simple but appealing
It is the small thing that makes the difference.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Make your own creation.
Pretty look is no more appealing.
(Just like an airheaded beauty... nothing to talk...)
Make people do something and make them talk about it.
You can create your own letter combination.
http://splittype.phpnet.us/
(other websites are listed on former blog posts.)
Don't forget Internet is an interactive medium.
(Just like an airheaded beauty... nothing to talk...)
Make people do something and make them talk about it.
You can create your own letter combination.
http://splittype.phpnet.us/
(other websites are listed on former blog posts.)
Don't forget Internet is an interactive medium.
Everybody needs power.
As long as human beings have lived in groups, the limited resources have caused power differences. The difference of power is a basic rule of society. Like differen heights of ground makes water flow, the difference of power makes social resources flow.
Becuase it is impossible to maintain equal power between different groups, symmetrical public relations theory would seem desirable but not practical. Symmetrical public relations theory acknowledges primacy of dominant coalition in makin organizational decisions and influencing public relations practices but reveals little about this poserful inner circle. There are some studies which open up the dominant coalition and reveals its complex poser relationships and a matrix of constraints that undermine and limit the function, rendering it difficult for practitioners to do the "right" thing, even if they want to.
If public relations is to better serve society, professtionals and academics may need to embrace an activist role and combine advocacy of shared power with activism in teh interest of shared power. In my opinion, if public relations practitioners and academics do not focus on developing their own power, their public relations fuctions as secondary work without enough power to enact their opinion. Public relations academics also should not choose to abserve the situation from the ouside as a third person.
Becuase it is impossible to maintain equal power between different groups, symmetrical public relations theory would seem desirable but not practical. Symmetrical public relations theory acknowledges primacy of dominant coalition in makin organizational decisions and influencing public relations practices but reveals little about this poserful inner circle. There are some studies which open up the dominant coalition and reveals its complex poser relationships and a matrix of constraints that undermine and limit the function, rendering it difficult for practitioners to do the "right" thing, even if they want to.
If public relations is to better serve society, professtionals and academics may need to embrace an activist role and combine advocacy of shared power with activism in teh interest of shared power. In my opinion, if public relations practitioners and academics do not focus on developing their own power, their public relations fuctions as secondary work without enough power to enact their opinion. Public relations academics also should not choose to abserve the situation from the ouside as a third person.
Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crisis
Because of the extreme complexity among surroundings, organizations and publics, many theories are mentioned to analyze crisis situations. Some researchers borrowed chaos concept to find guideline of crises. Since the complexity of crises makes analyses difficult, we have to try various approaches. I agree with the opinion that qualitative method is more useful than quantitative method in crises. Those attempts of empirical analysis sometimes fail to draw significant result. There are some studies that hypotheses are seem to be plausible but fail to approve. Qualitative method might not only give missing clues to prove these hypotheses but also find different concepts of accepted thoughts. In my opinion, the main point of crisis studies is to understand the complexity of crises.
Chaos theory stressed that the positive feedback in that organizations managerial shortcoming amplify over time until they breed a crisis that transforms them permanently. I think it is very interesting point of view. In this point of view, the perception of an organization should focus on teh organization itself. The insight of organizations itself might make practitioners expert future crisis.
Chaos theory stressed that the positive feedback in that organizations managerial shortcoming amplify over time until they breed a crisis that transforms them permanently. I think it is very interesting point of view. In this point of view, the perception of an organization should focus on teh organization itself. The insight of organizations itself might make practitioners expert future crisis.
Two Different Worldview for the Crisis Communication
The clash of civilizations.
I've observed two starkly opposing thought of worldview; one that sees chaotic world versus the other that looks as the orderly linear world. Their interpretations of crisis communication were pitted against each other.
The positivist worldview that has dominated America scientific research tends to explain phenomena with the cause-and-effect relationships. This way of thinking has proved to provide a useful tool for finding some "rules" or generalizable results. But this view seldom tells us something that we do not know about since the deductive method of probing, which is the positivist way of thinking, requires the premises which have already proved true. In addition, researchers in this stream of thought are likely to put their lens of investigation on narrowly defined particles of facts, thus often making an error of missing the entire scene.
On the contrary, the worldview that the Chaos theory holds looks for the patterns embedded in seemingly disordered and randomized events. Therefore, instead of looking at each puzzle piece, the Chaos theory urges researchers to see the complete big picture that the puzzle pieces form altogether. From this holistic viewpoint, changes and diversities are preferred to orders and legitimized standards as the clues to revealing the truth.
Which side are you on?
I've observed two starkly opposing thought of worldview; one that sees chaotic world versus the other that looks as the orderly linear world. Their interpretations of crisis communication were pitted against each other.
The positivist worldview that has dominated America scientific research tends to explain phenomena with the cause-and-effect relationships. This way of thinking has proved to provide a useful tool for finding some "rules" or generalizable results. But this view seldom tells us something that we do not know about since the deductive method of probing, which is the positivist way of thinking, requires the premises which have already proved true. In addition, researchers in this stream of thought are likely to put their lens of investigation on narrowly defined particles of facts, thus often making an error of missing the entire scene.
On the contrary, the worldview that the Chaos theory holds looks for the patterns embedded in seemingly disordered and randomized events. Therefore, instead of looking at each puzzle piece, the Chaos theory urges researchers to see the complete big picture that the puzzle pieces form altogether. From this holistic viewpoint, changes and diversities are preferred to orders and legitimized standards as the clues to revealing the truth.
Which side are you on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)