To critically engage with the readings this week (and I
presume for the rest of the semester), I must make a concentrated effort to confront
and/or set aside some of my assumptions about corporations and how they
communicate. I have a reflex of distrust when encountering corporate messaging.
It is not that I do not appreciate corporations (I mean, I really like buying
goods and services.), but I cynically view every move corporations make as a
service to their bottom line and nothing else. Holding onto this cynicism will
not allow me to critically approach the readings in a fruitful way, and I assume
that my bias will bubble up in my discussions. I mention this not to excuse
myself, but to help hold myself accountable.
Also, I am working to develop my background knowledge of
business, marketing, corporate communications as academic disciplines. As a
result, I feel like my initial reactions to these readings are superficial at
best. My perspective of business is firmly consumer-centric at this point.
Throughout this semester, I will work to broaden my perspective.
As I began reading Argenti’s argument for corporate
communications as its own discipline, I immediately began drawing parallels to
sub-disciplines within my own academic background (humanities, language,
literature), so I was delighted to read Argenti’s mention of a similar parallel
drawn by Daniel (p. 87-88). In the same way that English as a discipline had to
prove its worth in academia so must other nascent disciplines, and, seemingly,
these nascent disciplines are met with skepticism from practitioners in long
established disciplines. Generally, I am in favor of proposals such as Argenti’s
because examining subjects from multiple perspectives can enrich any field.
So, I am on board with his argument for corporate communications
as a separate area of research and study, but I do not fully understand what
his conception of corporate communications is. Is he calling for hierarchy of
communications disciplines with corporate communications as the
all-encompassing top rung?
I also question some of his assumptions about a lack of
research in certain areas. Regarding image and identity specifically, Argenti
claims that they have “never been studied as rigorously as [they] should” (p.
92). This strikes me as a broad claim that would be difficult to defend in a
more developed discussion. Of course, I must take into account that this
article was published nearly 20 years ago.
Argenti’s call must have been heeded as evidenced by the
existence of Cornelissen’s text. Again, I must admit that I am working through
a learning curve to develop stronger background knowledge. Thus, while I found
it a slog to read through discussions of different corporate organizational
structures, the first chapter of Cornelissen’s text is already helping with my
background knowledge deficit.
Cornelissen’s framework of corporate communications growing
from the gradual integration of marketing and public relations seems logical. This
may be because, as a business outsider, I have always viewed marketing and PR
as being parallel and as having the same end-goal: higher revenue and a
consistently positive public perception.
