TOWARDS A GLOBAL
CURRICULUM
A summary of literature concerning public relations
education, professionalism and globalisation
Report for the Global Alliance of Public Relations and
Communication Management
Citation:
Tench, R. and Deflagbe, D. (2008) ‘Towards a Global Curriculum: A summary of literature concerning public relations education, professionalism and globalisation’. Report for the Global Alliance of Public Relations and Communication Management, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Contact: [email protected]
1. Executive summary
Public relations (PR) education is responding to the challenges of the globalisation of communication and economies – but slowly and unevenly. Problems defining the field are multiplied when the different cultural perspectives on public relations itself come into play. Even within Europe the term has varying connotations reflecting cultural associations with ‘the public sphere’. Several scholars express concern that the lack of a central concept for PR is weakening its hold in the marketplace; others are worried that one model is so dominant it has inhibited wider discussion on how public relations really works in society. These debates in the literature reflect tensions between academics and between academics and practitioners and illustrate some of the problems facing the project of a global curriculum.
Nevertheless, there is extensive research in recent years which
demonstrates the willingness of academics to work across borders, to redefine practice in the light of cultural difference and to continue to develop theories that will offer the field a framework that encompasses both unity and diversity. The desire for a unified curriculum and the recognition of diverse approaches are not necessarily incompatible forces, but they will need diplomacy to reconcile.
However, the incentive is ensuring that education continues to play its crucial role in improving the professional standards of public relations, producing reflective and engaged practitioners and enhancing, rather than limiting, public relations’ important role in the changing global environment.
2. Contents
1. Executive summary ... 2
2. Contents ... 3
3. Introduction ... 4
3.1 Aims of the report ... 4
3.2 Aims of the research ... 4
3.3 Background ... 4
4. Background to global PR education ... 6
4.1 Role of education in establishing professions ... 7
4.2 Professionalism and PR Education... 8
5. Public relations education – the key debates ... 11
5.1 Is Public Relations a Social Science? ... 11
5.2 Main approaches to public relations theory ... 12
5.3 Trends and issues in PR education ... 15
6. Towards a Global Curriculum for Public Relations? ... 16
6.1 Culture and Public Relations Education ... 18
6.2 Uniformity vs diversity ... 20
7. Conclusions ... 23
7.1 Recommendations for action ... 24
Appendix 1: References ... 26
Appendix 2: Country Profiles - a sample ... 32
Appendix 3: Professional Bond (2006) curricula ... 43
3. Introduction
3.1 Aims of the report
To provide a summary of research undertaken into global public relations education
3.2 Aims of the research
To identify current issues in global public relations education To consider the feasibility of generating a global public relations
curriculum
3.3 Background
The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management (GAPR&CM) is a framework for collaboration with a mission to enhance the public relations profession and its practitioners throughout the world. As of July, 2003 there were forty (40) national and international associations’ members representing well over hundred thousand (100,000) practitioners from around the world. Current membership stands at 160,000 (www.globalpr.org, accessed January 2008).
The GAPR&CM provides initiatives to help member associations and their member practitioners to strengthen the influence of the public relations industry among countries around the world. For example, a key international standard was achieved by the GAPR&CM with the unanimous approval of a universal code of ethics that allowed for flexible application in different parts of the world without compromising the basic elements of such a code. The current project focuses on the value of public relations education to the development of the profession and on issues of culture which may affect the development of a global public relations curriculum.
According to Verwey (2000), the value of the contribution of public relations professionals to global integration emerges from the self-defined role of the public relations professional in building relations or integrating relationships between an
organisation and its publics. Developing a global curriculum for PR education is complex because of the different interpretations, cultures and competing schools of thought.
There are those who do not believe that a global education can work due to cultural differences and because public relations is practiced and taught within its cultural and national environment; others believe that global education requires deeper
understanding of cultural differences but that in today’s social and economic structures, it cannot be ignored.
This report summarises extensive reading undertaken as part of a PhD project and is intended for a wider, non-academic audience. It sets out the background to public relations education, with a summary of its development in a range of different countries; the importance of education to the establishment of any profession and PR in particular; the problems with definitions and their impact on the development of the field. It then explores the current schools of thought in public relations education and briefly
examines the main ideas around culture and diversity and looks at how they might affect the creation of a global public relations curriculum.
A wide range of literature was researched concerning the development of public relations, the sociology of professions and the role of education in professional
development, culture and globalisation and other related topics. In addition, secondary material was obtained from the Commission of Public Relations Education (CPRE) reports, the 1999 Port of Entry and the 2006 report The Professional Bond, and Global
Alliance materials.
Based on this material, the report sets out:
the background to public relations education, with a summary of its development in a range of different countries;
the importance of education to the establishment of any profession and PR in particular;
the problems with definitions and their impact on the development of the field
current schools of thought in public relations education. the main ideas around culture and diversity
issues concerning a global public relations curriculum general conclusions and recommendations.
4. Background to global PR education
The subject of public relations has been taught in US universities since the early twentieth century, when Edward Bernays established the first PR course in New York in 1923. He later wrote; “in 1937, we surveyed public relations training in America colleges and universities and… found that institutions of higher learning now offered a variety of courses on public relations and allied subjects” Bernays (1980). Verčič (2001) states that there are now more than three thousand university courses in public relations in the US. The first public relations (post graduate) degree in the UK started in 1988 at Stirling University and in 1989 Bournemouth University offered the first undergraduate degree in PR. PR is now prevalent in other European, Asian and African countries.
While there are many common factors in the national development of public relations, each country has its own specific conditions. For example, Cutlip et. al. (2000) suggest that PR in America began in the American Revolution while in England the Lord
Chancellor was described as the “keeper of the King’s conscience”. Sriramesh and Verčič (2003) surveyed countries where the PR landscapes are less explored and found a range of experiences. While the expansion of PR education across different countries has tended to follow models and curricula established by US universities, it is worth remembering that global education is not intended to reproduce one nation’s perception of public relations across the world, but to reflect cultural differences as the field
develops. For example, Chinese concepts like ‘quanxi’ and the traditional role of tribal spokesperson in parts of Africa (Nartey, 1988) offer alternative approaches to public relations’ development which may then affect the nature of the curriculum. Even in Europe, which has followed the US model in many ways, the central concept of ‘public relations’ is not shared across the continent. Verčič’s and van Ruler’s (2002) Bled Manifesto draws on a major Delphi study with participants from 25 European countries
which found with the term ‘public relations’ carried very different meanings in various languages, partly due to the different conceptualisation of ‘the public’ in Germanic culture and languages. The ‘public sphere’ is an important concept in European public relations, deriving from the seminal work of Jurgen Habermas (1989) and reflecting the different origins of PR in Europe, which has more emphasis on public service and public information than the commercially driven evolution of the field in the USA (L’Etang, 2004).
