Journal of Public Affairs

J. Publ. Aff. 6: 131–146 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.222

Public affairs as reality construction:

an established paradigm with new
implications
Rob de Lange1* and Paul Linders2
1
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Hogeschool Utrecht, The Netherlands

* This article was initially a reaction to the special issues of the Journal of Public Affairs on
the relative lack of theoretical foundations for the research and practice of public affairs
(Vol. 1 no. 4, Vol. 2 no. 1, 2002).
* The social-scientific approach that is known under the name constructionism has
interesting implications for the study and the practice of this field. The authors explore
some of its central concepts and implications such as framing, priming, typification, claims
making, symbolic power, background, sense making and narrative construction. They test
some of these concepts for their applicability and usefulness for research, theory building
and practice in the field of public affairs.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction research on which they are based, and even

Public Affairs will be defined here as the
strategic management discipline that addresses
the political-governmental environment in
which the organisation is situated or will be
situated. With political-governmental environ-
ment we mean governments (local, regional,
national or European), independent govern-
mental institutions, as well as the directories
and laws that they issue.
During the last few decades, even in a
relatively small country like the Netherlands,
quite a few studies were published about
public affairs and related or included fields of
interest, such as lobbying. What most of these
studies seem to lack, however, is original
—————
*Correspondence to: Dr Rob de Lange, Faculty of Social
and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Communica-
tion Science, Univeristy of Amsterdam, Kloveniers bur-
gwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
more striking, some more or less validated
theory on which the investigations could be
based and interpreted.
We are not the only ones, nor are we the first
to notice this rather remarkable phenomenon.
In 2002 the Journal of Public Affairs dedicated
much attention to this and related issues (Vol. 1
no. 4, Vol. 2 no. 1, 2002). Let us briefly go over a
few of the relevant points of view.
Getz observed that ‘a substantial amount of
research in political influence is a-theoretical’
and that ‘there has been virtually no effort to
interpret or explain the findings’ (Getz, 2002:
307–308).
Also Schuler concluded that ‘most of the
initial studies of PAM/IM/CPA1 were descrip-
tions’ (Schuler, 2002: 338). ‘At present, scho-
lars of PAM/IM/CPA have discovered the part of
—————
PAM ¼ public affairs management, IM ¼ issues manage-
1

E-mail: rdelange@fmg.uva.nl ment, CPA ¼ corporate political activities.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
132
the iceberg above water but lack understanding
of how far it is submerged’ (idem 351). What
we miss is, according to Schuler, a ‘Grand
Model of PAM/IM/CPA’ (idem 351).
Hillman appears to notice the same lack
of theoretical foundation, when he states:
‘ . . . good empirical research . . . must be guided
by theory’ (Hillman, 2002: 357).
The authors involved in this discussion
propose different remedies to amend this short-
coming. Getz presents a list of four possible
disciplines (political science, economics, sociol-
ogy and management theory) and no less than
11 more specific theories (from interest group
theory and collective action theory to game
theory and population ecology theory). She asks
if we should seek consistency in our theoretical
explanations and how we should cope with
apparently incompatible explanations. She even
wonders if it is necessary to draw upon social
science theories, at all (Getz, 2002: 322).
Schuler dreams of a ‘Grand Model of PA/IM/
CPA’, which seems to be the equivalent of the
quest for the ‘Grand Unification Theory’ (or
GUT) in physics.2 ‘For greater methodological
certainty, therefore, researchers in PA/IM/CPA
need to focus on constructing this theoretical
model’ (Schuler, 2002: 351).
Hillman is no supporter of Schuler’s GUT, on
the contrary, he would rather see ‘multi-
eclectic methods of inquiry’. Hillman believes
that science, as all knowledge, is constructed
through ‘a social struggle among the scholars
of the profession to construct the truth’
(Hillman, 2002: 357). ‘(T)he specialist, by
aiming toward scientific precision, of necessity
excludes much data available through thought
and experience. Thus scientific precision is
limiting, if not misleading’ (idem 358). He calls
the inevitable Kuhn, and his famous study The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn,
1970) to the witness-bench maintaining that
‘science requires conflict between competing
schools of thought’ and that ‘development
comes from debate and discourse’ (ibid.). Also
—————
2
See, for instance, Kaku and Trainer J (1987). Beyond
Einstein. The cosmic quest for the theory of the universe.
Bantam Books: Toronto/New York/London.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
in other, far more developed fields of science,
he argues, there is no one grand theory.
Finally, Berman concludes: ‘With the theore-
tical arsenal at the disposal of researchers in this
area, a more fruitful path may be to use existing
theories to frame research questions’ (Berman,
2002: 418).
To conclude this section, we quote Fleisher,
one of the co-editors of a leading new handbook
on public affairs (Harris and Fleisher, 2005):
‘The Scholarly base of PA/GR understanding
remains somewhat embryonic by nature and
will need continued progress for it to be of
greater utility and value to business organiza-
tions and their decision makers’ (idem 26).
Since we ourselves recently embarked on an
ambitious research project on public affairs, we
felt the need for a theoretical framework that
could guide us and would give us an instrument
with which we could interpret the outcomes
of our investigations. We argued that the
approach that became known as construction-
ism offers a useful and productive paradigm for
the study and the practice of at least some of the
central themes in public affairs.
We don’t have the ambition to present
constructionism as the passe-partout theoreti-
cal frame for all possible concepts and events in
public affairs. We agree with Hillman’s opinion
as quoted above and the implied plea for
pluralism and eclecticism.
In this article we want to present a few of the
relevant key concepts of constructionism and
we will try to illustrate their implications for
certain central phenomena in the public affairs
field. It concerns especially personal back-
grounds and symbolic interaction of the actors
involved, social problems and issues, and the
role of mass media. In order to illustrate our
claim we will make a connection to some of the
relevant core characteristics of the field, as we
had come to know it through previous study
and research (see de Lange, 2000a; de Lange
and Linders, 2003).
The heart of the profession
We noticed that PA as a profession is relatively
highly positioned in society at large. In their
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
work, usually important issues are at stake and
the practitioners in the field show clear signs of
a relative elite in terms of education, seniority,
positioning and salary. In other words, this
professional group is relatively highly edu-
cated, their position is usually in or very close
to the top of the organisation, they earn high
salaries and they are relatively influential. They
are no mere technicians (Dozier, 1992: 333),
but professionals that are relatively influential
in shaping the reality, both inside and outside
their organisations.
Also high personality standards are laid down
for these practitioners. Wilbers reported about
research among 150 top civil servants who were
at the receiving end of the PA process. These
officials were questioned about factors that led
to success or failure, frequent mistakes and traits
that are characteristic for successful lobbyists.
As most important traits were mentioned ‘excel-
lent interactive skills and presentation, cogency,
acuteness, intelligence, tact, entertaining and
pleasant behaviour, style, an air of incorrupt-
ibility, a well-developed moral code, discretion
and modesty, openness and honesty, commit-
ment, a sense of reality, an eye and respect for
the needs and interest of others, well-developed
critical skills’ (Wilbers in Bennis et al., 1992).
