Teaching PR

PRDepiction

Just in case you don't have enough to do, allow me to suggest the addictive new blog, PRDepiction, a group blog with citations from research on pop culture representations of public relations, as well as cites and/or links to the primary sources. (Disclosure: I'm one of the bloggers. Further disclosure: I haven't posted on the site yet. But I will.)

It's addictive because, c'mon, you can call it research!

JPRR call for submissions: special issue on nonprofit PR

Exciting news from the Journal of Public Relations Research -- we've got another special issue coming up for publication in 2013. (I skipped 2012 in order to help clear up the Journal's backlog of accepted papers.) Here's the call for submissions from guest editor Denise Bortree.

Call for Submissions: Public Relations and Nonprofit Organizations

The Journal of Public Relations Research seeks scholarly articles for a special issue on nonprofit public relations.

Nonprofit and advocacy organizations make an important contribution to the social, political, and economic landscapes around the world.  However, public relations professionals in nonprofit sectors often face unique challenges related to resources and stakeholder relationships, among other things. Building knowledge about best practices for nonprofit practitioners is critical for the public relations field. This call seeks scholarly articles that explore the role of public relations in nonprofit organizations as well as the contribution of nonprofit communication to society. Of particular interest are articles that explore relationship cultivation with stakeholders, distinctive aspects of social media use among nonprofits, variance in communication strategies among types of nonprofit organizations, and public relations activities of national and international NGOs.

As with all issues of the Journal, contributions should provide scholarship that creates, tests, or expands public relations theory, and the guest editor encourages submissions that use a wide range of empirical methodologies.

The manuscripts for the special issue are due to the JPRR Manuscript Central site by July 15, 2012. Please note at the top of the abstract and in the appropriate space on the online submission form that the submission is a “candidate for the special issue on nonprofit organizations.” Submissions should conform to the instructions for authors on the Journal’s website.

Guest editor: Dr. Denise Bortree, Penn State University, U.S.A.

 

Words of PR wisdom: Arthur Page's speeches

Along with other members of AEJMC's public relations division and members of the Arthur Page Society, I recently received a copy of "Words from a Page in History," a collection of the PR pioneer's speeches. I've seen copies of his speeches at the historical society in Wisconsin, online, at the society's archives, and in the archives at AT&T, but this is the first time I'd seen so many of them pulled together in one location.

I checked with my colleague Dr. Denise Bortree of the Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication to see if more copies would be available to students and scholars not on the mailing list, and she pointed out that the whole collection is available on PDF on the Center's website. Or, if you want one of the few hard copies left, contact Cinda Kostyak at csk2 at psu dot edu to request one.

This is a fabulous resource for anyone interested in the history of public relations, so I commend the Center for putting it together and distributing it so widely.

P. S. Students who are doing a paper on Page and found this post through a Google search: click through and read his speeches. And then you can look at my notes from a paper on Page.

 

Corporate Public Relations and Democracy: Arthur W. Page and the FCC, 1935-1941

View more presentations from KarenRussell

Historical research on public relations

Tom Watson's wonderful International History of Public Relations Conference is fast becoming a high point in my academic calendar.

Unfortunately, I can't travel to Bournemouth every year. Fortunately, Tom has released the 2011 IHPRC proceedings, so that those of us who could be there only via social media can now read the papers. It's a great resource for faculty and professionals interested in PR history, and a great starting point for some student term papers!

Social media and higher ed

A study of four-year accredited colleges and universities shows that 100% of schools are now using social media -- up 34% since 2007. Conducted by Dr. Nora Barnes and Ava Lescault of the U. Mass.-Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research, the study finds that only one in five colleges/universities report using social networking sites to recruit and evaluate potential students.

Virtually all colleges/universities are on Facebook (98%), most are on Twitter (84%), and two-thirds have a blog. Meanwhile, message boards have leveled off and Myspace participation is down, while podcasting and Foursquare are up (the study has a margin of error of +/- 4%). Dr. Barnes suggests this shows a maturation process as higher ed institutions develop a better understanding of social media tools.

The press release from the Society of New Communications Research notes that higher ed is outpacing the Fortune 500, the Inc. 500, and the Forbes top charities in adoption of blogging.

Any guesses as to why blogging is so popular? Facebook is not surprising, given that students and potential students are a major public, but the stats on blogging are less intuitive. Also, do you believe that one-in-five stat, or is the word "evaluate" the problem?

You can download the report in full. Thanks to Kim Harrison for passing along the SNCR news release.

Journal of Public Relations Research updates

Because the Public Relations division of AEJMC sponsors the Journal of Public Relations Research, I provided updates at the business and editorial board meetings. In the interest of transparency, here are the highlights:

• The introduction of new reviewing guidelines held up the reviewing process earlier this year, so the average time from submission to decision is up to 79 days. However, we're caught up now, so I expect to see that time head back down toward 60 days next year. And, the new reviewing guidelines are excellent!
• The number of submissions is down to a little over 100 in the past 12 months (31 pending), but it appears to me that virtually all of the submissions are now appropriate to the Journal and very few are being rejected without to review. However, this also means that the acceptance rate is creeping up toward 30%, so I will be asking reviewers to be more demanding, with an emphasis on significance to public relations theory development, in order to get it back down to the 20-25% range.
• Routledge's representative, Patrick Fallon, informed the editorial board that the Journal is moving to a new publication schedule. We will now have 5 issues per year under the publish-less-frequently model, meaning that issues 1-2 will come out electronically on schedule and then be bound together, issue 3 will be a standalone, and issues 4-5 will be bound together. Thus, there will be 5 issues published electronically, but they will be distributed in print only three times per year. This, along with a tougher editorial stance, will address the current backlog of accepted but unpublished articles.
• The article "Media Catching and the Journalist-Public Relations Practitioner Relationship: How Social Media Are Changing the Practice of Media Relations," by Richard Waters, Natalie Tindall, and Timothy Morton has been especially popular, and it's now free from Taylor and Francis.
• The Journal received its first impact factor, which is 0.512 with a ranking of 48 among 67 communications journals. This is lower than we'd like, but Fallon informs us that it's not bad for a first-ever rating; moreover, the Journal's Eigenfactor score puts it at 40 out of 67, meaning that it has more influence than the impact factor might suggest. Hopefully, some of the changes we're making will help improve our scores over time.