The origins of public relations – whether in commerce or government – in turn tend to influence the development of education in that state, as described in the attached survey of various countries’ professional organisations and approaches to public relations education (Appendix 2). It is not an exhaustive search of all nations represented in the
Global Alliance, and is based on preliminary reading for this project, but offers useful indicators to differences and similarities in the development of professional organisations and PR education in a range of countries. The pattern which emerges from this brief survey is that most of the former were founded in the post-war period, with exceptions where democracy (or, in the case of China, capitalism) was not established until later. Most early practitioners in the countries covered were originally journalists, a fact which influenced the content of early PR education. This largely consisted of technical training for many years, with a growth of theoretical and reflective approaches at undergraduate and post graduate levels in the 1990s. Some countries are still in the technical stage, with PR officers envisaged as little more than ‘errand boys’ (Deflagbe, 2004). Most have found a correlation between the development of under and post graduate courses and the status of the profession as a whole.
This link reflects the traditional view that education is one of the key elements in establishing a profession and it is this link between education and professionalism which is explored below.
4.1 Role of education in establishing professions
The claim to be a profession traditionally rests on certain precepts: esoteric knowledge – theoretical or technical – not available to the
general population
commitment to social values, such as health or justice
national organisation to set standards, control membership, liaise with wider society
extra-strong moral commitment to support professional values (Cooper, 2004, p61).
Professionalisation has been defined as the movement of any field towards some standards of educational preparation and competency. The term professionalisation indicates a direct attempt to (a) use education or training to improve the quality of
practice, (b) standardize professional responses, (c) better define a collection of persons as representing a field of endeavour, and (d) enhance communication within that field (Shanahan, Meehan, & Mogge (1994). Larson (1977) argues that ‘a successful project of professionalisation, one that comes close to attaining the goals of market monopoly, social status and work autonomy, must be able to combine certain structural elements’ (p49). These elements include the body of knowledge outlined earlier and the market for services, which is determined by a range of social and economic and cultural factors. She identifies a contradiction between the drive for exclusivity, the claim that only the professional can undertake the specified work and the social demand for accessibility to this knowledge. Since the late 70s, of course, the body of knowledge has become infinitely more available to non-professionals and educational barriers that would guarantee the elite nature of the profession have (in theory) been removed.
4.2 Professionalism and PR Education
.The issue of defining the field has an impact on practice and education, and also on issues concerning the professionalisation of public relations (Pieczka and L’Etang, 2001). Whether taking the trait or process approach to professionalism, jurisdiction and education emerge as key issues (ibid). L’Etang (2002) called education the “crucial plank in PR’s quest for professional status” and this view is shared by A Port of Entry (1999).
Heath (2001) describes the definitions as falling into four groups: a) aspect of media activity; b) organisational communication; c) function of management; and c) support of marketing. It is interesting to note that public relations education reflects these
groupings, as is explored further below. However, throughout its history there have been problems defining the field. Hutton (2001) believes that public relations has lost the battle for supremacy with marketing and is terminally threatened by its failure ‘to define itself and to develop sophisticated and progressive theory’. He also castigates the absence of a commonly-held central tenet or core concept, which he sees as managing strategic relationships, and identifies seven issues facing practitioners and scholars as a
result of the failure to ”define its intellectual and practical domain… to regain control of its own destiny”. Theory is thus placed at the heart of the struggle to define the field - both as a practice and an academic discipline.
Another problem for those seeking a shared understanding of public relations is that so many of the texts are US-based. This is a natural result of PR education having started in the US long before courses were established elsewhere. But research by Verčič and van Ruler (2001) showed that for European respondents the key concepts for public relations were ’communications’ and ‘relationships’ (the respondents refused to choose between these two, on the grounds they were too interrelated to separate). Four dimensions emerged as key roles for public relations: 1) managerial; 2) operational 3) reflective and 4) educational. The first two overlap with the familiar
managerial/technician debate to some extent but the last two are not covered and are worth expanding: educational PR aims to increase the communication competence of employees; reflective PR is described as the role of analysing ‘social values to adjust organisations standards and values of social responsibility’ and is aimed at influencing the dominant coalition.
Thus the apparently simple question ‘what is public relations?’ exposes some of the cultural differences that need to be considered when discussing global public relations. And if this occurs within a continent, how much greater are the variations of
interpretation across the globe?
The consequence for education is that some definitions have come to dominate the teaching of the subject to the exclusion of other perspectives, particularly in the US where the mass communication view tends to dominate the debate (Heath, 2001). The different approaches to education are explored below and there is an interesting tension between those like Hutton cited above who feel the need for a clearer, unifying approach to PR practice and theory and those like McKie (2001) who see the need for many approaches to the subject and urge wider involvement with a range of disciplines. However it is partly due to this lack of a central concept, and of the tendency to define PR by its behaviours rather than its theoretical underpinning (taking the trait rather than process approach to professionalism) that L’Etang and Pieczka (2001) conclude that public relations cannot be considered a profession. Nevertheless, the trait approach tends to dominate as can be seen from the 2000 Global Alliance of public relations associations, which declared its guiding principles of professionalism to be characterised
by: mastery of a particular intellectual skill through education and training; acceptance of duties to a broader society than merely one’s clients or employers; objectivity and high standards of conduct and performance (Theaker, 2008).
As early as the 1980s Walker (1986) noted the impact of PR education on the development of the field, despite the concentration on journalism in the curriculum. By the end of the century, Culbertson and Chen (1996) held the view that the education of public relations practitioners was vital to enhancing the field’s sophistication and stature. Heath (2001) believes practitioners and academics need to establish an international body of knowledge, standards for entry into the field, shared ethical values, professional competencies and a foundation of knowledge to provide practitioners with a reason to depend on universities for education, as in traditional professions such as law and medicine.
There has always been a tension between education as training for the profession and as an end in itself. Research (Chan, 2000 cited in Rawel, 2002) continues to show that practitioners want public relations education to be primarily of service to the industry. The focus for many academics, including Neff and Grunig, is also employability and the perspective of the profession: “research must address problems faced by working professionals and be directed toward improvement of the profession” (Grunig and Grunig, 2002, p.36). L’Etang and Pieczka (1996, p.11), on the other hand, argue that “public relations practitioners must be generalists and … [ develop] a habit of flexibility and a sensitivity to different ways of seeing the world”. Like Grunig, these authors stress the importance of education to the professionalisation of public relations, but they assert that the professional status of the practitioner will be enhanced by intellectual reflexivity, following a multidisciplinary approach, rather than relying on one particular model of public relations as the foundation for its education.