What one needs is up-to-date knowledge of
the facts of the political market and its
workings, writes van Schendelen, and an
unprejudiced attitude towards it (in Bennis
et al., 1992: 17).
Worm points at the need for empathy and
reciprocity: ‘A good consultant teaches his
clients to look at themselves through the eyes
of other people’ (idem 96). By that he means
especially the eyes of politicians or officials.
Making one’s own point of view absolute will
soon turn out to be counter productive.
Bennis stresses prudence and tact: ‘You shall
not overplay your hand, that is about the first
commandment in professional lobby . . . ’, he
writes (idem 111). ‘( . . . ) address the right man,
in the right tone of voice, at the right time,
know his agenda, his portfolio, his priorities,
know what interests he has to balance, know
who your partners are, your competitors, your
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
133
adversaries, don’t irritate the person you
encounter, don’t take too much of his time,
speak or write (and know when to speak or
write) in his terms, neither overestimate nor
underestimate his ability to understand, show
acceptance for his need for factual information,
learn to see the relativity of your own interest
and have some change on you (concessions,
alternatives). Be constructive. Bring in amend-
ments. Show that you understand legislation’.
‘Perhaps women are in a number of ways
better equipped for this profession than men’,
said one of the PA theorists, a well-known
scholar in this field, during a focus group in our
previous research (de Lange, 1997). Because,
according to him, women are more friendly,
more patient, more charming and have more
empathy than men. He found this especially
important for what he called the ‘fieldwork’ of
public affairs.
Also life experience is deemed important.
‘One should know what it means to take the
blows’ said another expert. Sense of humour,
social skills, the absence of vanity, being a good
listener and not talking too much, empathic
skills are some of the capacities that were
mentioned in de Lange’s study (idem 76).
Other important clusters of personal traits
that were mentioned are ‘social and interactive
skills, communicative skills, analytical capaci-
ties, intelligence, trustworthiness and integrity’
(idem 36).
During a presentation at our institute Lin-
ning, an experienced international lobbyist in
Brussels, gave us a long list with practical tips
(Linning, 1998). We will just mention a few:
‘Be patient. Fitting in with your contact’s
timetable is one way of acknowledging his
importance. Recognise that decisions are
the result of compromise. Best to select your
own solution; but always let someone else
propose it. Don’t forget you have two ears
and one mouth and they should be used in
that proportion’.
If we add this all up, the ideal PA practi-
tioners would almost be too good to be true.
In short, for a substantive part, public affairs
is the art of ‘reading the signs’, of knowing what
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
134
the views, intentions and possibilities of your
contacts are, of how to tune-in with that, of
how to enter their reality and reshape it
according to your own or your organisation’s
objectives. This is especially challenging if the
positions and perspectives are far apart.
According to Oberman and in contrast to the
popular belief, it is not true that lobbyists focus
their efforts mainly on politicians already on
their side. Rather the opposite is true. ‘There is
evidence that lobbyists target legislators hostile
to their position and only speak to friendly ones
to counter the lobbying of opposing groups’
(Oberman, 2005: 58–59).
Because of the ever-repeated references to
empathic interaction in public affairs, together
with the intention to share one’s point of view
with others in order to construct a common
reality or to influence other people’s views, the
approach that became known under the name
of constructionism seems to be one of the most
promising. It will provide us with a set of
theoretical tools that enables us to ask relevant
questions for empirical research and also for
the practice, and will help us to interpret the
outcomes.
In the following text we will try to present a
number of theoretical notions that seem
especially relevant for this purpose.
Constructionism
One of the founding texts about construction-
ism was written by Peter Berger en Thomas
Luckmann, with the title The Social Construc-
tion of Reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1975).
According to these authors, reality is often
not the objective, external entity which it
seems to be for the subjective observer and
which, as it were, is discovered by an obser-
ving human being. There is an in principle
meaningless world, that is endowed with
meaning by the sense-giving observer.3 In
————
3
— his words, the brain is a ‘dream machine’ that is constantly
Some go so far as to state that there is no such thing as
objective reality. In itself this is an interesting philosophical
question, but for our purpose such a far-reaching discussion
would lead us too far, given the framework of this study.
The notion that what we experience as reality is at least to a
high degree a human mental construction, is practically
undisputed in the social sciences at this moment.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
other words, reality is to a high degree a mental
construction.
It is remarkable that, although these authors
had no knowledge of it, their basic ideas are
strongly supported in recent research on the
relation between the structure and working of
the brain and all kinds of mental processes,
such as perception and consciousness.4 Con-
trary to what we usually assume, Llinas claims
that ‘the brain makes images that become
reality through the information entering
through the eyes’.5 Similar processes go on in
other senses.6 The central message is, over and
over again, that on all levels we construct the
reality that we perceive.
Construction processes usually don’t occur
in social isolation. On the contrary, human
sense making and reality construction practi-
cally always take place in a social context. Since
birth humans are placed in a social constella-
tion that determines their view on the world or,
better, their world as such. When individuals
grow up, the social context remains an
influential mediator of the thus created reality.
That is why Berger and Luckmann speak of the
social construction of reality.
What is referred to here with the single
concept social is in reality a very complex
phenomenon, in which all kinds of different
specific aspects and processes may be identi-
fied. Interaction with others is crucial, espe-
cially interaction with so-called significant
others. Also tradition, history, culture, institu-
tions and especially language, are all powerful
factors in the reality construction.
————
4
—
See, among others, Dennett (1991), Damasio (1995),
Dennett (1995), LeDoux (1996).
5
Rodolfo Llinas is one of the leading brain physiologists
working in this field. This quote was taken from a
documentary broadcasted by Dutch national television on
22 July 2003. What happens within the brain, he said, is
more important than what happens outside the brain. In
checked and related to what the senses report.
6
An illustrative example is a study by Critchlow (1986),
which showed that people who drink alcohol-free
beverages, but who are convinced by the experimenters
that they drink alcohol, actually did show behaviour of
people who are slightly drunk (cited by Merckelbach
c.s.,2002: 676).
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
The unprejudiced person is usually not at
all aware of these processes. People regard
the world often as given and objectively
existent. This is not only true for physical
objects outside the self, but also for non-
physical objects, which are even more
obviously the product of psycho-social con-
struction processes.7
This led us to the conclusion that, also in PA
processes, reality as people experience it, is
the product of mental construction processes
that are to a high degree social. Most of the
time the PA practitioners involved are una-
ware of this. Often, facts and circumstances
are regarded as independent, objective and
concrete matters and not as mental construc-
tions. Also in our own research (de Lange and
Linders, 2003) this was confirmed repeatedly.
Overall, the respondents assume one undi-
vided ‘objective reality’ that ‘exists concre-
tely’; things were as they ‘really happened’.
