mobile technologies, the viability of these organizations will be determined in part by their transparency, interactivity, and collaborative communication made possible by Web 2.0 (Tapscott, 2009). Thus, foundations must also model best practices in online communication, contribute innovative planning solutions, and promote proven tactics to enhance programs and projects of their grantees. The recent economic downturn has limited many foundations’ ability to sustain previous levels of grant making, forcing nonprofits to stretch limited dollars further. In 2009, the charitable sector experienced its steepest decline in support in over 50 years. In the years since, giving has increased incrementally year over year; however, at the current growth rate, total charitable giving will not return to the 2007 high for another six years (Kalugyer, 2013). These decreases in funding have led many foundations to refocus their fiscal priorities on technology literacy initiatives, increased foundation-based public engagement through social media, and streamlining service offerings online. These tools allow the foundations to reach targeted, localized audiences with immediate and timely communications, while stimulating discussions and collaborations.
6244-475.indb 311
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
312 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever Theoretical Framework. The primary theoretical lens applied to this study is derived from the seminal multiyear study resulting in the theory of “Excellence in Public Relations” (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). This expansive body of scholarship has been referred to as a general theory of public relations (Kim & Lan, 2010). This theory tells us that excellent communications departments know how to engage in two-way communication with stakeholders, while using cutting- edge expertise in public relations research (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995, p. 123). Further, according to some scholars (Grunig, Grunig, & Ehling, 1992), public relations strategies contribute to organizational effectiveness and have monetary value when they build quality long-term relationships with strategic constituencies. These authors posit that this happens when the senior public relations manager is a member of the dominant coalition and can help shape goals and determine strategic external publics for the organization. In two-way symmetrical communication, which is the preferred model according to excellence theory (Grunig, 1992, p. 528), “organizations—and especially the dominant coalition—should adjust and adapt to publics upon whom survival and growth depends” (Dozier & Ehling, 1992, p. 182). This concept emphasizes the role of both communication officers and top executives at foundations supporting the efforts and initiatives of the nonprofits the foundations fund. Further, while foundation communication officers are expected to have the tools and knowledge to create excellent communications, it is also imperative that senior management understand the role and function of communication (Dozier et al., 1995). Thus, this chapter relies on in-depth interviews conducted with senior staff as well as communication officers of foundations, regardless of whether they are considered part of the dominant coalition. More specifically, responses from these in-depth interviews should shed light on foundations’ use of Web 2.0 strategies as a way of modeling public relations excellence by helping us answer the following research questions: RQ1: How and why are foundation leaders using Web 2.0 strategies to communicate with various organizational stakeholders? RQ2: How do foundation leaders view the allocation of resources for online communication, and how are they measuring success? RQ3: Among foundation leaders, what are the perceived barriers or challenges related to implementing digital communication strategies?