The next section looks more closely at the approaches to public relations which dominate the curriculum.
5. Public relations education – the key debates
From public relations literature, public relations scholars have developed three main perspectives: rhetorical, critical and systems theory, with new developments in
relationship theory and postmodernism. These perspectives will be explained further but first it is worth considering the debate about whether or not public relations is a science.
5.1 Is Public Relations a Social Science?
Bernays (1980) was of the opinion that “the practitioner is seen as a societal
technician, applying the findings of the social sciences to the problem at hand. And that is what education must prepare for.” This view has influenced the development of PR education, particularly in the US. Grunig and Hunt (1984) argued that “we believe the body of knowledge that is relevant to the public relations profession can be found in the social sciences.” Terry (1989) states that whilst public relations is emerging as a social science discipline, there must be a strong link between theorists and practitioners for advancement. Terry (1989) found that public relations looks to other disciplines for its theory base, in that the only exclusive theory of public relations is that of Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) models of public relations. He adds that public relations is slow to put into practice the theories of academics, and that despite the fact that the two-way symmetric model is the ideal form of public relations, it is estimated that only about fifteen percent (15%) of current practice operates at this level, though this may reflect on the theory as well as the practice.
Much of US public relations education started in communication departments, linked to journalism and there is criticism that this has hampered its development as an academic subject. Holtzhausen (1995), for example, states that despite the work of some eminent scholars, it is still not clear whether public relations is seen as a sub-domain of
communication science, or whether it is a domain of science in its own right. Botan (1989) saw public relations as an applied social science based in communication and thus as an applied communication science. He believed that a focus on skills
development had pre-empted a systematic approach to the development of public relations theory. In an analysis of two hundred and forty (240) communication
departments in the United States, Neff (1989) found that business schools offered only a single course in public relations with a limited focus and suggested that as public
relations became more complex it would shift away from journalism.
Public relations education in the UK has taken a different route, with many PR degrees located in business schools and offering a strong focus on strategic management rather than media relations (Tench and Fawkes, 2005). This research found that the location of a course profoundly affected its content, so that business school-based PR degrees had more management than media elements and vice-versa when the course was in a department of journalism or media school. Neither approach traditionally embodies current thinking in social science, though this is changing as the academic debate about the nature of public relations widens and deepens.
5.2 Main approaches to public relations theory
The key elements in current academic debate build on the longest-standing approach of systems theory, the ancient school of rhetoric and the newer approaches of critical theory and relationship management. It is important to the development of the field that educators, students – and practitioners – are aware that scholars use different – sometimes complementary, sometimes conflicting - theoretical perspectives to analyse and engage with public relations. The dominant ideas are summarised in the following table and outlined in more detail below.
School/approach Key proposals/framework Leading PR scholars
Systems theory Information is a quantity which is transferred between organisations and various publics, with different degrees of consequent change. PR practitioners manage these exchanges. Studying the systems through which information is transferred enables one to adjust and adapt.
Grunig, Cutlip, Dozier, Wilcox
Rhetoric Communication involves speech and symbols which can be analysed to
understand meanings – shared or otherwise. PR people use signs and symbols to
persuade and reflect client values.
Heath, Toth
Relationship theory
Public relations practitioners conduct complex internal and external relationships with key players. Personal relationship
Ledingham and Bruning, Jahansoozi
theory can be used to explain
professional/organisational relationships Critical Exposing the assumptions and value
judgements behind ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ theories, helps understand who benefits from not examining these issues. Many of the above PR theories are seen as uncritical of PR.
L’Etang, Pieczka, Weaver
Political Economy
Information is used by interest groups to protect their own position in society: the mechanisms of control – legal, corporate, economic, political and social can be studied to see whose interests are best served by the communication. PR is a resource for the powerful more often than not.
Moloney, Miller, Chomsky
Source: Fawkes, 2008
5.2.1 Systems theory
The communication model propounded by Grunig and Hunt (1984) divided public relations communications into one-way and two-way communication and into
asymmetrical and symmetrical communication. This role achieves its highest level in symmetric communication when the full range of negotiating and diplomatic skills is deployed to secure positive outcomes for all parties: “In the two-way symmetric model … practitioners serve as mediators between organisations and their publics. Their goal is mutual understanding between practitioners and their publics”.(p22). Systems theory approaches treat public relations as a subsystem which aids the integration of all the subsystems, with the function of public relations in close collaboration with top
management, although an obstacle to excellent public relations is the frequent exclusion of the public relations manger from “the dominant coalition.”
The dominance of Grunig’s theoretical approach, based in systems theory, is evident from the number of courses and texts (Verčič, 2001) which rely on it ‘not only because it offers a clear framework for analysis but also because it has been used to underpin ideas about the role and ethics of public relations practice (Pieczka and L’Etang, 2001). The Symmetric/Excellence Theory is accorded the status of a paradigm by Botan and Hazleton (2006) and there has been extensive research into the application of this theory through the Excellence Project (Grunig et al,1992).
5.2.2 Rhetorical Perspective
Rhetorical studies rely heavily on the work of Burke (1966, 1967 for example), who argued for the dialectic process, in which rival parties use symbolic exchanges to come to agreement about cultural structures, events and actions. Toth and Heath (1992) suggest that ‘rhetoric has to do with relationships - how they are shaped - typically between organisations and individuals. Sometimes these relationships are constructive based on fact, trust, and cooperation. Sometimes they are destructive, resulting in a clash of based interests and narrow perspectives’. Based on Burke’s work, Heath (1992) stated that rhetoric seeks to explain the dynamics among many factors: a situation that requires or allows a strategic response, a problem that arises from that situation, one or more audiences, messages, message source, images or opinions participants in the event have of the sources, channels and the opinion environment surrounding each statement. Rhetoric and the art of persuasion is widely studied in the US but it should be noted that rhetoric is rarely taught on UK public relations courses (Fawkes and Tench, 2004).
5.2.3 Critical Perspective
Heath (1992) says, ‘the purpose of the critical perspective is to be confrontational. (p53). Heath also refers to Burke’s (1966) discussion of this and the use of terministic screens, where language is used to shape perception, evaluation and behaviour, with the dominant forces in an organisation (or in this case, field of study) attempting to determine the perspectives of others. Many critical scholars (such as L’Etang, Pieczka) challenge the assumptions underlying systems theory. Holtzhausen (2002), for example, argues that public relations theory is positivist, based on the notion that a single truth can be determined through scientific rigour, and critiques PR academics’ reliance on Grunig’s management theories and excellence study, which she describes as “a metanarrative lacking in reflexivity”, a view shared by Cheney and Christensen (2001), who urge scholars to expand their conceptual framework.