‘Facts are facts’.
As social scientists, however, we have
learned to be cautious with the proclamation
of facts. After his thorough analysis of what he
calls ‘sensemaking’ in organisational settings,
Weick concludes: ‘Facts give way to values,
computation gives way to judgment, and
sensation is displaced by ideology, all without
the member being any the wiser to these shifts’
(Weick, 1995: 115).
We have laid out some of the basic principles
of constructionism. In the next sections we will
have a brief look at some aspects that may be
relevant to public affairs, such as personal
background of the actors, symbolic interaction,
the use of deliberately constructed symbolic
reality through storytelling, issues as con-
structed social problems and the role of mass
media, respectively.
————
7
— listener understands immediately that he opens the door
Berger and Luckmann calls this reification. They
illustrate the more or less ‘treacherous’ characteristics
of reification as follows: ‘Typically, the real relationship
between man and his world is reversed in consciousness.
Man, the producer of a world, is apprehended as its
product ( . . . ) Even while apprehending the world in
reified terms, man continues to produce it. That is, man is
capable of producing a reality that denies him’ (Berger and
Luckmann, 1975: 106/107).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
135
Background or habitus
Searle is one of the scholars in recent times that
picked up the constructionist theme. And one
of the concepts that he introduces in this
perspective is background. It refers to indivi-
dual characteristics, and thus we enter the
sphere of the individual PA practitioner and his
or her interactions. Searle defines background
as ‘the set of non-intentional or pre-intentional
capacities that enable intentional states of fun-
ction’. By capacities he means abilities, tenden-
cies and causal structures in general (Searle,
1995: 129). He gives some telling examples.8 In
other words, we have a certain understanding
of how the world works.
Searle sees a clear similarity between his
concept background and Bourdieu’s concept
habitus. Habitus, according to Bourdieu, ‘is a
socialized form of subjectivity’9 (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992: 81). It is formed through an
incorporation of the volume and content of
cultural and economic capital. To this belong
the kind of schools that one attended and the
social networks, the region and religion in
which one grew up. It is the automatic and
unconscious by which a person is character-
ized and through which one is immediately
recognized as a member of his or her social
class, region, sub-culture etc. The habitus is
expressed in a characteristic way within a field.
The different kinds of capital (economic,
political, cultural) are defined by Bourdieu in
relation to what he calls a field (champ).10
————
8
—
In English the verb to cut is used in expressions such as
cut the grass and cut the cake. It is the same verb, but if I
ask somebody to cut the cake and he attacks the cake with
a lawn mower, we would at least be surprised. One knows
(or ought to know) which meaning is meant in what
situation. Another example is the sentence ‘She gave him
the key and he opened the door’. We assume that the
with the key in the usual way. We would not expect him
to knock down the door with a key that weighs 10 kilos.
9
This formulation (socialized form of subjectivity) per-
fectly fits our ambition, which we preferably describe as
social scientific. As will be shown next, the whole field
ranging from a individual-psychological, through social-
psychological to a macro-sociological approach.
10
In English we would probably translate this concept as
‘world’, as in the world of sports, the business world.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
136
‘Every time when the habitus meets objective
conditions equal to those from which the
person originates, one is completely adjusted
without any effort’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 84).
For instance, we have no problem at all in
recognising a person as someone from the
upper-middle class in the South, who has
studied law at St. X University, who likes to
play cricket, was or maybe still is a member of
St. X Student Club, wears a special tie or ring,
wears these typical shoes and speaks in this
typical tone of voice etc. He is ‘one of us’ or
maybe the opposite, or anything in between.
We like her for that or not, we fill in all the
thousands of little traits that we don’t see, but
assume. In short, a person’s habitus triggers in
us a myriad of mostly unconscious reactions
that influence our interactions and our mutual
reality construction.
Because the PA practitioner is someone
who often functions in a one-on-one personal
encounter with other people in situations
where much is at stake, it seems not too far-
fetched to state that habitus plays an important
role, and sometimes a decisive one.
Sometimes this works out in a very practical
sense. Showalter and Fleisher observe how
‘Lobbyist who coalesce philosophically with
certain legislators are also called upon to help
draft legislation, amendments and public policy
pronouncements’ (Showalter and Fleisher,
2005: 110).
In our own research, this aspect was also
not immediately and clearly recognized by our
respondents and sometimes even rejected (de
Lange and Linders, 2003). They claimed that
they would treat everybody in the same way,
without fear or favour. When we persisted,
some of them were willing to admit that what
we described as habitus played an important
role in their encounters with other actors.
Some of them acknowledged that interaction
with people with more or less the same
background as their own, for instance in terms
of formal education, party affiliation and
political views, was in general easier and more
natural. Some also gave examples of the
reverse, like the PA consultant who noticed
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
that a potential client was so different
from himself in intentions, appearance and
demeanour that he referred him to another
consultancy. Others, however, saw it as their
professional ambition just to bridge these kinds
of differences, and gathered relevant informa-
tion about the personal background of the
individuals they deal with. But still this is all on a
rather conscious level, as it was by definition
impossible to talk with our interviewees about
their sub-conscious or unconscious images.
The social-scientific literature is full of evidence
that especially the unconscious believes and
expectations strongly influence human percep-
tion and behaviour, sometimes leading to
full-blown self-fulfilling prophecies (de Lange,
1986).
In other words, there is a large amount of
knowledge about how a person’s background
or habitus influences his or her own view on
the world, the interaction with other actors
and the ensuing mental constructions that are
thus produced. The ideal PA practitioner
would be conscious of that and capable of
using this self-consciousness and the con-
sciousness of others as an instrument in his
or her work.
Symbolism, power and reality
construction
In the interaction of different actors the
definitions of reality that are brought to the
scene may match. But it is more likely that these
reality definitions do not match, or even that
they are conflicting. Who or what determines
what is the truth or reality and what is not?
Berger and Luckmann already stated: ‘He who
has the bigger stick has the better chance of
imposing his definitions of reality’ (Berger and
Luckmann, 1975: 127). He who has most
power determines more than the other partici-
pants what will be the dominant definition of
reality. This argument can also be turned
around: he who is able to determine the
definition of reality, obviously has power. It
reminds us of the questions posed by Foucault
(1971) in his famous essay L’ordre du discours:
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
who speaks, in what situation, with what
authority and what consequences? Foucault’s
questions seem to have been produced mainly
for the analysis of the formal scientific or
political discourse. But they also apply for the
informal conversation between friends, family
members or business relations. Also there we
find many subtle mechanisms determining who
sets the order of the conversation and, by the
same token, its consequences.11 The PA or
lobby conversation is no exception to this rule
and becomes thus a potential object for such a
discourse analysis. In that perspective, the
following remarks can be made.
If we talk about power, in last instance we
talk about concrete, physical, military or
political power. But in the daily course of
things—and also in PA—we mostly deal with
symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991). That is, of
course, the whole point of the social-scientific
approach that we know under the name of
symbolic interactionism, and it is central to
constructionism.