Pop culture images of PR

I'm heading to the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, in St. Louis, next week and thought I'd share this fun multiple-disc DVD series on "The Image of the Public Relations Practitioner in Movies and Television, 1901-2011." It's produced and written by Joe Saltzman, the director of the Image of Journalist in Popular Culture at USC, and will be featured in a pre-conference workshop on Tuesday.

I've had a long interest in how PR pros are portrayed in entertainment media, so Joe invited me to join in the session at which he's unveiling the DVDs. 

The workshop is called "The Image of the Public Relations Practitioner in Popular Culture: What Is the Predominant Image and How Do We Repair It?" In the first half we'll see parts of the series and then Emily Kinsky, Carol Ames and I will do short presentations; mine is on "Mysterious Public Relations," based on my analysis of portrayals of PR people in mystery novels (as drawn from the IJPC database) -- a work in progress that I'm having fun with this summer. In the second half a group of distinguished panelists will talk about improving PR's image. 

I really can't wait to see the TV and movie clips. There's more to PR on the big and small screens than Samantha.

Writing a good journal article review

As editor of the Journal of Public Relations Research, I've made a concerted effort to include new reviewers, both international scholars and new scholars in the United States. Many times they have not done reviews before -- only received them -- and they sometimes ask for feedback on their reviews. This post will provide some general advice on how to write a good journal article review. 

1. Be sure you're familiar with the journal's expectations before you even starting reading the article. JPRR, for example, focuses on PR theory development, so the primary consideration of any review should be how well it contributes to that mission.
2. Check to see if the journal provides reviewing tips or guidelines for reviewers. These are usually sent along with the manuscript (in our case, electronically). I also requested that JPRR's reviewing guidelines, developed by three members of the editorial board earlier this year, be included on the publisher's website, so that they are accessible to reviewers (and authors!).
3. If there are no guidelines, you should at a minimum consider the following areas: theoretical foundation (literature review), method (appropriateness to the research questions as well as how well it's been applied), ethics, writing and organization, and contribution to the field.
4. Ultimately, you should include a recommendation to the editor to reject, revise and resubmit, or accept the manuscript (some journals have several different categories for recommendations, often included in the editor's cover letter that accompanies the manuscript). Although this is a recommendation rather than a "vote" (the editor has the final say), it does influence the editor's thinking.
5. In my experience it's better to be too critical than not critical enough. Note: critical does not mean "cruel" or "hateful." You've been invited to review because you appear to have expertise in some aspect (theory, method, subject matter) of the manuscript, and the editor expects you to deliver an honest assessment. Do not assume that other reviewers will catch mistakes or comment on any particular aspect of the manuscript; different reviewers may be knowledgeable about different areas.
6. Write your review in paragraph form, always with an eye toward improving the manuscript. Even if you recommend rejection, the editor might decide to move ahead with it, and suggested revisions will be important. Even if it is rejected by the journal, the author will probably try to revise it for another journal, and your suggestions might help improve scholarship in general. Even if the author/s trash it and start a new project, you might help them improve their future research by considering reviewing as part of a continuing process of scholarship.
7. Perhaps this should go without saying, but return your review on time and respond to any queries from the editor in a timely fashion. 

Tom Watson: The history of evaluation as the history of PR

Bournemouth University professor Tom Watson recently delivered an informative lecture on PR evaluation, which he argues can be viewed as a surrogate the history of PR more generally. I'm providing a summary and the videos of his lecture, followed by my own comments.

Watson began with a brief chronological review, pointing out that since as early as the 18th and 19th centuries, U.S. presidents have conducted informal media monitoring, employing straw polls and news cutting agencies. By the end of the 19th century, press agentry and publicity, placing newsworthy items, had emerged; according to his research, Ivy Lee believed PR was not measurable, whereas Edward Bernays believed it was an applied social science. By the 1920s, public opinion research was developing and was used by people like Arthur Page to make their campaigns more strategic, but there appears to have been little evaluative research -- just an assumption that results would follow from a research-based strategy. Watson identifies a change in the role of PR from a management function to product publicity, citing L'Etang's conclusion that PR was seen as a cheaper form of advertising.

Next Watson reviewed a number of common practices after 1950, starting with monitoring press coverage and attempting measure "Impact," as Cutlip et al. outlined in Effective Public Relations; however, he provides a number of quotes from 1930s-1960s American and British practitioners who concluded that measurement is very difficult. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that during the 1950s the focus was on outputs rather than outcomes.

According to Watson's research, the dreaded AVEs (advertising value equivalencies) first reared their ugly heads in the literature around the mid-1960s, although he suspects they were in use earlier. From the late 1960s, however, evaluation methods began to get more sophisticated. As an example, Watson points to a 1968 American Marketing Association publication that contained seven articles on methods of measuring PR results, the rise of PR service industries, and PR Data, computer-based analysis of public relations at General Electric, which began in 1964.

During the 1980s a number of articles in academic journals, in addition to work by professionals like Katie Paine and Walter Lindenmann, suggested that evaluation was of increasing importance. Jim Grunig pointed out, though, that although everyone says evaluation is good, most people were still not doing it. Nonetheless, by the 1990s measurement and evaluation were considered top issues for PR practitioners globally; Watson provides examples from the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Sweden.

If you'd like more detail, the address has been released on video.

Here's part one:

And here's part two:

Now for a few comments for Tom:

1. I'm not so sure I buy your argument that evaluation history can serve as a surrogate for all PR history. Maybe it does, but you'll have to do more to convince me. More to the point, I'm not so sure why you think it should. Doesn't a history of evaluation stand on its own merit? I found it to be informative in its own right. 

2. Loved the comparison between Lee and Bernays -- a perfect example of how studying evaluation can further our understanding of the field.

3. I disagree with your (and by extension L'Etang's) assessment of PR becoming [just] product publicity. This may be true of the U.K. (??) but the U.S. evidence doesn't bear it out. Although there were PR agents and departments that specialized in product publicity, there were also big-timers like John Hill, T.J. Ross, and Earl Newsom who were in on the policy making, as much or more than they were into the publicity, from the 1920s through the 1960s.