5.2.4 Relationship management
Relationship management is emerging as one of the newer and powerful frameworks for considering public relations. It centres on the role of public relations professionals in negotiating a complex set of relationships inside and outside client/employer
mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship and communal relationship (Hon and Grunig, 1999). Unlike some of the organisation-centred
perspective of systems theory, it takes the standpoint of the publics (Leitch & Neislon, 2001). Jahansoozi (2006) suggests that this is partially due to cultural and technological shifts which have empowered publics and facilitated international dialogue and/or coalitions.
5.2.5 Postmodernism
While postmodernism has not made the same impact on public relations theory as relationship management theory, it has generated some new ideas and approaches. The post-modern approach holds that publics view organisations from a sense of their own individual reality, whereas much PR theory originates in concepts of the organisation. Ideas of power and the social construction of identity have relevance to public relations thinking. As Holtzhausen (2000) says “as a discipline that has far reaching effects on society, public relations needs to be understood and examined in a broader social, cultural and political context rather than in a narrowly defined organisational function” (p95).
5.3 Trends and issues in PR education
One of the academic debates which is emerging most strongly from recent literature concerns the re-framing of public relations as relationship management, deriving from Ledingham and Brunig (2000) but taken up by Heath (2001) and others. This is US-led but does not seem incompatible with the other main emerging trend – the desire to frame a European history and understanding of public relations, as summarised in the Bled Manifesto (2002). The consequences of moving the central concepts of
public relations from strategic management to relationships have not yet been assessed. Other issues which continue to challenge existing ideas are the feminist
approach to public relations (L.Grunig, for example), which looks at the role of gender in constructing public relations theory and women’s practical experience of working in the field; and the emergence of cultural histories of public relations from outside North America – not only from Europe (Verčič et al, 2000) but also from Asia (Sriramesh, 2002) and elsewhere. The experience of women and members of non-US cultures have been marginalised; many are calling for more diversity in the curriculum (ibid). This work is also relevant to the need to understand how global communication frameworks affect
global public relations – a renewed emphasis on cross-cultural communication and exchange is highlighted in recent literature and discussion (Verčič and Sriramesh, 2003).
The question of ethical public relations has moved to centre stage in recent years, led by calls from the CIPR (Gregory, 2004; Granatt, 2004 and Verčič, 2005). Yet an
increasingly vocal and resonant body of critics (such as Miller and Dinan, 2008; Stauber and Rampton, 2004; Chomsky, 2002; Herman and Chomsky, 1988), argue that public relations is propagandist in its promotion of corporate and business interests over societal values. Public relations texts do not offer very robust refutations to this charge. As Moloney (2006) points out, the topic is largely ignored and the subject is changed to the overall contribution of public relations to business success and hence, inexorably, to social benefit.
Having surveyed some of the most influential approaches to PR theory and education, the question arises: given the above approaches, is a universal curriculum possible?
6. Towards a Global Curriculum for Public
Relations?
The changing global economy presents a fundamental challenge to public relations’ theoretical and pedagogical priorities. Anderson (1989) distinguished between
international and global public relations as follows: “international public relations
practitioners very often implement distinctive programmes in multiple markets …. Global public relations superimpose an overall perspective on a programme executed in two or more national markets, recognizing the similarities among audiences while necessary adapting to regional differences. It connotes a planning attitude as much as a
geographic reach and flexibility”. Sriramesh (2003) suggests that “given the extent of globalisation that has occurred especially in the past ten years, a majority of public relations practice in the twenty-first 21st Century has become and will continue to
become multinational and multi-cultural in nature.”
The rapid globalisation particularly in information technology in the last two decades has become one of the salient issues in the new millennium (Brown, 1999). The Curriculum Development Council (1999) asserted that education inevitably should be responsive to the trends of globalisation because it is a major concern of policy makers. Acosta-Alzuru (2003) is of the view that the international experience will not only
development, but also will add to students’ understanding of their own identity. She states that “few students that have traveled abroad, many have never even been outside their own state, and the majority is only aware of those regions in which the US foreign policy has interest.” So, in the context of an increasingly global world expanding international exposure has the potential to offer significant educational benefits to students, while at the same time providing some comparative advantages in the workplace and the profession as a whole (J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig, 2002).
But this simply shows that students (particularly from the US) need to learn more about other cultures. The issue of what might be taught in a global PR course still needs to be addressed. Grunig et al (1995) thought that adapting a professional global PR education to regional differences and using generic components that will work normatively in most if not all cultures and political systems of the world is what is needed. There is however a danger here that the excellence model will simply be exported globally with minor variations to reflect regional differences. Critical scholars (L’Etang, Holtzhausen for example) would urge greater reflection on the assumptions underpinning this model and others (Verčič, van Ruler, Sriramesh) have called for a more public-centred conceptualisation of global public relations.
There has been national research into the requirements of the public relations curriculum. For example, the US Commission for Public Relations Education (CPRE)’s 2006 report The Professional Bond, outlined the desirable elements of undergraduate
minor and major degrees in public relations and for master’s level study (see Appendix 3 for details). About the direction of the curriculum, they commented that “the
Commission’s research suggests that graduate education should move toward understanding business, management and public relations as strategic management functions”, reflecting older US debates about the lack of management education in PR degrees.
These CPRE priorities (writing, problem solving, strategic thinking, for example) were echoed by UK employers and academics (Tench and Fawkes, 2005) though there were discrepancies between the respondents on the value of theory. Unlike the US, however, many PR degrees are taught in business schools and this research showed significant differences between PR courses taught in media and business schools. It is also worth remembering that US and UK first degrees carry different weight and that a global curriculum cannot be built on the universalisation of US norms.
The emergence of relationship management (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000) as a central concept of public relations on both sides of the Atlantic suggests a potential for consensus, though the interpretation may vary between relationships as an
organisational function (the US approach) and the European findings reported in the
Bled Manifesto (2002) which linked relationships inextricably with communication. The
latter report also expressed concern that “public relations used to be studied as a
phenomenon in society but practice and education are more interested in public relations as an instrument for the benefit of an organisation” (p13). These are important
philosophical debates, which are explored further below and the resolution – or at least widespread recognition – of which are vital to developing a curriculum for professional education in PR.
Public relations has several professional bodies around the world that seek to develop its members, and the Global Alliance Communication Management is one of the largest organisations to spearhead this. Sallott and DeSanto (2003) recommend four books for teaching international public relations courses: Culbertson and Chen, (1996); Moss and DeSanto, (2002); Sriramesh and Verčič, (2003), Tilson and Alozie, (2004). Since 2000 increasing numbers of journal articles have outlined cultural differences by countries, though only two have addressed the actual teaching of international public relations. Motion, Leitch and Cliffe (2003) argue that public relations education has been an adjunct to the growth in research and scholarship in Australian and New Zealand journals, including the Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, the Australian Journal of Communication, and Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy. They describe public relations theory development in Australia and New Zealand as currently transiting from “the predominant systems approach to rhetorical, critical and poststructuralist approaches.”