Power is often not recognised as such and is,
intentionally or unintentionally, concealed.12
People negotiate over power, although this is
often done unconsciously and in a symbolic
form. In one of the earlier constructionist
studies Esland (1973) give many examples of
this in school situations.13 The interactions
————
11
— and positions, but also personal appearance,
For our students we often use the trivial example of the
family party, where uncle Charles always succeeds to lead
the conversation into mortgages and house prices. In one
way or another he succeeds to determine the order of
the discourse and, in doing so, the world views of his
listeners.
12
According to Searle, one of the great illusions of the era
is that ‘Power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. ‘The real
power resides with the person who sits at a desk and
makes noises through his or her mouth and marks on
paper . . . The unfortunate person with a gun is likely to be
among the least powerful and the most exposed to
danger’ (Searle, 1995: 117–118). Such constructions are
much more robust than one would expect at first sight.
This collective intentionality, as Searle calls it, forms the
backbone of our society.
13
They use the terms negotiation and bargaining for
control: teachers do not openly negotiate and probably
not even consciously with their students over power in
the classroom situation, but many of their actions can be
interpreted as such. (‘If you promise to study chapters 1
through 4 thoroughly, I will drop chapter 5’.)
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
137
between teachers and students are for a
substantial part interpretable as negotiations
for power in the school situation. The most
important implication of Esland’s analysis is
that the outcome of the negotiation codeter-
mines the process of exchange of knowledge.
Instead of an abstract academic exercise, this
kind of analysis immediately touches on the
core of what educational institutions are all
about.
Heugens observes in business an increase
in what he calls ‘a shift from substantive
towards symbolic competition’ . . . ‘Economic
competition more and more takes the form
of competition for intangible and symbolic
assets, especially reputation’ (Heugens, 2005:
486–487). Human interaction in general is
symbolic interaction.
There are all sorts of symbolic power, largely
invisible to the untrained eye. We can still learn
from the classical study by French and Raven
(1959), in which they distinguish five types of
social power, of which especially the more
concealed, symbolic forms such as referent
power and expert power would correspond to
what we mean here.
But also the French structuralists (e.g.
Foucault, 1971, 1975; Bourdieu, 1979, 1984,
1991) are among the first who have taught us
to look through the often subtle but effective
power arrangements, such as official titles
dress, gender, age, diction and the architec-
ture of the physical environment (prisons,
hospitals, lecture rooms or any other man-
made surrounding).
Also communication means, especially lan-
guage, are studied and analysed as instruments
of power relations. As far as communication
itself is object of study, according to Bourdieu,
it must be, in its turn, analysed as an instrument
of power and not, as is too often the case in
communication theory, as a more or less
independent, neutral phenomenon. Linguistic
relations are always also symbolic power
relations. Every linguistic exchange virtually
contains some form of power exchange. This
will become stronger as the actors involved
hold asymmetric positions in the division of the
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
138
relevant capital (Bourdieu and Wacquant,
1992: 95–98).14
French and Raven (1959) defined social
power as ‘the capacity to exert influence over
others’. Some go further and define power as
the capacity to make others do things against
their will. In general, and by definition, power
is an important factor in any human activity.
The constructionist approach, in a way, goes
beyond that and claims that there are thousands
of hidden, subtle mechanisms that not only
influence people or make them do things, but
shape their very reality through symbolic
interaction.
In the usual PA studies, nothing is said about
the more implicit, symbolic forms of power.
In our research (de Lange and Linders, 2003)
it appeared that the PA practitioners involved
had hardly any idea about this, and mostly
assumed that ‘what you see is what you get’ and
held rather naive opinions about ‘honesty’,
‘openness’ and ‘reciprocity’.
But as we dug deeper we found that the
world of PA is full of symbolic power.
Consultancy firms, for instance, dwell in
prestigious (and very expensive) buildings in
the administrative centre of Brussels or The
Hague. They socialise on first-name basis with
cabinet ministers and MPs, whom they invite,
preferably together with the representatives of
the media and other common folk, on their
New Year’s party. Many PA managers men-
tioned their social networks as their most
important tool in their work (de Lange, 1997,
2000a; de Lange and Linders, 2003). Some gave
us examples of how they brought people of
high esteem (for instance scholars of interna-
tional fame) into the arena in order to make use
of the symbolic power of their reputation.
Most of the PA managers that we spoke to
made clear that they interact on a daily basis
with their CEOs, that they ‘walk the corridors of
————
14
— secondly, a feeling of direction and movement
Here, Bourdieu refers to the work of the American
linguist Labov. Already at the end of the sixties, this
scholar became famous for his critical studies in which he
showed how profoundly the social situation not only
determines the amount but also the structure of the
communication.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
power’ (Miller, 1990), attend boardroom meet-
ings and that their advices are valued and
listened to. They often speak, dress and behave
in ways that are not distinguishable from those
of the top managers.
This would be an example of referent power
(French and Raven, 1959).
Many of the concepts that we discuss here,
such as personal characteristics, framing, nar-
rative devices etc., when strategically and
adequately brought into the process by the
skilled PA practitioner, will represent and
support symbolic power and will, by the same
token, influence the exchange of knowledge
and the reality definition of the targeted
party.
Narrative construction
‘Present two or three pictures, or descriptive
phrases, to a person and he or she will connect
them to form a story, an account that relates the
pictures or the phrases in some patterned way’
(Sarbin, 1986: 8). The inclination to construct
or reconstruct the reality surrounding us in the
form of a story is apparently deeply rooted in
human nature.
Sarbin gives the following definition. ‘A story
is a symbolized account of actions of human
beings that has a temporal dimension. The
story has a beginning, a middle and an end-
ing . . . The story is held together by recogniz-
able patterns of events called plots. Central to
the plot structure are human predicaments and
attempted resolutions’ (idem 3). Heugens
provides a dozen definitions of (corporate)
story (Heugens, 2002: 59).
The tendency to storytelling is omnipresent
in daily life. Gergen and Gergen (1986)
searched for the essence of stories and story-
telling (idem 25–31). The most essential
characteristic is that stories structure events
in such a way that, firstly, a certain amount of
connection and coherence develops and,
through time.
In order to be a story, an account must
establish the feeling of a valued goal state: for
example, the happiness of the protagonist, the
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
destruction of evil, the victory of the favoured
group, the discovery of the treasure.
Also scientific research and theories can be
typified with the help of these general narrative
criteria. According to these authors, at least
part of the popularity of certain theories
(Freud, Piaget15) can be ascribed to their
undeniable dramatic impact. ‘As we find,
developmental theories in the sciences seem
to approximate and to derive their sensemak-
ing capacity largely from existing narrative
structures’ (idem 39).