METHOD This chapter takes a qualitative approach to studying foundations concentrated in one southern state. The sampling frame for the study was the trade association for foundations working in the state. Foundation members of
6244-475.indb 312
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 313 this association fall into four main categories: independent foundations with endowed funds focused on a particular geographic region or social issue; health legacy foundations funded through endowments typically created by hospital systems; community foundations serving a particular geographic area; and corporate giving programs operating as the social responsibility arm of for-profit entities. Annual grants for foundations in the study range from $100,000 to more than $5.5 million. Funding concentrations vary and include service to particular geographic areas, and those focused on particular social issue(s) including health, education, cultural affairs, and the environment. These foundation and grant types mirror national data and definitions provided by the Council on Foundations (2011), a national membership-based organization of more than 2,000 foundations. Corporate giving programs, because of their affiliation with and guidance from for-profit entities, were excluded from this study. Sample. Open-ended interviews were conducted with foundation chief executive officers and communication directors who use online strategies as part of a communications plan for the organization. Additional investigation of the online strategies employed by the foundation provided context for developing categories used in the analysis. The researchers interviewed these experts either by phone or in person for 30 minutes to one hour. Participants were carefully selected to assure representation from different foundation types, annual giving levels, geographic areas, and funding focus areas. Using these criteria assured maximum variation and allowed the researcher to identify normative usage of communication technologies among foundations. Four foundation CEOs and three communication officers representing a total of six foundations agreed to participate in the interviews. Analysis. A qualitative textual analysis of transcribed in-depth interviews and foundation-related online communication was conducted. Open coding to extract concepts from the raw data occurred in three waves. First, upon completion of each phone interview, field notes were taken to notate themes from each interview. After completion of transcription, the researcher listened to the interviews while reviewing the transcription documents and a second set of field notes were compiled to outline themes emerging from a second review of the interviews. Axial coding, or crosscutting data, was then achieved by merging the two sets of field notes while concurrently reviewing the new media forums (websites and social media) employed by each foundation. This process led to the integration of information into categories or bins with multiple themes, concepts, dimensions, and properties contributing to the overarching key concepts, constructs, or blocks of content. Next the researcher color coded the categories identified through open coding and reviewed the printed transcripts. Pertinent responses to interview questions were highlighted and theoretical memos were notated on
6244-475.indb 313
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
314 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever the documents. This allowed for data reduction into the previously defined categories, and made further comparison between responses possible. At this point, the researcher returned to the online forums where foundations managed a public presence to compare key interview commentary to the actual online presence. Throughout the analysis, special attention was paid to the foundations’ mission, purpose for engaging in new media strategies, the scope of the new media tools employed, and maturity of online communication efforts. Validity was achieved through triangulation of data found in online sites, between foundation types, and within individual foundations between communication officers and CEOs. FINDINGS The foundation leaders and communication officers interviewed for this chapter universally agreed there is utility in online communication to achieve their mission. Recognizing that their role is more than just funding, these foundations are seeking to engage a wide array of internal and external constituencies including grantees, other foundations, media and policymakers, to name a few. Their efforts to better understand the potential for these channels are focused on elevating the visibility of the sector, bringing attention to important issues, sharing resources, educating existing and potential stakeholders, and promoting collaboration. Further, these foundations, once seen as “towers on a hill,” hope to now use the participatory potential of online communications to break down barriers, transparently provide information, and innovate. Leading by example, the foundation executives interviewed indicated that they have turned to participatory new media solutions including mass e-mail communication, interactive websites, informational blogs and podcasts that invite public commentary, participatory social media tools, training sessions delivered as webinars or by satellite feed, and online collaboration portals to facilitate discussions. Despite the broad range of type, focus area, and assets, insights from these foundations coalesced around several key themes related to their decisions to allocate resources to various strategies and desired outcomes associated with incorporating new media tools into communication campaigns. In the results below, we allow the executives to speak for themselves related to each of our research questions and provide additional support from the analysis of online content posted by the foundations that participated in the study. The first research question asked how foundation leaders use Web 2.0 strategies to communicate with organizational stakeholders. Generally, foundation leaders seem to be using online communication to extend access to information, to advance their mission, and to interact with multiple stakeholders who may not be geographically proximal. Specific examples and participants’ comments are described under these headings below.