6.1 Culture and Public Relations Education
This research has already demonstrated the impact of cultural difference on PR education. It is worth highlighting as these differences are not always visible in the highly influential US –based core texts that form the basis of many curricula around the world. There is a danger, referred to above, that the dominance of systems theory and the excellence project identified by Verčič et al (2001) could be reproduced in creating a global curriculum. This is not to disrespect either the value or the pioneering nature of much US PR education, simply to make space for other voices. Before drawing any
conclusions about the possibility of a global curriculum, the issue of culture, multicultural communication and public relations should be, briefly, addressed.
While there is no definition of culture that is agreed upon by social scientists,
according to Morey & Luthans (1985), anthropologists do agree on certain attributes of culture namely (1) culture is learned, (2) it is trans-generational and cumulative in its development, (3) it is symbolic, (4) patterned, organized and integrated, (5) and adaptive. Culture is described as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another’ (Hofstede, 1991). In addition, people from different cultures differ in terms of their broader values, as their culture is an integrated mix of symbols, rituals, values, [and] heroes that vary from one culture to another, (Hofstede, 1991). At the same time, when communication processes between people of different cultures occur, each culture affects the process, which starts an intercultural communication process (Hall, 1959, 1976). In order to be effective, intercultural communication requires an understanding of the knowledge system, beliefs, values, customs and behaviours of one’s culture as well as other people’s cultures. However, elements such as linguistics, culture, physics, perceptions, experiments, nonverbal cues, and emotions may become barriers to effective intercultural
communication (Bell, 1992). Hofstede (1984) has proposed one of the most popular definitions of culture: “Culture is a mental programming: it is that part of our conditioning that we share with other members of our nation, region or group but not with members of other nations, regions or groups.” He also (1991) identified five dimensions of national cultures, which have proved extremely influential. These are: power distance (how power is distributed in society); individualism/collectivism (self-centred versus community-centred values); masculinity/femininity (e.g. competitive, achieving values versus caring, consensus values); high/low uncertainty avoidance (the degree to which a society feels itself at risk and how it minimises this perception) and long/short term considerations (whether society focuses on generational change or immediate results).
Sriramesh (2000) has linked these cultural syndromes to the challenges of
international public relations, concerned that the lack of study of the impact of culture on public relations was limiting the development of the discipline. Echoing the need to study cross-cultural metrics in public relations, Vasquez and Taylor (2000) demonstrated the link between collectivism and using one-way and two-way practice models, Taylor (2000a) applied selected cross-cultural metrics to the 1999 Coca-Cola crises in Belgium,
finding uncertainty avoidance and power distance to have had a significant impact on countries’ responses. Huang (2001) provided an illustration of barriers to cross-cultural public relations efforts, determining that the four dimensions of organisation-public relationships which Grunig and Huang (2000) defined as trust, control, mutuality, relationship satisfaction, and relationship commitment were inadequate to address Eastern cultural dynamics.
As international PR has taken the lead as the fastest area in PR, the need to
recognise and deal with the implications of cultural differences has been emphasised by scholars and practitioners (Botan, 1992; Morley, 1998 and Pavlik, 1987). Reed (1989) for example urged practitioners to be “cultural savvy”. Sriramesh and Verčič (2001) argue that the true advancement of any body of knowledge will occur when studies go beyond describing the public relations practices of a specific country and attempt to link public relations activities with environmental variables external to an organisation. Culbertson and Chen (1996) proposed a comparative approach to studying international public relations. “First, comparative public relations involves a search for both similarities and differences between the practice in one or more countries and that in other
venues…Second, international public relations focuses on the practice of public relations in an international or cross-cultural context”. An appreciation and understanding of cultural differences (intercultural competence) would thus foster successful and satisfying performance in international and global public relations.
6.2 Uniformity vs diversity
While some aspects of globalisation imply convergence, with shared views of
economy, democracy and other social values, there is also the dimension of diversity to consider. The value of diversity is not only recognised by multicultural countries via diversity polices but similarly by organisational management, especially in public relations practice. For example, diversity is one characteristic, among others, that has been identified to contribute to the organisational effectiveness of public relations. According to J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (2003), one of the elements that bring excellence into communication can be achieved if public relations departments become more diverse. Applying the “principle of requisite variety” to public relations, they have called attention to how ‘organizations need to have as much variety – diversity among their employees as there is in their environment to be able to interact effectively with that environment’. The issue of diversity variety and public relations has also been studied by
Hon and Brunner (2000) who substantiate its validity within organizations as their participants ‘explained and provided examples of how diversity plays a key role in
communicating with multicultural audiences, enhancing the organization’s image, serving customers, and recruiting the best employees and talent’.
Sriramesh (2002) argues that even though the US is widely recognised as the leader in providing the most comprehensive public relations education, multiculturalism is not much prevalent in the US. American and British professional communication
associations are aware of the diversity of their populations and subsequently of how this should be reflected in the public relations profession. In Britain, Gregory (2005) has noted that ‘the overall composition of the public relations workforce is predominantly middleclass, white and female’. In America, minorities working in public relations have been studied and surveyed, revealing barriers. In fact, all the studies agree on how minorities are underrepresented, discriminated against, stereotyped and underpaid, reaffirming the existence of stereotyping based on colour, race and culture, and
corroborating the existence of pigeonholing through the practice of having practitioners working on the same race/ethnic audience (Zerbinos & Clanton, 1993).
However, diversity is not just about talking to the various populations engaging with an organisation, it is also about the distribution of power in society. Pointing out the effects of globalisation on international public relations, Heath (2001) notes that: “A few years ago, the key question before most persons who thought about international public relations was whether an organization should try to hire and train people who were conversant with people of various countries or whether the better strategy was to use agencies in those countries. Today, the more compelling issue is whether a global organization (business, non-profit, or governmental) can meet or exceed the
expectations of a Babel of voices and cultures without losing its identity by trying to be everything to all markets and publics” (p625).
Grunig et al (1995) in their research into public relations in international settings, indicated how the figure of a “cultural interpreter” could “facilitate dialogue and
understanding between organizations and public from different cultures”. Furthermore, Plowman, Briggs & Huang (2001) underline how differences, rather than similarities, can form the basis of a mutually beneficial solution. Obviously, in a multicultural environment, the differences are increased thus opportunities for mutual gain are also increased. A theoretical framework for global public relations and practice, developed by Sriramesh
and Verčič (2003), explores the relationship between organisational environments and their public relations practices. They have identified factors such as a country’s
infrastructure, media environment, and societal culture, and variables such as a nation’s political system, its level of economic development, and the level of activism to study and understand public relations practice in a specific country.
