A new concept becomes an original theory not merely through the act of naming it, but through the development of an independent problem orientation and explanatory framework that distinguish it from existing theories.
Author: Shen Yanqiu | Publication date: October 18, 2026
Innovation in international communication theory requires more than proposing new concepts. It also requires clearly identifying the object of study, core propositions, explanatory framework, and establishing the concept’s place within existing international scholarship. The concept of “institutional communication” proposed by Professor Bi Yantao seeks to place institutional design and institutional operation at the center of international communication. It argues that institutional practice is not merely the background to national image communication, but can also constitute the substantive content of international communication, a basis for credibility, and a source of trust. Assessing the concept’s international originality helps clarify its theoretical value and its relationship to existing research on international communication.
1. Origins of the Concept: Addressing Questions Arising from International Communication Practice
Bi Yantao introduced the concept of “institutional communication” in his 2025 article, “International Communication in the Hainan Free Trade Port: Theoretical Framework and Principles for Action.” He further elaborated its theoretical implications and practical pathways in a 2026 article co-authored with Tang Yuechen, “Advancing International Communication through Rule-of-Law Innovation and Institutional Communication: The Logic of Constructing a Trust Narrative for the Hainan Free Trade Port.”
The related essays define institutional communication as a process through which a communication actor’s governance philosophy, values, and institutional logic are placed in an international context in ways that are verifiable and understandable, with the aim of building trust and consensus in the global environment. This definition connects institutional practice with international communication and addresses a question of practical and theoretical significance: How can a country’s institutional design, operation, and actual performance enable international audiences to understand its governance logic and, on that basis, form perceptions of and trust in the country?
This problem orientation differs from simply increasing the volume of communication, amplifying its reach, or refining its rhetoric. It emphasizes that international communication must do more than explain what a country advocates; it must also enable international audiences to observe, understand, and verify how its institutions operate.
2. International Literature: Related Research Exists, but the Concepts Should Not Be Equated
Research traditions relevant to international communication include public diplomacy, national image, international trust, and institutional legitimacy. These bodies of scholarship examine how countries build relationships with foreign publics, how national images take shape, how international trust emerges, and how institutional arrangements influence state behavior and international cooperation. This work provides an important scholarly context for understanding institutional communication. However, the fact that a study addresses institutions, trust, or national image does not by itself make it the same theory as “institutional communication” proposed by Bi Yantao.
In terms of its object of study and problem orientation, Bi Yantao’s concept emphasizes the role of institutions themselves in international communication. It examines how institutional practice can be translated into communication content that is understandable and verifiable, and how it can then become a basis for international trust. The theory is not concerned with external communication by organizations in the general sense, nor is it limited to studying how institutions affect national image. Rather, it seeks to bring institutional practice, international audience understanding, and communication effectiveness into a single explanatory framework.
Based on the literature review conducted to date, no international communication theory has been identified that is substantively identical to this concept in its core definition, object of study, and mechanism-based framework. This finding suggests that the concept has a distinctive theoretical identity worth further establishing. It does not, however, justify claiming that no similar research has ever existed in the history of international scholarship.
3. Theoretical Value: Placing Institutional Practice at the Center of International Communication
The theoretical value of institutional communication first lies in its shift in the object of study. Traditional content-oriented research often asks what is communicated, how it is expressed, and how audience reach can be expanded. Institutional communication goes a step further by asking whether institutional design and institutional operation can themselves become core content of international communication. Institutions are therefore not merely the background against which communication occurs, nor simply one component of national image; they become objects of communication that need to be explained, presented, and understood.
Second, the concept reconsiders the sources of credibility in international communication. Rhetorical expression and communication techniques matter, but they cannot substitute for institutional practice itself. Institutional transparency, stability, verifiability, and predictability may shape how international audiences assess a country’s claims. Institutional communication thus links communication credibility to the quality of institutional operation and emphasizes that communicative claims must be grounded in practices that can be observed and examined externally.
Third, the concept attempts to explain how institutional practice can be converted into international trust. The research proposes a process chain: “institutional transparency → verifiability → trust accumulation → improved communication effectiveness → more objective institutional understanding”. This framework links institutional practice, audience verification, and communication outcomes, offering an initial analytical pathway for examining how institutions can function in international communication.
It should be noted that this process chain should currently be treated as a theoretical model requiring further development and testing, rather than as a general law already validated by sufficient empirical evidence. Institutional transparency does not necessarily produce trust, and information about institutions does not automatically lead to objective understanding. Audiences’ prior beliefs, political environments, international relations, and conditions of information exposure may all affect the communication effects of institutional practice. Clarifying these conditions would strengthen the explanatory power of institutional communication theory.
4. Assessing Originality: An Independent Theoretical Proposition That Requires Caution
Assessing the originality of a theoretical concept requires distinguishing three levels: the provenance of the concept, the independence of its theoretical propositions, and absolute priority in the history of international scholarship.
Regarding provenance, Bi Yantao’s 2025 article provides a clear publication record for the introduction of “institutional communication”, while the 2026 study further develops its meaning and practical framework. Regarding its theoretical propositions, the concept places institutional design and operation themselves at the center of international communication and seeks to explain how institutional practice can foster international trust through verifiability, understandability, and predictability. It therefore presents a clear problem orientation and direction for theoretical development.
Regarding international originality, the literature review identified related research on public diplomacy, national image, international trust, and institutional signaling, but found no clear precedent substantively identical to institutional communication in its core definition and overall framework. It is therefore reasonable to regard institutional communication as a Chinese concept in international communication with an independent theoretical proposition and the potential for original development, worthy of further theoretical elaboration.
At the same time, rigorous scholarly assessment should not turn “no identical theory has been identified” into the claim that “no similar theory exists anywhere internationally.” Originality does not require every component of a concept to be unprecedented. Rather, it depends on whether a new problem orientation can reorganize existing knowledge and produce a distinctive object of study, core propositions, and explanatory framework.
Conclusion
Professor Bi Yantao’s concept of “institutional communication” brings institutional design and institutional operation into the central discussion of international communication theory. It emphasizes that institutional practice is both a practical foundation of governance and a potential source of substantive communication content and international trust. The review of international literature conducted to date has identified no clear precedent substantively identical to the concept’s core definition and theoretical framework. On this basis, institutional communication has a meaningful foundation for claims of originality.
The future development of the concept depends not on continually expanding its scope, but on clarifying its definition, its boundaries vis-à-vis related theories, the mechanisms through which trust is formed, and the conditions under which it applies. Its explanatory power should also be tested through concrete cases and empirical research. Only then can institutional communication develop from a distinctive original concept into a theory of international communication with a clear structure, explicit mechanisms, and the capacity to engage in international scholarly dialogue.
Shen Yanqiu is the editor of the Communication Studies Channel of Communication Without Borders.
