Communication as engaging community for social change: a multidisciplinary integrative literature review

Two communication researchers, a supervisor and PhD student, took inspiration for this article following feedback at the Confirmation of Candidature stage of their journey together. Up for discussion was a review of Strategic Communication literature with a specific focus on conceptualising communication within Collective Impact, a model for managing and mobilising diverse stakeholders in a shared agenda of social change. This model is supported by a developing body of research exploring key tenets for creating and driving social change in different contexts and practice (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016; Kania et al., 2022). Follow-up investigations uncovered a distinct shortage of communication theory in the context of community engagement for social change. This sequence of events provided motivation and an entry point for undertaking an integrative review. For this project we embrace qualitative inquiry and research design to summarise and critically analyse past empirical and theoretical literature and arrive at specific conclusions about it. Reading from a multidisciplinary perspective will invite a broader and deeper coverage of the topic, strengthen the analysis process and yield questions for further inquiry (Torraco, 2005, p. 362).

As researchers we view reality as socially constructed and subjectively experienced by individuals. Our research seeks to understand how people create meaning and knowledge through their social interactions and experiences. We begin this project by stepping forward from disciplinary perspectives, with tools and provisional concepts that suggest what we might look for along the way (Charmaz, 2025, p. 23). In the context of this project little evidence-based research, around the communication theory within the context of community engagement for social change, can be found in the literature. With focus on an emerging topic our plan is to uncover connections among diverse research fields and to evaluate an existing, albeit fragmented, knowledge base (Ketonen-Oksi and Vigren, 2024).

The article proceeds as follows: the next section introduces the concepts of community engagement for social change. We then lay out the method of an integrative review and describe the process of analysis. This is followed by analytical sections that address the ways in which communication is considered in 40 articles exploring communication in the context of community engagement for social change. Finally, we present a framework that integrates findings with a nuanced understanding of networked-organisation public engagement for social change (Yang and Taylor, 2021) followed by brief conclusions (Ketonen-Oksi and Vigren, 2024, p. 2).

Michael Kent’s (2022) critique of strategic communication practice, in the use of dialogic enactment, is a shift from organisational control of communication. In the chapter Dialogue as a tool for strategic communication? Kent calls for practitioners to be more in harmony with what stakeholders and publics want as well as serving the interests of everyone involved (p. 83). Challenging communication strategy as a creative act, Kent sees the future as one where a more research driven, ethical approach to communication and engagement is needed. This can be achieved by investing in dialogue as a genuine way to build mutual understanding and meaningful relationships in engagement with publics (p. 85). For practice this would require deep understanding of the audience, subject, past practices and contemporary situation (p. 83). Giving specific attention to activist organisations, Non-Government Organisations and those responsible for managing communication in health, education and politics, the author emphasises a need to position dialogue within the process of strategic decision making and action. The key concept here is understanding dialogue should not be used as a strategic tool to convince, persuade and manipulate publics into organisational objectives but instead that dialogue can inform strategy making (p. 95).

A study, undertaken by communication researchers Yang and Taylor (2021), uncovered a nuanced understanding of networked organisation-public engagement, where network structure and discourse are co-created by the organisations and the communities that they engage. Of particular interest is a differentiation of three types of action: organisation-initiated engagement, publics-initiated engagement and autonomous publics’ general engagement patterns with each other. Analysis highlighted how organisations mainly focus on a few key issues which take a prominent role in community conversation. However, this did not mean the topic would dominate, as the communities’ discourse often broadened the scope of the topics or took the topic into new directions (p. 12).

In this review process we take inspiration from contemporary research that brings a curiosity to community and connection, listens to parts of the experience and meets what is found there, with care (Jameson and Lee, 2020; Kent and Taylor, 2021; Kent, 2022; Shelton et al., 2025).

Being short on solid communication theory as community engagement for social change, has presented us with an opportunity to scrutinize multidisciplinary data and build a better understanding of the topic. A review process can be enhanced when it provides a means to probe the future and reconceptualise a topic by highlighting new relationships and perspectives that have not been fully explored (Torraco, 2005, p. 422). Our inquiry starts with an experience and asks how participants construct it. To the best of our ability we enter a phenomenon, gain multiple views of it and locate it in a web of its connections and constraints (Charmaz, 2025, p. 339). We also recognise that things could be otherwise and that we might make them so (Weinberg et al., 2013, p. 35). Reflexivity offers an increased attention to subjectivity that requires examining oneself in relation to the other involved in and/or affected by the research process (Shelton et al., 2025). Given an emphasis on interconnectedness, we engage consistently with reflexivity throughout the study, to get in touch with what was being better-known and contribute through that process.

