University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Using public relations to gain legitimacy in an emerging market: nanotechnology firms and the news media

(USC Thesis Other)

Using public relations to gain legitimacy in an emerging market: nanotechnology firms and the news media

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content USING PUBLIC RELATIONS TO GAIN LEGITIMACY IN AN EMERGING MARKET:
NANOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS AND THE NEWS MEDIA
by
Sami M Asiri
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)
December 2006
Copyright 2006 Sami M Asiri
Dedication
To Margot Jean Wright, for twenty incredible months.
ii
Acknowledgments
This thesis is the product of countless hours of research, discussion,
composition and procrastination. Its completion is due, in large part, to the
patience and involvement of my outstanding thesis committee. In particular, I
would like to thank my Committee Chair, Craig Carroll, for his many contributions
to this document and for his endless support throughout its creation.
My heartfelt thanks go to my parents, Guylaine and Abdul-Jabbar, for their
continuous love and support and for their unquestioned belief in me. You have
taught me to think for myself and given me the courage to pursue my dreams, and
for that I am grateful. I must also thank Adam and Daniel, my brothers, for urging
me to stay the course and for always reminding of who I am. I may not always
show it, but your encouragement means the world to me.
My many friends and peers at Annenberg helped make these last two years
the quickest of my life. I will never miss the assignments, the midterms or the
finals, but I will miss your company. Let us always stay in touch.
Lastly and especially, to Margot. You made Los Angeles exciting and my time
there more rewarding than I ever expected. You believed in me, you inspired me
and you challenged me to try harder. You were my best friend, my love and
everything in between. I could not have done this without you. Thank you!
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Organizational Legitimacy 2
Effect of the News Media 11
Nanotechnology 16
Chapter 2: Research Questions 21
Chapter 3: Methods 28
Research Objective 28
Sample and Data Sources 29
Procedures 37
Chapter 4: Results 45
Chapter 5: Discussion 60
Limitations and Future Research Directions 66
Chapter 6: Conclusion 70
Bibliography 75
Appendix A 82
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index. 30
Table 2: Nanotechnology search terms. 32
Table 3: Total number of articles about nanotechnology in the New
York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall
Street Journal (1986–2005). 33
Table 4: Total number of press releases about nanotechnology in PR
Newswire and Business Wire (1993–2005). 35
Table 5: Theme dictionary. 36
Table 6: Nanotechnology dictionary. 37
Table 7: Thirty most mentioned firms in news articles about
nanotechnology. 50
Table 8: Thirty most mentioned firms in press releases about
nanotechnology. 51
Table 9: Top 30 publicly identified nanotechnology companies, in
news coverage. 52
Table 10: Top 30 publicly identified nanotechnology companies, in
press releases. 54
Table 11: Conversion of press releases and other public relation
endeavors vis-à-vis news stories. 59
Table 12: Company dictionary. 82
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Identifying the final samples of companies. 38
Figure 2: Identifying paragraphs containing firm names and nano
terms. 40
Figure 3: Identifying paragraphs containing firm names and themes. 41
Figure 4: Identifying theme of coverage (benefits or risk) 42
Figure 5: News coverage of nanotechnology by the New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal
(1986–2005). 45
Figure 6: Number of articles by publication beginning in 1995. 46
Figure 7: Nanotechnology related press releases in PR Newswire and
Business Wire (1993–2005). 47
Figure 8: Number of press releases by distribution service beginning in
1997. 48
Figure 9: Total number of articles and press releases about
nanotechnology, 1986–2005. 49
Figure 10: Percent of theme mentions associated with
nanotechnology firms in press releases. 55
Figure 11: Percent of theme mentions associated with
nanotechnology firms in news coverage. 56
Figure 12: Percentage of news stories with benefit and risk assessments
about nanotechnology over time. 57
vi
Abstract
This thesis provides an initial examination of how firms created in or
moving into an emerging market use public relations to legitimize their actions and
policies to make them appear useful and responsible to their stakeholders. While
past studies have focused largely on news coverage and public perception of
emerging markets, this investigation centers on organizations’ use of press releases
to communicate their activities and set the media agenda about these markets.
These ideas are examined in the emerging market of nanotechnology. This study
finds that news coverage of diversified firms and non-diversified firms contained
very similar themes. Non-diversified firms received a higher than expected
proportion of business-themed news coverage whereas diversified firms received a
higher proportion of research-themed coverage.
vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Firms need legitimacy to effectively compete and survive in today’s global
business environment. Whether these firms are unknown start-ups or well-known
corporations, stakeholders must perceive their actions and policies to be useful and
responsible for them to succeed (Boyd, 2000). As a result, organizations must
steadily communicate and legitimize their purpose and activities to their
audiences—investors, politicians, governmental entities, the communities in which
they operate, and other businesses—or risk losing necessary support and resources
from these stakeholders.
Communicating legitimacy is of particular concern to firms in emerging
markets and industries or working with unconventional technologies such as
nanotechnology. Novelty subsumes uncertainty, and the unpredictability and
inherent risk of the unknown make it more difficult for organizations to appear
useful or responsible to their stakeholders. Paradoxically, novelty and uncertainty
enhance the allure of certain activities to science writers and journalists (Zehr,
1999). These innovative and innovating firms are consequently faced with
conflicting tasks: To develop revolutionary industries or technologies and persuade
stakeholders that to do so is both useful and responsible.
Public relations endeavors allow corporations to communicate and
legitimize their actions and policies to stakeholders through the news media. The
use of this intermediary is important, as corporate messages conveyed through the
media are often considered more trustworthy and credible than information
1
communicated by organizations themselves (Gandy, 1982). News coverage confers
prominence on firms (Carroll & McCombs, 2003) and this, in turn, allows firms to
appear legitimate and credible in the eyes of their stakeholders.
This thesis, then, explores how firms created in or moving into an emerging
market use public relations to legitimize their actions and policies to make them
appear useful and responsible to their stakeholders. It examines these firms’ actions
within the context of nanotechnology, an innovation perceived as both
evolutionary and revolutionary with the potential to have an enormous social,
political and economic impact (Milunovich, Roy, & Fan, 2004). Nanotechnology is
moving past its inception and settling into the mainstream. As such, this is an
opportune time to explore how firms—diversified and not—communicate and
justify their involvement in new technologies and study how the news media write
about them.
The rest of this introduction explores the importance of organizational
legitimacy to innovative firms; identifies public relations’ role in creating and
communicating organizational legitimacy; examines how the news media shape
coverage of nanotechnology and of innovative firms; and defines, describes, and
examines nanotechnology and some of the societal research surrounding it.
Organizational Legitimacy
Literature on organizational legitimacy has largely emerged from the fields of
management and sociology, with some recent contributions from the field of public
relations. Suchman (1995) defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or
2
assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574).
Legitimacy has alternatively been described as compatibility between an
organization’s activities and the goals of society (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975), “a
condition reflecting perceived consonance with relevant rules and laws, normative
support, or alignment with cultural-cognitive frameworks” (Scott, 2000, p. 59), and
“an institution's need for publics to recognize its authority to operate and exercise
authority in a broader social context” (Boyd, 2000, pp. 341–342).
Despite their variations, each of these definitions maintain that firms must,
in some way, adhere to stakeholder expectations in order to achieve organizational
legitimacy. Legitimacy depends significantly on the perceptions of its stakeholders
(Boyd, 2000), comprised of both internal and external publics (Roper & Toledano,
2005, p. 480), and exists in varying degrees (Brummer, 1991; Stillman, 1974). In the
end, a “significant portion” of a firm’s stakeholders must approve of it for the
organization to be deemed legitimate (Boyd, 2000, p. 346).
As legitimacy and reputation are often used interchangeably in the field of
public relations, it is important to recognize the differences between the two. While
both describe stakeholders’ perception of organizations, legitimacy refers to the
acceptance of a firm based on its adherence to social norms and expectations.
Reputation, on the other hand, refers to the comparison of two or more
organizations based on a variety of criteria (Deephouse & Carter, 2005).
Legitimacy affects how stakeholders understand and act toward
organizations (Suchman, 1995). It allows firms to acquire important resources such
3
as qualified and experienced employees, capital, technology, partnerships, and
governmental support (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Never
attaining or losing legitimacy could eventually lead to organizational failure
(Zyglidopoulos, 2003).
The review of literature on organizational legitimacy differentiates between
strategic and institutional approaches to legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). The strategic
approach depicts legitimacy as an organizational resource that firms utilize in a
purposive and calculated manner to attain their goals. Strategic-legitimacy assumes
that managers have a high level of control over their organization’s perceived
legitimacy and that they manage it through the use of symbols and rituals instead
of more substantive actions. In contrast, the institutional approach describes
legitimacy as a result of external institutional forces that control how the
organization is created, managed, and perceived. Organizations become legitimate
by adopting and maintaining pre-existing normative behaviors and characteristics
through their actions and structures. Institutional-legitimacy assigns only limited
managerial control over legitimacy within the confines of existing organizational
sectors.
In this instance, an institutional approach to nanotechnology is most
relevant. The high level of uncertainty surrounding nanotechnology makes it
difficult for managers to have an adequate level of control over their organization’s
perceived legitimacy. Instead, firms must reflect stakeholders’ perceptions and, to
some degree, adhere to their expectations.
4
Suchman (1995) identifies three types of organizational legitimacy:
Pragmatic legitimacy, moral legitimacy and cognitive legitimacy. Pragmatic
legitimacy rests on self-interest and the potential value of favorable exchanges or
outcomes to key stakeholders. Policies and actions are endorsed because they offer
direct benefits to constituents. Support by shareholders for organizational actions
such as restructuring and downsizing (Christen, 2005) are likely to stem from
pragmatic legitimacy.
Moral legitimacy emerges from a positive normative evaluation of an
organization and its activities. Suchman (1995) explains that moral legitimacy is
“sociotropic” and is largely determined by whether an action or policy is considered
“the right thing to do” by stakeholders. Moral legitimacy is evaluated in one of four
ways: Consequential legitimacy, derived from what organizations accomplish;
procedural legitimacy, based on stakeholder endorsement of an organization’s
techniques and procedures; structural legitimacy, acquired through the presence of
expected organizational characteristics; and personal legitimacy, which relies on the
charisma of a firm’s leaders. These value judgments of legitimacy are critical to
corporations since they directly reflect stakeholders’ beliefs about them. Moral
legitimacy would be used to evaluate an organization that downsizes its workforce
while raising executive salaries and bonuses (Christen, 2005).
Lastly, cognitive legitimacy is a result of the predictability or taken-for-
grantedness of organizations and their actions. Stakeholders accept firms and their
activities as legitimate because they make sense and have a proven track record of
success or because they have simply always been. Large, diversified multinational
5
firms such as IBM, Nike, and GE are considered to have cognitive legitimacy.
Smaller, lesser known firms, on the other hand, do not typically possess cognitive
legitimacy.
Of these three legitimacies, pragmatic legitimacy is least likely to be used in
the evaluation of innovative firms at this time. This legitimacy relies on audience
self-interest and the technology does not yet offer significant enough value to
stakeholders for them to publicly endorse it for those reasons. Moral and cognitive
legitimacy, on the other hand, are more societal in nature and more likely to be
used by the public to assess organizations working with nanotechnology. As a
result, firms wishing to be deemed legitimate must increase their perceived moral
and cognitive legitimacy.
Public relations and actional legitimation. Legitimacy is managed primarily
through communications (Suchman, 1995) and is “established, maintained,
challenged, and defended through dialogues between an organization and its
various publics regarding organizational activities and their relation to social norms
and values” (Metzler, 2001, p. 322). It is the outcome of persuasive justifications for
their actions by corporations (Green, 2004). Organizational legitimacy is, therefore,
at the core of most public relations activities (Metzler, 2001).
Public relations scholars have previously examined legitimacy in works
about crisis communications (e.g. Benson, 1998; Christen, 2005; Hearit, 1994;
Hearit, 1995a; Hearit, 1995b; Ice, 1991; Williams & Treadaway, 1992) and issues
management (e.g. Coombs, 1992; Heath, 1997). Crisis communications research has
6
revolved primarily around reactive communication strategies, such as the
reestablishment of organizational legitimacy with firms’ multiple stakeholders
following a crisis. Corporations in the midst of crises must reaffirm the institutional
legitimacy of their organizations at a time when their continued existence might be
in question. While this view of legitimacy is certainly relevant to organizational
upheavals and unforeseen emergencies, it is not applicable to the everyday realities
of corporate existence. A more serviceable approach to consistent organizational
legitimacy management emerges from the literature on issues management. Unlike
crisis communications, issues management relies on proactive communication
strategies (Heath, 1997). As such, legitimacy can be managed more regularly and
individual concerns handled independently, with the overall goal of avoiding crises
altogether. Coombs (1992) suggests that for issues management efforts to be
successful, stakeholders must perceive the issue managers, the advocated policy and
the issue itself as legitimate. In the case of nanotechnology, stakeholders would
have to find the organization, its actions and policies, and the concept of
nanotechnology useful and responsible in order for any activity to be deemed
legitimate. Working from this, Boyd (2000) concludes that crises are not the norm
and that another kind of legitimacy, actional legitimation, is required to account for
day-to-day legitimacy concerns.
In actional legitimacy, Boyd (2000) establishes a more fundamental link
between legitimacy and public relations and offers a new area of study to public
relations scholars. Building on the concept of institutional moral legitimacy, it
focuses on establishing corporate actions and policies as useful and responsible and
7
gaining support for these endeavors from stakeholders. In this way, actional
legitimacy is anchored in Grunig’s (1993) theory that public relations requires
organizations to build relationships through symmetrical dialogue. By involving
stakeholders in organizational activities as they emerge, actional legitimacy
promotes the management of legitimacy before crises arise rather than in their
aftermath (Boyd, 2000).
Actional legitimation allows organizations to demonstrate the legitimacy of
specific corporate actions or policies on a case-by-case basis (Boyd, 2000). First
suggested by Brummer (1991), it requires corporations to “justify omission of what
is expected…as well as commission of something unexpected” (Boyd, 2000, pp.
348–349). In other words, actional legitimacy is achieved by providing stakeholders
with good reasons for each organizational action (Ulrich, 1995, p. 3) and
demonstrating that it is the right thing to do.
In the case of nanotechnology, actional legitimation can be used to both
explain and promote the technology. Many electronic components found in today's
modern computers, such as hard drives and central processing units (CPUs), have
increased exponentially in capacity and performance over the last two decades. All
the while, advances in the manufacturing process have allowed these devices to
become smaller and smaller. CPU transistors are now measured in nanometers and
nanotechnology research is vital to continued improvements. As a result, CPU
manufactures such as Intel and AMD may use actional legitimation to explain the
usefulness of miniaturization (a by-product of nanotechnology) and promote it as
8
the right thing to do. Smaller and more complex CPUs result not only in increased
processing power but also in reduced power consumption and waste.
Through communications with the news media, innovative firms can build a
case for the usefulness and responsibility of their actions and policies. Press releases
represent an actional legitimacy tool with which firms establish corporate actions
and policies as useful and responsible and gain support for these endeavors from
stakeholders.
Innovative firms and media legitimacy. Two types of innovative firms exist in
the field of nanotechnology. The first, diversified firms, are multi-industry or multi-
speciality companies (Zuckerman, 2000). They have been in existence for some time
and are typically well-known firms with some brand recognition. These firms’
involvement in nanotechnology may or may not be considered legitimate, but they
have attained legitimacy in their own industries or specialties and are invested in
nanotechnology through research, manufacturing, product design, partnerships,
subsidies or acquisitions. Diversified firms working with nanotechnology include
IBM, GE, 3M and Intel.
The second type, referred to here as non-diversified firms, are newer firms
that have emerged with a primary focus on nanotechnology. Being both generally
smaller in size and lesser-known than diversified firms, and working almost
exclusively on a technology rife with uncertainty, they have yet to achieve
legitimacy of their own. This is not to say that these firms are not at all perceived as
legitimate but, rather, that they are not recognized as legitimate by a large enough
9
number of stakeholders. These firms are also unable to rely on existing institutions
to provide them with external legitimacy (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). For the purposes of
this study, non-diversified firms refer only to companies found in the Merrill Lynch
Nanotech Index on February 23, 2006 (American Stock Exchange, 2006). Non-
diversified firms include Altair Nanotechnologies, Veeco Instruments, and Acacia
Research–Combimatrix.
Nanotechnology, being a recently new activity, suffers from low cognitive
legitimacy. Indeed, Cobb and Macoubrie (2004) revealed that most Americans have
heard little or nothing about nanotechnology. While this is of some concern to all
firms involved in nanotechnology, it is of particular relevance to non-diversified
firms firms that do not have existing legitimacy on which to rely. Analysts have
framed nanotechnology not as a new industry but as a technological evolution
emerging within industries as diverse as pharmaceutical, telecommunications and
consumer goods (Milunovich, et al., 2004). Non-diversified firms, which can acquire
legitimacy indirectly from the industries within which they operate, can therefore
position themselves as part of an existing industry rather than an entirely new one
(Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002).
Non-diversified firms can also achieve cognitive legitimacy by visibly
championing and implementing recognized methods, models and processes, which
are deemed useful and responsible and that are adhered to by diversified firms
(Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2001; Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman &
Zeitz, 2002). This includes not only corporate functions but other accepted
organizational strategies. By mimicking diversified organizations’ communication
10
practices and messages, for example, non-diversified firms can appear more
legitimate to the public because of the types of information they convey and the
ways in which they do so.
Endorsements are one final method through which organizations can build
cognitive legitimacy (Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). They are useful to all
organizations but are particularly beneficial to new, lesser known firms, as they
effectively convey legitimacy from the endorsing organization to the new venture.
Positive news coverage is considered a form of endorsement (Abrahamson &
Fombrun, 1992; Elsbach, 1994; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) and in this sense, the
news media are legitimizers of new firms and new technologies. By covering them