The story of somebody’s own life, also
known as self-narrative, appears to play a
crucial role in the construction of the individual
identity (see a.o. Scheibe, 1986). Like any story,
also this story tends to become better as it is
retold more often.16
On a different, more collective-cultural level,
psychological theories (or their historical
equivalents) about who or what man is play
an influential role. Bruner writes: ‘I believe that
human beings immersed in culture have a way
of fulfilling Oscar Wilde’s dictum that life
imitates art, including psychology, for Freud’s
image of humanity shaped the generations
after him as much as Homer’s shaped the
classic Greek mind. Even symptoms imitate
art—yesterday’s neurosis, today’s acting out,
tomorrow’s multiple personality disorder, per-
haps as much a gift of therapists to patients as
————
15
—
Freud follows a tragic, pessimistic storyline: the end
state is the successful repression of spontaneous instincts
and impulses, regression is always lurking. Piaget follows
a optimistic storyline: the end state is the total command
of the developing human being of formal logic operations.
Besides, Piaget’s story is more aesthetic (and in that sense
more catching), because Freud’s story leaves an ‘ugly’
void in the so-called latency phase in child development.
16
According to Bosi, this explains the pleasure with which
seniors talk so much about their youth (in: Scheibe, 1986:
145). Dennett (1991) describes identity as: ‘artifacts of the
social processes that create us.’ (1991: 423) . . . ‘the
Center of Narrative Gravity of the living body’ (idem
427). ‘Our tales are spun, but for the most part we don’t
spin them, they spin us. Our human consciousness and
our narrative selfhood, is their product, not their source’
(idem 418). Weick regards identity as an active construc-
tion that comes about through actions and interactions.
He writes: ‘How can I know what I think until I hear what I
say’ and ‘How can I know who I am until I see what I do?’
(Weick, 1995: 18).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
139
vice versa.’ (Bruner, 1990: 345). Bovenkerk and
Husken (2005) give an excellent illustration by
showing how gangsters, all over the world,
have imitated the mafia lifestyle that originally
sprang from Mario Puzo’s fantasy as put in
words in his novel The Godfather and visua-
lised in Francis Ford Coppola’s screen-version
of it.
Bandler, the inventor of neuro linguistic
programming (NLP), gives a striking and
hilarious account of some developments in
the images of some dramatic psychiatric
diseases.17 But construction is not the only
thing that is going on. In the scientific, social or
political debate existing realities are de-con-
structed, as well.18
Essential for our purpose is how stories, self-
narratives included, work through in everyday
life and in public affairs in particular. We
want to discuss three aspects here: narrative as
an instrument to construct reality, its con-
sequences for human action and the possibi-
lities to influence human action through
stories.
Three implications of narrative
construction
Firstly, stories form a cognitive scheme work-
ing as an effective filter for perception: what fits
into the story is perceived, what does not fit is
————
17
—
‘Schizophrenia is a very prestigious way to be broken,
catatonia is a very quiet one. Although hysterical paralysis
was very popular during World War I, it’s out of style now;
you only find it occasionally in very poor-educated
immigrants who are out of touch with the times. You’re
lucky if you can find one now. ‘‘Borderline’’ is a very
popular way to be broken right now. That means you’re
not quite nuts, but not quite normal, either—as if anyone
isn’t. Back in the fifties, after The Three Faces of Eve,
multiple personalities always had three. But since Sybil,
who had 17 personalities, we’re seeing more multiples,
and they all have more than three’ (Bandler, 1985: 14).
The ‘primitive forms’ of multiple personality disorders,
Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde and Hitchcock’s Psycho, are based
on two personalities living in one individual. After the
time in which Bandler wrote this, there have been case
descriptions of over more than 20, but it seems that
borderline and m.p.’s are in decline, now.
18
A good example in present-day psychiatry is Blom’s
Deconstructing schizophrenia (2004).
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
140
often ignored, and what does fit but is not
perceived, is often invented. People are con-
stantly looking for the causal structure that lies
at the base of social events, because without it
we would be lost. ‘Nothing is more lost than a
loose fact’ (van Koppen and Hessing, 2002: 27).
So, for the PA practice it may be important to
explore and analyse one’s own story as well as
that of others.
Secondly, it is important to realize that
stories have practical consequences. This
involves not only the mental construction of
reality of the actors, but also the actions that
they and the people they interact with base
on it.
This is shown quite clearly in the legal
practice. Crombag et al. (2002) discuss the
role of ‘the story’ in the argumentation in legal
cases. ‘Each proof is a story. As long as the judge
does not believe in it, he has to dig deeper into
the hierarchy of nested stories forming a case
together’ (idem 286). The strongest defence,
they argue, is an alternative story for the
indictment that fits the presented proof equally
well (idem 291).
But also in other fields, for example in social
assistance, stories have specific consequences.
The character of the call for help determines to
a high degree who will receive support and
what will be the quality of the support.19 So,
stories have sometimes far reaching conse-
quences.
Thirdly, stories are connection points for the
targeted influencing of the reality construction
of other people, and by the same token for
their concrete outcomes. Well-known are the
experiments by Loftus in which self-narratives
of respondents were altered surprisingly easily
by letting them produce stories about them-
selves. The experimenter intentionally but
secretly inserted new elements. Later the
respondents ‘remembered’ these elements as
—————
19
In Straatnieuws, a magazine by and for homeless
people, Hoogenboezem tells about her research that
shows how welfare workers work harder for people who
can deliver a coherent story about their life. ‘Those who
are too confused have to sort things out on their own’
(Pronk, 2003).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
true events in their own youth (see Wessel and
Wolters, 2002: 392; Wolters, 2002: 398).20
But there are also illustrations of narrative
power in public affairs. In an analysis of the
interactions of interests, groups and organisa-
tions, Oberman writes ‘People with similar
preferences, collective interest, exist only as a
potential group until an organizer . . . invests in
the selective benefits necessary to attract them
to an organization’ (Oberman, 2005: 63).
There is a movement that, under the name
of story telling, aims at changing practices
through the development and application of
stories. A good example is the work of Denning
(2001). In his own working practice he
discovered how stories—better than numbers,
diagrams, analytical discourse, multi-media
presentation etc.—were able to make complex
matters clear and acceptable for a potentially
indifferent or unwilling audience. Denning
coined the term springboard story, by which
he means ‘a story that enables a leap in
understanding by the audience so as to grasp
how an organization or community or complex
system may change’ (idem XVIII).
The latter perspective of narrative construc-
tion—a means to actively influence other
people’s reality construction—makes story
telling an excellent tool for the PA practice.
Heugens concludes: ‘If stories are indeed the
preferred sense-making currency of human
relationships among internal and external
stakeholders ( . . . ), then one of the primary
functions of public affairs management is to
present the corporate story as favourably as
possible to those external audiences the
organisation critically depends upon’. His
own empirical research about the antagonism
over genetically modified food ingredients
revealed the more or less successful stories
used by the protagonist life sciences compa-
nies, but also the not less successful stories of
the NGOs that opposed them, using the same
sort of narrative strategy with a different
content, of course (Heugens, 2002: 60–61).
