Building public relations definitions:
Identifying definitional typologies among practitioners and educators
Bryan H. Reber, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Public Relations
Department of Advertising and Public Relations
Chandler Harriss, Ph.D. student
College of Communication and Information Sciences
University of Alabama
Address correspondence to first author at: Department of Advertising and
Public Relations, University of Alabama, Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
35487-0172; (205) 348-2658, [log in to unmask]
Abstract
Twenty-six public relations leaders – practitioners and educators – sorted
30 words to build definitions of public relations and identify typologies
by definition. Four definitional factors emerged – the Dialogic,
Deliberative, Evaluative and Ethical. The Deliberative and Evaluative
factors were dominated by practitioners and educators respectively. Three
factors defined public relations as strategic. At least two factors defined
public relations two-way, responsive, tactical, practical, managerial or
honest. The generated definitions were compared to commonly accepted
existing definitions of public relations.
Introduction
The definition of public relations continues to evolve. There are classic,
textbook, definitions such as Cutlip, Center and Broom's (1994) oft-cited
"Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains
mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics
on whom its success or failure depends" (p. 1). But in 2001 Cropp and
Pincus wrote about the conundrum of a universally accepted definition of
public relations, "At the heart of the decades-long confusion over the
nature and applications of public relations is a deteriorating clarity of
its transcending purpose…The central culprit…is the absence of a
universally accepted and functionally accurate understanding of the
essential role of public relations" (pp. 190-191).
While several scholars have pondered the propriety of a single definition
of public relations, few have looked at the root of the problem – the
definers themselves. This study asked practitioners in the upper echelon
of the profession and public relations educators to sift through adjectives
that might define the practice of public relations. In so doing, the goal
was to begin to identify types of public relations players with particular
descriptions of the profession.
Literature Review
Definitions
Seitel (2000), in the introduction to his public relations textbook,
pondered the definitional issue. "What, then, is public relations? Many
people seem to have a pretty good idea, but few seem to agree. American
historian Robert Heilbroner describes the field as 'a brotherhood of some
100,000, whose common bond is its profession and whose common woe is that
no two of them can ever quite agree on what that profession is.'" (p. 6).
There have been formal attempts to define the practice, including a 1975
effort that brought together 65 public relations leaders to analyze 472
different definitions. They crafted an 88-word sentence to define public
relations (Harlow 1976). In 1976 and 1977, Harlow wrote in successive
issues of Public Relations Review about the plethora of definitions of
public relations. He also produced a chronology of public relations
definitions through the first seven decades of the 20th century.
About five years later, a task force of the Public Relations Society of
America came up with two shorter definitions: "Public relations helps an
organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other" and "Public
relations is an organization's efforts to win the cooperation of groups of
people," according to Seitel (p. 6).
Wilcox, Ault, Agee and Cameron (2000) noted similarities among definitions
of public relations. They wrote that public relations is planned,
deliberate, performance-based, in public interest, uses two-way
communication, and is a management function (pp. 5-7).
After reviewing definitions in eight popular textbooks, Gordon (1997)
suggested a broad definition: "public relations is the active participation
in social construction of meaning" (p. 64).
In their chapter in the Handbook of Public Relations (2001), Cropp and
Pincus included a table with a sample of seven diverse definitions of
public relations. In a note at the bottom of the page the authors wrote,
"Definitions of public relations continue to proliferate, with the common
thread appearing to be that no one perspective or description is identical
to another" (p. 192).
"The importance of language containing 'instant common meaning' cannot be
overstated. Where language confuses rather than clarifies, it can defeat
the purpose that it is supposed to serve. When that happens, particularly
within a field whose lifeblood is its proficiency and creativity with
language, something must be done either to establish concrete meanings to
which all interested parties can commit or to develop a new vocabulary"
(Cropp & Pincus, pp. 195-196.)
One of the problems of a simple and universal definition is the
boundary-spanning nature of public relations practice. As Cropp and Pincus
noted, some classifications of public relations are divided by segments
within the discipline.
Cropp and Pincus argued that divisions within public relations included
academic versus professional, public relations terminology versus business
terminology and strategic versus tactical (p. 195). These divisions
contribute to the plethora of definitions, but might lead to a commonly
agreed-upon nomenclature.
Cropp and Pincus pleaded that the public relations discipline needs "to put
aside its difference(s), close ranks, and galvanize its factions to address
compelling common concerns – starting with role, definition, terminology,
and education" (p. 202).
Differences between practitioners and educators
Educators and practitioners often have been reported to have varying views
about the skills and knowledge essential to effective practice of public
relations. These understandings are logically related to issues of
definition of the profession. That is, a definition that emphasizes public
relations as a management function would logically be linked to agreement
that strategic planning and a place in the organization's dominant
coalition would be essential.
Sallot, Cameron and Weaver-Lariscy (1998) found that educators and
practitioners disagreed on nearly two-thirds (62%) of the items on a survey
designed to measure opinions about professional standards. Several of
those differences were on definitional items such as tactical versus
strategic emphasis, place in management structure, evaluative issues
related to measurement, ethics and more.
Berkowitz and Hristodoulakis (1999) found that while two distinct
orientations – management and technician – existed among both public
relations students and practitioners, public relations education was
associated with the management orientation. "…Education plays a
significant role in a managerial-oriented perception among public relations
practitioners,…[but] work socialization seems to produce the opposite
effect" (p. 100). Berkowitz and Hristodoulakis wrote that "public
relations education seems to play an important role in homogenizing
practitioners' views regarding good public relation practices and public
relations organizational roles" (p. 100).
Stacks, Botan and VanSlyke Turk (1999) "found that educators and
practitioners are in agreement as to the essential skills, knowledge and
concepts that should be and are being taught in public relations programs"
(p. 27).
Heath (1991) outlined research and education "agendas for the 1990s" and
noted that a practical test of curricula was the fact that public relations
practitioners were losing out to other professions when it came to moving
into management level positions. "We must constantly monitor the functions
that public relations management performs and be sure that students are
familiar with those functions" (p. 192).
This research suggests that clarifying the definition of the profession
may help in identifying and agreeing upon the essential skill and knowledge
set of public relations practitioners. Such a common goals will enhance
public relations' status as a profession.
A Brief Overview of Q methodology
William Stephenson championed the methodology chosen for this study. He
created Q methodology to study human subjectivity. Of the methodology he
wrote, "The concern in Q-method is with a person's ideas, attitudes,
opinions, beliefs, as those are modeled by the individual as such"
(Stephenson p. 11). "Fundamentally it is a method by which the individual
can model for himself what his attitude of mind is about complicated
topics, issues, or situations. Its primary concern therefore is with a
person's subjectivity as he describes it, not as we (psychologists or
onlookers) infer it. All measurements in Q are central to the person – the
scales, so to speak, are in the person's own mind" (Stephenson p. 5). Bryan
Midgley and Edward Morris claimed Stephenson conceived of subjectivity in
this way, "For him, subjectivity referred not to hypothetical mental
processes, states or events (e.g. consciousness), but to having a
perspective or point of view on a topic or issue." (Midgley 2002)
In this respect, this study sought to identify the various points of view
currently held concerning the description of the field of public relations.
By doing so, it is possible to determine several things. First, the results
provided indications of the level of connectedness, and conversely
disconnectedness within the field of public relations. Further, these
connections/disconnections were identified not only by their demographic
characteristics but, more importantly, by their insights and perspectives.
This may aid future researchers to develop manners of comparing and
measuring the field in a more directed fashion. Since Q is a form of factor
analysis, once the factors have been identified determining the overall
representation among educators and practitioners becomes merely a matter of
counting.
To aid in understanding of this method it might be useful to explain
exactly where it stands among other methods. Concerning Q methodology
Barbosa et al. (1974) wrote, "Q methodology is a hybrid of qualitative and
quantitative principles used to analyze subjective data and group
individuals according to their resources." This study involved both an
empirical aspect gathered through a process called Q sorting and an
open-ended portion utilizing a variety of questions to further define the
factors identified. Timothy Stephen (1985) noted, "Q methodology may be
useful to those interested in constructing relatively objective maps of
subjective experience or to those investigating connectedness within social
groups." This is precisely the goal of this study – to measure some
elements of connectedness among those affiliated with the field of public
relations.
Research Questions
Based on the definitional literature as well as noted debates between
practitioners and educators regarding professional standards, four research
questions were explored.
RQ1: What definitions are built from this sorting of adjectives?
RQ2: What do these definitions share in common with previous definitions?
RQ3: How are public relations educators and practitioners identified by
public relations definitions?
RQ4: Are there discernable educator factors and practitioner factors?
Methodology
Q-Assessor & The Process (i.e. sorting process)
Q methodology incorporates the usage of two different samples – the P and Q
samples. The P (person) sample is what is normally considered the sample in
quantitative research. It is comprised of the individuals who participate
in the study. The Q sample consists of statements the P sample is asked to
arrange into a quasi-normal distribution. In this respect, Q method
involves the use a forced choice aspect. Respondents in this study were
asked to arrange the statements on a scale of +3 to –3 with only three
statements placed in the "3" columns, four statements in the "2" columns,
five statements in the "1" columns and six statements in the "0" column.
These studies are most frequently performed with paper and pencil, however
this study used Q-Assessor, an online Q-sorting process created by
Epimetrics. Epimetrics Consulting Group is a San Francisco-based Web
development consultancy specializing in database-backed Internet
applications (for more information see www.epimetrics.com). This online
sorting process allowed the researchers to develop a more extensive and
varied P sample pool. The respondents were invited to participate via
weekly e-mails. They were able log directly into the study from the e-mail.
The respondents began by sorting the 30 adjectives into the provided
columns. When completed, the respondent was directed to the page of
open-ended and demographic questions. Once the study was completed and
submitted, the respondent was sent a follow-up e-mail thanking them for
their assistance.
Samples
Practitioners and educators were identified for this study via their
affiliation with professional organizations. Educators were selected from
the membership of the Public Relations Division of the Association for
Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication. Practitioners were
selected from the leadership of the Institute for Public Relations and the
Public Relations Society of America.
Concourse
Participants were asked to sort thirty adjectives on a continuum of most
defines public relations to least defines public relations. Participants
were asked to first identify their top three then bottom three adjectives
that most and least described the practice of public relations. The
adjectives were selected from a review of the definitional literature and
represented definitions from public relations organizations, scholars and
practitioners (e. g., Cropp & Pincus, 2001; Cutlip et al., 1994; Fiur,
1988; Gordon, 1997; Harlow, 1976; PRSA, 2003; Weiner, 1990; Wilcox et al.,
2000).
The adjectives were presented with the preceding phrase, "Public relations
is…". The adjectives were: adaptive, analytical, anticipatory, artistic,
behavioral, cooperative, deliberate, dynamic, evaluative, flexible, honest,
identifiable, managerial, measurable, mediated, planned, practical,
predictive, proactive, reactive, responsive, scientific, situational,
strategic, supportive, sustainable, systematic, tactical, theoretical and
two-way.
The Analysis
Once the sorting is complete, the sorts are entered into a database and
analyzed. This study relied on a software package called, MQ Method. To
begin, the sorts are entered into the computer. Then, the software produces
a table of eigenvalues. The eigenvalues help determine how many potential
factors exist. In this study, the sorts produced approximately six
potential factors.
At this point, a centroid factor analysis is performed to produce the
initial factor loadings. As previously mentioned, this factor analysis is
conducted across the individuals as opposed to the variables. Once the
factor loadings are produced they are rotated either manually or by varimax
rotation. The rotation of factors allows the research to move the factors
through three-dimensional space until the significant factors become
apparent. A good way to imagine this process is to picture a jack from the
game of jacks rotating through the factors, which appear as dots within the
spokes of the jack. The number of spokes on the jack is defined by the
number of centroid factors designated by the researcher. Then, these spokes
are rotated until the dots can be identified as grouped around specific
spokes. Those sorts that load heavily on factor become prototypical of that
factor and define it. Once the significant factors are identified, they are
then compared to the other factors to illustrate what similarities and
differences they may have. These similarities and differences will be
investigated thoroughly in the Results section of this report. (Barbosa et
al 1998)
Results
Twenty-six respondents completed the sorting exercise. Fourteen were
educators, 12 were practitioners. Among educators, eight respondents were
men; six were women. Among practitioners, seven respondents were men; five
were women. Educators ranged in age from 36 to 59 with a mean age of
48. Their tenure as teachers ranged from three to 20 years with an average
of nine years. Practitioners ranged in age from 32 to 64 with a mean age
of 48. Their tenure as a public relations professional ranged from eight
to 38 years with an average of 21 years. Respondents represented 19 states
and one Canadian province. Among practitioners, six were in-house
corporate, two were non-profit, one worked in an agency, one was a
consultant and two worked in specialty areas (government and education).
Factor analysis of responses identified four factors. All but two
respondents loaded on these four factors.
RQ1: What definitions are built from this sorting of adjectives?
Seven respondents loaded on the first factor (see Table 1). The
adjectives that distinguish the first factor (i.e., most differ from the
rankings within other factors) are dynamic, practical, behavioral and
measurable (see Table 2).
The first factor includes four educators and three practitioners and might
be labeled the Dialogic factor. This factor most agreed that public
relations is defined by adjectives strategic, two-way, managerial,
responsive, dynamic, flexible and honest. The Dialogic factor most
disagreed that public relations is scientific, theoretical, measurable and
analytical (see Table 3). This factor was significantly different than the
other three factors in its disagreeing that public relations is measurable.
The first factor defines public relations as "A strategic managerial
profession whose purpose is to practice two-way communicative interaction
within a dynamic environment." This factor emphasizes two-way, honest
interaction. It is remarkable that this factor ranks the statement "public
relations is measurable" significantly differently than the other three
factors. While this factor most disagrees that public relations is
measurable, the other three factors are either neutral about or agree with
that statement.
Table 1:
Factor Matrix With an X Indicating a Defining Factor
Loadings
QSORT 1 2 3 4
1 1457 0.3074 0.5374X 0.2111 0.1146
2 1458 0.1951 0.0960 0.5806X 0.2932
3 1460 0.4629X 0.1843 0.1894 0.2332
4 1459 0.2194 0.3576 0.5322X 0.1152
5 1482 0.2465 -0.0214 0.2143 0.5935X
6 1483 0.0807 0.7354X -0.0472 0.0855
7 1552 0.3320 -0.2878 0.1626 0.5124X
8 1499 0.4891 0.0748 -0.0480 0.6599X
9 1552 0.6852X -0.1052 -0.1288 0.2288
10 1541 0.1061 -0.0405 0.5954X 0.0606
11 1492 -0.0680 0.5816X 0.1811 -0.1014
12 1581 0.3361 0.1885 0.6773X 0.2489
13 1555 0.6964X 0.1365 0.1993 0.3761
14 1488 -0.0499 -0.0803 0.5975X 0.1213
15 1579 0.1546 -0.5750 0.5053X 0.2750
16 1522 0.3390X -0.1240 0.1455 0.1636
17 1585 0.3747 -0.1238 0.1825 0.6046X
18 1553 -0.1139 0.0299 0.2798 0.6230X
19 1542 0.2464 -0.3970 0.0929 0.4866X
20 1631 0.1806 0.1515 0.2998 0.4924X
21 1677 0.2874 -0.0121 0.4337X 0.1677
22 1627 0.4927X 0.1395 0.2789 0.2689
23 1689 0.3797 -0.4759 0.2825 0.1440
24 1663 0.4195 0.1040 0.3973 0.3457
25 1632 0.5923X -0.1374 0.3455 0.3802
26 1660 0.6004X 0.0275 0.1536 -0.0890
% expl.Var. 14 9 12 12
Table 2:
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 1
(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown.
Factors
1 2 3 4
No. Statement RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE
29 Dynamic 2 1.27 0 0.52 1 0.36 0 0.40
8 Practical 0 0.17 2 1.05 -1 -0.44 3 1.42
10 Behavorial -1 -0.69 2 0.90 2 0.57 0 -0.09
28 Measurable -3 -1.36* 0 0.25 1 0.44 2 0.91
Table 3:
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 1
No. Statement Z-SCORES
12 Strategic 1.754
1 Two-Way 1.647
17 Managerial 1.571
29 Dynamic 1.268
4 Responsive 1.252
30 Flexible 1.090
7 Honest 1.083
5 Proactive 0.776
2 Adaptive 0.502
13 Tactical 0.491
25 Planned 0.422
14 Cooperative 0.184
8 Practical 0.174
20 Sustainable 0.063
22 Supportive 0.016
18 Anticipatory -0.029
11 Situational -0.100
3 Mediated -0.509
16 Identifiable -0.523
15 Evaluative -0.534
19 Deliberate -0.534
21 Systematic -0.593
10 Behavorial -0.689
6 Reactive -0.934
27 Predictive -0.934
23 Artistic -0.944
26 Analytical -1.092
28 Measurable -1.361
9 Theoretical -1.576
24 Scientific -1.940
Three respondents loaded on the second factor (see Table 1). Nine items
distinguish (i.e., most differ from the rankings within other factors) this
factor and eight of those differ significantly from the other three factors.
This factor, which includes two practitioners and one educator, might be
labeled the Deliberative factor. It differs significantly from the other
three in its response to the adjectives situational, deliberate,
identifiable, reactive, planned, managerial, proactive, strategic and
honest. The only item that distinguishes this factor and is not
significantly different from the other factors is that public relations is
planned (see Table 4).
Table 4:
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 2
(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown.
Factors
1 2 3 4
No. Statement RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE
11 Situational 0 -0.10 3 1.54* 0 0.19 0 0.27
19 Deliberate -1 -0.53 3 1.38* -1 -0.61 -1 -0.59
16 Identifiable-1 -0.52 2 1.03* -2 -0.75 -3 -1.57
6 Reactive -2 -0.93 1 0.73* -2 -0.87 -2 -1.03
25 Planned 1 0.42 0 -0.36 2 1.12 1 0.63
17 Managerial 3 1.57 -1 -0.57* 3 1.85 1 0.57
5 Proactive 1 0.78 -1 -0.67* 1 0.53 1 0.61
12 Strategic 3 1.75 -2 -1.07* 3 2.28 3 1.99
7 Honest 2 1.08 -3 -2.11* -2 -0.80 2 1.03
The second factor most agreed that public relations is situational,
deliberate, tactical, practical and identifiable. This factor most
disagreed that public relations is honest, scientific, predictive,
strategic and artistic (see Table 5).
The Deliberative factor defines public relations as "The identifiable
practice of deliberately using communicative tactics to address a variety
of situations." It should be noted that this factor differed significantly
with other factors in their disagreement that public relations is honest
and strategic. Of particular note is that while the other three factors
ranked the word "strategic" among the top three (+3) words that most define
public relations, this factor disagreed that strategic defined public
relations and ranked it –2. In terms of using the word "honest" to define
public relations, this factor most disagreed that it was a fitting moniker
ranking it –3 while the other three factors agreed (+2) that the word
defined public relations.
Table 5:
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 2
No. Statement Z-SCORES
11 Situational 1.540
19 Deliberate 1.383
13 Tactical 1.061
8 Practical 1.047
16 Identifiable 1.027
18 Anticipatory 0.903
10 Behavorial 0.896
2 Adaptive 0.862
30 Flexible 0.739
6 Reactive 0.732
4 Responsive 0.651
22 Supportive 0.567
20 Sustainable 0.560
29 Dynamic 0.521
1 Two-Way 0.499
28 Measurable 0.245
15 Evaluative -0.349
25 Planned -0.356
21 Systematic -0.540
17 Managerial -0.567
9 Theoretical -0.574
5 Proactive -0.671
3 Mediated -0.843
26 Analytical -0.889
14 Cooperative -0.896
23 Artistic -1.000
12 Strategic -1.073
27 Predictive -1.410
24 Scientific -1.950
7 Honest -2.114
Seven respondents, five educators and two practitioners, loaded on the
third factor (see Table 1). Five items distinguish (i.e., most differ from
the rankings within other factors) this factor from the others. Three of
those five items are significantly different compared to the other three
factors. The words that distinguish the third factor are evaluative,
practical, honest, responsive and artistic (see Table 6). This factor
might be labeled the Evaluative factor.
Table 6:
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 3
(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown.
Factors 1 2 3 4
No. Statement RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE
15 Evaluative -1 -0.53 0 -0.35 2 1.20* 0 0.13
8 Practical 0 0.17 2 1.05 -1 -0.44 3 1.42
7 Honest 2 1.08 -3 -2.11 -2 -0.80* 2 1.03
4 Responsive 2 1.25 1 0.65 -3 -1.32* 2 1.08
23 Artistic -2 -0.94 -2 -1.00 -3 -2.05 -3 -1.48
The third factor most agreed that public relations is strategic,
managerial, tactical, evaluative and planned. The Evaluative factor most
disagreed that public relations is artistic, scientific, predictive and
responsive (see Table 7).
The third factor defines public relations as "A strategic managerial
profession that plans and employs communicative tactics that can be
evaluated." While this definition is somewhat similar to that of the first
factor, it is notable that this factor differs significantly from the first
in its belief that public relations is evaluative. The Evaluative factor
disagrees, in contrast to the first and fourth factors, that public
relations is defined as honest and responsive.
Table 7:
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 3
No. Statement Z-SCORES
12 Strategic 2.283
17 Managerial 1.848
13 Tactical 1.614
15 Evaluative 1.195
25 Planned 1.124
2 Adaptive 0.788
10 Behavorial 0.566
5 Proactive 0.534
28 Measurable 0.443
29 Dynamic 0.358
1 Two-Way 0.343
30 Flexible 0.304
11 Situational 0.194
22 Supportive 0.189
21 Systematic 0.076
26 Analytical -0.099
9 Theoretical -0.186
14 Cooperative -0.189
8 Practical -0.441
18 Anticipatory -0.541
19 Deliberate -0.607
3 Mediated -0.686
20 Sustainable -0.708
16 Identifiable -0.746
7 Honest -0.796
6 Reactive -0.868
27 Predictive -1.298
24 Scientific -1.324
4 Responsive -1.325
23 Artistic -2.047
Seven respondents loaded on the fourth, and final, factor (see Table
1). The fourth factor is distinguished (i.e., most differ from the
rankings within other factors) by six adjectives: managerial, behavioral,
adaptive, flexible, supportive and identifiable. Only one of those items,
behavioral, does not differ significantly from the other three factors (see
Table 8).
This factor includes four educators and three practitioners and might be
named the Ethical factor. This factor most agrees that public relations is
defined as strategic, two-way, practical, responsive and honest. Factor
four least defines public relations as artistic, mediated, identifiable,
theoretical, scientific, supportive and reactive (see Table 9).
The fourth factor defines public relations as "A strategic profession that
responds to publics with honest, two-way, practical communication." It is
noteworthy that the Ethical factor differs significantly from the other
factors in defining public relations as managerial, supportive and
identifiable.
Table 8:
Distinguishing Statements for Factor 4
(P < .05 ; Asterisk (*) Indicates Significance at P < .01)
Both the Factor Q-Sort Value and the Normalized Score are shown.
Factors
1 2 3 4
No. Statement RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE RNK SCORE
17 Managerial 3 1.57 -1 -0.57 3 1.85 1 0.57*
10 Behavorial -1 -0.69 2 0.90 2 0.57 0 -0.09
2 Adaptive 1 0.50 1 0.86 2 0.79 0 -0.28*
30 Flexible 2 1.09 1 0.74 1 0.30 -1 -0.48*
22 Supportive 0 0.02 1 0.57 0 0.19 -2 -1.29*
16 Identifiable-1 -0.52 2 1.03 -2 -0.75 -3 -1.57*
Table 9:
Normalized Factor Scores -- For Factor 4
No. Statement Z-SCORES
12 Strategic 1.994
1 Two-Way 1.671
8 Practical 1.423
4 Responsive 1.082
7 Honest 1.030
28 Measurable 0.913
13 Tactical 0.858
18 Anticipatory 0.668
25 Planned 0.631
5 Proactive 0.606
17 Managerial 0.572
21 Systematic 0.478
29 Dynamic 0.401
11 Situational 0.269
15 Evaluative 0.130
10 Behavorial -0.089
26 Analytical -0.251
2 Adaptive -0.275
14 Cooperative -0.276
30 Flexible -0.483
19 Deliberate -0.586
27 Predictive -0.688
20 Sustainable -0.906
24 Scientific -1.018
6 Reactive -1.034
22 Supportive -1.286
3 Mediated -1.386
9 Theoretical -1.399
23 Artistic -1.482
16 Identifiable -1.568
RQ2: What do these definitions share in common with previous definitions?