favorably (Carroll & McCombs, 2003), the news media can make non-diversified
firms appear useful, responsible and, consequently, legitimate.
Effect of the News Media
The news media help shape which scientific opportunities are accepted,
capitalized and commercialized. They decide how issues are framed and conveyed
to the public and have the ability to legitimize certain interpretations and actors
over others (Anderson, Allan, Petersen, & Wilkinson, 2005; Friedman, Dunwoody,
& Rogers, 1999). News frames help determine what exists, what happens, and what
matters (Gitlin, 1980). The news media frame emerging technologies by “helping to
establish the initial parameters of debate, by identifying certain news sources as
pertinent and credible, and by providing topic-defining reference points”
(Anderson, et al., 2005, p. 202). They also choose whether to cover new science
11
positively or negatively (Stephens, 2004), thereby influencing how emerging
technologies are perceived by stakeholders (Golan & Wanta, 2001; McCombs,
Llamas, Lopez-Escobar, & Rey, 1997). Previous research has established that media
coverage of emerging technologies provides a key heuristic to audiences unfamiliar
with the technology (Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, 2003; Nisbet & Lewenstein,
2002) and is a key factor in influencing how the public thinks about
nanotechnology (Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005). Indeed, when new markets are in
their infancy, media coverage is one of the few widely available sources of
information for reducing uncertainty in these markets (Kennedy, 2003).
By choosing what and who to write about, the news media influence what
the public thinks about an issue and helps set how they think about it. This agenda-
setting role of the news media refers to journalists’ ability to influence the public
agenda through their day-to-day selection of news (McCombs & Reynolds, 2002).
By conferring prominence on specific issues, topics or actors, the media influences
the prominence of those subjects among the public. The media are therefore
“propagators” of corporate legitimacy who legitimate organizations by virtue of
their coverage (Pollock & Rindova, 2003). By conferring status on certain firms, the
news media increases their prominence on the public agenda and their salience
among the public (Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Kosicki, 1993; McCombs, et al., 1997;
Rogers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993). This concurrently augments firms’ legitimacy
and credibility in the public arena (Pollock & Rindova, 2003). Media coverage of
emerging technologies not only informs publics about new technologies but also
about the firms involved in their development and application.
12
News coverage of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology coverage has focused
largely on the scientific and economic aspects of this new technology (Scheufele &
Lewenstein, 2005) and has appeared largely on the financial pages of daily
newspapers (Anderson, et al., 2005). Reflecting public opinion, or perhaps shaping
it, news coverage of nanotechnology in the United States has been very positive
(Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005), with considerably more coverage of its benefits than in
the European media (Gaskell, Eyck, Jackson, & Veltri, 2004) and few investigations
of its risks (Anderson, et al., 2005; Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005). Of the 54% of news
articles that have expressed an opinion about nanotechnology’s social implications,
57% have suggested that the benefits outweigh the risks while only 19% believe the
opposite (Stephens, 2005). Still, there are some concerns. Unease about public
accountability has been a persistent consideration in nanotechnology coverage and
may be evidence of the public’s lack of trust in public officials and multinational
corporations (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004; Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005).
Early coverage of nanotechnology has been likened to that of
biotechnology—beginning with a few stories in elite media outlets such as the New
York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, before rapidly spreading to other
outlets (Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005). News stories about nanotechnology in the
American press have largely focused on three dominant themes, all of them
important to innovative firms: Scientific discoveries or projects (27%), social
implications and risks (17%), and nanotechnology as a business story (11%)
(Stephens, 2005).
13
Corporate agenda-building. To a large extent, corporations influence how and
what stakeholders think about them, their actions and their policies through
agenda-building (Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001) and issue ownership (Meijer &
Kleinnijenhuis, 2006) efforts in the news media (Berger, 2001; Carroll & McCombs,
2003; Curtin, 1999). Agenda-building refers to corporations’ efforts to influence the
media agenda (Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001) while issue ownership relates to
organizations’ ability to be associated, positively or negatively, with specific issues
that are of relevance to it (Meijer & Kleinnijenhuis, 2006).
Firms build an agenda primarily through the distribution of press releases,
whether directly, by fax or e-mail, or indirectly, over news wire services such as
Business Wire and PR Newswire, to news organizations that write about them. Press
releases are an essential vehicle for communicating actional legitimacy as they are
designed to provide stakeholders with justifications for organizational actions.
Previous research has shown that the media’s agenda is highly dependent on the
agenda-building efforts of actors and organizations in their areas of interest.
McInerney, Bird, and Nucci (2004) showed that press releases announcing
achievements in biotechnology foods were a key factor in communicating
organizations’ points-of-view and increasing public awareness of biotechnology
issues. It is estimated that press releases influence as much as 25% to 80% of all
news content (Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997) and that as much as 50% of
business news in the Wall Street Journal originates from press releases or story
suggestions by public relations professionals (Blyskal & Blyskal, 1985). Nearly half
14
of the news stories in the New York Times and Washington Post across a 20-year
period have been found to be substantially based on press releases (Sigal, 1973).
Likewise, studies have found that 85% of environmental reporters rely on press
releases for information (Sachsman, 1973; Witt, 1974).
Organizations can also use press releases to associate themselves with and
promote their involvement in issues such as nanotechnology. Issue ownership
affects the reputation of firms based on the prominence of news coverage about
owned issues. That is to say, is there is news about an issue such as nanotechnology
that the public perceives the organization to be handling successfully, then the
reputation of the organization will improve. If, on the other hand, the firm is not
positively associated with the issue, then its reputation in light of that issue will
worsen (Meijer & Kleinnijenhuis, 2006). Issue ownership affects organizational
legitimacy as well. Reputable firms, by virtue of being closely associated with a
specific issue, are more likely to be perceived as legitimate in regards to that issue.
For example, stakeholders would be less likely to question the legitimacy of a
leading nanotechnology firm’s actions and policies than they would a firm not
associated with nanotechnology.
Press releases have the ability to not only convey information, but to
communicate a corporate agenda and, ultimately, shape the media discourse
(Carroll & McCombs, 2003; Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001). They are a tool with
which firms establish actions and policies as useful and responsible. By increasing
the quantity and helping shape the tone of coverage they receive, organizations
increase their ownership of the nanotechnology issue and their salience on the
15
public agenda. This helps legitimize their actions and policies and make them
appear useful and responsible to their stakeholders.
Nanotechnology
Over the last two decades, nanotechnology has been hailed by many as a
revolutionary technology that promises to create significantly smaller and faster
computers, regenerative medicines composed of microscopic machines, lighter and
more durable materials, environmental remediation, and much more. It is expected
to apply to a wide number of industries and transform entire industrial sectors
while creating new ones (Einsiedel & Goldenberg, 2004). Milunovich et al. (2004),
in a research report for Merrill Lynch, explained that:
We believe nanotechnology is the next logical step in miniaturization.…
Building at the nanoscale enables new interactions in materials,
semiconductors, and biological agents. The new scale allows manipulation
on the atomic and cellular level, which should enable new discoveries in
pharmaceuticals, biodefense, and healthcare. (p. 2)
Nanotechnology involves the fabrication of components smaller than 100
nanometers, or about 800 times smaller than the width of a human hair. It is not a
new industry, but rather a technological evolution relevant to many existing
disciplines such as biology, chemistry, and engineering (Milunovich, et al., 2004).
New technologies such as nanotechnology—and the industries that form
around them—have the potential to have tremendous social, political, and
economic consequences. The United States Congress has chosen to make
nanotechnology a priority, largely because of the perceived potential contributions
of nanotechnology to future economic growth. In 2001, it created the National
16
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a federal research and development program
established to coordinate the efforts of 11 different federal agencies in nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology. The overall budget for the NNI has increased
from $464 million in fiscal year
2001 to over $1 billion in 2005, with an estimated
budget of $1.3 billion in 2006. This funding has also been used for the creation of
university and government nanoscale R&D laboratories and to help foster cross-
disciplinary networks and partnerships.
Nanotechnology is predicted to have a worldwide market size of over $1
trillion annually within the next five to ten years, with revolutionary social and
technological improvements in manufacturing, electronics, health care,
pharmaceuticals, energy, transportation, and sustainability (Roco & Bainbridge,
2001). Merrill Lynch expects nanotechnology to be “the next growth innovation,
similar in importance to information
technology over the past 50 years”
(Milunovich, et al., 2004).
Understandably then, American businesses have demonstrated a very real
interest in the potential of nanotechnology. Well-known diversified corporations
such as IBM, GE, 3M and Intel have begun investing in nanotechnology through
research, manufacturing, product design, partnerships, subsidies or acquisitions.
Likewise, new, lesser-known companies have emerged with a primary focus on
nanotechnology, such as Altair Nanotechnologies, Veeco Instruments, and
Combimatrix. Nanoscale materials are already available in paints and coatings that
protect against corrosions, scratches and radiation, sunscreens and cosmetics, stain-
17
repellent clothing, and ever-smaller microchips. And this is only the tip of the
iceberg.
Societal research into nanotechnology. In addition to the interest it has received
from corporate America, nanotechnology has also been the focus of growing
attention in the academic and scientific communities. A citation search of Science
Citation Index using the words “nanotechnology” and “nanoscience” revealed 1,490
academic articles in 527 different sources between 1982 and 2004 (Stephens, 2004).
Well-known scientific journals such as Nature and Science have covered
nanotechnology, as have several new journals devoted specifically to
nanotechnology.
Because, perhaps, of the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology,
academic research into nanotechnology has emerged from both the natural and
social sciences. Preliminary research into nanotechnology by the the social sciences
has focused on the societal dimensions of this emerging scientific issue, in part with
the hope that “research on the interactions between nanotechnology and society
will help mute speculative hype and dispel some of the unfounded fears that
sometimes accompany dramatic advances in scientific understanding” (Roco &
Bainbridge, 2001, p. iii). More specifically, this research has focused on the public
perceptions (Bainbridge, 2002), public attitudes (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004; Gaskell,
et al., 2004), public acceptance and understanding (Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005),
and news coverage and media framing (Anderson, et al., 2005; Gaskell, et al., 2004;
Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005; Stephens, 2004; Stephens, 2005) of nanotechnology.
18
Previous research has also examined the social evolution and regulation of
biotechnology and drawn parallels between it and nanotechnology, suggesting that
greater public involvement in the latter may curtail the pitfalls experienced by the
former (Einsiedel & Goldenberg, 2004; Mehta, 2004). Social acceptance of
nanotechnology is critical to its future development (Roco & Bainbridge, 2001) and
sustainability (Einsiedel & Goldenberg, 2004; Mehta, 2004), and is requisite for the
legitimization of firms involved in the creation of nanotechnology products and
technologies.
Americans' initial reaction to nanotechnology has been generally positive. In
separate surveys by Bainbridge (2002) and Cobb and Macourbie (2004), respondents
have shown high levels of enthusiasm for nanotechnology research and the
possible benefits it may produce. Most Americans have heard little or nothing about
nanotechnology yet, even in the absence of scientific or policy-related information,
they expect its potential advantages to be more prevalent than its risks, particularly
in the detection, prevention and treatment of human diseases (Cobb & Macoubrie,
2004; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005). One notable concern about nanotechnology
exists less with the technology itself and more with corporations’ use of it:
Individuals lack trust in business leaders’ ability or willingness to minimize
nanotechnology risks to human health (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004).
This lack of trust echoes the consumer backlash that surrounded
biotechnology and genetically modified foods in the late 1990s. Building upon the
lessons learned from that experience, scholars have encouraged nanotechnology
supporters to educate their publics (Roco & Bainbridge, 2005), to resist over-
19
promoting the technology, and to be proactive rather than reactive in their
communication efforts (Burke, 2003; Einsiedel & Goldenberg, 2004). Even so,
public confidence cannot be gained by only communicating the benefits and risks
of new technologies. Efforts to improve the perceived trustworthiness of
institutions have also been found necessary, in the field of biotechnology, to gain
public support and acceptance (Heimer, 2001; Siegrist, 2000). In other words,
innovative firms must communicate and be recognized as legitimate and
trustworthy organizations before they can truly gain support for their
nanotechnology endeavors.
20
Chapter 2: Research Questions
Given the sparse amount of literature available on the topic of
nanotechnology in corporate communications and in media coverage, five research
questions are explored and six hypotheses are tested to understand how firms use
press releases to communicate their activities and set the media agenda about
nanotechnology.
Firms communicate their actions, policies, and public agendas in press
releases to the news media. Correspondingly, journalists rely on these press releases
for story ideas, information, and convenience (Friedman, et al., 1999). It is therefore
not surprising that a number of studies have revealed that press releases have a
significant influence on news coverage and content (Blyskal & Blyskal, 1985;
Cameron, et al., 1997; Sachsman, 1973; Witt, 1974; Sigal, 1973). Carroll and
McCombs (2003) posited that organized efforts by corporations to communicate
their agenda would result in a significant degree of correspondence between the
agenda of these firms and the news media. Based on this hypothesis, it is tenable
that an increase in the number of press releases about nanotechnology will result in
an upswing in the number of news stories about the subject. Accordingly:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the number of press releases
about nanotechnology and the amount of news coverage on the issue.
Both diversified and non-diversified firms are involved in the research and
commercialization of nanotechnology products and technologies. However, non-
21
diversified firms created as a result of nanotechnology research are more singularly
focused on nanotechnology initiatives than are diversified firms that have moved
into nanotechnology from another market. That having been said, Deephouse and
Carroll (2005) hypothesized that organizational size is positively related to the
volume of news coverage a firm receives. If this is true, bigger diversified companies
with existing reputations will likely have a greater deal of legitimacy and credibility
with the news media than will smaller non-diversified firms (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994).
As such, diversified firms will be written about more frequently.
H2: Diversified firms will receive more news coverage than non-diversified
firms.
Moore’s Law posits that “at our rate of technological development, the
complexity of an integrated circuit, with respect to minimum component cost, will
double in about 18 months” (Moore's law, 2006). As a result of this consistently
rapid evolution, the electronics sector in general and the semiconductor sector in
particular remain at the cutting edge of innovation, always developing newer
processes with which to create ever smaller components. In the last few years,
nanotechnology has become an integral part of the semiconductor sector with the
move to sub-100nm manufacturing processes. The rapid rate of change and
consistent rate of discovery in the electronics industry will likely result in increased
news coverage for firms operating in that area.
22
H3: Firms in the electronics industry will receive more press coverage than
firms in other industries.
Since non-diversified firms are heavily invested in nanotechnology
endeavors, the bulk of their press releases will focus on nanotechnology. Diversified
firms are nevertheless more prominent than non-diversified firms and, as a result,
non-diversified firms seeking to increase their credibility and legitimacy must
become more visible. The news media can make these firms more prominent by
writing about them (Carroll & McCombs, 2003) but, to do this, journalists must
first become aware of them and of their actions. Press releases allow non-diversified
firms to convey this information and, consequently, to increase their prominence.
While diversified firms with nanotechnology initiatives will certainly communicate
their activities to the media, it is expected that non-diversified firms, with their
focus on nanotechnology, will issue the bulk of press releases about the subject. As a
result:
H4: Non-diversified companies will be mentioned more often than
diversified firms in nanotechnology press releases.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative posits that “nanotechnology has the
potential to profoundly change our economy and to improve our standard of
living, in a manner not unlike the impact made by advances over the past two
decades by information technology” (National Nanotechnology Initiative, n.d.).
Given this potential impact, and recognizing that the private sector is likely to lead
23
nanotechnology advances, it is important to identify which firms are most
prominently involved in the development of nanotechnology and recognize the
extent to which they publicly communicate, or have communicated for them, their
activities in this new “economy.” The first research question explores these two
scenarios:
RQ1a: To what extent are non-diversified firms and diversified firms publicly
identifed as companies that execute nanotechnology activities?
RQ1b: To what extent do non-diversified firms and diversified firms publicly
identify themselves as firms that execute nanotechnology activities?
The media confer legitimacy on organizations by virtue of their coverage
(Pollock & Rindova, 2003). Diversified firms and non-diversified firms wishing to
gain legitimacy in regards to nanotechnology must therefore communicate their
involvement with nanotechnology. However, because of available resources,
corporate strategies, and corporations’ desired positioning on nanotechnology,
these communications might differ. The second research question, then, examines
whether larger, more diversified companies communicate their nanotechnology
endeavors differently than smaller non-diversified firms:
RQ2: Do diversified and non-diversified firms differ in how they present
themselves to the media?
While it is expected that non-diversified firms will be identified more often
in nanotechnology press releases than diversified firms, it is conversely anticipated
24
that the range of nanotechnology themes covered in the communications of non-
diversified firms will be narrower than those of diversified corporations. Large,
diversified corporations such as IBM and Intel are less likely to communicate
nanotechnology from one or two perspectives, whereas non-diversified firms may
choose to focus on themes, such as business and technology, that highlight their
belonging and legitimacy. Because of their existing experiences with novel
technologies, diversified firms will be more likely to know to highlight the
technological and business perspectives as well as the societal ones. As a result:
H5: The press releases of diversified companies will cover a wider range of
nanotechnology topics than those of non-diversified companies.
Having identified how diversified and non-diversified firms differ in their
communication of nanotechnology endeavors, it is important to examine if and
how the news media distinguish them. The third research question investigates
this:

RQ3: How does news coverage of non-diversified firms differ from that of
diversified firms?
Nanotechnology continues to be an emerging market and coverage of
nanotechnology has undoubtedly increased since 2004. Previous research has
shown that American media coverage of nanotechnology in the New York Times,
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press is framed more positively
25
than negatively, with a heavier emphasis on the potential benefits of this new
technology and a lesser focus on its risks (Gaskell, et al., 2004; Gorss & Lewenstein,
2005). Comparatively, coverage of nanotechnology in the United Kingdom is more
negative than positive, with discussions of the risks outweighing those of the
benefits (Gaskell, et al., 2004). Both studies employed human coders to determine
the tone of the news articles whereas the present study proposes using a set of
computer programs developed for content analysis of verbatim text. As tone is a
subjective measure not well suited to computer-assisted text analysis, the fourth
research question examines the news coverage of nanotechnology in regards to its
benefits and risks. Therefore:
RQ4: Is news coverage more focused on the benefits or on the risks of
nanotechnology?
Gaskell et al. (2004) revealed that media coverage of nanotechnology has
been framed more positively in the U.S. than in the U.K. This polarization was most
apparent between 2002 and 2003, when coverage of risks and benefits increased in
both the U.S. and the U.K. Likewise, Gorss and Lewenstein (2005) showed that U.S.
newspaper coverage of nanotechnology has been overwhelmingly positive, focusing
on the progress and potential economic benefits of this new technology, with little
discussion of risks. The American news media habitually focuses on the
controversial aspects of issues, thus it seems likely that nanotechnology will be
increasingly scrutinized for both its true benefits and its real risks as the field
develops (Friedman, et al., 1999; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005; Nisbet &
26
Lewenstein, 2002). While Americans are generally favorably predisposed to
nanotechnology (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004), there is a considerable lack of trust by
the public that business leaders will appropriately manage the risks to human
health posed by this new technology. As this skepticism enters the mainstream, it
seems probable that:
H6: Coverage of nanotechnology will focus more on risks in recent coverage
(2003-2005) than it has in earlier coverage (1989-2002).
The final research question focuses on the communication methods of firms
involved in nanotechnology. Carroll and McCombs (2003) explain that press
releases are a nearly universal tactic for courting media coverage and imforming
reporters about corporate endeavors. As such, firms looking to communicate their
involvement with nanotechnology would do so, at least partially, through press
releases. Press releases may influence as much as 25% to 80% of all news content
(Cameron, et al., 1997), including as much as 50% of business news in the Wall
Street Journal and nearly half of the news stories in the New York Times and
Washington Post over a 20-year period (Sigal, 1973). They are a significant source of
knowledge for journalists, with 85% of environmental reporters relying on press
releases for information (Sachsman, 1973; Witt, 1974). To identify the effectiveness
of press releases in setting the media agenda, the following final question is posed:
RQ5: What percentage of firms’ press releases achieved media coverage?
27
Chapter 3: Methods
Research Objective
This investigation’s primary goal is to examine how firms created in or
moving into an emerging market use public relations to legitimize their actions and
policies to make them appear useful and responsible to their stakeholders. More
specifically, this study will look for differences in how diversified firms and non-
diversified firms communicate their nanotechnology activities and set the media
agenda about nanotechnology.
This goal will be accomplished through the analysis of news coverage and
corporate press releases about nanotechnology. The news media help shape what
matters through the inclusion or exclusion of news (Gitlin, 1980). They influence
how issues and actors are perceived (Anderson, et al., 2005; Friedman, et al., 1999;
Golan & Wanta, 2001; McCombs, et al., 1997; Stephens, 2004), guide the public
agenda (Nisbet, et al., 2003; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002) and help legitimize
organizations (Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Press releases convey corporate agendas
(Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001) and associate organizations with certain issues
(Meijer & Kleinnijenhuis, 2006). They can affect news coverage and often allow
organizations to communicate indirectly with their stakeholders (Blyskal & Blyskal,
1985; Cameron, et al., 1997; McInerney, et al., 2004; Sachsman, 1973; Sigal, 1973).
28
Sample and Data Sources
Companies. A list of 943 public and private companies, universities, research
institutions, foundations, and governmental entities involved in nanotechnology
in the United States was obtained from Nanovip.com (n.d.) and the Merrill Lynch
Nanotech Index (American Stock Exchange, 2006). Companies were compared
against firm mentions in news coverage and press releases about nanotechnology
from 1986 to 2005 using the VBPro text analysis program (Miller, 1995). Companies
that were not mentioned in any of these texts were eliminated from the list, as were
universities, research institutions, foundations, and governmental entities. A final
sample of N=420 public and private companies was retained for analysis.
Nanovip.com, launched in November 2003, is a web-searchable, human
edited database of nanotechnology companies sorted by country and business
sector. Nanovip.com provides a listing of all companies involved in nanoscale
interaction, manipulation, observation and fabrication—regardless of companies’
level of involvement in these endeavors. This listing includes start-ups which
specialize in specific nanotechnologies and existing corporations that are
incorporating nanotechnology into their operations or investing in
nanotechnology research. It also includes governmental entities and initiatives
researching nanotechnology, venture capital and investment firms that have
investments in nanotechnology, law firms with nanotechnology practices, and
universities and research centers conducting nanotechnology research.
The Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index provides a “diversified representation of
nanotechnology stocks and ADRs [American Depositary Receipts] traded in the
29
United States” (Milunovich, et al., 2004, p. 2). Table 1 presents the 27 companies
included on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index on February 23, 2006. Firms in the
technology (41%), healthcare (22%), and materials (15%) sectors make up the bulk
of the index. The services (11%), financial (7%) and industrial goods (4%) sectors
represent the final quarter of the companies listed.
Table 1. Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
1
Company name Symbol Sector % Weighting
Altair Nanotechnologies ALTI Basic materials 5.17%
Westaim Corp WEDX Financial 4.65%
Amcol Intl ACO Industrial goods 4.61%
Arrowhead Research ARWR Services 4.54%
Nanophase Technologies NANX Basic materials 4.32%
Novavax Inc NVAX Healthcare 4.21%
Flamel Technologies Ads FLML Healthcare 4.13%
Ultratech Inc UTEK Technology 4.13%
pSivida Ltd. (ADS) PSDV Technology 3.88%
Veeco Instruments VECO Technology 3.85%
Lumera Corp LMRA Technology 3.78%
MTS Systems MTSC Technology 3.72%
Headwaters Inc. HW Basic materials 3.69%
Cabot Corp CBT Basic materials 3.63%
Symyx Technologies SMMX Services 3.59%
Acacia Research-Combimatrix CBMX Services 3.57%
NVE Corp NVEC Technology 3.55%
Nanogen Inc NGEN Healthcare 3.50%
FEI Co FEIC Technology 3.36%
Biosante Pharmaceuticals BPA Healthcare 3.35%
Harris & Harris Group Inc TINY Financial 3.31%
Tegal Corp TGAL Technology 3.31%
JMAR Technologies JMAR Technology 3.22%
Immunicon Corp IMMC Technology 3.00%
Pharmacopeia Inc ACCL Healthcare 2.72%
Skyepharma Plc Ads SKYE Healthcare 2.66%
Kopin Corp KOPN Technology 2.53%
1. The Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index at 5 p.m. on February 23, 2006.
30
To be included in the Merrill Lynch Nanotechnology Index, companies must
“indicate in public documents that nanotechnology initiatives represent a
significant component of their future business strategy” (Milunovich, et al., 2004, p.
2). Companies must be listed on a national exchange or quoted on the NASDAQ
National or NASDAQ Small Market systems and must be considered
nanotechnology-driven by the investing community. For these reasons, the Merrill
Lynch Nanotechnology Index excludes companies with nanotechnology
investments such as IBM, General Electric or Intel. The index is rebalanced and
companies are added or removed on a quarterly basis, at Merrill Lynch’s discretion.
The index is not an investable product.
News content. News coverage of nanotechnology is in its infancy and the
topic has only recently begun to appear regularly in mainstream newspapers
(Gaskell, et al., 2004; Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005). To assess the content of
nanotechnology coverage by the news media, a content analysis was conducted on
the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
These four newspapers were chosen because they are among the five leading
daily newspapers in the country (Editor & Publisher, 2003). Weis (1974) showed
that leaders in America—irrespective of sector or political affiliation—focus most on
coverage in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. The choice
of these media is also based on Gitlin’s (1980) observations that stories in elite
media ultimately set the national news agenda by spreading to regional news
outlets. While the importance of each of these publications may have shifted with
31
the rise of 24/7 news channels and the Internet, they remain among the three most
read dailies in the country.
The semiconductor and biotechnology industries, which account for 30% of
the companies in the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index, have a strong presence on the
West Coast. The Los Angeles Times was chosen because it is a top five newspaper
(Editor & Publisher, 2003) and because of its status as the leading newspaper on the
West Coast.
Searches for news articles containing the words “nanotechnology” or
“nanotech” or “nanoscale” or “nanoscience” (Table 2) were performed in the
Factiva online database for all four newspapers for the period 1 January 1980 to
December 31 2005. The search returned 740 results. The first newspaper article
about nanotechnology was an August 10, 1986 New York Times book review of Erik
Drexler’s predictions about molecular nanotechnology and molecular
manufacturing, Engines of Creation.
Table 2. Nanotechnology search terms.
Search terms
nanotechnology, nanotech, nanoscale, nanoscience
Having removed book reviews and obituaries, the final sample contained
N=610 relevant articles over almost two decades, with the bulk of the coverage
occurring between 2000 and 2005 (Table 3). News stories in the sample were
consequently machine coded using the VBPro text analysis program (Miller, 1995)
32
for story content and to identify the frequency of mention and presence or absence
of companies.
Table 3. Total number of articles about nanotechnology in the New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal (1986–2005).
Year New York Times
Los Angeles
Times
Washington Post
Wall Street
Journal
Total
1986
0 0 1 0 1
1987 0 0 1 0 1
1988 1 1 0 0 2
1989 0 0 2 0 2
1990 1 2 4 0 7
1991 2 1 0 0 3
1992 0 0 0 1 1
1993 0 0 0 0 0
1994 1 2 0 0 3
1995 2 0 1 0 3
1996 3 1 1 0 5
1997 5 6 3 2 16
1998 3 4 0 0 7
1999 8 0 6 6 20
2000 26 17 11 6 60
2001 19 4 8 4 35
2002 25 13 14 21 73
2003 55 14 25 17 111
2004 52 17 29 37 135
2005 41 13 41 30 125
Total 244 95 147 124 610
Press releases. Press releases are a recognized and effective tactic for courting
media coverage and providing information about corporate endeavors to reporters
(Carroll & McCombs, 2003). Firms that want to communicate corporate
information to the news media—be it earnings, product launches, new research, or
involvement in nanotechnology—will look to do so, at least partially, through the
33
use of press releases. Nelkin (1995) observed that science writers tend to rely heavily
on routine channels of communication within the scientific community, including
press releases, for story leads. Cameron, Sallot and Curtin (1997) estimated that
press releases influence as much as 25–80% of news content. To identify which
companies communicate their involvement with nanotechnology and how they do
so, a content analysis was conducted on nanotechnology-related press releases in PR
Newswire and Business Wire.
Searches for press releases containing the nanotechnology search terms
(Table 2) were performed in the Factiva online database for both news distribution
services for the period 1 January 1980 to December 31 2005. The sample contained
5,436 press releases beginning in January 1993, however, after manual elimination
of such items as roundups and conference listings that contained only passing
mentions of the search terms, N=5,337 press releases remained for analysis (Table
4). No attempts were made to identify or manipulate duplicate press releases across
the news distribution services.
Press releases were machine coded for content using the VBPro text analysis
program (Miller, 1995) to identify the frequency and presence or absence of
companies.
Themes. For this study, the theme of a news story or press release is simply its
topic. A story or news release can have more than one theme. Measuring themes in
these texts provided an indicator of the types of discussions being presented by
journalists and corporations in relation to nanotechnology.
34
Table 4. Total number of press releases about nanotechnology in PR Newswire and
Business Wire (1993–2005).
Year PR Newswire Business Wire Total
1993 3 1 4
1994 3 9 12
1995 2 3 5
1996 5 6 11
1997 14 9 23
1998 16 8 24
1999 28 29 57
2000 56 62 118
2001 104 111 215
2002 297 305 602
2003 405 382 787
2004 601 950 1,551
2005 645 1,283 1,928
Total 2,179 3,158 5,337
Previous research into the public and nanotechnology have largely focused
on the perceived potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology to individuals and
society (Bainbridge, 2002; Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004; Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005).
Gorss and Lewenstein (2005) revealed that news coverage of nanotechnology was
overwhelmingly positive, but that the news frame of public accountability appeared
early in nanotechnology coverage and remained a significant element throughout.
The themes in Cobb and Macoubrie’s (2004) and Scheufele and Lewenstein’s
(2005) explorations of benefits and risks have been those of novelty, privacy, the
economy, the environment, health, security and defense, and human interest.
Gorss and Lewenstein’s (2005) study of news coverage focused on five themes:
Application (proposed and actual uses of nanotechnology), policy (current
35
legislation), politics (bipartisan support disagreement and issues of federal monies),
financial (investment reports, economic opportunities), and safety and risks.
This research adapts the themes from these previous studies and adds
leadership as a new theme in an attempt to identify which companies are staking
leadership positions in nanotechnology (Table 5).
Table 5. Theme dictionary.
Themes Keywords
Leadership leadership, leader, leaders, best, lead, first, CEO, chairman, expert,
experts
Business market, statements, product, products, investors, investor,
acquisition, partnership, collaboration, funding
Earnings earning, earnings, results
Research research, development, explore
Politics government, state, federal, politics, political
Policy policy, legislation
Privacy privacy
Security security, defense, homeland, space, war
Progress new, future, innovative, revolutionary, revolution
Environment environment, environmental, nature
People people, human, public
Health health, healthy, healing, medical, medicine, medicines, drug,
pharmaceutical, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, patients
Benefits benefit, benefits, benefiting, benefited, beneficial, beneficially,
practical, potential, important, importance, advance, advances,
advancement, advancements, advancing, improve, improving,
improved, improvement, improvements, reduce, reduced, reduces,
better, best, opportunities, opportunity, good, treatment
Risks caution, cautions, cautious, cautionary, difficulty, difficult,
difficulty, difficulties, harm, harmful, danger, dangerous, dangers,
threat, threats, threatening, invasive, risk, risks, risky, bad, issue,
issues
36
Instruments. News coverage and press releases of nanotechnology were
analyzed using VBPro (Miller, 1995), a set of computer programs developed for
content analysis of verbatim text. VBPro allows for the qualitative analysis of texts
by inspecting key terms—phrases or words—in context. The search function, used
for this analysis, flags key terms in news coverage and press releases. VBPro also
facilitates the quantitative analysis of texts, through the coding function, by
identifying frequencies of words and coding text—by sentence, paragraph, or user-
defined cases—into numeric output for analysis in standard statistical packages.
VBPro accomplishes its searching and coding functions through the use of
user-defined category and keyword dictionaries. Categories can contain multiple
keywords. For this study, three dictionaries were used: One dictionary containing all
companies and their common variations (Appendix A), a second containing theme
categories and their descriptive keywords (Table 5), and a third containing relevant
nanotechnology keywords (Table 6).
Table 6. Nanotechnology dictionary.
Dictionary Keywords
Nanotechnology nano, nanobot(s), nanoelectronic(s), nanofabrication,
nanolithography, nanomachine(s), nanomaterial(s), nanoparticle(s),
nanorobot(s), nanoscale, nanoscience(s), nanotech, nanotechnology,
nanotube(s), nanowire(s)
Procedures
Texts comprising news articles and press releases were downloaded from the
Factiva online database and formatted using VBPro’s formatting function. The
37
alphabetizing function was used to list all words appearing in the texts and to
establish their frequencies. Words that I deemed relevant with a frequency equal to
or greater than 500 were identified and grouped by theme (Table 5). To help ensure
accuracy of meaning, texts were binary coded, by paragraph, for mentions of the
keywords. The first ten paragraph results for each keyword were human analyzed to
verify theme classification. Keywords that were deemed accurate in 70% of
instances were retained. Plurals and word tenses of keywords were included in the
theme dictionary (i.e. benefits, benefiting, benefited, beneficial, beneficially).
To reduce the sample of companies, VBPro’s search function was used to
compare the initial list of 943 companies against mentions of these firms’ names in
news coverage and press releases about nanotechnology (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Identifying the final samples of companies.
Companies
News coverage Press releases
Companies mentioned in either press releases or news coverage
Companies mentioned in both press releases and news coverage
38
The search included company names (e.g. General Electric, Hewlett-Packard,
International Business Machines), known acronyms (e.g. GE, HP, IBM) and spelling
variations (e.g. G.E., Hewlett Packard, H.P., I.B.M.). Only firms that were mentioned
in at least one news article or press release were retained as part of the final sample
of companies. Firms were then categorized by company name, with firm names,
known acronyms and spelling variations grouped into each category (Appendix A).
VBPro’s binary coding function was used to code news coverage and press
releases by case to identify the number of times each company appeared in a text.
For example, a search for the category “General Electric” would flag each news
article or press release in which the words General Electric, GE or G.E. appeared,
regardless of frequency, with a one (1). Texts flagged with a zero (0) would indicate
that the company did not appear in that new coverage or press release case.
To establish the extent to which companies publicly identified themselves as
firms that executed nanotechnology activities, texts were binary coded, by
paragraph, for keywords from both the company and nanotechnology dictionaries
(Figure 2). For example, a paragraph containing both “G.E.” and “nanotechnology”
would count as a public identification, by General Electric, of its involvement in
nanotechnology. As such, this paragraph would be flagged with a one (1).
Paragraphs that did not contain keywords from the company and nanotechnology
dictionaries were flagged with a zero (0).
The New Oxford American Dictionary (McKean, 2001) defines a paragraph as
“a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and
indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering”. Therefore, it is likely that
39
companies mentioned in paragraphs about nano activities would be discussed in
relation to nanotechnology.
Figure 2. Identifying paragraphs containing firm names and nano terms.
Companies
Press releases
Nano terms
News coverage
Paragraphs containing company mentions and nano terms in either press releases or news coverage
Paragraphs containing company mentions and nano terms in both press releases and news coverage
News coverage and press releases were initially searched for in Factiva using
the words “nanotechnology”, “nanotech”, “nanoscale” and “nanoscience” to limit
false positives in the search results. False positives, or Type 1 errors, refer to
“documents that are retrieved by a [database] search despite their irrelevance to the
search question” (False positive, 2006). Since the documents in the final sample
were already identified as being nanotechnology related, however, they were
queried for other nano-related words. This was done in order to identify companies
that might be discussing nanotechnology, but not doing so using the limited
40
vocabulary used in this study. For example, in press releases, companies might use
words such as nanoparticles, nanomaterials, or nanoelectronics to describe their
initiatives. Each of these words refers to nanotechnology and should be identified,
much as e-business, e-commerce, and e-mail all refer to activities or
communications over electronic systems. VBPro was used to alphabetize the press
release sample to identify 15 frequently used nanotechnology terms, including the
three terms used in the initial search (Table 6).
To identify how diversified and non-diversified firms present themselves to
the media, press releases were binary coded, by paragraph, for mentions of both
companies and themes. News coverage was coded in the same manner to establish
how the news media discuss these companies (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Identifying paragraphs containing firm names and themes.
Companies
News coverage Press releases
Paragraphs containing both company and theme mentions
Themes
41
To identify whether news coverage of nanotechnology discussed benefits or
risks, news articles were binary coded, by paragraph, for keywords from the
nanotechnology dictionary and the benefits and risks categories in the theme
dictionary. News discussions of nanotechnology using words such as advancements,
improvements and opportunities were deemed to represent benefits. Coverage that
used words like caution, harm or difficulty were deemed to signify risks.
Figure 4. Identifying theme of coverage (benefits or risk)
Benefits
News coverage
Paragraphs containing nano search terms with benefit themes
Nano terms
Risks
Paragraphs containing nano search terms with risk themes
Paragraphs containing nano search terms with benefit and risk themes
News coverage about benefits and risks was further aggregated into annual
measures suitable for statistical analysis using the Janis-Fadner coefficient of
imbalance (Janis & Fadner, 1965). The coefficient measures the relative proportion
42
of favorable to unfavorable assessments while controlling for the overall volume of
assessments. As suggested by Deephouse (2000), the resulting variable is called the
coefficient of media favorableness.