4. The post-1950s part is fascinating. You've documented some of the important people and publications who created a foundation for many of the debates and practices that continue today. I would love to know who started all this business with AVEs (right, Katie?), and when. You're absolutely right that measurement has been a key issue for several decades now, and yet it hasn't been a subject within PR historiography -- so thank you for opening this area for study.

5. Your focus was primarily U.S./U.K. (with evidence from Germany and Sweden as available) and primarily corporate/agency public relations. I'd be very interested in learning more about government, education, trade union, religious, reform and nonprofit organizations as well. But I say that about just about everything in PR historiography.

6. Thanks for sharing your lecture. I learned a lot and hope my comments prove helpful!

Readers, if you're still with me, I hope you'll feel free to chime in with your comments, and maybe we can convince Tom to respond on his blog.

Submit your history abstracts now: International History of PR Conference

Just a reminder that abstracts are due shortly if you hope to attend the International History of Public Relations Conference. I was fortunate enough to attend last year and highly recommend it if you're at all interested in PR's history-- great conversations, different perspectives, and a little local flavor. 

Here's the information from conference organizer Tom Watson:

CALL FOR PAPERS

 THE INTERNATIONAL HISTORY OF PUBLIC RELATIONS CONFERENCE

 6-7 July 2011

 Organised by the Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR) at

The Media School, Bournemouth University, Poole, England

Papers welcomed from Asian, African and Latin American scholars

Academics, practitioners and research students are invited to submit competitive abstracts and papers for presentation at The International History of Public Relations Conference (IHPRC) to be held on 6-7 July 2011 at Bournemouth University.

The first IHPRC was held in July this year and attracted more than 80 delegates from 13 countries to hear two keynote speakers and 34 refereed papers over two days. The conference was considered by all to be very successful – and an important development in public relations scholarship. More details, including the keynote presentations, are available at http://historyofpr.com.

Papers for presentation at the 2011 conference will be selected, after peer review, on the basis of abstracts, of no more than two pages total length, including any references. Author details are to be printed on a separate sheet and the author(s) should not be identified in the abstract. Abstracts must be presented in Word format, in 1.5 line spacing and 12 point font size.

Manuscripts of the selected papers are to be submitted with Harvard referencing and according to the Journal of Communication Management editorial style found at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=jcom. The manuscript of 3000 to 6000 words, plus references, must be presented in Word format, in 1.5 line spacing and 12 point font size.

Deadlines

•  Submission of abstracts: Monday, December 6, 2010
•  Acceptance notification (by email): Monday, January 24, 2011
•  Submission of selected papers: Monday, June 6, 2011

 All accepted abstracts will be published online prior to the conference programme. Papers selected for the Conference will be published in the IHPRC Proceedings.

Conference Themes

As this is the second international conference on the History of Public Relations, the range of conference themes has remained broad and those listed below are the starting point for consideration, rather than a finite list.

•  Public relations in history before it became a named or defined discipline
• Alternative approaches to the history of public relations, e.g. on the basis of culture (personal networks and influence) or via definitions of public relations
• The evolving naming of the field from propaganda and press agentry to corporate communications
• The history of public relations and its developing or diverging relationships with other disciplines like marketing, HR, legal and corporate governance
• The evolution of public relations in nations or parts of government or industry
• Seminal personalities or events that shaped the formation of public relations as a discipline (This can also include challenges to the “Great Man” or “Great Woman” approach)
• Key books or articles (or series of both) that have influenced public relations
• The history of political public relations and lobbying
• The history of public relations education
• The evolution of public relations theory(ies) over time – from propaganda to dialogue; the history of schools of thinking in public relations
• Formative influences on public relations theory and practice, such as in or by government, industry or consultancy
• The formation of industry and professional bodies and their impact, over time, on public relations practice and education
• The evolution of public relations education, training and continuing professional development
• The impact of technology, over time, upon public relations practice and theory
• Archival sources for the history of public relations
• The theories and processes of researching the history of public relations
• Oral histories of public relations; the role of this methodology

Papers are especially welcomed from scholars in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Please send abstracts to Prof Tom Watson, Conference Chair, The Media School, Bournemouth University, email: prhistory@bournemouth.ac.uk  by Monday, December 6, 2010.

The Conference Venue

As in 2010, the conference will be held at Bournemouth University’s Executive Business Centre. Conference Registration will be arranged through http://historyofpr.com with details of tickets to be announced shortly.

 

IHPRC proceedings now available

Great news for the history lovers out there who didn't get to attend the International History of Public Relations Conference in Bournemouth last summer: the IHPRC proceedings have now been posted.

The site includes abstracts and papers, links to PowerPoint presentations as applicable, and links to some of the "major presentations" on video (non-historians might be interested in the video of the session featuring PR journal editors Anne Gregory, Ray Hiebert, Jacquie L'Etang, Don Wright and me).

Tons of good info on the IHPRC site, so please check it out. Kudos again to Tom Watson for recognizing that information wants to be free!

JPRR perception vs. reality

Perception: Everybody knows that the Journal of Public Relations Research doesn't publish qualitative research. Or, at least, it's a hard sell. 

Reality: Qualitative research has always been included in JPRR. In fact, I went back to volume 4, issue 1 -- the first time JPRR was issued as a quarterly -- and found that the very first research article was a case study. The second was on focus groups. The third was an experiment. 

Not a survey to be found. But I know this perception still exists because people still ask me about it.

Perception: Now that a historian is the editor, maybe qualitative research will get a fair hearing. Or, as the query I got this morning stated, "I am familiar with your work, and now that you are Editor -- are submissions that are not purely quantitative welcome?"

Reality: I purposely didn't keep track of stats on research method, because I didn't want to let that influence me in any way. But now that volume 22 is final (although issue 4 hasn't been mailed yet), I tallied it up. (Note: this includes the special issue on social media.)

• Surveys:  7
• Content analyses:  3
• Rhetorical analyses:  2
• Network analyses:   2
• Experiments:  2
• Multiple methods:   2
• Theoretical essay:   1
• Depth interviews:    1

So, yes, the Journal does obviously skew toward quantitative methods, particularly survey research, as only four articles were purely qualitative. Still, two other articles included qualitative methods; in addition, while network analyses use numbers, Dawn Gilpin tells me she considers it an "inherently mixed method."