We followed a two-stage approach: (1) data collection (2) critical analysis and creative synthesis (Ketonen-Oksi and Vigren, 2024, p. 3) to yield new insights. For the first stage we carried out a comprehensive search using: three data bases – Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and four journals — Community Development, Journal of Change Management, Journal of Sustainable Social Change and Journal of Organisational Change Management.

A search string: communication, community engagement, social change, harvested a pool of 1,985 articles. Only peer reviewed journals were included. Regardless of academic discipline the material had to be available to researchers. A staged examination identified 120 articles for exploration, with 57 meeting our criteria. Articles were then screened for “communication” content by highlighting “communication” in body of text and excluding articles that displayed five highlights or less. Further screening procedures and rationale for arriving at the final sample included the following guidelines:

1. Detailed descriptions of communication processes

2. Does data reveal what lies beneath the surface?

3. Multiple contexts and views of meaning attributed to understanding communication

4. Will data enable the development of analytic categories?

5. Looking for comparisons that can be made between contributing authors’ perspectives and how these can generate and inform our own careful interpretive understanding (Charmaz, 2025).

After removing duplicates, we ended up with 40 articles for detailed analysis.

Our intention was to explore how various audiences interpret and act on ideas, practices and worldviews from a range of different perspectives and considered who may benefit from an article. Articles were categorised as coming from fields of Communication Studies, Health Care Services and Studies, Education, Business and Management, Environmental Studies and Science and Community Development. Articles were then read entirely to gain a more comprehensive picture of the literature. Four main contextual categories emerged: Dialogic, Readiness and Resistance, Relationships and Collaboration. In ongoing collaborative discussion involving continuous sorting, we created and refined properties and made comparisons between categories ready for analysis.

The two researchers discussed these results during weekly on-line meetings. First cycle coding was undertaken of data using In Vivo Coding (Saldana, 2021) to draw on words used as article content by authors. A second cycle Focused Coding (Saldana, 2021) was undertaken to capture meanings inherent in the experience and to deepen our understanding of the range and properties of the classification and emergent categories. This process involved memo writing to chart, record and detail major analytical phases of the journey and expedite analytic work in constructing theoretical categories. Memos were sorted, shared and integrated as a theoretical and conceptual development where preliminary categories were checked, qualified and refined into five robust categories and twelve sub-categories: Actioning/energizing/emotional transitioning; Change capability/advancing/enhancing/maturity; Interrelating/intervening/behaving/co-creating; Involvement infrastructure/structures/rules for engagement; Becoming together/reflecting/transforming. Further engagement in specifying and filling out these properties assisted in creating analytic definitions and demonstrating links among categories (Charmaz, 2025).

Through analytical interpretation of the literature, we have devised five robust categories conceptualising understanding of how people create knowledge through social interactions in the context of change communication.

Two perspectives were clearly defined in the literature: energising and emotional transitioning. Emphasising dialogic engagement as a framework for thinking about how social media facilitates discussion, Kent and Taylor (2021) made the point that having the potential for dialogue was very different from finding actual instances of dialogic engagement. Catenaccio (2021) acknowledged recent developments in communication strategy suggested growing awareness for dialogic engagement and web care as part of a legitimation process which is conducted rhetorically. The findings suggested that dialogic engagement was challenging for organisations operating in contested fields and that discourse analysis and linguistics could usefully contribute to effective stakeholder engagement. For example, Sutherland (2016) explored dialogic capacities of propinquity, as applied in the context of stakeholder issues. Propinquital looping, involving online and off-line spaces, assisted to bring closeness and an active history that orientated participants with a sense of belonging and community to the overall stakeholder experience. The study of propinquity function, in the context of social media, has not been widely taken up. A framework facilitating dialogic engagement as fostering social change (Razmerita et al., 2016) utilised social media as motivation for employees to interact and share knowledge in new ways.

From a business studies perspective Blackman et al. (2022) and Santos de Sousa and Chimenti (2024) highlighted the importance of sharing communication and emotional energy in organisational change and sense making as essential for well-being. Blackman et al. (2022) suggested using conversation as “intervention” where change emerged as shared understanding, particularly from the point of view of the individual. Santos de Sousa and Chimenti (2024) view fluctuating emotions as playing a significant role in people perceiving and responding to change. The complex interplay between cognitive and emotional processes driving successful change is under researched and there is a “need to evolve research methodologies to capture the nuances of emotions more accurately in change contexts” (p. 167).

Advancements in change management communication heightened empathy and emotional awareness. Langstedt and Manninen (2021) recognised the importance of considering participants’ views when communicating change objectives. Oe and Yamaoka (2022) contemplated communication as value creation where sensitivity and a shared purpose are central in preparing for behavioural change while Ouedraogo and Ouakouak (2018) found communication of the utmost importance in that it positively affected change success, both directly and indirectly, through gaining affective commitment.

Actioning is enacting change through dialogic practice that energises people to come together by finding the flexibility to change how they interact and view the world.

Montreuil (2024) takes an innovative approach by exploring trust building, common understanding and shared purpose. This researcher suggests enhancements to the Organisational Change Capability (OCC) model valuing small incremental changes towards an end goal of larger transformation. Similarly, in operationalising change purpose, Naslund and Norrman (2022) highlight how lack of clarity about purpose poses an unprecedented risk to change capacity. O’Neill (2020) also presents a strong case for the transfer of traditional power dynamics in acknowledging community expertise is essential to clarify an agreed purpose that will advance impact. Recognising communication skills as a critical competency in leadership in the Not For Profit (NFP) sector, Windon et al. (2024) found using the right tone and messaging with volunteers, investing in back-up off-line channels, especially during a crisis, had a direct impact on volunteer retention and therefore change impact.

Enhancing perspectives of change capability, takes various forms in the literature as researchers push cultural boundaries and hierarchical systems in considering new viewpoints that have been historically ignored. Boothroyd et al. (2017) called for more deliberate attention to embedding the element of continuous feedback, finding evidence alone is not enough to enact change while emphasising the need for policy makers to proactively nurture community centred experience. Similarly, Naqvi and Saikia (2023) found engaging with diverse stakeholders increased trust and reduced risk to desired impact. Building a sense of ownership generated positive emotions which improves the capacity of change participants to accept a change outcome (Harikkala-Laihinen, 2022). Lack of a clearly defined OCC model drove Abrantes et al. (2024) to make a closer examination of the variables that impact the change process. A mature OCC process would address employee concerns about fear of the unknown, interruption to regular habits and any perceived inconvenience, through addressing relevance (what’s in it for me) and engaging with internal stakeholders as change advocates.

Evidence is yet to appear consistently across disciplines about change capability which in practice would see organisations being deliberate about the communication skills and diverse expertise required to enact meaningful change.

Change capability is the capacity to support and maintain change with a readiness and adaptation to allow trust to build.

Extending the concepts of communication in mediated relationships on social media, Ling et al. (2022) found the deconstruction of hierarchical organisational systems as a risk mitigation intervention, that meant engagement needed to be understood as a collective behaviour which, enabled by technology, required a reflexive response. Notions of transparency and trust increased when considering interactive and emotional elements in designing communication strategies for public engagement (Zhang et al., 2023). Similarly, improving communication for clarity was essential to closing gaps in knowledge and understanding between stakeholders and scientists in climate change contexts (Pizzaro-Irizar et al., 2020).

Majee et al. (2016) highlighted misalignment preventing partnerships from achieving desired outcomes and focussed on the process for collaboration, which was echoed by Cook and Nation (2016). They found one-way communication strategies were the antithesis of a knowledge exchange approach required. Empowering disadvantaged communities to participate in the problem solving required to design their own futures. Public engagement became a lens through which to explore how communication plays a role in co-creation of cultural change (Fogg-Rogers et al., 2017). A genuine two-way approach to communication had greater impact on behaviour change when it included information shared by a variety of trusted sources (Maher and Murphet, 2020). Wilson (2019) found getting to the heart of the “why” through storytelling, improved the impact of change for community engagement. By taking a backstage approach, in managing online content, communities will co-create by initiating and moderating dialogue as equals (Li and Voida, 2024).

Interrelating is seeing engagement as multi-dimensional and relational. Notions of co-design and co-creation in some sectors, for example, health, business and education are limited in the change literature to date. Community development and social services sectors have opportunities to lead further research in this field.

Involvement Infrastructure refers to a need for genuine community engagement using frameworks, tools and models that involve stakeholders, local communities and organisational partners in the planning, funding and delivery of public projects (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016; Wagner et al., 2023).

Recognising the role of racialisation in asylum seeker communication is significant in valuing counter narratives (Twyford et al., 2022). These counter-accounts allowed hidden stories to come to the fore and gave a voice and platform to those silenced by structures and systems that perpetuate the dominant narrative. Kujula et al. (2022) warned against a lack of attention to the communicative factors that enabled or inhibited co-creational engagement, as posing a moral and ethical risk to organisations entering the “dark side of stakeholder engagement” (p. 1163). In breaking down hegemonic systems that perpetuated inequality, Villanueva (2022) found an intentional focus on communication to build advocacy and organising for social justice in urban communities, was required at all levels of influence. Wagner et al. (2023) found community buy-in was crucial to achieving social change in complex environments where sustainability required a deliberate and strategic approach to building trusted partnerships.

Looking at power dynamics affected by cultural minorities, Levy et al. (2025) highlighted how eWOM (electronic Word of Mouth) can become an effective tool for building social capital particularly in culturally diverse environments. Social capital refers to benefits individuals and organisations gain through social connections and networks of diverse people, that allow access to resources needed for a society to function effectively. These developments advance previous research by Gigliotti et al. (2019) that showed when organisations created space for authentic trust-building processes, employees are better prepared for change.

Notions of power and influence that maintain these formal structures and mechanisms, are largely missing from the literature. Researchers and practitioners could pay more attention to power structures that tether organisations, to encourage more innovative approaches to understanding change.

Becoming together was brought up in two ways: reflecting and transforming. Grant and Wolfram Cox (2017), in conversation with Linda Putnam, explored discourse in its many manifestations, as central to establishing and maintaining change in contemporary organisational settings. In virtual, digital and online spaces, communication and interaction reflects the increasingly important and contentious role social media plays in organisation and organising. Linda Putnam proposed “dialectical sensibility” as a means of addressing challenges and asked facilitators to find new ways to use discourse to interact and move forward in addressing societal problems.

In the context of community engagement Du and Chu (2022) offered guidance for understanding community-engaged information through informal behaviours that developed at the interstices of contact between community and researcher. A methodological framework employing a “community-engaged approach to study human information interactions” was premised as a co-design process to produce shared knowledge. For example, incorporating research design principles that present opportunities to explore different techniques where community members may be drawn to be researchers and researchers may be accepted into the community (p. 8).

Entertainment-education in the new media landscape extended performative approaches by requiring consideration of the entire transformative journey of an audience. Stimulating creative engagement requires storytelling, as the point of engagement, to encourage reflection on roles, responsibilities and priorities within community (Lutkenhaus, 2022). Chattoo and Feldman (2017) also found narrative a compelling source of social influence. An experimental research design examined shifts in audience engagement with global poverty. Using mixed message media and creating intentional collaboration between researchers, social-change communicators and storytellers, can help shape public engagement solutions to issues affecting community.

When communicating climate policy change and governance Mar et al. (2023) also highlight the need for intentional participatory dialogue to support learning and community. Theoretical advances in understanding inner-outer transformational processes will provide new guidance on the role of transformative spaces and how they can be complimented to support sustainable change. Climate communication researcher Kumpu (2022) also advocated creating conceptual spaces in which to reflect “as interlocutors” in defining the course and content of conversation. Similarly, environmental communication strategies, fostering deeper connection, were studied by Waters et al. (2024) as key to understanding the impact of information on behaviour change. While the promotion of deeper connection to place, and the stories about its features, created an “appetite for more information” this technique was not enough to inspire climate engagement action.

Becoming together is a collaborative transformation of identities, understandings and practices galvanising participants to pause and think about change.

In seeking to advance existing theoretical concepts, a context-bound conceptual approach to reimagining is presented in Table 1. Five major categories for understanding communication as engaging community for social change, are cross tabulated with three key aspects of networked public community engagement for social change (Yang and Taylor, 2021). Each sub-category provides a generic experience of the Yang and Taylor characteristics. Dark grey cells signify factors in the literature analysis verified by Yang and Taylor (2021), light grey demonstrates where the factors are somewhat verified and when there is no evidence of a factor, it is represented in white. The development of this table was inspired by Ketonen-Oksi and Vigren (2024).

Discourse matters in the evolution of communication for social change (Yang and Taylor, 2021). By integrating five new categories with existing theoretical frameworks we are attempting to extend understandings of community engagement practice. Yang and Taylor’s (2021) methodological approach reveals emerging patterns influenced by factors that are currently missing in the scholarship; emotional elements, deeper understanding of supporting structures for developing trusted relationships as foundation for change and a lack of clarity and focus on the nuances of stakeholder relationships. The five categories now address aspects of these missing factors in the above table and discussion.

In summary, our main findings are:

1. Despite growing awareness, actioning social media as dialogic engagement for fostering change success is underutilised across the disciplinary fields.

2. Emotion is the least visible category, regardless of the significant role self-reflection and creative engagement play in perceiving and responding to change.

3. Traditional organisational structures are not a good fit for contemporary complex change contexts. A need for innovation in communication design for engagement is urgent.

4. Engaging in simultaneously related interactions demands attention to culture and how the individual is relating to the collective.