Coefficient of media favorableness=
(f
2
! fu) /(total)
2
if f > u;
0 if f = u;
(fu! u
2
) /(total)
2
if u> f ;
"
#
$
$
%
$
$
In the formula, f = the number of articles containing benefit assessments;
u = the number of articles containing risk assessments; and total = the total number
of articles containing benefit and risk assessments. The range of the resulting
variable is (-1, 1), where 1 indicates coverage composed of only benefits, -1 indicates
coverage composed of only risks, and 0 indicates a balance between the two over
the year. News stories containing both benefit and risk assessments were coded as
containing one of each.
Lastly, to establish the percentage of press releases that achieved media
coverage, or the conversion rate, news articles about the 30 most mentioned firms
and press releases by the 30 most active firms were searched using the company
dictionary. News articles that contained firm mentions were flagged and a search
was performed for press releases distributed by those firms up to 30 days before the
appearance of the article. If a press release was found, the researcher then read both
the release and the article to identify commonality. More generally, news articles
were also examined to identify influence by public relations practitioners. Public
relations influence was ascertained whenever a company employee, spokesperson or
43
executive was quoted, a corporate profile was written, or a press release was covered
after 30 days. Media mentions of past corporate actions were not included as
influences because of the difficulty of linking them directly to public relations
activities.
Since news coverage of nanotechnology has only recently begun to appear
regularly in mainstream newspapers (Gaskell, et al., 2004; Gorss & Lewenstein,
2005) and because of the relatively small number of news articles per year in the
sample, press releases were given 30 days to appear in news coverage. This time
span increases the likelihood that trend-related or investigative news stories that
incorporate press release information will be identified. To the best of the
researcher’s knowledge, no other studies have attempted to demonstrate a direct
link between individual press releases and news stories.
44
Chapter 4: Results
Since public discussions about nanotechnology by firms and the news media
are still relatively new, this study presents only descriptive observations of the data.
News coverage of nanotechnology began in earnest in 1998, rising from fewer than
a dozen articles a year to 135 in 2004 (Figure 5).
Figure 5. News coverage of nanotechnology by the New York Times, Los Angeles
Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal (1986–2005).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 6 shows that dips in 2001 and 2005 are a result of generally fewer
nanotechnology articles by all sampled publications in those years. Previous
45
research into the news coverage of nanotechnology (Gorss & Lewenstein, 2005) did
not show these fluctuations. Notwithstanding the substitution of one publication
(Associated Press for Los Angeles Times), this difference might be attributed to using
the Factiva database for all article searches instead of selectively choosing Factiva or
LexisNexis for various sources. A rapid examination of the two databases revealed
that, in identical searches of the same publication, Factiva returns fewer articles
than LexisNexis. Future studies might want to explore the reasons for this.
Figure 6. Number of articles by publication beginning in 1995.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
New York Times Los Angeles Times Washington Post Wall Street Journal
46
Press releases about nanotechnology increased at an even faster rate than
that of news coverage, almost doubling every year from two dozen in 1998 to 1,928
in 2005 (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Nanotechnology related press releases in PR Newswire and Business Wire
(1993–2005).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The number of press releases about nanotechnology in Business Wire and PR
Newswire grew at a similar rate until 2004, when the number of releases in Business
Wire increased by almost 2.5% year over year (Figure 8). At first, this was attributed
to the possible enforcement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposes
47
additional disclosure requirements on companies. However, while there is more
than a three-fold rise in the number of financial disclosures in Business Wire from
2003 to 2004, the ratio is only slightly lower in PR Newswire. In 2005, the number
of press releases in Business Wire again increased at a faster rate than in PR Newswire,
indicating, perhaps, a preference for this outlet by firms working with
nanotechnology. Future research should attempt to discern whether one
distribution service is generally preferred over the other by corporations.
Figure 8. Number of press releases by distribution service beginning in 1997.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
PR Newswire Business Wire
48
Figure 9 shows that H1 was supported: There was a positive relationship
between the number of press releases and the amount of news coverage.
Specifically, the growth in news coverage was significantly correlated (.925, p < 0.01)
with the increase in press releases. News coverage of nanotechnology has grown
steadily over the last two decades and firms’ desire to communicate their
involvement in this new area has grown in sync.
Figure 9. Total number of articles and press releases about nanotechnology,
1986–2005.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
New coverage Press releases
Total news articles about nanotechnology mentioned 146 firms, of which 17
were non-diversified firms. H2 was supported: Diversified firms received much more
49
news coverage than non-diversified firms. News coverage of non-diversified firms
comprised only 10% of coverage given to the 30 most mentioned firms (Table 7).
Table 7. Thirty most mentioned firms in news articles about nanotechnology.
Rank Company Industry # of articles
1 SUN Computers (hardware) 88
2 IBM Computers (hardware and services) 85
3 Intel Electronics 55
4 Hewlett-Packard (HP) Computers (hardware) 52
5 Microsoft Computers (software) 35
6 General Electric (GE) Conglomerate 29
7 DuPont Chemicals 28
8 Sharp Electronics 27
9 Motorola Telecommunications 22
10 Nanosys Electronics 22
11 Lucent Telecommunications 19
12 Bell Labs (owned by Lucent) Research 17
13 Merrill Lynch Financial 17
14 General Motors (GM) Automotive 14
15 Molecular Electronics Research 12
16 Lux Capital Financial 11
17 Harris & Harris
1
Financial 10
18 Zyvex Electronics 10
19 JPMorgan Financial 9
20 NEC Electronics 9
21 NanoProducts Chemicals 9
22 AMD Electronics 8
23 Hitachi Conglomerate 8
24 Nanogen Pharmaceuticals 8
25 Philips Conglomerate 8
26 3M Conglomerate 6
27 Nanofilm Chemicals 6
28 Veeco Instruments Electronics 6
29 Toshiba Computers (hardware) 6
30 Honeywell Manufacturing 5
1. Bolded companies represent non-diversified firms on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
H3 was also supported: Amongst the most mentioned corporations in news
coverage, firms in the electronics industry (23%) were more widely covered than
firms in other industries, including computers (17%), financial (13%), chemicals
50
(10%), telecommunications (7%), research (7%), pharmaceuticals (3%), automotive
(3%), and manufacturing (3%). Conglomerates received 13% of the coverage.
H4 was not supported: Non-diversified firms were identified fewer times in
press releases about nanotechnology than diversified firms (Table 8).
Table 8. Thirty most mentioned firms in press releases about nanotechnology.
Rank Company # of press releases
1 IBM 305
2 Intel 221
3 Biophan 209
4 Microsoft 183
5 Hewlett-Packard (HP) 177
6 FEI
1
163
7 General Electric (GE) 158
8 Motorola 145
9 Lucent 143
10 Veeco Instruments 135
11 Harris & Harris 132
12 Ultratech 129
13 SUN 118
14 Nanophase Technologies 117
15 Nanosys 111
16 Zyvex 109
17 Philips 103
18 Acacia Research–Combimatrix 102
19 DuPont 100
20 Bell Labs (owned by Lucent) 99
21 mPhase 96
22 Nanogen 94
23 JMAR Technologies 93
24 Altair Nanotechnologies 91
25 AMD 87
26 Biosante Pharmaceuticals 82
27 Kopin 79
28 Deloitte 76
29 Samsung 69
30 Accelrys 67
1. Bolded companies represent non-diversified firms on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
51
Press releases were distributed by 403 companies in the sample. Non-
diversified firms comprised 30% of the 20 most mentioned firms (6 out of 20) and
37% of the 30 most mentioned firms (11 out of 30) in these press releases .
With respect to RQ1 firms that executed nanotechnology activities only
sometimes identified themselves, or were identified, as doing so (Tables 9 and 10).
Table 9. Top 30 publicly identified nanotechnology companies, in news coverage.
Rank Company # of paragraphs
1 IBM 75
2 Nanosys 51
3 SUN 26
4 Hewlett-Packard (HP) 23
5 Intel 20
6 DuPont 19
7 General Electric (GE) 12
8 Merrill Lynch 12
9 Nanogen
1
11
10 Harris & Harris 10
11 Lux Capital 10
12 Nanofilm 10
13 Zyvex 10
14 NEC 9
15 Veeco Instruments 8
16 Sharp 7
17 Bell Labs (owned by Lucent) 5
18 Nantero 5
19 3M 4
20 AcryMed 4
21 Babolat 4
22 Konarka 4
23 Lux Research 4
24 Molecular Electronics 4
25 Motorola 4
26 NanoOpto 4
27 Lucent 4
28 Altair Nanotechnologies 3
29 Raytheon 3
30 Hitachi 2
1. Bolded companies represent non-diversified firms on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
52
News coverage about nanotechnology revealed that the 30 most mentioned
firms in articles about nanotechnology (Table 7) were somewhat likely to be
mentioned in the same paragraph as a nanotechnology keyword (Table 9). The list
of firms in both tables is 58% identical. That is to say, 22 out of 38 companies can
be found in both Table 7 and Table 9. In each case, non-diversified firms are
mentioned less than 14% of the time and the bulk of the coverage appears to
identify companies that are already well known outside of nanotechnology (e.g.
IBM, Intel, GE). It is worth noting that Nanosys, a private company, appears to be
prominently identified in news coverage as a firm working with nanotechnology.
Nanosys was not included as part of the non-diversified sample of firms because it
was not listed in the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index. The same is true of other
companies whose names may infer that they are nanotechnology-focused in their
endeavors (e.g. Nanofilm, NanoProducts, NanoOpto).
In press releases about nanotechnology, the 30 most mentioned firms (Table
8) were even less likely to mention their company name in the same paragraph as a
nanotechnology keyword (Table 10). Only 20 out of 40 firms can be found in both
lists, though more than half of these are non-diversified firms. Table 10 shows that
non-diversified firms are much more active in promoting their nanotechnology
endeavors in press releases than news coverage would indicate. As demonstrated by
the number of press release paragraphs in which non-diversified firms are
mentioned in relation to nanotechnology, they are also more likely to frequently
associate themselves with nanotechnology in their writings than are diversified
firms involved in other undertakings.
53
Table 10. Top 30 publicly identified nanotechnology companies, in press releases.
Rank Company # of paragraphs
1 Biophan 419
2 Altair Nanotechnologies
1
311
3 Ultratech 255
4 Nanosys 253
5 Nanophase Technologies 239
6 Zyvex 218
7 FEI 217
8 mPhase 196
9 IBM 173
10 Arrowhead Research 172
11 Lux Research 171
12 Veeco Instruments 169
13 pSivida 134
14 Harris & Harris 132
15 Biosante Pharmaceuticals 127
16 Tegal 122
17 Acacia Research–Combimatrix 117
18 Nanogen 110
19 Accelrys 101
20 Nanodynamics 97
21 JMAR Technologies 96
22 Kopin 96
23 NaturalNano 96
24 Lux Capital 85
25 NanoMarkets 85
26 Bioforce 84
27 Bell Labs (owned by Lucent) 80
28 GE 80
29 Intel 80
30 Lumera 78
1. Bolded companies represent non-diversified firms on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
RQ2 explored the differences between how non-diversified firms and
diversified firms present themselves to the media through their press releases. It did
this by identifying, by paragraph, in firms’ press releases, the frequency with which
specific themes were discussed by firms in relation to nanotechnology. Non-
diversified firms accounted for 34% of companies discussing these themes.
54
Figure 10 shows that nanotechnology firms of both types thematically
associated themselves most often with business, research, progress, benefits, and
leadership. Business (20% versus 17%) and earnings (7% versus 2%) themes were
associated more frequently with non-diversified firms, while leadership (12% versus
9%), science (6% versus 4%), and progress (14% versus 11%) were discussed more
often by diversified firms. Other themes (e.g. research, health, benefits) were
associated as frequently with one type of firm as with the other.
Figure 10. Percent of theme mentions associated with nanotechnology firms in press
releases.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Leadership
Business
Earnings
Research
Science
Politics
Policy
Privacy
Security
Progress
Environment
People
Health
Benefits
Risks
Non-diversified firms Diversified firms
55
H5 was not supported: Both types of nanotechnology firms discussed an
equally wide range of themes in their press releases. Policy and privacy themes did
emerge exclusively in the press releases of non-diversified firms, but these themes
appeared in less than 0.5% of all releases were, therefore, not deemed significant.
RQ3 identified the differences in thematic news coverage of non-diversified
firms and diversified companies (Figure 11). Non-diversified firms accounted for
only 4% of companies associated with these themes.
Figure 11. Percent of theme mentions associated with nanotechnology firms in news
coverage.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Leadership
Business
Earnings
Research
Science
Politics
Policy
Privacy
Security
Progress
Environment
People
Health
Benefits
Risks
Non-diversified firms Diversified firms
56
Firms involved in nanotechnology activities were again most strongly
associated with business, research, progress, benefits, and leadership. The very few
theme mentions linked to non-diversified firms were more strongly associated with
business (32% versus 15%) and earnings (4% versus 1%). Non-diversified firms were
mentioned more often in relation to the benefits of nanotechnology (13% versus
7%) and research (18% versus 14%).
RQ4 looked at whether news coverage was more focused on the benefits or
on the risks of nanotechnology (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Percentage of news stories with benefit and risk assessments about
nanotechnology over time.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1986–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005
Benefits Risks
57
News coverage of nanotechnology across four time periods (1986–1999,
2000–2001, 2002–2003, 2004–2005) focused more on the benefits of the technology