6244-475.indb 314
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 315 Extend Access to Information. The foundation leaders interviewed indicated having had a website for some time, but most entered the participatory social media environment within the last two to three years. They now view their websites as an information hub or repository, with dialogue occurring on several social media platforms that are connected as spokes to the main website hub. Further, these executives saw the opportunity to develop collaborative workspaces that streamline the grants processes on the front end, and after funding, improve efficiency of nonprofits by creating spaces for nonprofits to work together. A final theme that emerged in discussions related to information access was related to the importance of resource sharing across key constituencies (e.g., staff, grantees, media). Information Repository. A visit to these foundations’ websites shows a variety of ways to connect to their social media platforms and join in dialogue with the foundations. This cross-promotion is an important strategy to achieving success online. As one foundation leader with 20 years of experience articulated, “we repackage information for distribution across a long list of online platforms and mass media outlets, but ultimately it all links back to our website for more information.” Echoing the important role of the organization’s website, a communication officer with three years of experience explained the strategic nature of information dissemination: The crux of our information is on our website. The crux of the people we want to engage are on Facebook. We’re never going to get 8,000 people check out the site every day, but if I can tap into five places that most of those people already check every day, it’s going to be the same effect. Collaborative Workspace. Beyond housing information, the organization’s website provides an important role in increasing efficiency of the grant- making process. Adopting the national trend of only accepting online grants applications, many foundations have been able to engage additional nonprofits seeking grants and better work with allocations committees by developing online tools. As one foundation leader with six years of experience put it, “we don’t want everyone to jump through hoops to do their work. This online process means more people can participate in doing good in the community.” In line with this collaborative workspace model, one foundation indicated that for the rural geographic area they serve, connecting with popular online social networks was not the right answer. However, they have developed an online nonprofit collaboration portal designed and facilitated by the foundation. This foundation leader, with seven years of experience, indicated that this “increases their knowledge of the work of their peer community organizations, increases service awareness within the community, and decreases competition for available resources.”
6244-475.indb 315
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
316 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever Resource Sharing. Another way that foundations are seeking to achieve their mission is to post content on information-sharing websites, and provide links to information sources through their own communication channels. As one communication officer with five years of experience put it, “If there’s a website that shares best practices of foundations and nonprofits, we want to put our work on there . . . and we know we’re not all knowing, so we share other [organizations’] resources and information to help educate our nonprofits.” Mission Advancement. Foundation leaders saw new media tools as a way to advance their mission in a number of ways. First, they seek to achieve goals of capacity building, by advancing the awareness and knowledge of issues that affect nonprofit leaders and grantees. Additionally, these foundations seek to facilitate collaboration both within the sector among nonprofits, as well as across the community, state, and nation. Further, these foundations seek to expand crowdsourcing opportunities, or gain input on projects, by soliciting insight from the public at large, and stakeholders specifically, online. A final way that these foundations hope to advance their mission-based objectives is by positioning their staff and leadership as experts and demonstrate their reach through effective use of technology-based communication. Capacity Building. This theme refers to the conceptual approach to development that allows foundations to focus on understanding the obstacles that inhibit nonprofits from reaching their potential, while enhancing the nonprofits’ abilities to achieve measurable and sustainable results. As one communication officer with two years of experience indicated, participatory media offers “many directions to improve engagement with important information, and hopefully our mission in general.” A foundation leader with 15 years of experience articulated the dueling opportunity and threat in this way: Funders have to look at ways to help nonprofits become more sophisticated, knowledgeable and proactive moving forward, because if they’re not, they’re going to be left behind and it’s not only going to be a missed opportunity. It’s going to have a negative impact on their organization. Facilitating Collaboration. While foundations recognize the potential of new media to segment audiences, personalize communication tactics, and localize outreach efforts among like-minded groups, they see these opportunities as a way to build bridges. One communication officer with five years of experience poignantly stated that foundations must “show what we’re doing, let other people know . . . tell them how to participate.” Realizing the interconnectedness of communities and states, another communication officer indicated that online communications are “about making those connections and developing those relationships beyond our sector and really