Using dialogue strategically involves a focus on long-term relationships with participants and understanding what makes this work (Kent, 2022). Fostering deeper storytelling connections stimulates engagement by creating rendezvous spaces of intentional collaboration for finding solutions to issues facing community (Du and Chu, 2022; Grant and Wolfram Cox, 2017; Kent, 2022; Mar et al., 2023). By storytelling we are referring to stories people tell to make sense of the world. A story in contrast to a narrative (centring or about control), is more apt to be dispersive by unravelling consequences and asserting differences (Boje, 2008, p. 7). Nurturing dialogic capacities as reflective constitutive spaces (Kumpu, 2022), will encourage feelings of closeness, bring about restorying (that can be liberatory) and cultivate a sense of belonging to the overall experience (Catenaccio, 2021; Chattoo and Feldman, 2017; Loblay et al., 2023; Lutkenhaus, 2022; Sutherland, 2016).

Emotion permeates various domains of knowledge and layers of organisational structure, including institutional, individual, group and strategic levels (Santos de Souza and Chimenti, 2024) and yet acknowledgement and understanding of this is often obscure. Living stories are antenarrative (collective, unplotted, pre-narrative speculation). Changing in the moment. Becoming reinterpreted. Told differently in each situational context and just plain unstable (Boje, 2008, p. 54). Contemporary settings that provide platforms for new forms of organisation are confounding conventional thinking about societal relationships and what constitutes organisation, organising and change (Kent, 2022; Grant and Wolfram Cox, 2017). The tendency is to go outward. A more thorough investigation of individual change experiences is crucial. What makes inner experiences of change work? Not just for the future, even in the chaos of the present moment as versions continue to proliferate and emerge.

The communicative elements that support community engagement in change remain elusive. Meaningful communication is a vital framework when engaging community for social change. Dialogic engagement that informs strategy can shift abstract concepts into actional moments, challenge organisational stories and narratives, empower stakeholders, give voice to marginalised groups and unlock new potential to disrupt the status quo. Networked communities (Yang and Taylor, 2021) have a way of operating and connecting in very different ways to other organisational communities. As such, patterns of behaviour cannot be controlled or managed when focussing on capacity and capabilities for change. Fostering community as storytelling in action (Boje, 2020), where relationships and information continually flow, unfold and thrive over time, will provide deep understanding of what being, becoming and meaning is for participants.

Placing greater emphasis on the diversity of roles and responsibilities for participants involves paying more attention to cultural contexts. Opening spaces for a diversity of voices and recognising social capital as a highly valued factor to be carefully monitored, reduces risk for change. In this context, dialogic engagement redirects focus by uncovering ties that bind these meaningful relationships and the role cultural norms play in that process. Fostering true equity will require eliminating linguistic, cultural and accessibility barriers to effectively engage with marginalised voices. For example, highlighting communication, as a key strategic focus, in addressing physical health inequity for people living with mental illness challenges.

Embracing the unknown and looking for innovation are key. Change participants are encouraged to look beyond the horizon, to new interpretations and understandings, by carefully crafting spaces that cultivate feelings of closeness and bring belonging to living story experiences.

This integrated review suggests a gap in evidence for the relational elements that support simultaneous interactions in change contexts, leading to the following recommendations for practice and research:

Organisations working collaboratively could ensure fundamental networked communication practices, are embedded in efforts for energising people to come together and interact in ways that soften attitudes to vulnerabilities.

Practitioners could demonstrate heightened skill by integrating digital tools into simultaneously related interactions of what experiencing change means, as participants take topics in new directions.

Researchers could expand evidence gathering across disciplines, to draw attention to funders, policymakers and practitioners by incentivising collaborative and innovative ways to build trust. How could initiated engagements (Yang and Taylor, 2021) be understood as a mix of diverse cultural perspectives? How should we test known hierarchies and collaborative processes for bringing forth all participating voices? Given the diverse nature of 21st century social discourses, how competent is practice in relating to others (Kent, 2022, p. 85).

Social change is moving at a pace that risks the ability of scholars to adapt, unless more innovative ways are investigated using individual experiences as dialogue, to be encountered, held, inverted and co-created at any given time to inform change strategy making.

We are now curious to see what opportunities arise from investigation into understanding communication as actioning with caring inquiry and being in community, where it is critical to embrace uncertainty.

The authors acknowledge the valuable contribution of Professor Russell Roberts, principal supervisor of the PhD project, for his significant intellectual contribution, encouragement and ongoing support. Russell Roberts is Professor of Management and Leadership at Charles Sturt University with a focus on mental health.