than on the risks. The mean of the coefficient of media favorableness was 0.15 and
its standard deviation was 0.22, revealing that news coverage of nanotechnology
was consistently only slightly more focused on benefits than risks, year-over-year.
H6 was not supported: news coverage of nanotechnology has not focused
more on the risks in recent coverage, with only slight fluctuations in the percentage
of risk assessments about nanotechnology over the last two decades. New coverage
of nanotechnology has continued to focus on the benefits of the technology,
without much change.
RQ5 sought to identify the percentage of news stories that resulted directly
from corporate press releases (Table 11). Of the top 30 companies identified in news
coverage (Table 9) and press releases (Table 10), a total of 38 companies were
mentioned in both news stories and press releases. Of these firms, 30 had news
stories written about them that were directly influenced by public relations—
whether by press releases or otherwise.
The conversion rate of press releases to news coverage—that is to say the
number of press releases that had a direct affect on firms’ media coverage in this
sample—was 8%. Other more general public relations efforts, such as executive or
employee soundbites and corporate profiles or features, affected 24% of news
coverage. As such, public relations as a whole influenced 32% of news stories
written about the 30 firms in this sample.
58
Table 11. Conversion of press releases and other public relation endeavors vis-à-vis
news stories.
Company
Press
releases
News
stories
Conversion
(PR)
Conversion
(Other)
Conversion
(Total)
IBM 286 80 21 24 45
Hewlett-Packard (HP) 152 51 0 16 16
DuPont 90 26 0 12 12
Intel 200 52 1 8 9
General Electric (GE) 145 27 0 8 8
Bell Labs (owned by Lucent) 97 17 4 3 7
Lucent 133 18 3 4 7
Nanosys 104 21 1 6 7
Lux Capital 52 11 1 5 6
Merrill Lynch 53 16 2 4 6
Nanofilm 24 6 0 6 6
SUN 111 66 0 6 6
Zyvex 103 9 0 6 6
Motorola 135 22 0 5 5
General Motors (GM) 43 14 0 4 4
Harris & Harris
1
129 8 1 3 4
JPMorgan 29 9 0 4 4
AMD 83 7 3 0 3
Microsoft 172 33 0 3 3
3M 44 6 0 2 2
Kopin 79 2 1 1 2
Nanogen 92 8 2 0 2
NEC 40 7 0 2 2
Veeco Instruments 133 6 1 1 2
Acacia Research–Combimatrix 101 1 0 1 1
Hitachi 54 8 0 1 1
JMAR Technologies 93 1 1 0 1
Samsung 62 4 1 0 1
Sharp 36 24 0 1 1
Toshiba 26 6 0 1 1
Total 2,901 566 43 137 180
1. Bolded companies represent non-diversified firms on the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
59
Chapter 5: Discussion
Press releases represent an actional legitimacy tool with which firms establish
corporate actions and policies as useful and responsible and gain support for these
endeavors from stakeholders. This investigation sought differences in how
diversified firms and non-diversified firms communicate their nanotechnology
activities and set the media agenda about nanotechnology..
Of the 420 companies identified in this study, a majority of the firms
receiving the most nanotechnology news coverage were either large diversified
firms (e.g. SUN, IBM, Intel, GE, DuPont) or non-diversified firms drawn from the
Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index (American Stock Exchange, 2006). A comparison of
nanotechnology press releases and news coverage shows evidence of Pollock and
Rindova’s (2003) assertion that some level of legitimacy may be necessary for a firm
to be considered newsworthy. While non-diversified firms comprised 37% of the 30
most mentioned firms in press releases, they accounted for only 10% of company
mentions in news coverage. In contrast, diversified firms accounted for a majority
(90%) of mentions in news coverage about nanotechnology. As a percentage of
coverage, non-diversified firms were mentioned almost four times as often in press
releases as they were in news coverage. This may suggest that the news media prefer
to cover diversified firms because of their increased perceived legitimacy. At the very
least, it lends support to Deephouse and Carroll’s (2005) hypothesis that
organizational size is positively related to news coverage.
60
Nanotechnology was a particularly salient issue for non-diversified firms as
they associated themselves with it in their press releases as often as diversified firms.
Of the top 30 organizations that associated themselves most frequently with
nanotechnology, half of them were non-diversified firms. These firms accounted for
56% of the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index. This is particularly significant when
considering that the Nanotech Index constituted only 7% of all companies in the
sample that issued press releases. While this percentage of association to
nanotechnology was not maintained in news coverage, where only 13% of firms
most often associated with nanotechnology were non-diversified, non-diversified
firms were very active in their efforts to gain cognitive nanotechnology legitimacy
through their press releases. Unsurprisingly, diversified firms were overwhelming
(87%) associated with nanotechnology in news coverage.
Non-diversified firms can gain cognitive legitimacy by visibly championing
and implementing recognized methods, models and processes, which are deemed
useful and responsible and which are adhered to by diversified firms (Ahlstrom &
Bruton, 2001; Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002).
This includes not only corporate functions but organizational strategies such
communication practices and messages. In light of this, it is perhaps not surprising
that non-diversified firms and diversified organizations using such similar themes to
communicate nanotechnology in their press releases. Both emphasized the business
and research aspects of nanotechnology, framed nanotechnology in terms of
progress, spoke of its benefits, and highlighted their leadership role in this emerging
technology. News coverage of nanotechnology generally paralleled these themes,
61
but did so with a greater focus on people (7% in news coverage versus 2% in press
releases).
In their press releases, non-diversified firms accentuated business (20%) and
earnings (7%) themes more frequently than diversified firms. This is in line with
research about new ventures and legitimacy: Firms seeking to attain legitimacy
must demonstrate that they engage in activities that are considered legitimate
(Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). In this case, this entails giving evidence of corporate
competence to business and financial stakeholders. Comparatively, diversified firms
highlighted leadership (12%), science (6%), and progress (14%) themes more often
than non-diversified firms. Diversified firms have experience working with
innovative technologies and know how to communicate them to the media. The
emphasis on leadership and progress might be an indication of this. Staking a
leadership position in nanotechnology increases the legitimacy of a firm working in
that area, particularly if the perception is endorsed by the media (Zimmerman &
Zeitz, 2002). Likewise, focusing on advancements within nanotechnology reflects
public expectations of the perceived substantial benefits that could result from this
technology (Bainbridge, 2002; Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004; Scheufele & Lewenstein,
2005).
Having identified how firms discuss nanotechnology, future research should
study how organizations ordinarily communicate mature technologies or industries.
Press releases in this study emphasized themes of business, research, progress,
benefits and leadership. It would be of value to know if this combination of themes
regularly appears in press releases or is an outcome of communicating emerging
62
technologies. Likewise, further research into the news coverage of mature and
emerging technologies is necessary to verify how it compares to coverage of
nanotechnology.
News coverage of nanotechnology was found to focus more on the benefits
than on the risks, but not to the same degree discovered by Gorss and Lewenstein
(2005) when they examined positive and negative coverage. News coverage of
nanotechnology that is focused on its benefits is valuable to both non-diversified
and diversified firms. Favorable assessments of nanotechnology reflect positively on
firms working with it and act as a form of endorsement for them. In this study, the
mean of benefit assessments in news stories was 86% and the mean of risk
assessments was 60%. As a general comparison, Gorss and Lewenstein (2005) found
a mean of 71% for positive assessments and of 20% for negative assessments.
Using the coefficient of media favorableness (Deephouse, 2000), news
coverage was found to have a mean of 0.15 and a standard deviation of 0.22
between 1986 and 2005. In other words, over that period of time, news coverage of
nanotechnology was slightly more more focused on benefits than risks year-over-
year. Between 2000 and 2005, the mean of the coefficient of media favorableness
drops to 0.10, with a standard deviation of 0.03.
Future research into the type of nanotechnology coverage should employ
the coefficient of imbalance (Janis & Fadner, 1965), as it provides researchers with a
measure suitable for statistical analysis and yields a variable that can be validly
compared across studies. Labeled the coefficient of media favorableness by
Deephouse (2000), it measures the relative proportion of favorable to unfavorable
63
assessments in news coverage while controlling for the overall volume of
assessments.
Another important subject for future research is the framing by firms and the
news media of nanotechnology itself. Nanotechnology is not a new industry, but a
technological evolution relevant to many existing disciplines (Milunovich, et al.,
2004). A limitation of this thesis is that it did not identify whether nanotechnology
was discussed and framed as the sole topic of discourse by firms and the media or as
part of some other, broader topic. For instance, electronics have achieved an
unparalleled level of miniaturization in recent years and many microchips are now
created through the use of nanotechnology. Future studies should establish the
extent to which firms and the media highlight the use of nanotechnology or
appropriate it into existing technologies and processes. The latter would likely
accelerate the legitimization of nanotechnology and of firms working with it, but
would do so at the expense of a potent new social dialogue.
Press releases had a direct influence on only 8% of the sampled news stories
involving nanotechnology; a far cry from the 25% to 80% influence of press
releases on news coverage hypothesized by Cameron et al. (1997). The percentage
of influence was even lower (5%) when removing IBM from the sample. Public
relations endeavors, however, which included press releases along with other media
placement efforts by public relations practitioners, had a much greater effect on the
content of news coverage, influencing 32% of the sampled news stories. These
efforts still influenced 28% of news stories when excluding IBM from the sample.
64
News coverage of nanotechnology focused largely on the advancements of
diversified firms such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel. IBM was most successful
at converting nanotechnology-related press releases to news stories, with 7% of
their press releases resulting in 26% of their news coverage.
A manual evaluation of press releases and news coverage associated with the
firms in Table 10 revealed that diversified firms benefit from unsought for cognitive
legitimacy in both corporate communications and news stories. Press releases by
non-diversified firms often mentioned diversified firms with whom they were
partnering or to whom they were selling technologies. The press releases of
diversified firms, on the other hand, only rarely mentioned partnerships or sales
and then, almost exclusively when they occurred with other diversified firms.
Instead, they more often focused on their own discoveries and achievements. In
their press releases, non-diversified firms attempt to gain cognitive legitimacy by
associating themselves with diversified firms while diversified firms seek to extend
and justify the legitimacy their already posses.
News stories often mentioned diversified firms when highlighting trends
such as research in nanotechnology or the post-dotcom layoffs in the technology
industry because of diversified firms’ reputation as industry leaders. This can work
both for and against firms’ overall legitimacy. On the one hand, being consistently
mentioned in stories about nanotechnological advancements allows IBM to gain
ownership over the issue of nanotechnology. On the other hand, being associated
with the downturn of the technology industry does not bolster stakeholders’
confidence in the corporation. Even without the influence of press releases, news
65
coverage was much more likely to highlight, profile, or mention diversified firms
than it was to refer to non-diversified firms. In most instances, this likely only
reinforces diversified firms existing legitimacy.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
There are limitations to this study that provide opportunities for developing
future research directions. The analysis of news coverage and press releases was
accomplished using VBPro (Miller, 1995), a set of computer programs developed for
content analysis of verbatim text, and user-created theme keyword dictionaries.
While effective at quickly analyzing large data sets, computer-assisted text analysis
does have some demonstrated limitations. Conway (2006) found that human and
computer-assisted content analysis yielded two significantly different results when
coding newspaper coverage of a political campaign. Specifically, the computer-
assisted approach highlighted broad categories of coverage, while human coders
identified more nuanced attributes and issues. Subsequent research could compare
the analysis generated by this investigation to that of human coders to ensure the
validity and reliability of this system.
While this study posits that firms ultimately gain legitimacy by
communicating with and receiving coverage from the news media, it does not
quantitatively demonstrate this claim. Future studies should investigate the extent
to which newer firms’ communications help them gain legitimacy through news
coverage. In particular, while this study found that non-diversified firms
emphasized business-themed press releases, future research should examine which
66
themes garner the most news coverage, what sorts of corporate communications are
most effective at communicating stories to the news media, and to what extent
news coverage affects non-diversified firms’ stakeholder legitimacy. Alternatively, in
the case of non-diversified firms, elite media coverage may not adequately target the
stakeholders these firms want to reach. Future studies should explore how and to
who non-diversified firms communicate.
A third limitation of this study is that it restricts corporate communication
and actional legitimation efforts to press releases. Firms build relationships with