Finally, Sriramesh (2003) observed that domestic public relations does not exist anymore because “in the new millennium, every public relations professional must have a multicultural and global perspective in order to be effective, and such an outlook should not be considered the domain only of international public relations specialists anymore”.
So how can education assist in this transition? According to Cheng (2000) the main concern is how to maximise the positive effects but minimise negative impacts of
globalisation, in educational reform for national and local development. As the profession responds to change, practitioners need to transform themselves and acquire new
knowledge and skills to meet the challenges of globalisation. According to Verwey (2000), successful societal integration by communication professionals will depend on the range of leadership demonstrated from a macro-level of interaction with society, to a more micro-level of individual stakeholders. “As more and more corporations around the world begin to rely on public relations professionals to guide them through the complex issues they face in an increasingly global marketplace, those professionals must have expertise in strategic and analytical skills as well as tactical tools.”
A global curriculum, then, should be based on investigation of the external
environment, developed in partnership with industry, and other relevant bodies, which will be continually amended to the changing needs of the environment
(http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm). This is to provide students with the competencies needed in present day practice and in years to come, in line with the definition of globalisation as applied to higher education by Singh et al.(2001), as a dynamic, changing dimension of curricula, that is expressed through the insertion of topics, materials and activities into courses, so that the student has the opportunity to gain a global perspective of one or more areas of the subject matter. For example, professional public relations bodies internationally have established ethics codes in an attempt to regulate members’ ethical behaviour, Day et. al. (2001) state that, “As the practice of public relations faces the 21st century, a number of significant ethical issues
need to be addressed. These include the complex nature of the truth, the role of public relations within a society and the special problems of public relations ethics in
intercultural context”.
The matrix of professional competences created by the Global Alliance working party on professional credentials offers one model that could form the basis of a global curriculum (available from their website, www.globalpr.org). Another is offered by the education and training framework developed by Fawkes (2005) for the UK Chartered Institute of Public Relations (Appendix 4) which incorporates all the practice and theory taught in UK and other universities together with developments in theory from
undergraduate to postgraduate levels and a full range of practice from the most junior to senior positions. It encompasses far more material than could be taught on any one course or, possibly, practiced in one lifetime, but does reflect the breadth of the field. There is scope for assimilating content from around the world to reflect more accurately the global nature of public relations education.
7. Conclusions
The literature surveyed above cannot hope to be comprehensive. There is new work being conducted within countries that are just developing their own theory and practice of PR and a range of comparative analyses of PR in different cultures. Every journal and conference throws up new insights and connections. But from the sample survey above, a number of key points emerge:
Issues of definition have an impact on both the practice and theory of public relations and may allow other fields to appropriate PR concepts and functions
Cultural differences reveal varying associations and interpretations of the term public relations, often reflecting the different origins of PR in different countries
The need for shared concepts is important for developing a coherent ‘body of knowledge’ as well as enhancing jurisdiction
Education plays a crucial part in the development of any profession and is already impacting on the field of public relations in many countries
The historical development and dominance of US PR education should not be allowed to inhibit the development of other cultures’ understanding of PR
There is a tension between the desire for shared concepts and the search for a unified perspective; uniformity is not necessary for the creation of global PR and may limit the conceptualisation of the field
As all communication and much business now operates globally, PR educators must reflect these changes and tensions in their curricula to ensure the profession moves with the times
A matrix of core curricula or a wider ‘map’ of current directions in public relations education could provide the focus for such debate and
development.
7.1 Recommendations for action
Having considered the literature surveyed above and drawn certain conclusions, this report makes the following recommendations, not to conclude the debate but to continue it, and to ensure that each country and culture has an opportunity to contribute their own experience to the global discussion about PR education.
1. PR educators in member associations are urged to integrate cultural awareness into curricula where they have not already done so: this can be achieved primarily by teaching cultural theory, including how it is formed and sustained both domestically, internationally and globally. Some (Anglophone) member nations may wish to urge greater language study in their institutions.
2. Member associations should be encouraged to debate the tensions between the desire for unity and the need for diversity. More concretely, each member association’s concept of public relations in its own country should be seen as potentially offering valuable insight into the global development of the field.
3. Curricula should be designed, wherever necessary, to reflect the range of theoretical approaches to public relations, allowing students to compare and contrast the different perspectives.
4. The research projects conducted in the US, UK and Europe to discover employer and academic priorities should be repeated in all member associations.
5. Following which research, a conference representing PR educators and professional organisations should be organised by the Global Alliance, to facilitate the debate in person that has so far been conducted in print. 6. Such discourse could then be incorporated into a matrix or ‘map’
reflecting the diversity and richness of public relations but built on shared core values.
This research has probably raised more issues than it has settled. For example, the value of more established theory and educators is set against the danger of stifling emerging points of view. Plus, the problems of agreeing on the core concepts of what public relations is – and the effect of this lacuna on practice – make the task of agreeing
a global curriculum daunting. But for PR to develop and grow as a global profession it must invest in its own education. Moreover, the above recommendations demand a certain level of urgency - the world is not going to wait for us to make up our minds. To conclude on a positive note, however, the literature suggests that, if public relations scholars and practitioners are willing, the scope for building new bridges, and restoring old ones, now, is unprecedented.
ENDS Citation: Tench, R. and Deflagbe, D. (2008) ‘Towards a Global Curriculum: A summary of literature concerning public relations education, professionalism and globalisation’. Report for the Global Alliance of Public Relations and Communication Management, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Contact: [email protected]
Appendix 1: References
Acosta-Alzuru, C. (2003). Teaching International Public Relations in the U.S. In Sallot, L. & De Santo, B. (Eds.) Learning to Teach: What you need to know to develop a successful career as a public relations educator, (3rd Ed.), 305-314.
Anderson, G. (1989) A global look at public relations. In B. Cantor ed., Experts in action: Inside public relations (2nd ed., pp. 412-422). New York: Longman
Bernays, E.L. (1980) Gaining professional status for public relations, Public Relations Quarterly, 25(2), 20.
