When interests collide: the story of an industry-community relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \nThis thesis makes a new contribution to the field of public relations in the area of organization-public relationships (OPRs). The thesis focuses on a petroleum industry-community relationship in Sundre, Alberta, Canada, which was explored in-depth. A qualitative phenomenological orientation was adopted as it suited the focus of the research which was to explore and describe the lived experiences of the actual participants involved in the Organization-Public Relationship phenomenon as well as how they described the relational elements and related them to their experience of the OPR. In-depth interviews, as the primary method, were conducted with both industry and community members. Secondary methods played an important but minor role and were used primarily for the purpose of the researcher as a tool to double check the interview findings and included participant observation, discourse analysis, and a small co-orientation survey. \n \nThe empirical research undertaken uncovered the importance of the background context of the OPR when engaging in relationship building and maintenance activities, opinions regarding the relational elements, relationship building processes, including the importance of having communication and trust building workshops. An interesting finding for this particular industry-community relationship emerged concerning the influence of ‘management guru’ Stephen Covey’s work which shaped the way the industry and community members engaged with each other. Trust emerged as the fundamental relational element, whilst transparency was critical for rebuilding trust after a crisis. \n \nThis thesis has added to the body of theoretical knowledge in the field of public relations. Specifically it extended the understanding of an area of practice, community relations, and it has explored options for the management of activism and community engagement. \nThe thesis also contributes to public relations practice. Public relations practitioners working within the oil and gas industry as well as other non-renewable resource extraction industries are responsible for developing and maintaining relationships with key publics, including the communities they operate within. Practitioners need to be able to work with the relational parties and collaborate in the development of processes that meet the needs of the participants. As practitioners shift their focus to developing relationships with key publics they will need to develop new skills in areas such as conflict resolution, community engagement, and interpersonal relationship building. \n \nThis piece of research is functional as it reflects on the OPR and highlights findings that are useful for gaining insight into the relational dynamics for academics and practitioners as well as questioning the power distribution and dynamics within this particular OPR. By adopting the phenomenological approach it has provided a representation of an OPR, which whilst it cannot be generalized it does provide a richer understanding of how relationship building processes can operate as well as the importance of trust and transparency building when there has been a relational history of hostility, distrust and deep unhappiness. \n \nFurther qualitative research should explore the development and maintenance of the other OPRs in order to understand more about the various contexts, processes, content and ability to set agendas within relationships. It would also be interesting to further explore the influence of management gurus and management fashions adopted or promoted by senior management involved in OPRs and illuminate how these approaches are implemented and impact an organization’s external relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".