stakeholders and achieve legitimacy in various ways and future research should
examine some of these other methods (e.g. quarterly reports, discussions with
analysts, other communications with stakeholders, partnerships).
This study examined press releases for any mentions of sampled firms
instead of focusing solely on press releases that were distributed by the firms
themselves. While this was somewhat beneficial in identifying which firms were
most often discussed in relation to nanotechnology, it has the obvious drawback of
not directly establishing a ratio between firms’ press releases and news coverage that
emerged as a result of them. Future studies seeking to identify the conversion of
press releases to news coverage should limit press releases to only those issued by
firms themselves.
The focus on firm mentions in press releases and news coverage presents an
additional limitation—it is not possible to determine the significance of mentions
using computer-assisted text analysis. For example, a paragraph in a news article
lauding IBM’s advances in nanotechnology might also mention Intel as a
67
competitor. With computer-assisted text analysis, this would result in two firm
mentions; one for IBM and another for Intel. A human coder, on the other hand,
might attribute a mention only to IBM, as Intel is mentioned merely in passing as a
competing firm and not for their work with nanotechnology.
This research’s analysis of press release conversion is also limited by its
sample. While it generally finds that press releases influenced only 8% of news
coverage—substantially less than that hypothesized by Cameron (1997) or found by
Blyskal and Blyskal (1985) and Sigal (1973)—it also limits the press release and news
coverage samples to only those documents with specific firm mentions. A broader
and more inclusive analysis of the influence of press releases on news coverage is
required to quantitatively link the two as they relate to the coverage of
nanotechnology.
Another limitation arises because of the nature of computer-assisted text
analysis. The press release and news coverage samples were selected based on
keywords and, while there was some manual elimination of articles, it is unlikely
that all remaining documents were specifically about nanotechnology. Likewise,
computers-assisted text analysis is incapable of subjectively identifying themes such
as leadership or business. Instead, keywords must be associated with each theme.
Keywords were manually selected by me, categorized into themes, and tested to
ensure the accuracy of the keywords. Nevertheless, some words, such as “first” in
the leadership theme or “product” in the business theme can vary in meaning, and
therefore in theme, based on the context in which they are used. Also, it is possible
that I unintentionally excluded relevant theme keywords from the theme
68
dictionary by . Future studies should devise a manual or computer-assisted method
to refine these methodologies.
Lastly, although this study provides a preliminary assessment of how firms
use public relations to legitimize their activities with new technologies and set the
media agenda, future studies could further investigate the role of public relations
and actional legitimation in creating and maintaining corporate legitimacy.
Communication is integral in managing legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and more
academic work related to public relations is required in this area.
69
Chapter 6: Conclusion
This thesis provides an initial examination of how firms created in or
moving into an emerging market such as nanotechnology use public relations to
legitimize their actions and policies to make them appear useful and responsible to
their stakeholders. While past studies have focused largely on news coverage and
public perception of emerging markets, this investigation centers on organizations’
use of press releases to communicate their activities and set the media agenda about
these markets.
This study finds that press releases and news stories about nanotechnology
have both increased over time; that fewer than 10% of news stories about
nanotechnology are derived from press releases; that nanotechnology firms of both
types thematically associate themselves most often with business, research,
progress, benefits, and leadership, but that non-diversified firms highlight
nanotechnology through business themes more often than diversified firms; that
the news media write about diversified firms more frequently than non-diversified
firms; and that news coverage of nanotechnology continues to focus more on
benefits than on risks.
Press releases and news stories about nanotechnology share a positive
relationship. While it certainly cannot be concluded that news coverage about
nanotechnology occurs as a result of increased corporate communications, it can be
inferred that press releases strongly influenced the presence of the first news stories
on the subject. In the absence of existing knowledge about novel technologies or
70
industries, press releases can help educate journalists about new discoveries and
provide them with alternative story ideas for their reporting.
The effectiveness of press releases at obtaining media coverage once a topic is
better known is less assured. Figure 9 shows an explosion of press releases about
nanotechnology beginning in 2001. As the number of press releases skyrocketed,
news coverage about nanotechnology increased at a much more subdued pace.
Anecdotal evidence gleaned from discussions with journalists reveals that they
believe that corporations pitch too many insignificant stories. The relatively low
conversion rate of press releases to news coverage would seem to support this
opinion. Only 8% of press releases about nanotechnology in the sample directly
influenced news coverage.
In formulating his definition of actional legitimacy, Boyd (2000) posited that
public relations is a relevant and important component of legitimacy building. To
be considered legitimate, organizations must not only act legitimately, but must
establish corporate actions and policies as useful and responsible and gain support
for these endeavors from stakeholders through their public relations endeavors.
Consequently, legitimacy building is at the core of most public relations activities
(Metzler, 2001).
Building on this, corporate communications themselves must be
legitimate—that is, useful and responsible—for firms to consistently receive
coverage by the news media. Firms not deemed legitimate in their dealings with
journalists are less likely to be covered by them. News coverage requires some level
of pragmatic legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and journalists are more likely to cover
71
stories that reflect positively on themselves or provide some level of interest to their
readers. Therefore, firms that habitually communicate messages and information
that are not relevant to journalistic interests may receive less coverage than firms
that communicate pertinent and timely information.
This study finds that nanotechnology firms of both types thematically
associate themselves most often with business, research, progress, benefits, and
leadership, but that non-diversified firms highlight business themes more often
than diversified firms in their press releases. These findings corroborate previous
research that posits that non-diversified firms can gain cognitive legitimacy by
visibly championing and implementing recognized methods, models and processes,
which are deemed useful and responsible and which are adhered to by diversified
firms (Ahlstrom & Bruton, 2001; Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman
& Zeitz, 2002). Likewise, news coverage of non-diversified firms focused
significantly on business themes, to a much greater extent than it did for diversified
firms. This suggests that the news media acts as a legitimator of lesser known firms
by highlighting their compliance to accepted business norms.
Comparatively, news coverage of nanotechnology highlighted research
themes for diversified firms more often than for non-diversified firms. Discoveries
by better known firms in emerging markets might be considered more legitimate,
whether because of firm size or research history, and therefore more newsworthy.
Non-diversified firms working with novel technologies or in new industries
should visibly communicate legitimizing activities such as business transactions,
partnerships with diversified firms, and memberships in recognized associations.
72
These activities should not be communicated to the mainstream media if they are
not relevant to journalists, but can be targeted to trade publications and relevant
stakeholders or be documented on corporate Web sites. Non-diversified firms
should also differentiate themselves from diversified firms in the rhetoric that they
use with the news media. Green (2004) posits that organizations can more quickly
develop sustainable support for their endeavors through a three-step rhetorical
process: an emotional appeal to initiate support for nanotechnology, a logical
appeal to help implement it, and a moral appeal to sustain support for it. Following
these steps, a medical-based nanotechnology firm could, for example, highlight
nanotechnology’s potential medical benefits in combatting terminal diseases,
demonstrate that nanotechnology medicines are effective and affordable, and
identify the many advances that have occurred using nanotechnology and
emphasize its continuing potential. While both diversified and non-diversified firms
can use this technique, it might be particularly effective for non-diversified firms
since, as shown in Table 10, they associate themselves very saliently with
nanotechnology in their press releases.
This investigation also found that diversified firms are written about more
frequently than non-diversified firms. This might be a result of any number of
factors, including size, familiarity, and legitimacy. In the case of nanotechnology,
the relatively small amount of news coverage about the subject might also be a
factor. Irrespective of these issues, non-diversified firms seeking mainstream media
coverage must have a story to tell. They must demonstrate an advantage—whether
economic, scientific, or human—to get coverage. For example, non-diversified
73
firms, by virtue of working primarily in an emerging market such as
nanotechnology and typically being smaller in size than diversified firms, can
accentuate their innovation and nimbleness. When communicating
nanotechnology, non-diversified firms should also place a greater emphasis on
highlighting the human aspects of the technology. Smaller non-diversified
corporations can appear less monolithic than larger diversified firms, allowing
emotional appeals to be more effective. A product or discovery that is initially
linked to an emotional appeal is more likely to get news coverage than one linked
to logical or moral appeal (Green, 2004).
Lastly, this thesis finds that news coverage of nanotechnology continues to
focus more on its benefits than its risks. This trend is not expected to last, however,
as mainstream media often focuses on the controversial aspects of issues (Scheufele
& Lewenstein, 2005; Nisbet & Lewenstein, 2002). For now, since new technologies
are generally greeted with optimism, firms should use this opportunity to temper
expectations about nanotechnology’s benefits and risks. Highlighting the potential
benefits of a product or technology can generate interest in its future applications,
but allowing its risks to go unacknowledged is neither useful nor responsible and
can only hurt the legitimacy of a firm in the long run.
74
Bibliography
Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1992). Forging the iron cage: Interorganizational
networks and the production of macro-culture. Journal of Management Studies,
29, 175–94.
Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2001). Learning from successful local private firms in
China: Establishing legitimacy. Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 72–83.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of
industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645–70.
American Stock Exchange. (2006, February 23). Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index.
Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://www.amex.com/?href=/othProd/
prodInf/OpPiIndComp.jsp?Product_Symbol=NNZ
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of
nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2),
200–20.
Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of
Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561–70.
Benson, J. A. (1998). Crisis revisited: An analysis of strategies used by Tylenol in the
second tampering episode. Central States Speech Journal, 39(1), 49–66.
Berger, B. K. (2001). Private issues and public policy: Locating the corporate agenda
within agenda setting theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91–126.
Blyskal, J., & Blyskal, M. (1985). PR: How the public relations industry writes the news.
New York: William Morrow.
Boyd, J. (2000). Actional legitimation: No crisis necessary. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 12(4), 341–53.
Brummer, J. J. (1991). Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An interdisciplinary
analysis. New York: Greenwood.
Burke, D. (2003, March 12). This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education
Supplement, p. 13.
75
Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the
production of news: A critical review and a theoretical framework. In B. R.
Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook. (Vol. 20, pp. 111–55). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on
the public's images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate
Reputation Review, 6(1), 36–46.
Christen, C. T. (2005). The restructuring and reengineering of AT&T: Analysis of a
public relations crisis using organizational theory. Public Relations Review,
31(2), 239–51.
Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology:
Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395–405.
Conway, M. (2006). The subjective precision of computers: A methodological
comparison with human coding in content analysis. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 186–2000.
Coombs, W. T. (1992). The failure of the Task Force on Food Assistance: A case study
of the role of legitimacy in issue management. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 4(2), 101–22.
Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public relations information subsidies: Market
driven journalism and agenda-building theory and practice. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 11(1), 53–90.
Curtin, P. A., & Rhodenbaugh, E. (2001). Building the news media agenda on the
environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public
Relations Review, 27(2), 179–95.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of
mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management,
26(6), 1091–112.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carroll, C. E. (2005, November). What news is fit to print? A
framework explaining the production of news about organizations (Working paper).
University of Alberta.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between
organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of
Management Studies, 42(2), 329–60.
76
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and
organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–36.
Editor & Publisher. (2003, September 30). Top one hundred daily newspapers in the
United States according to circulation. Retrieved February 16, 2006, from
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/images/pdf/
Top%20100%20Daily.pdf
Einsiedel, E. F., & Goldenberg, L. (2004). Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology
lessons from the biotechnology front. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
24(1), 28–33.
Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle
industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88.
McKean, E. (Ed.). (2001). New Oxford American Dictionary. (2 ed.). USA: Oxford
University Press.
False positive. (2006, February 19). Retrieved March 19, 2006, from the Wikipedia
Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive
Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and
corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–58.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating
uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2004). Public attitudes to
nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3(8), 496.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking
of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Golan, G., & Wanta, W. (2001). Second-level agenda setting in the New Hampshire
primary: A comparison of coverage in three newspapers and public
perceptions of candidates. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2),
247–59.
77
Gorss, J. B., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005, May 27). The salience of small: Nanotechnology
coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the International
Communication Association, New York, NY.
Green, S. E. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review,
29(4), 653–69.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Implications of public relations for other domains of
communication. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 164–73.
Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public-relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and
Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20(2), 113–25.
Hearit, K. M. (1995aa). From "We didn't do it" to "It's not our fault": The use of
apologia in public relations crises. In W. N. Elwood (Ed.), Public Relations
Inquiry as Rhetorical Criticism. (pp. 117–31). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Hearit, K. M. (1995bb). “Mistakes were made”: Organizations, apologia, and crises of
social legitimacy. Communication Studies, 46(1–2), 1–17.
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy
challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heimer, C. A. (2001). Solving the problem of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in
society. (pp. 55–81). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union
Carbide's Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4(3), 341–62.
Janis, I. L., & Fadner, R. H. (1965). The coefficient of imbalance. In H. D. Lasswell,
N. Leites, & Associates (Eds.), Language of politics: Studies in quantitative
semantics. (pp. 153–69). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kennedy, M. T. (2003). The earliest moments of new niches: Firms, the media and
collective agreements. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (01), 308A. (UMI
No. 3118561)
Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Problems and opportunities in agenda-setting research.
Journal of Communication, 43(2), 100–27.
McCombs, M., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., & Rey, F. (1997). Candidate images in
Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 703–17.
78
McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world.
In J. Bryant, & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects. (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McInerney, C., Bird, N., & Nucci, M. (2004). The flow of scientific knowledge from
lab to the lay public: The case of genetically modified food. Science
Communication, 26(1), 44–74.
Mehta, M. D. (2004). From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn
from earlier technologies? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(1), 34–39.
Meijer, M.-M., & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2006). The effects of issue news on corporate
reputation: Applying the theories of agenda setting and issue ownership in the
field of business communication. Journal of Communication, 56(4), 543–59.
Metzler, M. S. (2001). The centrality of organizational legitimacy to public relations
practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations. (pp. 321–33).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, M. M. (1995). VBPro: A program for analyzing verbatim text [Computer
software and manual]. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from
http://www.mmmiller.com/vbpro/vbpro.html
Milunovich, S., Roy, J. M. A., & Fan, Z.-H. (2004, April 16). Merrill Lynch Nanotech
Index. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from the Merrill Lynch Web site:
http://www.ml.com/media/14504.pdf
Moore’s law. (2006, March 10). Retrieved March 15, 2006, from the Wikipedia Web
site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
Nanovip.com. (n.d.). Nanotechnology International/USA. Retrieved March 1, 2006,
from http://www.nanovip.com/directory/International/Usa/index.php
National Nanotechnology Initiative. (n.d.). Why fund nanotechnology? Retrieved
March 15, 2006, from www.nano.gov/html/facts/faqs.html
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology (2 ed.).
New York: Freeman.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell
controversy in an age of press/politics. The Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
79
Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media:
The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication,
23(4), 359–91.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for
initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 631–42.
Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience
and nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Societal implications of nanoscience and
nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
7, 1–13.
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. (1993). The anatomy of agenda setting
research. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 68–84.
Roper, J., & Toledano, M. (2005). Taking in the view from the edge: Issues
management recontextualized. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 479–85.
Sachsman, D. B. (1973). Public relations influence on coverage of environments.
Journalism Quarterly, 53(1), 54–60.
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How
citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
7, 659–67.
Scott, W. R. (2000). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on
the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–204.
Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials: The organization and politics of newsmaking.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Stephens, L. F. (2004, March 4–7). News narratives about nano: How journalists and the
news media are framing nanoscience and nanotechnology initiatives and issues.
Paper presented at the Imaging and Imagining NanoScience and Engineering,
Columbia, SC.
80
Stephens, L. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S.
newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175–99.
Stillman, P. G. (1974). The concept of legitimacy. Polity, 7(1), 32–56.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional
approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Ulrich, P. (1995). Business in the nineties: Facing public interest. In P. Ulrich, & C.
Sarasin (Eds.), Facing public interest: The ethical challenge to business policy and
corporate communications. (pp. 1–8). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Weiss, C. H. (1974). What America’s leaders read. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38(1),
1–22.
Williams, D., & Treadaway, G. (1992). Exxon and the Valdez accident: A failure in
crisis communication. Communication Studies, 43(1), 56–64.
Witt, W. (1974). The environmental reporter on U.S. daily newspapers. Journalism
Quarterly, 51(4), 697–704.
Zehr, S. C. (1999). Scientists' representations of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S.
Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of
new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture
growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–31.
Zuckerman, E. W. (2000). Focusing the corporate product: Securities analysts and
de-diversification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 591–619.
Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2003). The issue life-cycle: Implications for social performance
and organizational legitimacy. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 70–81.
81
Appendix A
Table 12. Company dictionary.
Company name (variations)
3Dm Lux Capital
3M Lux Research
3i Luxtera
4Wave MFIC
ABP MTI
ACLARA MTR
ALD NanoSolutions MTS Systems
AMCOL MagiQ Technologies
ANP Magma Design Automation
ANSYS Materia
AP Materials Matrix Semiconductor
ARC Outdoors Matsushita
ARCH McGovern Capital
ASML Merrill Lynch
AVS MetaMateria Partners
Abraxis Metallicum
Acacia Research-CombiMatrix MicroPowder
Accelrys Microfabrica
AcryMed Micron Tech
Acusphere Micronics
Adept Technology Microsoft
Advance Nanotech Minus K Technology
AdvanceTEC Mitsubishi
Advanced Diamond Molecular Electronics
Advanced Magnetics Molecular Foundry
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD, A.M.D.) Molecular Imaging
Advion Molecular Imprints
Aerogel Composite Molecular Nanosystems
Affymetrix Moore Nanotechnology Systems
Agilent Mosel Vitelic
Akustica Motorola
Alameda MysticMD
Albany NanoTech NEC
Alnis NEI
Altair NUCRYST
Alysium NVE
Amersham Nanergy
Analytiq NanoBio
AngstroVision NanoCure
Angstrom NanoEner
ApNano NanoGram
Apex NanoHorizons
82
Table 12. Continued.
Company name (variations)
Aphios NanoInk
Apogee NanoKinetix
Apollo Diamond NanoLab
Applied Biosystems NanoLogix
Applied Films NanoMarkets
Applied Materials NanoMed Pharmaceuticals
Applied MicroStructures NanoNexus
Applied NanoWorks NanoOpto
Applied Nanotechnologies NanoSIG
Applied Sciences NanoSense
Applied Thin Films NanoString
Ardesta NanoVance
Argonide NanoWave
Ariel Nanobac
Arrowhead Nanocerox
Arryx Nanochem
Ascend Nanocoolers
Aspen Aerogels Nanocor
Asylum Nanocrystal Imaging
Atlas Venture Nanocrystal Technology
Atmel Nanocs
AtomWorks Nanodisc
Authentix Nanodynamics
Aviza Nanofilm
Avogadro Nanogen
Axiom Capital Management Nanomat
Babolat Nanometrics
Battery Ventures Nanomix
Bayer Nanonex
Beckman Coulter Nanophase
Bell Labs Nanopics
Beyond Skin Science Nanoplex
BioCrystal Nanopoint
BioDelivery Nanorex
BioPixels Nanoscience Technologies
BioTrove Nanosolar
Bioforce Nanospectra
Biophan Nanostellar
Biosante Nanostream
Brewer Science Nanosyn
Burlington Industries Nanosys
Burrill & Company Nanova
C Sixty Nanoventions
CALMEC Nanoverse
Cabot Nantero
Cadence NaturalNano
83
Table 12. Continued.
Company name (variations)
Calient NeoPhotonics
Caliper New River Kinematics
Cambrios New Scale Technologies
Carbon Nanotechnologies Newbridge Securities
CardioMEMS Nextreme Thermal Solutions
Catalytic Nion
Cavendish Noble Polymers
Cell Robotics International Nomadics
Cepheid Norsam Technologies
Cetek Novavax
ChevronTexaco Olympus
Cima NanoTech Optical Components
CogniTek Optiva
Colossal Storage Orchid BioSciences
Competitive Technologies Orthovita
Cookson Electronics Ovonyx
Copernicus Therapeutics Owlstone Nanotech
Coventor PSI-TEC
Cronus Capital Markets Pacific Fuel Cell
Crystalplex Pacific Nanotechnology
Cyclics PharmaSeq
Cypress Pharmacopeia
Cyrano Sciences Philips
CytImmune Sciences Photo-Optical
Cytoplex Biosciences Physical Sciences
DaimlerChrysler Pillsbury Winthrop
Dais Analytic Platypus Technologies
DayStar Polaris Venture Partners
Deloitte PolyFuel
Dendritic Nanotechnologies Polytec
Dimatix PowerMetal
Discera Powerchip
Discovery Technology Precision Optics
Dow Corning Princeton Instruments
Draper Triangle Ventures Protiveris
Drexel Punk Ziegel
Dupont PureTech Ventures
E Ink Pyrograf Products
Ecology Coatings Quantum Dot
Eikos Quantum Insight
Eksigent Technologies QuantumSphere
Emcore RAVE
Emergency Filtration Products RTP
Ener1 Group Radiation Shield Technologies
EnerTech Capital Raytheon
Engelhard Rolltronics
84
Table 12. Continued.
Company name (variations)
EnviroSystems SDForum
Etec SENSE Holdings
Evident Technologies SRI International
Evolved Nanomaterial Sciences STMicroelectronics
Excellin Life Sciences SUN
FEI Sabety
Fischione Instruments Samsung
Five Star SanDisk
Flagship Ventures Savant
Flamel Schrodinger
Fluidigm Seagate
Freescale Semiconductor Seki Technotron
Freitas Sequence Design
Fujitsu Sevin Rosen Funds
General Electric (GE, G.E.) Sharp
GEMZ SiGNa Chemistry
Garage Technology Sigma-Aldrich
GeneFluidics Silicon Genesis
GeneOhm SkyePharma
Genencor SmalTec
General Motors (GM, G.M.) SmallTech
Genus Solaris Nanosciences
Global Crown Capital SolidWorks
Greater Zurich Area Solubest
Hewlett-Packard (Hewlett Packard, HP, H.P.) Sono-Tek
Harris & Harris SouthWest NanoTechnologies
Headwaters Southern Clay Products
HelioVolt Spherics
Hitachi Spire
Honeywell Starfire Systems
Hybrid Plastics Strategic Synergy Group
Hynix Surface Logix
Hypercube SurgRx
Hyperion Symyx
Hysitron Synopsys
International Business Machines (IBM, I.B.M.) Syrrx
Illuminex Taiwan Semiconductor
ImaRx Tecan
Imago Technanogy
Immunicon TechnoMed Strategic Partners
Improvita Tegal
In-Q-Tel Texas Instruments
InMat The Aurora Funds
Industrial NanoTech The Livingston Group
Infineon The Maple Fund
Inframat The NanoSteel Company
85
Table 12. Continued.
Company name (variations)
InnovaLight ThinkEquity Partners
Innovation Works Three-Five
Insert Therapeutics Toshiba
Integrated Nanosystems Total Fab Solutions
Intel Transfer Devices
Intematix Triton Systems
Interface Sciences U.S. Genomics
Introgen US Global Nanospace
Invitrogen Ultratech
Isonics Universal Display
J Giordano Securities Veeco
J.P. Morgan (JP Morgan, JPMorgan) Venrock Associates
JMAR Technologies Westaim
Jackson Walker Winbond
Kainos Energy XEI Scientific
Keithley Instruments Xintek
Kereos Xradia
Kionix ZettaCore
Kodak Ziptronix
Komag Zyvex
Konarka cDream
Kopin eSpin
Kovio engeneOS
L'Oreal i-STAT
Larta iMEDD
LiftPort Group mPhase
Liquidia Technologies nPoint
Lucent nanoTEN
Lumera pSivida
Luna vFinance
86