My first thought on this is that many more PR scholars primarily use quantitative methods -- I know that is the case with my college's PR faculty -- so it's appropriate that their work would be proportionately greater in number.  

My second thought is that there are gaps on the list. Like, uh, history. But I know there are a couple of historical pieces set for volume 23, and I hope the special issue on race (23:3) will include some good critical/cultural research. With only 20 articles per year, it's unlikely that every method will be represented in every volume.

My final thought is a resounding "Yes" to the query I received this morning: 20% of JPRR's articles were purely qualitative in 2010. As always, high quality research of any or all methods is welcome.

Present your PR research...in Tehran

The Sixth International Symposium on Public Relations, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, 11-12 January 2011.

Call for Papers

 

 

Theme of the Symposium:

Reviewing and Criticizing Theoretical and Practical Achievements in Public Relations during last Century.

Although public relations practice arguably can be traced back to the days of Aristole and the practice of persuasive rhetoric, the profession itself is generally recognized to have come of age in the early 20^th century.

Around 104 years has passed since Ivy Lee founded modern public relations. Public relations has outstandingly progressed in terms of theory and practice.

Despite all successes and achievements in the field of public relations, many public Relations researchers and intellectuals criticize public relations for its theoretical weakness. Others believe that public relations practitioners can not put into practice the existing public relations theories. Also the existing PR tactics and strategies are not enough to promote the scientific capability in this field.

In view of this, the conference will be the first international opportunity for academic researchers, historians, interested practitioners to present papers and discuss on the strength and weakness of public relations during the last century.

Sub-themes of the Conference:

As this is the first international conference on criticizing public relations since its inception in its modern form, the range of conference subthemes is wide and those listed below are the starting point for consideration, rather than a finite list.

1.   Reviewing the impact of technology, over time, upon public relations practice and theory.

2.   The evolution of public relations education, research and professional development.

3.   The evolution of public relations theories over time ( reviewing the schools of thinking in public relations)

4.   Reviewing keybooks or articles that have influenced public relations

5.   Reviewing the various names selected for public Relation including propaganda, corporate communication, etc.

6.   Public Relations capabilities in culture-making

7.   Pure theories in public relations

8.   Reviewing the gap between the theory and practice in public relations: How much have theories been put into practice?

9.   Role of  national and international public relations associations and societies in developing public relations

10.    Applied skills in public relations from lobbying to culture-making

Note:

Suggesting topics relating to the theme of the Symposium are welcomed and reviewed by the Scientific Committee.

Submission:

All who are interested in presenting a paper on the above and related topic are invited to submit a paper for consideration. Arman Public Relations Institute covers all costs (round tickets and accommodation, etc) of people who their papers will be accepted for presentation in the Symposium.

Relevant dates to be considered:

Deadlines for abstract: I November 2010

Deadline for full paper: 15 December 2010

Abstracts and papers:

-Abstract should be maximum 500 words excluding tables and figures.

- Full paper should be maximum 4000-5000 words, excluding tables and figures

- Language of abstracts and full papers for foreign participants is English.

- Address for sending both abstracts and full paper is: amirrastegar51@gmail.com

- Selected papers will be published in a book following the symposium.

Information:

For receiving further information on the Symposium, please email: amirrastegar51@gmail.com

New database: media representations of public relations

I've mentioned before that I'm on the editorial board of the journal The Image of the Journalist in Popular Culture, and I just got some interesting news that I wanted to share with any readers who are interested in how PR is represented in the media.

The IJPC has created an online database with access to thousands of resources on journalists, public relations practitioners and journalism. According to Joseph Salzman, director of the IJPC at USC Annenberg, more than 75,000 items are now publicly accessible via the Web. He explains:

The entries include Television (27,000 items); Films (19,500 movies, movies made for TV and miniseries); Fiction (12,300 novels, 1,550 short stories, 500 plays and 200 poems); Radio (2,900 items); Cartoons, Comic Books & Comic Strips (5,900 items); Non-Fiction (Documentaries, News, Sports, 3,150 items); Radio (2,900 items); Humor (710 items); Commercials (350 items); Games (140 items); Early References (120 items); Music (Songs-Compositions, 95 items); Internet-Websites (90 items), Art (40 items); The IJPC Database includes print journalists (from large urban newspapers to small country weeklies, including editors, reporters, photojournalists, correspondents, columnists, publishers, newsboys), broadcast journalists (from networks to local stations including reporters, anchors, correspondents, producers, writers, technical personnel, news directors, station owners, network executives and management), public relations practitioners (from press agents to publicists), and the news media (anonymous reporters who show up in countless films and television movies ranging from press conferences to packs of reporters shouting questions or chasing after the main character to individual reporters asking questions). The IJPC Database can be referenced by year, title, type, occupation and author.

Just for fun, I searched "mystery novels" from 1975-1980 and found a reference to "Julian Quist: Honeymoon with Death (1975)," a mystery about a suave PR agency owner, which I didn't know about or would've included in my study of PR in film and fiction.

Please note that the database doesn't link to the actual sources, it just provides a quick description of the source so you can decide if you want to locate it for yourself. Nonetheless, what a great resource. If you're interested in doing research on representations of PR in popular culture, definitely check out this database!

On not revising a research paper after a rejection

Some years ago I reviewed a paper for a prestigious mass communication journal. A quick read told me that the paper wasn't going to be accepted by this particular journal; it had promise, but it needed a lot of work, more than that journal would be willing to do. Nonetheless, I went through the paper a second time and offered up a list of suggested revisions, right down to additional reading -- with citations. I was still newish to the field and wanted to impress the editor with a thorough review, even though it was pretty obvious that the paper was not up to the journal's standards.

As expected, the editor rejected the paper. A few weeks later, a somewhat less prestigious journal sent me the same manuscript. By "the same manuscript," I mean the exact same manuscript. The author had taken not one of my suggestions (or the other reviewers' suggestions) for revision.

I know this happens a lot. It's happened at JPRR more than once since I've been editor: reviewers have told me so when they've declined an invitation to review.