Bell, Q., (1992) Evaluating PR in Institute for Public Relations Handbook, 21-22, London Kogan Page
Botan, C.H. and Hazleton, V., (2006) (eds) Public Relations Theory II, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahweh, NJ
Botan, C.H., ‘Theory development in public relations’ in Botan, C.H. and Hazleton, V., (1989) (eds) Public Relations Theory I, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahweh, NJ
Botan, C. (1992) International Public Relations: Critique and reformulation. Public Relations review, 18, 149-159
Brown, (1999). Refs to follow
Burke, K. (1966) Language as symbolic action, Berkeley, University of California Press Burke, K (1969) A rhetoric of motives, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press
Chan, G. (2000) “Priorities old and new, for the research of public relations practice in the UK and their implications for academic debate internal paper”, cited in Rawel, A. “How far do professional associations influence the direction of public relations education?” in Journal of Communication Management, 2002, Vol 7, No 1, pp 71-78
Cheney G., and Christiansen, L.T., (2001), ‘Public Relations as Contested Terrain: A Critical Response’ in Heath (2001) op cit
Chomsky, N. (2002) Media Control, Seven Stories Press, New York Cheng (2000) Refs to follow
CPRE (2006) ‘The Professional Bond.’ Public Relations Society of America. New York.
CPRE (1999) ‘Public Relations Education for the 21st century: A port of entry.’ Public Relations Society of America. New York.
Culbertson, H. M. and Chen, N. (1996) International public relations: A comparative analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H., and Broom, G.M. (2000) Effective Public Relations (8th ed), Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall
Day K.D., Dong, Q., and Robins, C., (2001) Public relations ethics: an overview and discussion of issues for the 21st century in Heath (ed) op cit
Daflagbe D., (2004), How The Internet Is Modifying The Day-To-Day Practice of Public Relations (PR) In Ghana, (unpublished MA dissertation)
Department of Trade and Industry/Institute of Public Relations report (2003) Unlocking the Potential of Public Relations: Developing Best Practice
Cooper, D.E. (2004) Ethics for Professionals in a multicultural world, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Farinelli (1990) Refs to follow
Fawkes, J. (2008), ‘What is Public Relations’ in Theaker, A. The Public Relations Handbook, Routledge, London
Fawkes, J. (2007) ‘Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach’ in Journal of Communication Management, Vol 11 4
Fawkes, J. (2005) Mapping Public Relations: a research report to CIPR, November (unpublished) Fawkes, J. and , Tench, R., ‘Does employer resistance to theory threaten the future of public relations? A consideration of research findings, comparing UK practitioner, academic and alumni attitudes to public relations education’, July 2004, 11th International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia
Ferreira, E.M. (2003) Vocationally-oriented public relations education in globalised contexts: an analysis of technikon-level public relations education. Johannesburg: RAU. (Dissertation - D.Litt. et Phil.) (Provisional draft).
Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communications Management, (2002) Global Protocol on Public Relations Protocol accessed from
http://www.globalpr.org/knowledge/ethics/protocol.asp October, 2005
Granatt, M., (2004) When the Spinning Has to Stop, 2004 Nally Memorial Lecture accessed from
http://www.cipr.org.uk/News/Newsrameset.htm October 2005
Gregory, A., (2004) Powerful PR: a force for the future, Speech to IPR AGM, November, accessed from http://www.cipr.org.uk/News/Newsrameset.htm
Grunig, J. E., Dozier, D. M., Ehling, W.P., Grunig, L.A., Repper, F.C, and White, J. (eds) (1992), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984) Managing Public Relations, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2002). Implications of the IABC Excellence Study for PR Education. Journal of Communication Management, 7(1), 34-42.
Grunig, J.E., Grunig, L.A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y.H. and Lyra, A. (1995) Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 7, pp.163-186. Grunig, J.E., and Huang, Y., (2000) From organisation effectiveness to relationship indicators: antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In Ledingham and Bruning (op cit)
Grunig, J.E., and L.A. Grunig (2003) Refs to follow
Habermas, J., (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, MIT Press, Mass (original publ. 1962, cited in Moloney (2006) op cit.
Hall, 1959, 1976 Refs to follow
Heath, R.L. (ed.) (2001) The Handbook of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Heath, R.L. (1992) Critical Perspectives in Public Relations, in Toth and Heath
Hofstede, G.H., (1991) Cultures and organizations, McGraw-Hill, NY.
Hofstede, G., (1984) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values, Beverley Hills, Sage
Herman, E.S. and Chomsky, N., (1988) Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media, New York, Pantheon Books
Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations, Journal of Public Relations Research, 12.1, pp 93-114
Hutton, J. G. (1999) “The Definition, Dimensions and Domain of Public Relations”, in Public Relations Review, Vol 25, No 2, pp199-214
Hutton, J. G. (2001) “Defining the Relationship between Public Relations and Marketing”, in Heath, R. L (ed), Handbook of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Holtzhausen D., (2002), ‘Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations’ Public Relations Review 28 251-264; Holtzhausen (1995), Refs to follow
Hon L. C., and Grunig, J.E. (1999) Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations (online – http://www.instituteforpr.com)
Huang, Y., (2001b) OPRA – a cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-publics relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research 13(1), 61-90
J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (2003), Hon L. and Brunner (2000) Refs to follow Kern-Foxworth, M. (1989); Refs to follow
Jahansoozi J., (2006) ‘Relationship, Transparency and Evaluation: the implications for public relations’ in L’Etang and Piecszka (eds) op cit
Kaupa and Allen (1982), Refs to follow
Larson, M. S., (1977) The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis, Berkeley, University of California Press
Leitch S., and Neislon, D., (2001) Bringing publics into public relations: new theoretical frameworks for practice in Heath (ed) op cit
L’Etang, J. (2000) Grierson and the public relations industry in Britain. In Izod, J & Kilborn, R. with Hibberd, M (eds). From Grierson to the docu-soap: breaking the boundaries. Luton: University of Luton Press, pp.83-94.
L’Etang, J. (2002) “Public relations education in Britain: A review at the outset of the millennium and thoughts for a different research agenda,” in Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 No 1, pp 43-53
L’Etang, J. & Pieczka, M. (Ed) (1996) Critical perspective in public relations. London, International Thomson Business Press.
L’Etang, J. (2004) Public Relations in Britain: a history of professional practice in the 20th century. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
L’Etang, J. & Pieczka, M. (eds) (2006) Public Relations, Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum
Ledingham, J.A., and Bruning, S.D., (2000) Public Relations as Relationship Management, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
McKie, D. (2001) Updating Public Relations: ‘New Science’ Research Paradigms and Uneven Developments, in Heath, (2001) op cit pp 75-91
Miller D. E., and Dinan, W., (2008) A century of Spin: how public relations became the cutting edge of corporate power, Pluto Press, London
Moloney, K (2006) Rethinking public relations: spin and substance, London, Routledge Moss, D. and DeSanto, B. (eds.) (2001) Public relations cases: International perspectives, Routledge, London and New York.