————
20
—
Horselenberg et al., claim that ‘memory is more
reconstructive than reproductive’ Horselenberg et al.
(2002: 447).
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
The Dutch word for ‘story’ (verhaal)
emerged surprisingly often in our interviews
with both practitioners and their superiors (de
Lange and Linders, 2003). But they had never
heard of narrative construction or its theore-
tical equivalents as presented in construction-
ist or related literature. They used it in its
everyday meaning of clear and captive argu-
mentation. They indicated regularly that
‘a good story’ was an effective way to gain
access to other people, to exchange facts and
emotions, and to convince them. It is just as if
the story was already there and ‘told itself’.
There was no proof that they applied narrative
forms intentionally and strategically in order to
change other people’s definition of reality.
Issues as constructions
Public affairs often involve issues, more or less
problematic matters that sometimes may
develop surprisingly fast and dominate the
agenda. Heugens places issues management at
the centre of public affairs. ‘Issues manage-
ment is then best perceived as one of the
constitutive parts of the public affairs disci-
pline, more specifically the part that focuses on
the management of concrete events, trends,
and developments that could have a significant
impact on the ability of the organization to
reach its objectives if they were left unat-
tended’ (Heugens, 2005: 496). In that case,
he prefers to use the term ‘strategic issues’
(idem 490).
We found illustrative examples of a con-
structionist approach of issues in a study by
Best (1995) called Images of Issues. Typifying
Contemporary Social Problems. Social pro-
blems are social constructions, they argue.
One of the central mechanisms in this
construction process is claims-making. ‘When
activists hold a demonstration to attract atten-
tion to some social condition, when investiga-
tive reporters publish stories that expose new
aspects of the condition, or when legislators
introduce bills to do something about the
condition, they are constructing a social
problem’ . . . ‘It does not matter whether the
conditions exist; it matters only that people
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
141
make claims about them’ (Best, 1995: 6). From
a constructionist perspective social or societal
problems are inevitably social constructions.
This implies that this approach concentrates
less on the ‘objective’ content of the problem
than on the social construction processes
through which a situation is identified as
problematic. Best’s model of the logical struc-
ture governing this kind of processes contains
three components: ground statements, norma-
tive judgements and conclusive actions.21
We found a telling example of claims-making
that follows this three-stage sequence with the
Dutch anti-smoke foundation STIVORO. They
claim that most smokers start between the
ages of 12 and 16. Within this age groups the
number of smokers rise from 4% to 42%. At
the age of 19 45% of the young people smoke
(ground statements). They also claim that
smoking is very unhealthy if not lethal, and
that it is immoral to expose our youth to this
threat (normative judgements). They initiate
strong multi-media, government-supported
anti-smoke campaigns (conclusive actions).
Typification is an important part of claims-
making.22 We found an example of typification
in a recent television interview with the
outspoken Dutch parliamentarian Hirshi Ali.
The issue was female circumcision as practised
among African immigrants. But Ali, who is
herself a recent immigrant from Africa, did not
talk about it in terms of tradition, religion or
even the rather neutral term circumcision, but
kept referring to the practice as ‘genital
mutilation’, thereby creating a strong negative
connotation.
————
21
—
He gives an example about the sexual abuse of children.
The ground statements typically contain numbers from
official research institutions, preferably clear, round,
striking numbers (‘a national survey shows that 60% of
all children . . . ’). The normative judgements contain
claims, for example about the vulnerability of young
children and the decline of family values. The third
component may contain a call for heavier punishment and
more control.
22
It makes quite a difference, according to Loseke, if one
typifies the phenomenon of street people as ‘the problem
of the homeless mentally ill’ or as ‘the problem of a lack of
proper housing’. Another telling example is the difference
between ‘teenager promiscuity’ and ‘teenager pregnan-
cies’ (Loseke, 1995).
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
142
In general, it is appropriate to say that claims-
makers will be more successful in creating
acknowledgment as a social problem and
treatment for certain situations when they
coincide with dominant political, economical
or religious ideologies (Luckenbill, 1995: 303).
Experienced PA practitioners or consultants
will make use of this insight. In the ideal case
they are constantly aware of the relevant
actions of claims-makers. They sometimes
redefine their own claims in order to adjust
them better to the dominant opinions at the
time and thus increase their chances for
success. We see here a clear link with van
Schendelen’s concept of issue manipulation.
He gives a few examples: the question of ‘the
import of cheap textiles’ may change into the
question of ‘child labour’, ‘oil storage’ into
‘safety’, ‘the hazards of smoking’ into ‘personal
freedom’ etc. (van Schendelen, 2002: 210).
Oberman points out that successful expan-
sion of support for an issue requires that it is
defined ‘in a manner that that convinces a
politically significant number of people that
something must be done ( . . . . . . ). Conversely,
opponents will seek to contain the issue,
denying agenda status by promoting the
narrowest possible definition of the issue’
(Oberman, 2005: 65–66).
To summarise, social problems, claims-mak-
ing, typification and their context lie at the
heart of public affairs. Whether it is in Brussels,
London or any other arena, whether it is about
the European Commission or a non-govern-
mental organization (NGO), they will all
experience the profound impact of these
phenomena or make use of them, themselves.
Convincing claims and motivating representa-
tions are not mere facts, or maybe even no facts
at all, but fabrications or social constructions
that were fabricated more or less intentionally
and consciously.
This has direct implications for public
affairs. PA is usually set in an arena with often
competing claims and typifications. The PA
practitioner will have to identify these mechan-
isms, analyse them and, if possible, confront
them with his or her own constructions. This
struggle is to a large extent symbolic.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
Mass media as influential
constructors of reality
In our society, mass media increasingly deter-
mine the particular and public reality. The
public at large, but also politicians and PA
practitioners, are to a great extent dependent
on mass media that play an important role in
monitoring reality.
A current analysis of the role of the media
from a constructionist point of view can be
found in Weimann (2000). In his theoretical
concepts we find instruments that are also
useful for us.
Three central concepts that are relevant in
this perspective are: agenda setting, priming
and framing (Weimann, 2000: 314–316).
Weimann defines agenda setting as ‘the
ability of the news media to define the
significant issues of the day’. The exact mean-
ing is concisely described in this classical
quote from Cohen (1963): ‘The press may not
be successful much of the time in telling people
what to think, but it is stunningly successful in
telling its readers what to think about’ (in
Weimann, 2000: 33).
Priming can be described as the process
through which people are unconsciously sub-
ject to information, which in turn influences
the ensuing perception and decision making
processes. This is shown, for example, in the
increasing speed or accuracy with which
decisions are made, because the person
involved was previously exposed to certain
elements of the context.23
With reference to the media Weimann
describes priming as ‘the relationship between
the patterns of news coverage and the criteria
with which the public evaluates politicians’. He
illustrates this with the following example. At
the public evaluation of president Bush Sr. after
the Gulf War, foreign issues played an exces-
sive role. Before that time, the president was
mainly evaluated on the basis of economical
—————
23
For example, in a test where the respondent is asked to
recognize mutilated words (for instance: d-c- -r), those
who have previously seen the word nurse will sooner
recognize the word doctor than those who have not seen
this word previously.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
issues and criminality. The media pay dispro-
portional attention to certain issues at the cost
of others and so influence the judgement
criteria of the public.