There are two reasons that submitting a rejected manuscript to another journal without revising it is just plain foolish:

1. Although it may not go back to one of the original reviewers, if they're specialists in your particular subfield there is a chance that one of them could see it again. Based on my personal experience, I can assure you that receiving the exact same manuscript is downright insulting. If you're lucky, the person will recuse him/herself from reviewing the paper; if you're not, they may just decide to let you have it in their comments. They might even agree to do the review and then submit the exact same set of comments, as I was tempted to do those years ago, just to show you how it feels. (I didn't, but I really wanted to.)

2. The reviewers spent time telling you how to improve your manuscript, and you've not only wasted their time by ignoring them but also are asking a second set of reviewers to waste their time by reading a paper that you've already been told is not as good as it could be.

(Bonus reason: If you're submitting to a different journal with a different audience, you probably need to make some changes to the manuscript anyway. A broad mass comm journal's audience, for example, may need more explanation of, say, public relations theory or historical context than a PR journal or a media history journal.)

I'm not suggesting that you should make every change that every reviewer recommends. We all know that there are bad reviews and bad reviewers, and you may disagree with some of what they said. However, it's unlikely that not one of the reviewers' suggestions were appropriate, relevant, or useful. Even if you disagree with something a reviewer says, you can make sure that your perspective or approach is more clearly articulated in a revised manuscript.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples where submitting a rejected paper to another journal worked for someone, when the reviewers were more sympathetic or the journal better suited to the topic, method, or approach. But, really, don't be lazy. Take the opportunity to improve your scholarship.

Susan Douglas's advice to doctoral students

Grady grad students were fortunate to have a visit last week from Susan Douglas, author of Where the Girls Are and other fabulous things to read, and I was fortunate to sneak in for a listen.

Douglas, who is chair of the University of Michigan's Communications Studies Department, spoke briefly about the process she goes through in researching and writing a new project. She begins with historical context including reviewing news coverage, which leads her to select salient texts or moments for closer analysis. In television analysis, she considers dress, dialogue, lighting, plot structure, theme and so forth, looking for patterns of repetition. She also looks at trade press coverage of advertising, entertainment and news; ratings, audience studies, and any other information she can gather. If you see multiple texts all reinforcing the same archetypes, norms and narrative structures, she argued, you can see the development of "common sense" and even infer influence on at least some people. She admitted to a "love-hate relationship" with mass media and said she subscribes to a belief in "enlightened sexism" (borrowed from Sut Jhally's concept of "enlightened racism") rather than post-feminism -- a term that is no longer useful because it has been defined in so many ways.

In addition, Douglas offered some great advice for graduate students. A few pearls of wisdom:

• Despite the tough economy, more people have to go to college to get jobs and enrollments remail solid. Moreover, communication studies is a popular major.
• Choose an area for research that you care about, but that is marketable. Focus on your interests as they resonate with the bigger picture (what drives you balanced with what's important to other people).
• Don't marginalize yourself into a single, small area. For example, don't just study J-Lo, study Latino media.
• A number of areas are wide open for study, such as race, masculinity, public relations, video games, and adolescents and the media.
• Look for gaps in the field, not the little ones but the big ones; for example, cultural studies needs to do much more on audiences and on production.
• Don't be pigeonholed by one narrow text, like "Buffy," or one approach.
• Be optimistic and look to the future. The market will improve eventually.

The editorial decision; or, What on earth were they thinking?

Prof. Tom Kelleher of the University of Hawaii at Manoa recently guest edited a special issue of the Journal of Public Relations Research on social media (it'll be published later this year as volume 22, issue 3), and I think it's fair to say it was a learning experience. We e-mailed and talked several times as he struggled to make decisions about which manuscripts to move forward and how to set deadlines and work with authors in order to complete the issue on time.

At one point I tweeted, "Let's do a blog post on making the editorial decision when you're finished." He responded, "Great idea." So here we are (and here, too).

Karen's perspective:

Probably the most important decision an editor makes is determining which reviewers will get the manuscript, because reviewers have far more influence than they probably realize. Although reviewers ultimately provide only recommendations, and the editor has the final say, collectively the two or three reviewers per manuscript provide an assessment that would be pretty hard for an editor to ignore -- particularly because, if I've done a good job with selection, the reviewer is more expert in the paper's topic or method than I am. I typically invite two members of the editorial board, one with topic expertise and one with method expertise, to review each manuscript, and usually (but not always) invite a third, outside person. This gives different and often younger scholars an opportunity to participate in the process and allows me to compare their assessments with those of more established scholars.

JPRR has four categories of recommendation -- reject, revise and resubmit, accept with minor revisions, and accept -- but I've learned to pay less attention to the recommendation and more attention to the reviewer's comments, because I've realized that one person's reject is another person's R&R, or one person's R&R is another person's minor revisions. Thus, if a reviewer asks for major revisions (such as calling for more data collection or reanalysis of the data) but doesn't give me a sense that the research will make a significant contribution to public relations theory development even if those revisions are made, I would consider that a "reject" even if the reviewer called it a "revise and resubmit." [Note: I'm working on revising the reviewing guidelines, and this will include some clarification of the categories.]

After I receive the reviews, I read them carefully and then go back to the manuscript to compare my impressions with those of the reviewers. As I've written about before, the most important consideration is always the paper's contribution to theory development. I am willing to work with authors through two or even three revisions, and I've spent hours line-editing manuscripts when reviewers have expressed frustration with the writing or organization, if the experts are convinced that it makes an important contribution to the literature.

But that's the major difference between a regular issue, in which articles can be reviewed multiple times and the ulitmate criterion is quality of contribution to the body of knowledge, and a special issue, which has a specific deadline and a set number of pages that must be filled by that deadline.

Tom's Perspective:

One of many reasons I’m in academics today is that I dread the cold call. I’d get a knot in my stomach when I was an intern at Ketchum in Atlanta years back, knowing my day would be full of pitch calls to busy people with more important things on their minds. James McCroskey might call it “situational communication apprehension.” Given the choice of grinding out pitch calls or grinding out years of grad school I chose the latter.

 

So one of my biggest concerns taking on this journal issue was how I was going to recruit reviewers. To my delight, my apprehension was unfounded. The vast majority of people I contacted fell into one of two categories: those who planned to submit an article themselves and those who were ready and willing to review. 