6244-475.indb 316
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 317 educating other people . . . to bring about change in our community.” Similarly, foundation executives saw their role in facilitating collaborations as innovators capable of creating opportunities and enhancing awareness. A foundation leader with 15 years of experience indicated that it was more than simply reminding the reader of the organization’s mission, but helping them to see the people behind the mission: The opportunity with changing technology and the desire to share what we have learned, is to teach and inform about how that poor person pushing a cart got there. We can do it in a way that potentially influences more people from the everyday citizen, the policy-maker, the rural poor communities, or the capital city. Crowdsourcing. Another key theme related to the utility of Web 2.0 strategies that emerged from foundation interviews was the concept of crowdsourcing. Foundation leaders recognize the value of multiple opinions and have begun using the two-way communication potential of new media to source opinions from a variety of audiences in new media forums. As one foundation leader with 20 years of experience put it, “it’s shaping our story telling and helping us figure out what are the things that people react to.” Another foundation leader with 15 years of experience indicated that the old “ivory tower” way of foundation thinking was no longer practical or effective: If you want to know something, ask everybody. We believe the best decisions are informed decisions, and we make better decisions not in a vacuum or an ivory tower, but with other people. New media gives a voice to those other people. Positioning. Other foundation leaders saw new media strategies as a way to “increase legitimacy” of their work, “demonstrate the reach of the foundation,” and position “foundation staff as a group of experts.” Echoing sentiments associated with breaking down barriers and elevating visibility of the foundation, one communication officer with five years of experience said, “some people have the perception that we just sit in here and four times a year we make grants . . . we use this to also show what we’re doing in the community.” Many foundations advance their mission in this way by using multiple authors for their online posts, which concurrently allows them to position the dominant coalition as experts. As one foundation leader with seven years of experience put it, these posts allow readers to “see the foundation staff as being a group of experts on these specific areas where they focus.” Other foundations use online tools to help demonstrate their geographic reach. One foundation leader with 20 years of experience said, “I try very hard when I’m out of the office to post and reinforce how many places we work in this region.”
6244-475.indb 317
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
318 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever Interaction With Stakeholders. Reviewing these foundations’ online spaces that are open for public commentary provides evidence that these foundations seek to create channels of communication by presenting information that is timely and relevant, while also relying on photos and videos to share the story of their work in the communities they serve. When asked about the interplay between sharing information and engaging discussion, two key themes that reflect theory emerged. These themes related to seeking engagement, or two-way dialogic communication, versus serving as a communication conduit, a much more asymmetrical provision of information. Seeking Engagement. Foundation leaders felt that the potential of participatory communication channels provided a way to “build trust and support” through transparent dissemination of information, “start the conversation” about what was going on in the community, allow “opportunities for feedback,” and “attract new audiences while engaging existing donors and grantees.” Across the board, study participants felt these outcomes increased efficiency and effectiveness of the foundation. They were, however, candid that often the goal and the outcomes do not meet. In fact, a review of these foundations participatory online presences revealed a lack of public commentary. While one foundation leader with 20 years of experience indicated a desire for a “conversation more than using a megaphone to stand up and announce something,” he also noted that the organization was not yet at a state where they were getting a lot of reaction. Communication Conduit. Further, foundation executives indicate that dialogue is not always the goal. Many foundation leaders saw new media’s best role as a way to extend their nonprofit’s programmatic abilities by providing resources and sharing research conducted by the foundation or other credible sources. An analysis of the volume of posts that disseminate expertise garnered from other organizations reaffirms this point, as a large volume of content on organization’s participatory platforms originated elsewhere. These foundation leaders indicated that serving as a curator of content “allows nonprofits a one-stop shop for connecting with the right resources without having to search or recreate the wheel.” One foundation leader with 15 years of experience said: “We have the resources . . . and knowledge of the issues that affect the sector. I see it as our job to get this information to the nonprofits working in the trenches in a timely way.” Exploring the potential of technology- based communication has resulted in positive gains for the sector according to study participants. By using these tools they have seen success in terms of expanded outreach and fostering thinking around issues by reaching stakeholders wherever they might be geographically. As one foundation leader with 15 years of experience indicated: “It’s all about access. We don’t want people to just have access to the information by being in person here. We want to provide them access through other methods.” Some ways that these nonprofits
