Engagement vs Participation in Public Relations
Keywords: Engagement, Participation, Public Relations, Involvement
Introduction
The concept of engagement is important to the field of Public Relations. Commonly, engagement can be defined as “the fact of being involved with something” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). However, this definition is limiting, because a person can be engaged with something without being directly involved. Dhanesh (2017) argues that researchers in PR have used the concept of engagement “rather loosely” and that engagement in PR is often seen as any form of interaction between an organization and the public (p. 925). She goes on to define the concept of engagement as “an affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal attainment, adjustment, and adaptation for both publics and organizations” (p. 931). This conceptualization widens the scope of engagement. It brings forward that engagement can be passive and that people may be engaged without direct communication.
Participation
The concept of participation is another concept suffering from ambiguity. Participation can be commonly understood as “the fact that you take part or become involved in something” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). As we can see, this definition is very similar to that of engagement. Previous researchers have noted the lack of a precise, standardized definition. Rowe and Frewer (2005) say that “imprecise definitions of key terms in the “public participation” domain have hindered the conduct of good research…” (p. 251). Hofer and Kaufmann (2022) reinforce this by saying “while participation is typically recognized as a distinct practice, it is rarely explicitly defined; it remains abstract and encompasses a variety of meanings and forms” (p. 357). Due to this ambiguity, researchers have tried to identify characteristics of participation that separate it from other related concepts, like engagement. Rowe and Frewer (2005) argue that the main difference between participation and other related concepts comes from the “flow” of the information. They go on to distinguish the concepts of participation and consultation by looking at how information “flows” from the organization/sponsor to the public and vice-versa. Essentially, they posit that in consultation information flows from the public to the organizations/sponsors, while in participation the information is exchanged between the public and organizations/sponsors (p. 255).
Differences
As we’ve just discussed, Dhanesh (2017) posits that people don’t necessarily need to directly communicate their engagement to be engaged. Engagement can be passive. Alternatively, Rowe and Frewer (2005) say that participation requires an exchange of information between the public and organizations/sponsors. This highlights one of the key differences between these concepts. Engagement can be active or passive, while participation requires active interaction. For example, a person could be cognitively or affectively engaged with an organization without directly communicating with it. For this person to participate, Rowe and Frewer (2005) say that they must actively exchange information with the organization. This highlights another key difference between these concepts; participation is much narrower than engagement.
Similarities
At face value, engagement and participation are very similar concepts. We just established above a few differences between them, but what exactly are the similarities between them? According to Dhanesh (2017), one of the dimensions of the concept of engagement is behavior. She mentions in the article that “[engagement] draws the whole person, including his/her thoughts, feelings, and/or action, into a meaningful interaction with the organization” (p. 929). The key word here is interaction. Participation, as conceptualized by Rowe and Frewer (2005), requires an exchange between the public and organizations. So, once engagement becomes behavioral and interactive with the organization/sponsor, it begins to look like participation. Therefore, we can see that both concepts describe active interaction between a public and an organization.
Conclusion
The concepts of engagement and participation are very similar, but as we just discussed, there are several key differences between the two when looking at the literature. Engagement describes a state of being with a much broader scope, while participation describes a direct process or activity of interaction with a narrower scope. Nonetheless, participation and behavioral engagement heavily overlap. Understanding these distinctions between the two concepts is important because using them interchangeably can make it harder to identify differences in how publics interact with organizations. Therefore, more precise conceptualizations of these concepts can help future researchers better understand and study the interactions between publics and organizations.
References
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Engagement. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/engagement
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Participation. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved September 22, 2026, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/participation
Dhanesh, G. S. (2017). Putting engagement in its proper place: State of the field, definition and model of engagement in public relations. Public Relations Review, 43(5), 925–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001
Hofer, K., & Kaufmann, D. (2022). Actors, arenas and aims: A conceptual framework for public participation. Planning Theory, 22(4), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221139587
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
