Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 30–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Public Relations Review Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics Michael Paquette a , Erich J. Sommerfeldt a,* , Michael L. Kent b a Department of Communication, University of Maryland-College Park, 2124 Skinner Building, College Park, MD 20742, United States b University of Oklahoma, 3510B Gaylord Hall Norman, OK 73019, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 2 March 2014 Received in revised form 7 October 2014 Accepted 30 October 2014 Keywords: Dialogue International public relations Development communication Deontological ethics Consequentialist ethics Bolivia a b s t r a c t Despite being a frequently discussed topic in the public relations literature, dialogue is often misunderstood as simply two-way communication and seldom examined in practice. While international development organizations frequently claim to use dialogic and participatory methods, development communication remains a relatively unexplored area in public rela- tions. To further clarify public relations’ understanding of dialogue as well as its potential in development practice, this study examined how a USAID-sponsored international develop- ment project adopted participatory communication practices to encourage Bolivian farmers to switch from coca to coffee. Drawing from public relations and development literature on dialogue, the article juxtaposes the approaches to “dialogue” used in the project against normative concepts of the theory. The article argues that using genuine dialogue is a matter of differentiating deontological, means-based approaches to communication practice, from consequentialist, ends-based orientations. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Despite the seeming prominence of dialogue in public relations theory, Pieczka (2011) has noted, “the field has a very poor understanding of the concept” (p. 109). In recent years, the public relations literature has increasingly been flooded with examples of organizations using “dialogue.” However, as Theunissen and Wan Noordin (2012) have argued, while many of these works claimed to study dialogue, most have articulated the concept in a manner quite distinct from the theory of dialogue, and thus “do not sufficiently contribute to developing a clear philosophical understanding of the theory” (p. 5). Hence, a closer examination reveals that very few cases meet the standards of genuine dialogue—a problem that Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009) ascribed to the development communication literature as well—while many organizations claim to be using dialogic approaches. This article takes up the challenge of broadening and deepening the understanding of dialogue in public relations. The purpose of this article is two-fold. First, as many public relations studies have failed to adequately differentiate dialogue from other forms of communication, this article explores the parallels between dialogue and deontological ethics. Articles claiming to study dialogue in public relations are common (e.g., Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; McCorkindale & Morgoch, 2013; Men & Tsai, 2012; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010; Waters & Jamal, 2011). Because much of the scholarship in the field takes the term dialogue at face-value, claiming dialogue is occurring when in actuality none exists, more research is needed that clearly explains the difference between genuine dialogue and self-serving dialogue, or “dialogue in name only.” We * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 405 6528. E-mail addresses: esommerf@umd.edu (E.J. Sommerfeldt), mkent@ou.edu (M.L. Kent). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.008 0363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.