6244-475.indb 318
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 319 are providing access to information include satellite trainings, podcasts, online workshops, and web-based resource centers. One communication officer with five years of experience lauded training access by discussing the advantages: We used to have these great nonprofit workshops that were free and open statewide. Then we realized what a sacrifice it was for people to drive all the way here to take part, so we now have the technology for satellite training sessions. Fiscally Fundamental. The second research question asked how foundation leaders view the allocation of resources for online communication, and how they measure success in these endeavors. Generally, foundation leaders view online communication as an investment in the organization’s mission and future, and thus far, they seem to be measuring success qualitatively, through trial and error approaches and through anecdotes and referrals. Foundation leaders in this study recognize that while many new media technologies may be free in the initial sign-up phase, their maintenance and effective use requires a multipronged allocation of resources. Foundation executives described the expense as an investment that they feel they need to make because they have the resources and staff to do so. More specifically, foundation allocation of resources for experimenting with online communication strategies was described as a “costly value-added” service to the nonprofit sector. To measure the extent of the expense, one foundation went so far as to audit marketing staff time and found that approximately “20 percent of marketing staff time is spent on social media engagement.” Staff time, however, is not the only form of investment in understanding the potential of online portals for participatory communication. One communication officer with five years of experience described the investment in terms of “perception versus reality” and indicated that foundations felt it was their “job to figure out what works.” Echoing this sentiment, a foundation leader with 15 years of experience highlighted the depth of dollars allocated by ticking off a list of hardware, software, training, consultants, staff time, and development of distance learning programs needed to “develop the most up-to-date opportunities in the latest and greatest way.” Another foundation leader with 20 years of experience outlined the fiscal investment in this way: We definitely are wasting effort on this because we are exploring it and we’re probably investing more than nonprofits can do because we have the luxury of doing it. . . . We’re investing fairly heavily in professional development at this point without much oversight and just trying to do it by focusing someone on what, in the long run, is our electronic strategy. However, these leaders also indicated that modeling innovation can enhance overall efficiency and increase fiscal responsibility in the nonprofit
6244-475.indb 319
10/20/2014 10:24:03 AM
320 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever sector. In their view, online strategies provide “advantages over some mass media and direct mail approaches” that lacked the ability to target messages, and frequently had long production schedules. One foundation leader with 15 years of experience described the use of technology as a reflection of the fiscal responsibility and viability of a nonprofit. It’s interesting to me how many hundreds of print newsletters I get a year. By the time I receive it I think it is outdated information . . . (and) a terrible waste of money. It tells me a bit about the health, well-being and innovative savvy of a nonprofit based on what I get from them. Let’s communicate in a way that’s not in the dinosaur ages. Measuring Success. Whereas most foundation activities and grant-funding allocations include rigorous success measurement protocols, the trial and error approach to communication technology initiatives has led to measurements of return on investment that are more qualitatively focused. In fact, many foundations see anecdotal stories as measures of success, while other foundations indicated that referrals were effective measures of success of online strategies. Trial and Error. Foundation leaders commented both about their reservations and the opportunities for measuring success. One foundation leader with 20 years of experience indicated that it was hard to say “what successful might look like” and added, “we’re jumping off a cliff a little bit not really knowing how to measure this.” One communication officer indicated that the challenge of using standard quantitative metrics, such as “number of fans or followers or comments,” was that there was no way to assess if “ people are appreciating the information—are they finding it useful?” Relating it back to influencing social change, a foundation leader with 15 years of experience qualified this trial and error approach in this way: We haven’t boiled it down to this messaging strategy is best for this segment, this is best for this one and so on. It’s more about looking at goals broadly and seizing opportunities to inform and impact every day. Anecdotal Stories. Foundation leaders also felt that the dynamic nature of their online presence meant that simple counts and tallies were insufficient measures. In their description of online success, they most often shared stories about personal contacts. One communication officer with five years of experience indicated that “a lot of times people comment in person to me about our activity in new media and what they’ve seen . . . verbally, but not within the mechanism.” Yet another communication officer with two years of experience said: “What’s really exciting for us now is when misinformation is put up, how quickly our friends jump to defend and correct.” A
6244-475.indb 320
10/20/2014 10:24:04 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 321 foundation leader with 20 years of experience articulated that online communication reinforces in-person communication and vice versa: I’ll go to an event and someone will come up from across the room and tell me she knows me because of my blog post; or we’ll have an event and post it only on Facebook and 200 people will show up. Sometimes these people are lurkers. They sit in the background and never comment, then they show up and introduce themselves. Human connection has always been, and will always be, an important part of what we do. Referrals. Success was also described in terms of referrals to connect with the foundation, a reality that foundation leaders saw as adding validity. A communication officer described the following as an example of how they capitalize on the credibility of referral marketing: You’d be more motivated to look at something because I sent it to you and you trust me. . . . So we ask our board members if they’ll forward these things and kind of promote us and be our brand ambassadors. Risks and Challenges. Of course, implementing new media strategies in a participatory environment is not without its challenges and risks for these foundations. Therefore, the final research question asked about the perceived barriers or challenges related to implementing digital communication strategies. Responses related to this question revealed three themes surrounding concerns of information control, increased staff burden, and balancing personal contact that has been the hallmark of their success. Information Control. In the past, foundations have been protected from commentary and feedback of the public at large by channeling their work through nonprofits. However, new media has opened them up in a way that is outside of their comfort zone. A foundation leader with 20 years of experience described using social media to talk about the organization’s work without filtering as “a bit like doing acrobatics without a net.” A communication officer with five years of experience indicated that this uneasiness was not just about the lack of control over information, but also a function of “opening yourself up to more people that want money from you.” Another foundation leader with 15 years of experience described the challenge as a supply and demand problem, indicating that decreased dollars for allocation coupled with increased communication results in more demand without the ability to supply funding, which sets “unrealistic expectations” in the sector. Staff Burden. A review of the frequency and content of posts presented by foundations in their online forums revealed several interesting phenomena. Often postings are inconsistent, with posts appearing in stacks on a single day within a narrow window of time. These postings are regularly followed
6244-475.indb 321
10/20/2014 10:24:04 AM
322 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever by gaps of several days before the next posting. Additionally, information is frequently recycled information from other sources, or images without descriptive support copy. When asked about this, foundation leaders offered several explanations. One reason foundation leaders offered was that the volume of information disseminated and consumed in new media forums is “cumbersome to manage while doing our work.” The participatory potential of these communication vehicles means that staff is tasked with regulating comments, surfing other profiles, and maintaining their online presence. Reflecting on the added responsibility of social media monitoring, one communication officer said: “We’re to the point of capping how much we can actually do in a day . . . it’s mind boggling the amount of information that is conveyed per second.” One foundation leader with 15 years of experience indicated that “it’s a double edge sword. It’s an opportunity, but it’s a curse too, because if you have it and don’t use it, it becomes stale and could hurt you.” Balancing Personal Contact. Some foundation leaders describe new media as more sterile than in-person communication, and believe this is a challenge to relationship building. A foundation executive with six years of experience said, “the worst aspect [of Web 2.0] is you lose the personal contact. My people are going to gain more from personal contact with others than they are with just straight-up information.” In a business where personal connection can be life changing, foundation leaders are concerned that online communication will “result in a whole new set of barriers.” As one foundation leader with 15 years of experience put it: “When your work involves communities of people, it’s hard to figure out how typed words and pretty pictures can support, rather than replace, human connection.” CONCLUSIONS It is apparent that foundation executives and communication officers who participated