Motion, Leitch and Cliffe (2003) Refs to follow Morey & Luthans (1985) Refs to follow
Morley, M., (1998 ) How to manage your global reputation: a guide to the dynamics of international public relations, London, Macmillan
Nartey (1988) refs to follow
Neff, B. (1989) The emerging theoretical perspectives in PR: An opportunity for communication departments in Botan and Hazleton (op cit)
Pieczka, M. and L’Etang, J. (2001) Public Relations and the Question of Professionalism, in Heath, R.L (ed), op cit pp 223 -235
Pavlik, J.V. (1987) Public relations: what research tells us, Newbury Park CA, Sage
Plowman, K.D., Briggs, W.G., & Huang Y-H., (2001) Public Relations and Conflict Resolution, in Heath (ed) op cit
Sallot, L. & De Santo, B. (Eds.) Learning to Teach: What you need to know to develop a successful career as a public relations educator, (3
rd
Ed.), 305-314. Shanahan, Meehan, & Mogge (1994). Refs to follow
Singh et al.(2001), Refs to follow
Sriramesh, K. (2002). “The dire need for multiculturalism in public relation education: An Asian perspective, ” Journal of Communication Management, 7 (1), pp. 54–70.
Sriramesh K., (2000) ‘A framework for understanding and conducting international public relations, paper presented at the International Public Relations Symposium, Lake Bled, Slovenia Sriramesh, K., and Verčič, D. (2003) The Global Public Relations Handbook: theory, research and practice. NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stauber, J. and Rampton, S. (2004) Toxic Sludge is Good For You, London, Robinson Taylor, M. (2000a) Towards a public relations approach to nation building, Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (2), 178-210
Treece & Kleen, (1997). Refs to follow
Tench, R. and Fawkes, J. (2005) Mind the gap – exploring attitudes to PR education between academics and employers, Alan Rawel Education Public Relations Conference, University of Lincoln, 21st March 2005
Terry, K.E. (1989) ‘Educator and Practitioner Differences on the role of theory in public relations’. In Botan and Hazleton (op cit)
Theaker, A. (2008) The Public Relations Handbook, 3rd Edn, Routledge, London
Tilson D. J., and Alozie, E.C.,(2004) Toward the common good : perspectives in international public relations, Boston MA, Allyn and Bacon
Toth, E. L., and Heath, R. L. (eds) (1992) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Treece & Kleen, 1997).
Vasquez G.M. and Taylor M., (2000) What cultural values influence American practitioners? Public Relations Review, 25(4), 433-449
Van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., Buetschi, G., Flodin, B., (2000) European Body of Knowledge on Public Relations/ Communications Management Report of the Delphi Research Project 2000, Ghent/Ljubljana. European Association for Public Relations Education and Research
Van Ruler, B. and Vercic, D., (2002) The Bled Manifesto, Report for BledCom, the 9th International Public Relations Symposium in Bled, Slovenia
Verčič. D. (2000). The European body of knowledge. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 341-354.
Verčič, D., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig J. E. (1996). Global and specific principles of public relations: evidence from Slovenia. In H. M. Culbertson & N. Chen (Eds.) International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 31-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Verčič. D., van Ruler, Bütschi, G., & Flodin, B. (2001) On the definition of public relations: A European view. Public Relations Review, 27, 373-387.
Verwey, S. (2000). Public relations: a new professionalism for a new millennium? Communicare, 19(2):51-68, December.
Vercic, D., (2005) Public Relations is the Champion of Democracy and Guardian of Common Sense, Behind the Spin, accessed from
http://publicsphere.typepad.com/behindthespin/current_affairs/index.html October 2005 (article based on speech to CIPR AGM)
Walker (1986) refs to follow
Zerbinos E., & Clanton, G.A. (1993) ‘Minority practitioners: career influences, job satisfaction and discrimination’, Public Relations Review 19 (1), 75-91
Appendix 2: Country Profiles - a sample
The following is not an exhaustive list of member states or associations but a sample from different continents to indicate the range and variety of PR education, with a brief history of the development of the field or the professional organisation to indicate the relationship between the two. It is based on preliminary reading and is merely indicative in content. For further, more current, details on the status of PR in a range of countries, see the Global Alliance website
http://www.globalpr.org/knowledge/landscapes.asp.
Europe
United Kingdom
According to L’Etang (1996, 2004) the origins of British PR lie in the public rather than private sector: during and after the 2nd world war, the number of PR consultants
appointed in government departments increased greatly to enable the handling of information and intelligence, propaganda and psychological warfare and persuasion and public relations. The UK professional body, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has been involved in education since its inception, though these were closer to training than academic courses (L’Etang, 1999). PR education in Britain in the past ten years has seen an expansion in public relations courses, often influenced by the location of the course in either a business or media school. Tench and Fawkes (2004) suggest there are two types of courses: a business school curriculum and a media school curriculum. Most PR education, Rawel (2002) argues, has moved from technical training in skills required by public relations practitioners, embodied in the Public
Relations Education Trust (PRET) Matrix to a broader, more academic approach. While most PR educators have practitioner backgrounds, many have over a decade of
teaching and research experience. However, according to Tench and Fawkes (2004) “the pressure on the post-1992 sector to manage large cohorts and prioritise teaching over research”, has left gap in UK research into PR.
The Netherlands
Van Ruler (1998) argues that the rebuilding of the Dutch society after the Second World War, involved the promotion business and social goods, although society had a new, powerful repugnance towards propaganda. In 1945, the first professional
association to ease the exchange of knowledge between journalists and PR officers representing government, businesses and agencies was established, leading to the Association for Public Contact, later renamed the Association for Public Relations in the Netherlands, and now the Dutch Association of Communication (van Ruler, 1998).
The first course in PR in the Netherlands was in 1940 and this was offered as optional in Universities under “mass communication” and “journalism” (van Ruler and Verčič, 2003). Current PR education in the Netherlands is very well developed, with about thirty (30) full Bachelor of Arts (BA) programmes in organisational communication or communication management (van Ruler and Verčič, 2003). They further state that all thirteen (13) research universities offer BA streams in the area of organisational
communication or communication management. According the Ruler and Verčič (2003) masters level has not been fully developed although there are several universities who are working on developing Masters Courses. The Netherlands School of Communication Research (NESCoR) offers a Doctorate in Philosophy (PhD) programme in
communication science according to van Ruler and Verčič (2003)
France
According to Walter (1995) the communicational paradigm in France that
emerged during the early eighties was the “Communicational Director model” due to the emergence of the concept of corporate image, management requirements, institutional advertising and that of consultancy agencies in “overall communications”. The term PR is rarely used even though it is popular in consultancies. In the PR educational filed, van Ruler and Verčič (2004) state that “the number of professional University training
courses is extremely high”, as a result of which, the private sector plays a minor role in educ