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This thesis provides an initial examination of how firms created in or moving into an emerging market use public relations to legitimize their actions and policies to make them appear useful and responsible to their stakeholders. While past studies have focused largely on news coverage and public perception of emerging markets, this investigation centers on organizations' use of press releases to communicate their activities and set the media agenda about these markets. These ideas are examined in the emerging market of nanotechnology. This study finds that news coverage of diversified firms and non-diversified firms contained very similar themes. Non-diversified firms received a higher than expected proportion of business-themed news coverage whereas diversified firms received a higher proportion of research-themed coverage.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of new media marketing public relations on the South Korean film industry -- in relation to the U.S. film industry

PDF

Media reinvented: the transformation of news in a networked society

PDF

Web 2.0: An examination of its effects upon U.S. public relations practices

PDF

Whole foods market -- a communication plan to engage the German market

PDF

The localization of global public relations firms in China

PDF

Are public relations firms ready to lead in the new communication normal? the changing agency landscape and PR’s shifting roles

PDF

Facebook and the ideal social marketplace: a study of the marketing benefits of social media practices

PDF

DIGGing for votes: an analysis of 2008 presidential candidates' use of new media

PDF

Social media's role, utility, and future in video game public relations

PDF

Rhetoric in elite-led radical change: China's capitalist transformation from 1978-2008

PDF

Public engagement, media relations and the future of the PR industry

PDF

Making business news in the digital age

PDF

A comparative analysis of the advertising and public relations disciplines in an era of digitally fueled audience control

PDF

Memes, meme marketing, and how brands and influencers can leverage them on social media

PDF

Corporate social media: trends in the use of emerging social media in corporate America

PDF

Reaching the Traditionalists: a study identifying 65-85 year olds and how to effectively communicate with them

PDF

The food truck phenomenon: A successful blend of PR and social media

PDF

Under the influence: understanding cautious influencer marketing and relations

PDF

The Vulcan rhetoric of crisis: presidential advisors and the War in Iraq

PDF

For the love of sensationalism: denying humanity to victims of media coverage

Asset Metadata

Creator Asiri, Sami M. (author)

Core Title Using public relations to gain legitimacy in an emerging market: nanotechnology firms and the news media

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 11/16/2006

Defense Date 10/31/2006

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag legitmacy,nanotechnology,news coverage,OAI-PMH Harvest,press releases,Public Relations

Language English

Advisor Carroll, Craig E. (committee chair), Goodnight, G. Thomas (committee member), Green, Sandy E., Jr. (committee member)

Creator Email asiri@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m156

Unique identifier UC1410619

Identifier etd-Asiri-20061116 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-26745 (legacy record id),usctheses-m156 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Asiri-20061116.pdf

Dmrecord 26745

Document Type Thesis

Rights Asiri, Sami M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu