|
A "Dynamic" Public Relations Case Class:
I Don't Know Anything About Science and You Want Me to Say What?
b j Altschul, APR
Assistant Professor
[log in to unmask]
202/885-2103 voice
202/885-2019 fax
School of Communication
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20016-8017
ABSTRACT
A dynamic approach to part of the public relations case studies class
facilitates student mastery of critical thinking and problem-solving
skills. Using a combination of asynchronous learning for research and
discussion, role-playing and in-class Socratic Dialogue for negotiation and
conflict management, and culminating in a mini-campaign, student teams
represent stakeholder clients with widely divergent perspectives on a
controversial topic in the news, a scientific issue that affects daily life
and communication of strategic policy decisions.
###
DYNAMIC CASE CLASS
A "Dynamic" Public Relations Case Class:
I Don't Know Anything About Science and You Want Me to Say What?
RUNNING HEAD: Dynamic Case Class
b j Altschul, APR
Assistant Professor
[log in to unmask]
202/885-2103 voice
202/885-2019 fax
School of Communication
American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20016-8017
Submitted April 1, 2003, for consideration by the Public Relations Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
2003 Convention
Kansas City, MO
July 30-August 2, 2003
DYNAMIC CASE CLASS
A "Dynamic" Public Relations Case Class:
I Don't Know Anything About Science and You Want Me to Say What?
Sports and entertainment often top the list of specialties that
undergraduate public relations and communication majors say they want to
pursue professionally. Or they may know they want to go to law school, or
work for a non-profit, either in the arts or social services. Indeed,
these fields are popular for internships, and upperclassmen come into their
senior year full of enthusiasm for entering the profession if they can just
find a job when they graduate and make the transition into the first stages
of their professional lives.
But suggest that they consider going into public relations for scientific
or technical organizations, or ask what they think about headlines on
science policy decisions that may affect their health, what they eat, the
air they breathe, how they get to and from campus or work, and a host of
other issues of contemporary life… and their reactions frequently fall
silently to the classroom floor. The apathy among communication majors
toward such everyday problems rooted in science may be more pronounced at
schools whose science departments don't have a strong presence on campus,
but it also may parallel the ups and downs of our national effort to
increase science literacy throughout the educational system.
Indeed, a key policy area that receives less attention in many public
relations courses is strategic analysis as it relates to broad policy
issues, especially in the sciences. To help fill that gap, the public
relations case class is a good venue for focusing on such issues that make
a significant impact on society. As our seniors plan to enter the job
market full-time and become decision-makers themselves – voters, taxpayers,
consumers in the marketplace, community leaders and policy makers – it
makes sense to acquaint them with tools to help them deal with the complex
choices they soon will face. This means going beyond knowing how to
produce technically excellent communication pieces, to articulating the
messages and the strategic roles that communication and public relations
play in managing an organization.
To suggest ways we as educators can encourage this emerging public of
soon-to-be recent graduates to look at the big picture, in this paper I
describe my experiences to date with a hybrid instructional design,
a "dynamic" case method that provides a bridge connecting both lay and
scientific perspectives. I also suggest next steps in the continually
evolving pedagogy.
A dynamic approach can provide students an interdisciplinary framework for
applying the public relations management theories and principles they have
studied to date to a current problem in a "real world" simulation. It can
acquaint pre-professionals – both communicators and scientists – with ways
to improve decision-making on scientific issues and simultaneously to
acquaint scientists with ways to improve how they communicate about
scientific information with lay policy-makers. The intent is to prepare
students from many majors to make communication decisions that are
well-informed and considered in a long-term perspective. Their mastery of
critical thinking skills can help strengthen their problem-solving ability
in ways that are useful not only as they enter their respective careers but
also as they take on the various decision-making roles. The structure
gives undergraduate students a stage from which to experience the role of
the "practitioner in the middle" (Rogers, 1986) and engage in the strategic
decision-making process.
An interdisciplinary approach
Given the differences in outlook toward science, science education, and
communication among practicing scientists, students, and public relations
professionals (Cobern, 1989; Rabino, 1994; Rowan, 1999; Priest, 2001), a
linking of related disciplines represents a step toward bring about
increased understanding among them all. For the dynamic case design,
deliberately seeking out controversial issues with stakeholders from
diverse perspectives ensures not only that discussion and debate will be
lively but also that majors from any one department will learn from majors
in another.
The format draws on the literature of education research regarding online
course design, public relations management, and science communication. In
addition, it bridges the world of academic research and current practice in
public relations.
While most case classes look at a program or campaign that has already
taken place – and this is true for most of the case course that I teach as
well – a forward-looking group of scenarios makes students think for
themselves. One of the roles frequently attributed to public relations
professionals is that of a boundary spanner (White & Dozier, 1992), someone
who brings information about external publics and news developments to the
organization's management, and vice versa. To achieve this, practitioners
conduct environmental scans, especially helpful in an issues management
capacity. Students already work on this kind of assignment in their
writing classes, so it becomes a natural extension for the case class.
The "what if" questions posed through scenarios help them work through ways
to handle uncertainty in their organizations' external environments, while
recognizing that the variety of possible outcomes may or may not happen in
reality (van der Werff, July-August 2000). With a topic that's frequently
in the news, there's a good chance that a class scenario actually may play
out in real headlines before the semester is over, presenting a spontaneous
opportunity to compare student solutions against the actual
decision-makers' choices.
The problem-solving approach in this course unit emphasizes symmetrical
communication (Grunig, J.E., 1989; Grunig, J.E., & Grunig, L.A.,
1992). The purpose of this model is to facilitate understanding and
communication, based on research about publics. A theory of particular
interest and relevance for the dynamic case is that of coorientation, which
considers the level of agreement and degree of accuracy of organizations
and their publics with regard to their perceptions of each other (Broom &
Dozier, 1990).
Choice of issue(s)
My classes build the dynamic unit around public debates on food and
agricultural biotechnology. Broadly speaking, some life science issues may
encompass food and health-related topics for which advocacy organizations
develop campaigns for or against particular positions, or for which major
public relations counseling firms develop programs for their clients. In
particular, the issues surrounding food and agricultural biotechnology lend
themselves well to understanding public issues processes. The subject area
is new for virtually everyone in the class, and it is richly diverse in
viewpoints among the myriad organizations involved. It brings into sharp
focus the difficulties of communicating with publics that have different
world views, since scientists tend to think in terms of "facts," while
non-scientists often make policy choices based on "values." Working with
organizational roles at highly polarized ends of the debate help make the
concepts we're studying more readily apparent.
To pique interest among the high percentage of my students who either are
not especially interested in science or who think they don't like it, this
topic is one that can appeal through a number of other practice
areas: Corporate communication, issues management, public affairs,
government relations, consumer relations, activist relations, media
relations, non-profit and humanitarian interests, NGOs, international
relations and globalization, and others. In terms of communication
styles, the organizations with a stake in the real-life debate undertake
serious, issue-oriented efforts involving both rhetoric and symmetrical
communication, as well as asymmetrical persuasion and activism sometimes
for its own sake. There are educational and informational campaigns that
have been successful and those that have been failures, as well
as elements of stuntsmanship that are clever attention-getters if not
always strategic. My syllabus does not specify that the dynamic case
revolves around science issues, although, interestingly, one student's
criticism at the end of the exercise was that she had not expected so much
of the course to be about science.
Class introduction to the dynamic case and role-playing
To kick things off, opening activities have varied, from my own brief
presentation of the topic, accompanied by articles distributed to both the
class at large and to individual students based on the organizations they
respectively represent; to watching a recent news video (PBS and Frontline
both have tapes available that present an overview of the issue, media
coverage, and interviews with both supporters and opponents); to a
presentation by an expert guest speaker. Most recently I invited one of
the biology professors on campus to give a lay explanation of the science
of biotechnology, along with a science policy analyst who formerly worked
for Hill & Knowlton and is currently on staff at the Pew Initiative on Food
Biotechnology. An independent source, the Pew Initiative, with offices in
Washington, does not take sides but, rather, seeks to provide information
and encourage debate to help all parties make their own decisions
(http://www.pewagbiotech.org).
Assigned readings lead to class discussion of the pros and cons of being
knowledgeable about science (or any other specialty that's relevant to
one's employer) when you are in the position of communicating about the
subject with key publics. Again, the role of boundary spanner gets some focus.
Delegating roles is a key part of organizing this segment of the
course. When I first began assembling the pieces of the puzzle, I made up
index cards with the names of a couple of dozen actual stakeholder
organizations and let each student draw from the deck of cards. That
determined in whose "voice" each student would speak for the duration of
the case. In some instances students drew roles that they later learned
were radically different from their own perceptions, sometimes growing from
that experience, sometimes becoming quite frustrated.
To generate more buy-in among the students and hence greater interest, I've
recently shifted to a learner-centered approach (Azevedo, 1998; Hanna,
Glowacki-Dudka, & Conceicao-Runlee, 2000). I name the categories of
stakeholders (for example, corporate, government agency, consumers, news
media, scientists and agricultural producers, international organization,
or food retailer) as well as several prospective "client" organizations
within each category. Students then self-select both the category and a
single client, ultimately forming teams of about three students who will
function either as in-house counsel or outside agency representing that
client. Informal feedback suggests this is indeed more effective than the
one student/one organization assignment.
While we are still in this organizing stage, I steer the class to the
bulletin board on the classroom intranet, such as WebCT or
Blackboard. They will have several Web-based forums throughout the case,
but before we get underway with full-blown role-playing, I ask for an
inventory in their own voices to find out what they know or believe, or
think they know, about the topic first. Eventually this first post serves
as a point of reference against which they can reflect at the end of the
case whether and how their opinions have changed, or been
reinforced. Where food and ag biotech is concerned, not surprisingly, this
is a subject largely unfamiliar to public relations and communication
students. This presents an opportunity to learn not only about a new
subject, but also some new ways of thinking and analyzing what is going on
around them.
Structure
Student teams explore the public relations dimensions of food biotech from
multiple stakeholder perspectives, along a continuum from supporting
through opposing. They examine how these different stakeholder interests
communicate and negotiate on behalf of their organizations regarding
environmental impacts, pros and cons of applying contemporary technological
solutions to improving food production and distribution, health concerns,
and the sustainable prospects of ag biotech, among other uses.
For the moment, it's helpful to recognize that numerous approaches exist
for teaching case studies classes, within both the public relations
curriculum and business schools (Kruckeberg & Bowen, 2003, in press;
O'Rourke, 2000; Rangan, 1996). The pedagogical mix described in this
paper integrates asynchronous learning for research and discussion,
role-playing and Socratic Dialogue for negotiation and conflict management,
and development of a mini-campaign plan to wrap up the experience. I'll
discuss each of these segments in the sections that follow. All segments
evolve concurrent with ongoing review of theory and principles.
Phase One: Online research and discussion
As I discuss elsewhere (Altschul, 2003, in press), online discussion
provides an additional useful forum to develop this skill although some
educators have found no significant difference between in-class and
asynchronous discussion (Kelleher & O'Malley, 2001). Regardless of the
mode, however, the ability to listen attentively to what someone else is
saying and to give relevant feedback is a primary skill for effective
communicators and strategic counselors.
The online part of the dynamic case lays the foundation for the Socratic
Dialogue panels in class. The format is also adaptable in the classroom to
foster creative and analytical skills so often cited as essential for
meeting professional requirements in a constantly changing environment
(Gower & Cho, 2001).
After the inventory of initial knowledge described above, the first major
step in the role play is for students to conduct online research about
their assigned organizations on the organization's own Web site, critics'
Web sites, and Lexis-Nexis. This gives them a view not only of the
organization itself but also the perspective involved in environmental
scanning. As they learn, they inform each other of their findings through
several asynchronous discussions. Writing now in their clients' voices,
they post what they discover about the client's position on the issue,
along with a discussion of the client's "persona" as it communicates and
makes decisions. At this point, for example, the model(s) of public
relations should be apparent.
While they continue to discover typical communication behaviors, discussion
proceeds to a perception or coorientation stage to identify what each
client thinks other stakeholders think about them and vice versa, and why.
At this point I encourage my students to begin enacting online the
communication behaviors and strategies of their organizations.
In my most recent class, for example, the team representing the FDA
initiated and responded to posts from several of the other stakeholders as
follows:
Subject: Government
The FDA conducts extensive studies on all biogenetically engineered food
products before they hit the market. We take special care to make sure
that every product created is just as safe (if not more safe) than the
original host. However, we do recognize consumer concerns with these new
products and we wish to work with all sectors of the food industry,
including producers, consumers, and marketers to ensure that everyone is as
confortable (sic) and content with the scientific progression of food
products as possible. Our role is to protect the American marketplace as
one of the strongest sectors in the world, while also protecting American
consumers.
With this in mind, we are announcing today plans to research and develop a
method of product labelling that will be required for all genetically
engineered foodstuffs. Our research includes the possibility of a new logo
that will serve as a universal symbol for biogentically (sic) engineered
products.
Current research involves cost analysis and feasibility. During this time
period, the government will hear feedback from the industry as to specific
needs and concerns before announcing our plan for implementation.
Subject: Re: Media
The FDA would like to make arrangements where we could meet with the media
and discuss our plans on a public issues campaign for the topic of
genetically altered foods. Our position is to educate the public about
this issue so that they may feel more comfortable with the idea. The FDA
is willing to share whatever information we have on the issue with the
media. We are aiming to use various kinds of media to make the public
aware of our future plans. Please contact the FDA regarding any questions
you may have on our position.
Subject: In Respone (sic) to Concerned Consumers
The FDA fully understands the concern on behalf of the consumers. Though
many consumers may believe that GM foods have just arrived on their
shelves, biotechnology has been used for a great deal of time. In 1992,
the FDA published a policy explaining how existing regulations for food
safety would also apply to bioengineered foods. GM foods are altered using
biotechnology to help make the crop produce better. There is nothing
different with the end product. There are voluntary guidelines that allow
companies to label GM products. The reason that they are only guidelines
is because of our previous position that GM foods are no different.
The FDA's job is to ensure the safety of all food regardless if they are
regular or GM foods. It is our position that all GM foods are safe and
that consumers should in no way be alarmed. As earlier released, we are
planning are beginning a public education program to inform the public on
the issue of GM foods. We have also established a website which can help
answer questions of consumer and allow them to submit their comments to the
FDA.
We value the opinion of the comsumer (sic) and feel that it is our job to
make sure all products produced are safe. We have no reason to believe
that GM foods are unsafe or should not be consumed.
The Greenpeace team submitted a plea for legitimacy, phrased perhaps
different from how the organization might speak in reality, which gave us
an opportunity to talk in class about power and power-control relationships:
Subject: Greenpeace-->Re: Government
As a member of Greenpeace's in-house PR counsel, I applaud the FDA for
taking measures to work on labeling. But I hope that this will be more
than talk and actually be implemented.
I noticed that something was absent, however, from the FDA's statement
regarding how it will work with all sectors of the food production industry
to arrive at mutually acceptable food products. What about
Greenpeace? Doesn't the FDA care to include Greenpeace in this
discussion? We may have a radical reputation yet we are reasonable people
who can negotiate civilly. The FDA need not be afraid of
Greenpeace. Please include us in your negotiations, we deserve a seat at
that "conference table" because we represent the interests of many
people. Those people's views should not be ignored. Thank you.
Technology thus supports learning, rather than being an end in itself. It
provides a space for students to report, formulate and test their own ideas
and arguments (Morgan, 2000), leading up to their ability to participate in
"live" panel discussions, the next phase of the dynamic case.
Phase Two: In-class Socratic Dialogue Panel Discussions
One management training technique that the Public Relations Society of
America has incorporated into programs at national conferences and large
chapters is a Socratic Dialogue panel discussion modeled after the popular
PBS programs moderated by Fred Friendly (Galloway, 1999). At the
professional level, a panel of experts responds to a hypothetical crisis
scenario for a given industry during an intense hour and a half of
questions from a moderator. PRSA's Strategic Communications Scenario
Program says success depends on choosing a critical issue and posing a
scenario that "realistically demonstrates how the issue might affect a wide
variety of stakeholders and observers of the industry" (Public Relations
Society of America [PRSA], n.d. a).
Intended to demonstrate the power and value of public relations with key
management audiences (PRSA, n.d. b), the format also works as a creative
springboard for students to extend their own analytical and critical
thinking skills, essential for meeting professional requirements in a
constantly changing environment (Parkinson & Ekachai, 2002; Gower & Cho,
2001). For undergraduate students, who don't yet have substantial
professional experience or expertise, each panel lasts about a half hour.
Although philosophy professors may point out that what PRSA calls
"Socratic" goes counter to what Socrates himself practiced (J. Lesher,
personal communication, September 14, 2000), the adaptation for the dynamic
case nevertheless seems to work well. Socrates worked with his learners on
a one-to-one basis, assuming the individual initially knew little or
nothing about the subject at hand.
The classroom situation comes slightly closer to Socratic method than the
PRSA programs in that the starting point for discussion is a subject about
which the students know very little at first. Up to the time of the
in-class panels, they have phrased and rephrased what they have been
learning, advancing to the point where they can take their client
organizations' viewpoints and relate them to the beginning of the dynamic
case. When they are confronted with scenarios that now ask them to attempt
communication solutions, they must finally apply the other public relations
theories discussed in class and test what is effective. This synthesis is
the heart of the process (Munns, 2001; Strauss, 2000).
Every stakeholder team is represented over a series of three different
scenarios (see sample, Appendix). Non-participating team members may
"prompt" the panelists during the discussion or otherwise engage in
communication activities relevant to the scenario. Teams in my classes
have prepared and distributed complete media kits, flyers and posters, and
staged mock protests, some more convincing than others. In both
professional settings and the classroom, an engaging panel is one in which
all parties come to realize the value of dialogue throughout the
problem-solving process.
After the in-class panels, students "debrief" in a final online discussion
in which they post their overall reactions, what they learned, and how the
entire study may have changed or reinforced their initial
beliefs. Collectively, these activities give students a chance to examine
the interchange and decision-making processes among publics who affect and
are affected by broad policy issues.
Phase Three: Mini-campaigns
The final part of the dynamic case design segues to a campaign component,
but not in as much depth as would be expected for a campaigns
class. Mainly due to time constraints at this point in the semester, teams
are limited in how much research they can do beyond an environmental scan
or situation analysis, so the emphasis is on matching objectives and
tactics to the right public(s). For this assignment each team develops a
plan for the client it has represented throughout the exercise, making
recommendations geared to solving problems posed by the issues that emerged
during the online and Socratic Dialogue phases. We take a full class
period for all teams to present their proposals, with a concluding
discussion of what the teams think the outcome would be and an evaluation
of which stakeholders actually are communicating most effectively in the
real world.
Results and next steps
Student feedback in the online debriefing has yielded both support for the
dynamic case process and a number of suggestions to improve it. Some
students prefer discussion only in the face-to-face mode, while others
realize they have more time to think during asynchronous exercises. Most
develop an understanding of the subject, if not an actual interest in it;
on occasion a student will forward a pertinent online news article to me
well after the semester is over, suggesting a continuing increased level of
awareness.
Here's a sampling of student reactions:
…the dynamic panels were an excellent idea. It was a good way to practice
thinking on your feet because that is what PR practitioners will be forced
to deal with. I think in the future I will be more confident when asked
questions on the spot…. I learned more about dialogue. In addition,
negotiation was very much evident in the panel discussions.
…it was nice to split up into smaller groups and interact with everyone to
present each side of the debate. I think that type (of) forum makes it
easier to learn (the) truth about the issue. Plus, being involved in
kinesthetic learning allows much more information to be retained than just
listening to lecture.
I liked the roundtables. It really brought the case issues to life…. I
also really liked the group aspect of the dynamic case and that we each
assumed the role of a different group. It got us involved in the project.
Many times group work is difficult to coordinate, but the online discussion
forum made it easy to collaborate (on) ideas.
I found many of our in class discussions quite engaging as heated
discussions (took place) more often than not.
Working with groups and having discussions online helped me understand a
little bit more of what many people knew already about biotechnology… we
needed to step back and think about all the different ways that each
organization can express their facts, beliefs and research to their publics
in a fair and unbias(ed) way.
I truly enjoyed the interactive aspects of the dialoges (sic). On the
subject matter of biotechnology and GM foods, I began this class with
little knowledge. I have come to learn about these foods through our
discussions online, class speakers, and individual case projects.
In terms of teaching technique and course design, a shorter timeframe for
each online forum likely will compel a quicker response from students,
rather than a longer duration. To date I've worked with a 10-day to
two-week turnaround time, but this does seem to drag out the
discussion. Depending on the frequency of class meetings, four to seven
days may be more effective. In addition, the entire dynamic case can
probably be condensed; instead of taking up the bulk of the semester,
interwoven throughout all of the other activities the class is working on
simultaneously, a concentrated five- or six-week module may be more workable.
By responding to scenarios about the importance of food, environmental and
health crisis issues, students become better positioned to understand not
only food biotech but other headline cases in the sciences, for example,
the Alar apple scare or Mad Cow disease. Because of the nature of the
different roles undertaken – industry, scientists, government, activists,
consumers, international interests, and the news media – the dynamic case
appears to be a natural candidate to involve students from these other
disciplines, both within communication and journalism departments as well
as public affairs, business, international studies, the life sciences,
agriculture and natural resources.
Collaboration opportunities exist with colleagues on campus and at other
universities; using the online discussion forum provides a useful tool for
this kind of expansion. While my classes so far have relied solely on the
asynchronous features, the chat, or synchronous, capability can offer yet
another resource, especially to bring in guest experts who might not be
able to visit the classroom in person. To the extent that an instructor
can arrange for one or more experts, these voices could address and answer
questions from the entire class, selected teams, or students from more than
one campus.
Additionally, the scenario-writing activity lends itself to future
collaboration prospects. Individual student teams can be assigned to write
a situation for the other teams to respond to during the in-class panels,
or guest experts may be invited to challenge the class with a scenario from
their own organizations. Each semester leads to refinement that further
improves the learning experience, making the interactions among students,
instructor and guests an ongoing construction of knowledge. On balance,
the dynamic case contributes to professional development grounded in
application of theory to real world situations, with potential to simulate
real world interdisciplinary problem-solving.
###
APPENDIX
Sample Scenario: Feeding the Hungry in the Developing World
It is 5 p.m. on Tuesday evening. The Embassy of Zambia is hosting a
reception for decision-makers and opinion leaders who may be able to help
them with their urgent need to reduce hunger. The reception is being
catered by Restaurant Nora, the first certified organic restaurant in the
U.S., located in Washington, DC. Among the guests will be representatives
of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Farm Bureau
Federation, and the Organic Consumers Association. U.S. trade negotiators
have just worked out a deal with several agribusiness companies to donate
100,000 tons of corn and cheese products to Zambia and other developing
countries. These products – that have been produced using techniques of
genetic engineering – have been sold and consumed for several years in the
U.S. with no ill effects. Zimbabwe has agreed to accept the
shipment. Zambia is undecided. More than 30% of its population is
suffering from malnutrition as a result of inadequate food supplies and
faces starvation in the not-too-distant future. Outside, Greenpeace is
staging a demonstration against U.S. exports of GE food products, and a
media crew has arrived on the scene from Channel 7 (the local NBC
affiliate). It's been a slow news day and the TV people smell an
opportunity to get a quick story on the 6:00 evening news.
Entering this scenario, your client is either for the use of biotechnology
to produce food and agricultural products, neutral, opposed, or conflicted.
Every time you hear one of the other stakeholders present his or her
position, try to enter the dialogue to persuade that stakeholder to adopt
your position. Initially, try to express positions, actions, and
communications that you've learned are typical of your client. That means
you may stick to your guns, or you may engage in "principled negotiation"
like the activity we did in class with the oranges, or points in
between. Likewise, you may communicate asymmetrically ("scientific
persuasion") or you may try a more sophisticated coorientation approach, or
anything else you think might work.
Your goal is to resolve this situation to your client's
satisfaction. After some initial discussion, if you feel it is necessary
to counsel your client to adopt a new perspective on the issue, please
express your advice out loud when appropriate. If your client is reluctant
to heed the wisdom of your expert counsel, be prepared to tell what steps
you would take to convince the organization's leadership to come around.
Consider:
• Communicating Uncertainty, Ch. 11, The Importance of Understanding
Audiences (Rogers)
• Matters of trust and credibility where scientific uncertainty is concerned
• Cultural and international factors that affect public perception
• RACE or ROPE processes you might follow in choosing an appropriate response
###
NOTE: Additional instructions were provided that were specific to each team.
REFERENCES
Altschul, b j (2003; in press). Using Technology to Teach Critical
Thinking and Public Relations Problem-Solving Skills in the Case Studies
Course. In Learning to Teach: What You Need to Know to Develop a
Successful Career as a Public Relations Educator, 3rd edition. Educators
Academy, Public Relations Society of America.
Azevedo, A. (1998). Computers Don't Teach – People Teach: The Socrates
Online Method. Retrieved December 13, 2000 from the World Wide
Web: http://goldwarp.com/essays/teaching.htm
Broom, G.M., & Dozier, D.M. (1990). Using research in public
relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs,
NH: Prentice-Hall.
Cobern, W.W. (1989, March-April). World view theory and science education
research: Fundamental epistemological structure as a critical factor in
science learning and attitude development. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San
Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 304 345)
Galloway, D. D. (1999, November). Considering a Socratic Dialogue. The
Strategist, 28-36.
Gower, K.K., & Cho, J-Y. (2001, Summer). Use of the Internet in the Public
Relations Curriculum. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, (56)2, 81-91.
Grunig, J.E. (1989). Symmetrical presuppositions as a framework for public
relations theory. In Botan, C.H., & Hazleton, V., Jr. (Eds.), Public
relations theory (pp. 17-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grunig, J.E., & Grunig, L.A. (1992). Models of public relations and
communication. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hanna, D.E., Glowacki-Dudka, M., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). 147
Practical Tips for Teaching Online Groups: Essentials of Web-Based
Education. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. See also
http://www.teambasedlearning.com
Kelleher, T., & O'Malley, M. (2001, Fall). Two Schools, Two time Zones,
One Set of PR Class Objectives: On Asynchronous Learning Networks and
In-Class Discussions. In Morton, L. (Ed.), Teaching Public Relations,
Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication. Retrieved March 20, 2003, from the World Wide
Web: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~aejmcpr/54kelleherandomalley.htm
Kruckeberg, D., & Bowen, S. (2003; in press). Using Case Studies in the
Classroom. In Learning to Teach: What You Need to Know to Develop a
Successful Career as a Public Relations Educator, 3rd edition. Educators
Academy, Public Relations Society of America.
Morgan, M.C. (n.d.). Online Discussion in the FY Writing
Classroom. Retrieved October 12, 2000, from the World Wide
Web:
http://cal.bemidji.musu.edu/english/morgan/onlineDiscussion/discussinFYW.html
Munns, C.A. (2001, October). The Socratic Dialogue: Step-By-Step. The
Teaching Professor, (15)8, p. 3.
O'Rourke, J.S. (2000). Analyzing a Case Study. Eugene D. Fanning Center
for Business Communication. Retrieved September 15, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.awpagesociety.com/public/news/analysis.pdf
Parkinson, M.G., and Ekachai, D. (2002). The Socratic Method in the
Introductory PR Course: An Alternative Pedagogy. Public Relations Review,
v. 28 n. 2, pp. 167-174.
Priest, S.H. (2001). A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and
Biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Public Relations Society of America (n.d. a). Using Dialogue as a
Strategic Management Tool: Strategic Communications Scenario Program
sponsored by the Public Relations Society of America. Program description
available from PRSA, 33 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003-2376.
Public Relations Society of America (n.d. b). Using Dialogue as a
Strategic Management Tool: A Socratic Dialogue Program Sponsored by Public
Relations Society of America. Edited and abridged transcript of an actual
program. Booklet available from PRSA, 33 Irving Place, New York, NY 10003-2376.
Rabino, I. (1994). How European and U.S. genetic engineering scientists
view the impact of public attention on their field: A
comparison. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19 (1), 23-46.
Rangan, V.K., with the President and Fellows of Harvard College (1996, Apr.
19). Choreographing a Case Class. Revised. Teaching note. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Rogers, C.L. (1986). The practitioner in the middle. In Friedman, S.M.,
Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C.L. (Eds.). Scientists and
Journalists: Reporting Science as News (pp. 42-53). Washington,
DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Rowan, K.E. (1999). Effective Explanation of Uncertain and Complex
Science. In Friedman, S.M, Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C.L. (Eds.),
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science
(pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Strauss, V. (2000, Oct. 31). Philosophy's Resurgence: Not Just for
Theorists Anymore, Courses Now Contemplate Real-Life Issues Raised by
Technology and Genetics. The Washington Post.
van der Werff, T. (2000, July-August). Scenario-based Decision
Making. Knowledge Management, (3)10. Web only article available to
subscribers only. Retrieved July 1, 2000, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.kmmagazine.com
White, J., & Dozier, D.M. (1992). Public relations and management decision
making. In Grunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
|
