SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dynamics in Social Sciences and Humanities / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Rethinking the Concept of Publics in Public Relations in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Yapay Zekâ Çağında Halkla İlişkilerde Kamu Kavramını Yeniden Düşünmek

Özgenur Reyhan Güler(İSTİNYE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0899-2297
Pages
89–103
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These developments challenge core assumptions of the situational theory of publics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:publics through human perceptual states and identify them through communicative behaviour.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The article introduces the synthetic public as a communicative formation shaped by the interaction of AI agents, automated accounts, synthetic identities, generated content, and human participation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These developments challenge core assumptions of the situational theory of publics.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Halkla ilişkiler · durumsal kamu kuramı · yapay zekâ

Abstract

publics through human perceptual states and identify them through communicative behaviour. This conceptual theory-building argues that artificial intelligence disrupts the assumed link between these two dimensions. Social bots, generative systems, and autonomous agents produce posts, comments, and amplification patterns from which publics are inferred, thereby rendering the referent of the concept less certain. The article introduces the synthetic public as a communicative formation shaped by the interaction of AI agents, automated accounts, synthetic identities, generated content, and human participation. It does not treat machines as publics; rather, it argues that AI contributes to the formation, visibility, scale, discourse, and behavioural indicators of publics. A typology of authentic, amplified, simulated, and hybrid publics is proposed, alongside as a membership, identification, representation, relationship, and formation five analytical problems. These developments challenge core assumptions of the situational theory of publics.

Özet

Halkla ilişkiler, literatürde genel olarak “kamu” kavramı etrafında örgütlenmektedir. Bununla birlikte, halkla ilişkiler kuramları kamuları insanlara özgü algısal durumlar üzerinden tanımlamakta ve onları iletişimsel davranışlar aracılığıyla belirlemektedir. Bu kavramsal sistematik derleme, yapay zekânın bu iki boyut arasında varsayılan ilişkiyi dönüştürdüğünü ileri sürmektedir. Sosyal botlar, üretken yapay zekâ sistemleri ve otonom ajanlar; kamuların varlığını belirlemede kullanılan paylaşım, yorum ve içerik yayılımı gibi davranışları giderek daha fazla üretmekte ve böylece kamu kavramının referansını belirsizleştirmektedir. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ ajanları, otomatik hesaplar, sentetik kimlikler, yapay olarak üretilen içerikler ve insan katılımının etkileşimiyle şekillenen iletişimsel oluşumları açıklamak üzere “sentetik kamu” kavramını önermektedir. Bu yaklaşım, makineleri doğrudan kamu olarak değerlendirmemekte; yapay zekânın kamuların oluşumuna, görünürlüğüne, ölçeğine, söylemine ve davranışsal göstergelerine katkıda bulunduğunu savunmaktadır. Çalışmada otantik, güçlendirilmiş, simüle edilmiş ve hibrit kamulardan oluşan bir tipoloji önerilmekte; üyelik, tanımlama, temsil, ilişki ve oluşum olmak üzere beş temel analitik sorun ortaya konulmaktadır. Bu gelişmeler, durumsal kamu kuramının temel varsayımlarının yeniden değerlendirilmesini gerekli kılmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güler, Ö. R. (2026). Rethinking the Concept of Publics in Public Relations in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Dynamics in Social Sciences and Humanities, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.62425/dssh.2012478