 

Social media experts with academic track records and accomplished academics with an interest in social media were quick to offer help. Not surprisingly Twitter and blog versions of the call were helpful recruiting tools. I also paid attention to methodological and content expertise in assigning manuscripts to reviewers.

 

The same enthusiasm for the project that drove reviewers to volunteer also drove many of them to offer amazingly detailed critiques and suggestions. In turn, authors who were invited to resubmit took their lumps and vigorously revised (in fact most probably didn’t even see it as taking lumps). With each iteration, the special issue looked better and better.

 

But this is where the unique nature of a special issue becomes most apparent. We had a calendar date when the revisions had to stop and a finite number of articles had to be selected. Until that deadline loomed, I was gratefully able to serve mostly as conduit between reviewers and authors. Later in the process though, I felt the gravity of being the only one with a full view of all the submissions and all the reviews through several rounds.

 

Here are a few of the dilemmas that I think are unique to a special-issue project:

 

• Figuring the right fit. One of the articles submitted reported an outstanding piece of research, but the reviewers and I did not feel that it fit the theme of the issue well. I had to refer that one back to Karen for consideration for an open issue of JPRR (if the author(s) choose to go that route). I hated to let it go, but "fit" with the specific topic ended up being a deciding factor.

• Assuming anonymity. In one case, a reviewer saw an author’s attempt to block out a self-citation (i.e., XXXX, 2008) as an editorial oversight. When I mentioned that I thought the author had done this intentionally to preserve the blind review process, the reviewer wrote back, “I've never seen such a practice. And I don't think that would protect the anonymity. A quick Google search and I can find out.” Yet in a separate context, I've seen a JPRR reviewer complain that citing a newly in-press piece makes it too easy to identify the author. With this special issue centered around such a specific new area for scholarship, I’m certain that the contributors and reviewers are often familiar with each other's work. As editor, I tried to avoid having anyone review another's work if I knew the two to have a close connection. But the Google point is well taken. All three parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) have a role in trying to make the process work. Karen, this might be worth some consideration in the revised reviewing guidelines. [Duly noted! -Karen]

• Editorial overrides on deadline. One of the most conscientious and dedicated reviewers will see in print both articles that he/she recommended rejecting. On four different occasions -- two rounds of review for two different papers -- this reviewer offered meticulous critiques. Based on how long it takes me to review journal submissions, I would estimate that this reviewer invested more than a week’s worth of research productivity in this issue (or a week's worth of vacation for those of you on spring break!). And the reward? Being overridden twice. If this had been a normal journal timeline, we might have been able to let the R&R process run its course a little longer before committing a decision. (See Karen’s comment above about one person’s 'reject' being another’s 'R&R.') Anyhow, the upshot is that the two articles are much better now than they were before the process, and the issue is stronger because of that.

Generating interest was never a problem. No pitching required! In fact, the greater challenge was making the most of the exchange once everyone was engaged… Almost sounds like a topic for a paper on social media.

When the issue lands in your mailbox, if you learn from what you read, thank the authors and the reviewers. 

NCA09: Globalization and PR

On the last day of the NCA conference I dragged my suitcase into one last session before heading to the airport, a panel discussion "exploring the relationship between globalization and public relations." The panel consisted of

• Nilanjana Bardhan, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
• Robert Wakefield, Brigham Young University
• Kaustubh Nande, Ohio University
• Nancy Van Leuven, Bridgewater State College
• Debra Worley, Indiana State University
• Celia Kay Weaver, University of Waikato

Nilanjana Bardhan suggested that a good definition of globalization views the world as an interlocking system rather than as separate nations; she argued that globalization is acknowledged but not interrogated, and the international approach (treating nation-states as units of analysis) remains dominant in public relations. The Western style of PR still sets the standard for excellence, and Western agencies are established only in economically established nations. Globalization can be viewed as imposed from above and criticized or fought off from below.

Robert Wakefield asserted that international research in public relations is often descriptive and although it claims to be comparative it usually isn't really so. Where does transnational fit? How is reputation (not brand) managed across national and other borders? He referenced the generic/specific theory of public relations which attempts to address a polarity of thought -- PR is centralized (global) or PR is different in each place (local) -- and said that it never achieved what he thought it promised, noting that Toby McManus said the theory attempted to include cultural differences located in the middle ground between ethnocentric and more global approaches. Sriramesh and Vervic's book used this approach in several chapters, but most chapters remained descriptive. Since the theory was first proposed, a number of changes--such as media and activism crossing borders via the Internet or cultures crossing national borders--have only emphasized the importance of the theory's approach. He pointed out that public relations is usually studied from the center (the organization) out, rather than from the periphery.

Nancy Van Leuven pointed out that an international organization like the Red Cross can't even choose a logo that works internationally, emphasizing how difficult international public relations can be. She looked at China, an 800-lb. gorilla, as a case study. PR started only in the early 1980s and has been expanding more rapidly since 2000. What is PR in China? Is it just promotion? Are Western models even applicable? How does Chinese culture influence relationship cultivation? She also pointed to specific differences such as, in addition to the obvious political/economic differences, the media (where market competitiveness redefines media function) and social/cultural difference, including the importance of interpersonal communication. She said that universities are starting to offer beginners classes such as even management, but that communication agencies in China still have armed guards around them -- yet they can hold press conferences at any time.

Kaustubh Nande described his job at Intel's Emerging Markets public relations program, where he pitched local Indian editors with stories about key messages such as how computers are good for society and helpful in education and careers. A critical perspective began to emerge, he said, when an editor asked him if he were selling education and careers, or computers. There was no line between community PR and marketing; it was megamarketing. He also pointed out that most people aren't global or interconnected; rather, systems are. Only one class of people are actually interconnected.

Debra Worley picked up on this notion and asked, "If students are not global, how do we introduce these ideas?" She did a content analysis of introductory PR textbooks, identifying major discussion areas as trends in globalization, technology as a channel to distribute and gather information, and cross-cultural communication as a way to understand differences in language, culture, etc. appropriately; she identified the latter as the best place to start in an introductory text. She described an assignment in which students were given a case and asked to write strategic plans for Western and non-Western cultures, working in groups to analyze how they did it and why. 