The only word on which there was no discernable difference between the
four factors was "predictive". All four factors ranked it at the negative
end of the spectrum as something that did not define public relations.
The four definitions generated in these factors were:
Factor 1 (Dialogic):
"A strategic managerial profession whose purpose is to practice two-way
communicative interaction within a dynamic environment."
Factor 2 (Deliberative):
"The identifiable practice of deliberately using communicative tactics to
address a variety of situations."
Factor 3 (Evaluative):
"A strategic managerial profession that plans and employs communicative
tactics that can be evaluated."
Factor 4 (Ethical):
"A strategic profession that responds to publics with honest, two-way,
practical communication."
One of the ways these definitions were built was by looking at normalized
factor (Z) scores. Seven adjectives had Z scores of 1.00 or above in
multiple factors: strategic (3 factors), honest (2), managerial (2),
practical (2), responsive (2), tactical (2) and two-way (2). These were
considered defining words because of their positive direction.
Three words received Z scores of –1.00 or more in multiple factors:
scientific (4 factors), artistic (2) and predictive (2). As noted
previously, the only item that did not distinguish between any pair of
factors was predictive. All factors ranked predictive in the negative end
of the definitional spectrum.
Among the diverse definitions derived over several decades, four were
selected as representative to compare to those generated by this sample:
Cutlip, Center and Broom (1994): "Public relations is the management
function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships
between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure
depends" (p. 1).
Public Relations Society of America: "Public relations helps an
organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other" and "Public
relations is an organization's efforts to win the cooperation of groups of
people."
Wilcox, Ault, Agee and Cameron (2000): public relations is planned,
deliberate, performance-based, in public interest, uses two-way
communication, and is a management function (pp. 5-7).
Three of the factor-generated definitions drifted toward public relations
as a strategic profession, which differs from the Cutlip et al. (1994),
PRSA, and Wilcox et al. (2000) definitions.
Two of the generated definitions emphasized two-way interaction. Two of
the factors included responsive as a defining term. This concept of being
dialogic affirms concepts stated in the Cutlip et al. (1994), PRSA and
Wilcox et al. (2000) definitions. The Cutlip and Wilcox definitions
specifically mention the two-way nature of public relations. The PRSA
definitions mention mutually beneficial interactions and cooperation.
Two of the factor-generated definitions refer to the tactical and practical
nature of public relations. These ideas are not explicitly evidenced in
any of the sample definitions.
Two of the generated definitions identified public relations as a
managerial function. This resounds with the textbook definitions of Cutlip
et al. and Wilcox et al.
Finally, two of the factor-generated definitions suggest an ethical or
honesty component. This is not explicitly stated in any of the sample
definitions, though the authors would likely suggest that honesty in
practice is assumed if not defined.
RQ3: How are public relations educators and practitioners identified by
public relations definitions?
One goal of this research was to determine whether definitions could be
linked to types of individuals.
As noted previously, factor 1 – the Dialogic factor – was an almost equal
mix of educators (4) and practitioners (3). The age range within this
factor was 36 to 49 with a mean of about 45. Two of the educators in this
factor were men; two were women. The three practitioners in this factor
were two men and one woman. They hailed from corporate (2) and government
practice. The practitioners had been working in public relations from 13
to 25 years. The educators had been teaching public relations from three
to 10 years. At least one of the educators had significant professional
experience before moving to an academic career.
One practitioner in this factor defined public relations as "the
management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial
relationships between an organization and the constituencies upon whom its
success depends."
One educator in this factor defined public relations as "a communication
process in which individuals or organizations build and maintain
relationships with one another."
So the typology identified in the Dialogic factor is a mid-career
professional or early career academic who believes that public relations is
a bridge-building management function.
Factor 2 – the Deliberative factor – consists of two practitioners and one
educator with considerable professional experience prior to shifting to an
academic career. All three members of this factor are in their 50s. One
practitioner works in a corporate environment; one works in a non-profit
setting.
The educator in this factor defined public relations as "the coordination
and management of 'honest' organizational communications and communication
acts with stakeholders to balance organizational needs with the very real
needs of stakeholders."
One of the practitioners defined public relations simply as "attempting to
control the uncontrollable."