in this study take seriously their role as leaders and fiscal stewards of the nonprofit community as it relates to the potential of Web 2.0. While perhaps not approached with the same rigorous system of checks and balances as other actions, their new media strategies seek to elevate this sector. These foundation leaders’ comments illustrate a constant striving to provide resources and opportunities that meaningfully motivate social and behavioral change in their communities of influence. Recognizing the power and promise of technology-based communication tools, they continue to invest in using participatory Web 2.0 strategies to motivate change, and elevate the aptitude of the sector. While these leaders are grappling with the best way to innovate and communicate within the context of technology-driven communication mediums, they are not daunted by the associated risks and challenges. As of yet, it is still an imperfect science;
6244-475.indb 322
10/20/2014 10:24:04 AM
Foundations: Affecting Social Change 323 however, they play a significant role in bringing to fruition the possibility and progress of online communication for the nonprofit sector. Further, these foundation leaders are not simply jumping on the bandwagon of social media; they are integrating technology across their mission-based strategies. Whether it is through increasing access by providing satellite training sessions, enhancing collaboration by facilitating a portal for online communication, or investing in their own staff to test the potential of the mediums, they are doing more than merely launching an online presence. They are seeking ways to invigorate the sector by making the tools work for them. Indeed, the foundations that participated in this study seem to be practicing “excellence in public relations” as the Grunig and Hunt (1984) theory suggests. However, while they are still learning the ropes of these ever-changing media, they are sometimes promoting two-way symmetrical communication yet other times engaging in one-way asymmetrical information sharing. They are using the tools differently, depending on the audience and capability for interactivity, and they are experimenting with many media in an attempt to do the trial-and-error work their nonprofit partners may not have the time, staff and/or resources to do. They are reaching people they may not have reached before, even though that sometimes opens them up to additional demands, and they (like many others) are still learning how to measure the success of their investments in these media as it relates to advancing their organizational missions. Limitations. This study was very limited in scope, as it focused only on foundations in one state. Although these organizations were selected to reflect the various sizes and types of foundations found elsewhere, it is important to note that they were not randomly selected, and they are based in only one state. Future research should seek to replicate these findings with additional foundations, or pursue other methods including surveys, focus groups, or experiments, to continue to explore thoughts and reactions to these and similar topics not only on behalf of other foundations but also on behalf of foundations’ many stakeholders. As mentioned, foundations are often neglected in nonprofit-related research, making them a valuable focus for future research.
REFERENCES Communication Consortium Media Center. (2004). Guidelines for Evaluating Nonprofit Communications Efforts. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.mediaevaluationproject.org/Paper5.pdf Council on Foundations. (2011). Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www. cof.org/ Dozier, D. M., & Ehling, W.P. (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 159–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6244-475.indb 323
10/20/2014 10:24:04 AM
324 Geah Pressgrove and Brooke Weberling McKeever Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: CBS College. Grunig, L. A. (1992). Activism and public relations. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 503–530). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holtz, S. (1999). Public relations on the Net: Winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the public, and more! New York, NY: Amacom. Kalugyer, A. D. (2013). Giving USA: Charitable donations grew in grew in 2012, but slowly, like the economy. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://www. philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/article/giving-usa-2013 Kelemen, M., & Smith, W. (2001). Community and its “virtual” promises: a critique of cyberlibertarian rhetoric. Information, Communication & Society, 4(3), 370–387. Kent, M., Taylor, M., & White, W. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29, 63–77. Kim, J., & Lan, N. (2010). Seeing the forest through the trees: The behavioral, strategic management paradigm in public relations and its future. In R. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 35–57). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Miller, D. (2001). Measuring effectiveness of your Intranet. Strategist, 8, 35–39. Mitra, A., & Watts, E. K. (2003). Theorizing cyberspace: the idea of voice applied to the internet discourse. New Media & Society, 4(4), 479–498. Song, F. W. (2010). Theorizing Web 2.0: A cultural perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 13(2), 249–275. Tapscott, D. (2009) Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106. White, C., & Raman, N. (2000). The world wide web as a public relations medium: The use research, planning, and evaluation in website development. Public Relations Review, 25, 405–419.
6244-475.indb 324
10/20/2014 10:24:04 AM