We found a slight variation on the priming
theme and how it can work out in the lobbying
practice in a contribution by Harris: ‘ . . . he
who writes the first paper sets the course of the
forces before you. After that you are in the
business of trying to amend effectively an
established position and that is more difficult’
(Harris, 2005: 96).
Framing is related to priming. Framing
mainly concerns judgements or evaluations
that are influenced by the way in which they are
formulated. A good example that we encoun-
tered is the argument about the cost of
education, whereby one party refers to the
expenses of education, whereas the other party
consequently talks about the investments in
education.
With reference to the media, Weimann
quotes research showing that people who
frequently watched television during the Gulf
War favoured military over diplomatic solu-
tions.
In psychology, many experiments were
done to investigate the influence of artificially
applied frames. Famous is the experiment by
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) who manipu-
lated respondents to favour one of two
scenarios that both led to exactly the same
outcomes.24
The media, as important agenda setters, but
also as sources of priming and framing may play
a decisive role in PA processes. Although they
did not know the terms nor the research behind
it, our respondents seemed, in general, sensi-
tive to these crucial context variables.
————
24
— network of relevant relations and strategic
They let respondents choose between two programs
that were designed to fight a deadly disease. Although
execution of the two programs would lead to exactly the
same outcomes, 75% chose the program that mentioned
with certainty the number of survivors. The clearly less-
favoured scenario mentioned the number of casualties. In
the words of the researchers, the respondents in the first
group were, by means of the wording of the problem,
intentionally brought in a so-called gain frame, whereas
those in the second group were brought in a loss frame
(quoted in ten Kate and van Koppen, 2002: 51).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
143
One of our interviewees pointed out to us
how our national railway company no longer
announced train delays at stations in terms of
delay, but in terms of in how many minutes the
train will arrive.
Talking about trains; in our country the
recent debate over the railway connecting the
Port of Rotterdam to the German Ruhrgebiet
provides us with a classic example of bad
framing. The railway runs through a part of the
country that is known as Betuwe. It is a large
agricultural, fruit producing area that is espe-
cially loved for its blossoms in Spring. By calling
the railway the Betuwe line, it became forever
associated with the repelling image of ugly
trains cutting through this Garden of Eden. It is
believed that this name contributed consider-
ably to the fierce opposition that emerged over
this project, and that things would have turned
out differently had it been called the Rotterdam
Track or Ruhrgebiet Railway.
Conclusions
We could not offer an exhaustive inquiry into
the possibly mutual productive relation
between constructionist theory and the prac-
tice of public affairs and lobbying. Nor do we
believe that constructionism would be the one
and only fruitful theoretical instrument in this
realm. As always, this depends also on the goals,
the research question, the phenomena under
study and the context of the intended research.
But we maintain that the constructionist
approach offers a useful contribution to the
study and practice of public affairs and lobby-
ing. In the scientific and professional literature
on public affairs, as well as in our own research,
thorough knowledge of the dossier at stake,
together with the maintenance of an adequate
communication are mentioned as the key
factors in good public affairs and lobbying.
These factors, and their interconnections (that
is, issue-based networks, network-related
knowledge, communication and intelligence
etc.) together seem to form the playground par
excellence for social reality construction with
very practical consequences.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
144
The perspective presented here opens new
and promising ways to the scientific study of
some of the processes that lie at the heart of
public affairs and lobbying. But more impor-
tantly, they offer new opportunities for PA
practitioners to deepen their insight and
enhance their skills in analysing the social and
political context and in interest representation.
Much research and theorising remain to be
done. This is no more than an exploration into a
relatively new field on the compass of a
seasoned paradigm.
Biographical notes
Rob de Lange is senior lecturer at the Depart-
ment of Communication Studies at the Universi-
teit van Amsterdam and the Educational Faculty
at the Hogeschool Utrecht, the Netherlands. He
was trained as social-scientist. He worked at
different universities and did research in diverse
sub-fields of the social sciences, ranging from
ethnic and immigrant studies to communication
and, recently, public affairs. In 1997 he started a
research project about public affairs practi-
tioners in the Netherlands.
PauL Linders was also trained as social-
scientist. He is a senior lecturer at the Hoge-
school Utrecht, Institute for Communication
Management, where he leads a communication
and marketing consultancy run by students.
Previously he worked in different functions in
marketing and communication for large inter-
national organisations. Later he worked for an
international consultancy for which he did,
among other things, public affairs work in The
Hague and Brussels.
In 2003 both authors together wrote their
PhD dissertation about Public Affairs. This study
contained in-depth empirical research among
PA practitioners (n ¼ 41) and their superiors
(n ¼ 50), based on the theoretical framework of
constructionism and sense-making.
References
Bandler R. 1985. Using Your Brain—for a Change.
Real People Press: Moab, Utah.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
Bennis WJ, Pauw BMJ, van Schendelen MPCM.
1992. Lobbyen, hoe werkt ‘t? SDU: Den Haag.
Berger PL, Luckmann Th. 1975. The Social Construc-
tion of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of
Knowledge. Penguin Books Ltd: Harmondsworth.
Berman S. 2002. Public affairs, issues management
and political strategy: opportunities, opportu-
nities, and more opportunities. Journal of Public
Affairs 1(4): 416–422.
Berveling J. 1994. Het stempel op de besluitvorm-
ing. Macht, invloed en besluitvorming op twee
Amsterdamse Beleidsterreinen. Thesis Publish-
ers (proefschrift): Amsterdam.
Best J (ed.). 1995. Images of Issues. Typifying
Contemporary Social Problems. Aldine de
Gruyter: New York.
Blom JD. 2004. Deconstructing Schizophrenia. An
Analysis of the Epistemic and Non-Epistemic
Values That Govern the Biomedical Schizophre-
nia Concept. Boom Publishers: Amsterdam.
Bourdieu P, Wacquant LJD. 1992. Argumenten.
Voor een reflexieve maatschappijwetenschap.
SUA: Amsterdam.
Bourdieu P. 1979. La Distinction. Critique sociale
du jugement. Les Editions de Minuit: Paris.
Bourdieu P. 1984. Homo Academicus. Les Editions de
Minuit: Paris. (English translation with added fore-
word and epilog: 1988. Polity Press: Cambridge).
Bourdieu P. 1991. Language & Symbolic Power.
Polity Press: Cambridge.
Bovenkerk F, Husken M. 2005. De culturele erfenis
van Don Corleone. Justitie¨le verkenningen
31(4): 11–24.