Finally, Kay Weaver addressed ways that critical theory can contribute to understanding globalization and what it can contribute to PR practice in a globalized context. First, it seeks to understand power in a global context, which is important to understanding how PR is linked to national and international power structures, and recognizing inequities in power. As an example she described the Maori people in New Zealand, who act as a sort of human subjects board in determining whether and how these indigenous people can be studied. To receive permission to conduct research, a scholar must show not just how the research will contribute to theory but also how it can help oppressed people -- not just identifying them as oppressed. The scholar must ask what those being researched want as well; it resonates, she said, with symmetrical theory in public relations. 

At the end of the session Rob Wakefield made the interesting point that four of the six scholars advocated in some way studying public relations from the periphery, the view of the stakeholders, rather than the center, the view of the organization--which linked this session to my earlier post on cocreationalism in PR research.

NCA09: PR Lyceum on co-creational meaning

My favorite session at NCA was the PR Lyceum on co-creational meaning. Evidently it was a conference first, and I'm glad I got to be there, listening to some of the top scholars in our field -- both on the panel and in the audience -- debating the merits of this theoretical approach. 

The panel started with Maureen Taylor's three questions: is a new approach (paradigm, model or theory) needed in public relations? Is the cocreational view the exact theory needed? If not, then what? She reminded us that theory should be generative and parsimonious and should be able to predict and explain, and pointed out that while PR scholars frequently cite theory from related fields like health communication, scholars in those fields never cite PR theory. The current theories, she argued, have limited us. As an alternative she offered a social constructionist approach, viewing publics as co-creators of meaning, advocating that we should stop studying ourselves (meaning organizations and practitioners) and study publics instead.

Next, Carl Botan furthered refined the notion of co-creation but saying it refers to the role of the publics in creating, not just responding to messages. Co-creation is not the same as interpretation, which gives publics a less active role (how do they process the messages we send them), but is an active process of integrating their own knowledge with intentional and unintentional messages. The approach is neither sender- nor message-centered, and we need a nuanced understanding of this process at least as sophisticated as our understanding of the senders. He concludes that the cocreational approach is metatheoretic (a set of criteria used to evaluate other PR theories) but argued that it can also stand as a theory itself, capable to lead us to posing research questions and hypotheses. He then presented data from a study on climate change communication in which that data supported the cocreational approach. Co-creation is not an either/or, he concluded, but operates as a sliding continuum.

Elizabeth Toth then argued that PR theory already offers three different ways to conceptualize publics. First, she identified parallels between this approach and J. Grunig's work, particularly situational theory, which sees publics having an identity of organizing around something, and which has been confirmed by research. Second, scholars have already conceptualized publics as they are constructed through language and discourse, examining the struggle over meaning. And third, critical approaches such as Dozier and Lauzen's article on extending the intellectual domain have shown that public could have irreconcilable differences with organizations and that they self-organize and are not powerless. Thus, while not discounting it, she pointed out that PR scholarship need not be limited to this one approach.

Next, Robert Heath said that as a rhetorical scholar, he would identify Aristotle as the starting point for cocreational theory. Publics are there because of issue position, he argued; they are not separate from the issues that define them. We live together in joined and disjointed discourse, and we still don't know how it all works (noting activism as an example). Meaning trumps process and infrastructure in his view, and if we impose the cocreational model on PR we are fracturing ourselves. Society is not getting better at solving collective problems, he said, and discourse can create meaning that is dysfunctional.

Finally, Tim Coombs started with the notion of grand theory, one that tries to explain everything in the field; the problem here is that PR is hugely amorphous, so how can we capture it all? Adopting one theoretical approach has the unintended consequence of limiting research. Instead he advocated Robert Merton's notion of theories of the middle range, explaining the smaller parts first and then trying to put them all together. As a metatheory, the cocreational approach can act as a touchstone for middle range research when it's relevant to a particular study. He asserted that cocreationalism can make us more reflexive of our research and how it affects our society, intentionally and unintentionally, but argued that it needs to address the problem of power, because co-creators are not in reality equal.

The discussion that followed was so lively I didn't attempt to keep up with it all in my notes, but a few points stood out.

• Vince Hazelton, the session moderator, asked why it had to be either/or? We should focus on both organization and publics because we are all speakers. We should study interaction and symbolic exchange.
• Michael Palenchar suggested that focusing on discourse rather than publics addresses the issue of power.
• Maureen Taylor conceded that cocreationalism is not so much a new approach as a new name that might help PR theory cross disciplinary boundaries.

Based on the discussion, my impression was that most people thought that the co-creation approach is useful and a good addition to the field, but that they were not willing to consider it as the best or even the primary theoretical approach for the field.

What JPRR reviewers really want

Several weeks ago I offered to do a post on what reviewers at the Journal of Public Relations Research are looking for in a manuscript, after I had a lot of questions about that at the annual AEJMC meeting. Shortly after that, I was invited to contribute an "Editor's Focus" column on the publisher's Web site. With their permission, I'm cross-posting most of the column for October 2009 here. 

******* 

What exactly do reviewers want? In one way, this is an easy question to answer, because the Journal provides Reviewing Guidelines to anyone who agrees to complete a review. These guidelines ask a series of questions designed to help the reviewer determine the manuscript's worth, such as: Is the research original? Does it make a significant contribution to the body of knowledge? Is the method appropriate to the research questions asked?

But the process is more complicated than simply answering these questions. Reviewers, and ultimately the editor, must weigh various factors and determine which ones count most in making their final recommendations. For example, I've encountered a few reviewers who are offended by bad writing or poor documentation - one to the point that the reviewer didn't want to complete the review, arguing that such sloppiness was indicative of the researcher's ability to produce good scholarship. Most other reviewers, though, seem willing to overlook bad writing, which can be corrected, if the methodology is strong and the research questions are important to the field.

Based on my first year of reviewing manuscripts, I've determined that reviewers prioritize the following factors in their decision to recommend or not recommend a manuscript for publication.