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Aldoory, L., Kim, J.-N., & Tindall, N. (2010). The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elaborating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.12.002
  2. Anderson, C. W. (2011). Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences: Journalism's vision of its public in an age of audience transparency. International Journal of Communication, 5, 529–547. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/884
  3. Arceneaux, P., Anderson, J., Lukito, J., Shah, M., & Kiousis, S. (2026). Social bots as agenda-builders: Evaluating the impact of algorithmic amplification on organizational messaging. Journal of Public Relations Research, 38(3), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2025.2606676
  4. Blumer, H. (1948). Public opinion and public opinion polling. American Sociological Review, 13(5), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087146
  5. Boatwright, B. C., DiRusso, C., & Pyle, A. (2026). Somebody's poisoned the water hole! Advancing social media data collection principles to account for the effects of AI slop on public relations scholarship. Public Relations Review, 52(3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2026.102716
  6. Bourne, C. (2019). AI cheerleaders: Public relations, neoliberalism and artificial intelligence. Public Relations Inquiry, 8(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X19835250
  7. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
  8. Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  9. Canöz, K., İrez, B., & Kaya, K. K. (2023). Halkla ilişkiler, yapay zekâ ve hegemonya: Eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Karatay Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, (11), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.54557/karataysad.1312694
  10. Christin, A. (2020). Metrics at work: Journalism and the contested meaning of algorithms. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691200002
  11. Chon, M.-G., & Park, H. (2020). Social media activism in the digital age: Testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019835896
  12. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Henry Holt.
  13. Edwards, L. (2012). Defining the 'object' of public relations research: A new starting point. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X11422149
  14. Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818717
  15. Fisher, S. A. (2025). Something AI should tell you: The case for labelling synthetic content. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 42(1), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12758
  16. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
  17. Galloway, C., & Swiatek, L. (2018). Public relations and artificial intelligence: It's not (just) about robots. Public Relations Review, 44(5), 734–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.10.008
  18. Gambino, A., Fox, J., & Ratan, R. A. (2020). Building a stronger CASA: Extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication, 1(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.5
  19. Gehl, R. W., & Bakardjieva, M. (Eds.). (2017). Socialbots and their friends: Digital media and the automation of sociality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315637228
  20. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425
  21. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). ITB Press.
  22. Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 117–157). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  23. Güneş, E., Akyüz, P., Summak, M. E., & Acar, C. (2025). Üretken yapay zekâ teknolojileriyle oluşturulan siyasal dezenformasyon: 2024 Türkiye yerel seçimlerinde sosyal medya analizi. Interdisciplinary Media and Communication Studies, 2(3), 72–97. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/imcs/article/1655843
  24. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
  25. Hulland, J. (2020). Conceptual review papers: Revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review, 10(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00168-7
  26. Ilgın, H. Ö. (2021). Sosyal medyada dezenformasyon ve halkla ilişkiler ilişkisi. İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.ICD.2015.006/icd_v07i2005
  27. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
  28. Jungherr, A., & Schroeder, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the public arena. Communication Theory, 33(2–3), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtad006
  29. Keller, F. B., Schoch, D., Stier, S., & Yang, J. (2020). Political astroturfing on Twitter: How to coordinate a disinformation campaign. Political Communication, 37(2), 256–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1661888
  30. Kent, M. L., & Li, C. (2020). Toward a normative social media theory for public relations. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101857
  31. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
  32. Kim, J.-N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
  33. Kim, J.-N., Grunig, J. E., & Ni, L. (2010). Reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics: Acquisition, selection, and transmission of information in problematic situations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4(2), 126–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531181003701913
  34. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
  35. López-Borrull, A., & Lopezosa, C. (2025). Mapping the impact of generative AI on disinformation: Insights from a scoping review. Publications, 13(3), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13030033
  36. Ma, L., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Three social-mediated publics in digital activism: A network perspective of social media public segmentation. Social Media + Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221094775
  37. MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136
  38. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
  39. Orlando, G. M., Ye, J., La Gatta, V., Saeedi, M., Moscato, V., Ferrara, E., & Luceri, L. (2026). Emergent coordinated behaviors in networked LLM agents: Modeling the strategic dynamics of information operations. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 (pp. 4805–4816). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3774904.3792580
  40. Saura García, C. (2025). Synthetification of public opinion: Impacts on deliberative democracies. Ethics and Information Technology, 27, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09870-1
  41. Saura García, C., & Calvo, P. (2024). Mass public opinion: Algorithmic colonisation and synthetisation of the public sphere. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, 138, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2024.138.3.73
  42. Sezer, Ö., & Özgen, E. (2025). Dijital gözetim bağlamında algoritmik halkla ilişkiler. Selçuk İletişim, 18(1), 52–83. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/josc/article/1580606
  43. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  44. Tomassi, A., Falegnami, A., & Romano, E. (2024). Mapping automatic social media information disorder: The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0303183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303183
  45. Ulusoy, H., & Kaya İlhan, Ç. (2025). Siyasal iletişimde yapay zekâ etkisi ve deepfake (derin sahte) dezenformasyonu: 2024 ABD başkanlık seçimleri örneği. TRT Akademi, 10(23), 42–73. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1563828
  46. Valentini, C., & Edwards, L. (2019). Theories in public relations: Reflections and future directions. Public Relations Inquiry, 8(3), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X19881227
  47. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.