Bruner J. 1990. Culture and human development: a
new look. Human Development 33: 344–355.
Cohen B. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy.
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Critchlow B. 1986. The powers of John Barleycorn:
Beliefs about the effects of alcohol on social
behaviour. American Psychologist 41: 751–764.
Crombag HFM, van Koppen PJ, Wagenaar WA.
2002. In De waarde van het bewijs, van Koppen
PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach HLGJ, Crombag HFM
(eds); 281–293.
Damasio AR. 1995. De vergissing van Descartes.
Gevoel, verstand en het menselijk brein. Wer-
eldbibliotheek: Amsterdam (or. Descartes’ Error).
de Lange R, Linders PCJ. 2003. Public affairs en
werkelijkheidsconstructie. (Proefschrift). Facul-
teit Gedragswetenschappen, Universiteit van
Twente.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
Public affairs as reality construction
de Lange R. 1986. Pygmalion en allochtone leerlin-
gen. Comenius 24(6): 432–452.
de Lange R. 1997. De Lobbyist: Wat weten we
eigenlijk van het beroep? Research report.
Vakgroep Public Affairs van de Beroepsvereni-
ging voor Communicatie: Den Haag.
de Lange R. 2000a. Public affairs practitioners in the
Netherlands: a profile study. Public Relations
Review, Spring 2000 26(1): 15–29.
Dennett DC. 1991. Consciousness Explained.
Penguin Books: London.
Dennett DC. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon &
Schuster: New York.
Denning S. 2001. The Springboard. How Storytelling
Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations.
Butterworth Heinnemann: Boston.
Dozier DM. 1992. The organizational roles of
communications and public relations practi-
tioners. In Excellence in Public Relations and
Communication Management, Grunig JE (ed.).
Erlbaum: Hillsdale.
Esland G (ed.). 1973. The Construction of Reality.
Teaching and Learning as the Construction of
Reality. The Open University Press: Walton Hall
Milton Keynes.
Foucault M. 1971. L’ordre du Discours. Gallimard:
Paris.
Foucault M. 1975. Surveiller et Punir. Gallimard:
Paris.
French JRP, Raven B. 1959. The bases of social
power. Studies in Social Power, Cartwright D
(ed.). Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Gergen KK, Gergen MM. 1986. In Narrative Form
and the Construction of Psychological Science,
Sarbin TR (ed.). 22–44.
Getz G. 2002. Public affairs and political strategy.
Journal of Public Affairs 1(4): 305–329.
Harris Ph, Fleisher C (eds). 2005. The Handbook
of Public Affairs. Sage Publications: London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
Harris Ph. 2005. The management of public affairs in
the United Kingdom. In The Handbook of
Public Affairs, Harris Ph, Fleisher C (eds).
Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi.
Heugens PPMAR. 2002. Managing public affairs
through storytelling. Journal of Public Affairs
2(2): 57–70.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
145
Heugens PPMAR. 2005. Issues management: core
understandings and scholarly development. In The
Handbook of Public Affairs, Harris Ph, Fleisher C
(eds). Sage Publications: London, Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi; 481–500.
Hillman AJ. 2002. Public affairs, issues management
and political strategy: methodological approaches
that count—A different view. Journal of Public
Affairs 1(4): 356–361.
Horselenberg R, Merckelbach HLGJ, Crombag HFM,
van Koppen PJ. 2002. In Getuigen helpen her-
inneren, van Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach
HLGJ, Crombag HFM (eds); 445–464.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an
analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:
263–291.
Kaku M, Trainer J. 1987. Beyond Einstein. The
Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe.
Bantam Books: Toronto/New York/London.
Kuhn TS. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolu-
tions. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
LeDoux JE. 1996. The Emotional Brain. The
Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life.
Simon & Schuster: New York.
Linning R. 1998. A practical checklist of what to do,
and what to avoid when lobbying the institu-
tions of the European Union. (Presentation at
the School voor Communicatie-management).
Public Relations Partners: Brussel.
Loseke DR. 1995. Writing rights: the ‘homeless
mentally ill’ and involuntary hospitalization. In
Images of Issues. Typifying Contemporary
Social Problems, Best et al., Aldine de Gruyter:
New York; 261–285.
Luckenbill DF. 1995. Creativity, conflict, and con-
trol: film industry campaigns to shape video
policy. In Images of Issues. Typifying Contem-
porary Social Problems, Best et al. (eds). Aldine
de Gruyter: New York; 287–312.
Merckelbach H, Cima M, Nijman H. 2002. In Daders
met geheugenverlies. van Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ,
Merckelbach HLGJ, Crombag HFM (eds); 667–685.
Miller Ch. 1990. Lobbying Government. Under-
standing and Influencing the Corridors of
Power. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Oberman WD. 2005. The external environment of
public affairs in North America. Public policy
process and institutions. In The Handbook of
Public Affairs, Harris Ph, Fleisher C (eds). London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa
146
Pronk I. 2003. Hulpverleners luisteren niet. Straat-
nieuws, juli 2003, 16.
Sarbin TR (ed.). 1986. The Storied Nature of
Human Conduct. Praeger: New York/Westport/
London.
Scheibe KE. 1986. In Self-Narratives and Adven-
ture, Sarbin TR (ed.). 129–151.
Schuler DA. 2002. Public affairs, issues management
and political strategy: methodological approaches
that count. Journal of Public Affairs 1(4): 336–
355.
Searle JR. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality.
Penguin Books: London.
Showalter A, Fleisher CS. 2005. The tools and
techniques of public affairs. In The Handbook of
Public Affairs, Harris Ph, Fleisher C (eds). London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
ten Kate J, van Koppen PJ. 2002. Schikken of niet.
van Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach HLGJ,
Crombag HFM (eds); 42–57.
van Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ. 2002. In De schuld
krijgen. van Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach
HLGJ, Crombag HFM (eds); 25–40.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rob de Lange and Paul Linders
van Schendelen MPCM. 2002. Machiavelli in
Brussels. The Art of Lobbying the EU. Amsterdam
University Press: Amsterdam.
Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations.
Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks/London/New
Delhi.
Weimann G. 2000. Communicating Unreality.
Modern Media and the Reconstruction of
Reality. Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks,
California.
Wessel I, Wolters G. 2002. In Het geheugen. van
Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach HLGJ,
Crombag HFM (eds); 375–395.
Wilbers AJPM. 1992. In Ambtenaren en de lobby:
resultaten van een nieuw onderzoek, Bennis
WJ, Pauw BMJ, van Schendelen MPCM (eds);
181–198.
Wolters G. 2002. In Herinneren door getuigen, van
Koppen PJ, Hessing DJ, Merckelbach HLGJ,
Crombag HFM (eds); 397–415.
Worm GELM. 1992. In De politieke adviseur: een
profielschets, Bennis WJ, Pauw BMJ, van Schen-
delen MPCM (eds); 95–110.
Journal of Public Affairs, May 2006
DOI 10.1002/pa