1. The research must be methodologically sound. It's a rare manuscript that doesn't raise a few questions about method. Reviewers often ask for clarification or more detail, and sometimes suggest additional work, such as running another relevant statistical test. However, if a reviewer identifies a fatal flaw - something that can't be easily corrected, such as a poorly constructed survey instrument, or in-depth interviews conducted with the wrong people - the paper is sure to be rejected.
2. The research must make an original and significant contribution to public relations theory development. Even if a paper is methodologically perfect, reviewers may reject it for failing to make a big enough contribution to the field. Reviewers may, for example, suggest that the author is trying to make more of the research than the findings merit. Sometimes reviewers are able to provide advice about how to improve such a manuscript, but sometimes they conclude that there's simply not enough there to merit publication.
3. The research must be grounded in the literature, providing a strong theoretical foundation. In this case, method matters. Scholars submitting critical-cultural or historical research may be able to go back and add to the literature, thereby strengthening their interpretations. But scholars using some types of qualitative research and especially quantitative research may not be able to address the problem so easily. Because interview protocols, research questions, and hypotheses are based on the literature, overlooking some important aspect of the literature may make it impossible to improve the manuscript without conducting additional research.
4. The paper must be well organized and written at least well enough for the reviewers to be certain that they understand the author's argument. Bad writing may not be lethal to a manuscript, but it does guarantee the paper will need revision.

Reviewers vary, of course, as do submissions. But most reviewers are earnest in their attempts to help the Journal publish only the best public relations research.

*****

Hope this is helpful to readers of Teaching PR. Feel free to ask more questions and, although it may take a few weeks, I'll do my best to respond.

Update on the Journal of Public Relations Research

I'm headed into my first year as the editor of the Journal of PR Research (for the past year my official title was Incoming Editor). I haven't written much about it here for many reasons -- for example, the need to protect the blind review process, which provides confidentiality for both authors and reviewers-- but I did want to provide a review of my first year. I was appointed at the AEJMC meeting in August, 2008.

The first thing I did was accept the invitation from our publisher, Taylor & Francis, to move to an online submission process. After they worked with me to build the site, I had several hours of training on how to use it. The site opened for submissions in December.

The submissions site automatically generates statistics which I am happy to share. In my first year:

• 116 submissions, averaging almost 10 a month
• Average days from submission to first decision: 62 
• Average days from submission to final decision: 54 (resubmissions don't take as long for reviewers so that pulls the overall average down) 
• Acceptance rate: 17%  
• Total pending manuscripts (as of today): 43 

The acceptance rate is low, yet my issues are filling up rapidly because of the large number of submissions. Each issue typically has room for 4-5 articles. Issues 1 and 2 of next year are already full, and I'm working on issue 4 now. 

As for issue 3: I have planned three special issues, one for each year of my term. The first, on social media and public relations, is being guest edited by Tom Kelleher, and the manuscripts for that issue are currently under review (I believe he received 11). This will be issue 3 of 2010.

So far I'm enjoying it a lot -- I get to be the first to see some interesting new research, and I have enjoyed seeing how my colleagues on the editorial board review manuscripts. 

My blog usually focuses on teaching (obviously), but would anyone be interested in posts on a) what reviewers are looking for or b) how to write a good review? After a year of watching and learning, I would be happy to do either or both.

International History of Public Relations conference, 2010

I'm so excited about this. Bournemouth University in the UK is holding the first ever International History of Public Relations Conference on 8-9 July 2010. Dr. Tom Watson is the organizer, and the Journal of Communication Management has agreed to publish a special issue which will include some of the papers from the meeting.

They're accepting full papers, working papers and posters, and they welcome submissions from faculty, students, and professionals. Abstracts are due on 7 December (so I guess I'd better get to work on mine). Hope to see you there!

The IJPC (Image of the Journalist in Popular Culture) Journal

On the strength of a paper I wrote about the image of PR and its practitioners in books and movies, I was invited to join the editorial board of the IJPC Journal. The first issue is online now -- free and open to the public.

One of the editors, Matthew Ehrlich, writes a good explanation of studying pop culture images, which I recommend to anyone thinking of writing about PR in pop culture. 

Understanding Ivy Lee's declaration of principles

Understanding Ivy Lee

view presentation (tags: ivy lee public relations)

One of the most popular posts on Teaching PR is the one on Ivy Lee's declaration of principles, which I wrote when I spoke at a "100th anniversary of the press release" event. The interest in Lee definitely inspired me when I chose a topic for a paper to submit to the annual AEJMC convention, and I'm happy to report that the paper, coauthored with Grady Ph.D. student Carl Bishop, won the research award for the PR division. Here are my slides for the presentation I'll be giving this weekend.

PR's reputation, and what to do about it

This week Constantin Basturea was kind enough to link to an old (1999) journal article of mine on the public image of public relations. In the midst of the Andrew Cohen/PRSA/Scott McClellan-spurred debate about public relations and its role in society, though, the article didn't seem so old.

In a nutshell, my study examined portrayals of public relations in U.S. novels and movies from 1930 to 1995. How much fun can research be? I read fiction and watched old movies for months. I laughed at the stereotyped images and couldn't help but noticing how often PR characters died, and when they did it was generally for the social good. The misconceptions about PR were often laughable.

But. What troubled characters in the books and movies was the belief that PR is effective. The implication, therefore, is that the best way to redeem the reputation of PR is promote its limitations. Moreover, the very foundations of PR--providing information, trying to persuade--are troubling to many people. "No matter how honorable your methods may be," a reporter character said, "the fact is you're tinkering with men's minds, trying to shape their opinions, and they just naturally tend to resent it." This from a book written by a former PR man in 1959.

My article concluded: "Readers and viewers of these stories are offered a picture of a somewhat mysterious occupation populated by unscrupulous practitioners with superiority complexes whose main goals appear to be getting their clients mentioned in the news media, duping the public and their clients, and gaining power." I suggested that the continuity of these stereotypes over 65 years meant that they should not be dismissed, no matter how funny they seem.

So, perhaps the PRSA was right to step out in defense of the field following Cohen's sometimes outrageous remarks. But Cohen was tapping into long-standing, widely held stereotypes that resonate with a lot of people. So PR people defending themselves will have little effect on general perceptions. Everyone seems to agree that better ethics among practitioners is the best solution, but no matter what, the stereotypes will take a long time to change.