The typology identified by the Deliberative factor could be considered a
mid-career practitioner since all three respondents have substantial
professional experience. This typology is methodical and realistic about
the ever-changing nature of the practice and the competing needs of
organization and publics.
The third factor – the Evaluative factor – has the widest age distribution
of 32 to 51 with a mean of 44. Two respondents in this factor are in their
30s, three are in their 40s and two are in their early 50s. This is a
largely educator typology with five of the seven members of this factor
being educators. Three of the educators are men; two are women. The
practitioners represent each gender. The educators have been teaching from
three to 14 years. The practitioners have been working in public relations
for eight and 20 years.
One educator in this typology defined public relations as "a management
function dealing with lines of communication, publics, opinions, issues,
and trends -- all used to gain the cooperation of target groups."
One practitioner in this typology defined public relations as "a
management function that researches, strategizes and implements behavioral
change."
The Evaluative typology may be attributed to an educator who values both
tactics and research or evaluation.
The fourth factor – the Ethical factor – is the most senior of the factors
by age with a range of 47 to 64 and a mean of 54. This factor, like the
first, is split between educators and practitioners. Four educators and
three practitioners make up this factor. Two of the educators are male;
two are female. The practitioners are all male. The practitioners have
been working in public relations from 26 to 38 years.
One educator in this factor defined public relations as "identifying,
establishing and maintaining relationships between an organization and its
most important publics."
One practitioner defined public relations as " establishing an ongoing,
positive dialogue with the publics that an entity deems important to its
success and survival."
The Ethical typology could be identified as seasoned educators and
practitioners. This group especially values integrity within the
profession. It acknowledges the place of persuasion in public relations
but is concerned that such persuasion be positive in its influence.
RQ4: Are there discernable educator factors and practitioner factors?
The simple answer to this research question is a qualified "No". There
are no dramatic patterns of educators and practitioners grouping
together. That is, there are no factors consisting solely of educators or
practitioners. There are, however some considerations to be explored and
discussed.
Factor 2 loaded two senior practitioners and one educator. The educator,
however, spent 20 practicing public relations before beginning a teaching
career. So, Factor 2, as mentioned above, might be considered a
practitioner factor. Factor 3 consisted of five educators and two
practitioners. So, Factor 3 might be considered an educator factor.
Factors 1 and 4 were split. Factor 1 consisted of four educators and three
practitioners. And Factor 4 consisted of four educators and three
practitioners. The two respondents that did not load onto factors were
practitioners.
Discussion
In a profession that continues to struggle with defining what it does,
there is value is seeing trends in descriptive word choice linked to the
profession – strategy, managerial, tactical and responsive. It is
noteworthy that there was strong affirmation of the strategic and
managerial nature of public relations. This may suggest a continuing shift
to understanding that professional practice is more than just writing
strong press releases and planning events – though it is those things,
too. For those who promote professionalizing public relations, the
acceptance of strategy and managerial tasks is encouraging. The
definitions generated by this research both embrace and distinguish
themselves from concepts in widely accepted definitions of the
practice. They embrace the concepts of dialogue and management. They
distinguish themselves in the emphasis on strategy and honesty. That, of
course, is not to say that the existing definitions do not embrace these
concepts, only that they do not lift them to the status of something that
distinguishes the practice.
This research succeeded in identifying types of public relations personas
and associating them with definitions in an effort to narrow the
definitional chasm. In so doing, four distinct types were identified. The
Dialogic type consisted of mid-career educators and practitioner. The
Deliberative type consisted of those with substantial professional
experience. The Evaluative type consisted largely of educators. The
Ethical type consisted of senior educators and practitioners. These
typologies are logical. The mid-career Dialogic typology has "come of age"
during a time when relationship building and two-way dialogue have been the
watchwords of the profession, while the Deliberative typology suggests the
sophisticated understanding of the profession that comes with extensive
experience. The Evaluative typology is logically linked to educators who
embrace and preach the value of research and objective setting that
naturally leads to successful evaluation. Finally, the Ethical typology
provides evidence of a group that desires to communicate that public
relations is not synonymous with "spin", that it is honest in its work
toward organizational objectives of persuasion.
Conclusion
Among the contributions of this exploratory research is its heuristic
value. It raises as many, if not more, questions than it
answers. Scholars generally agree about the inherent value of identifying
questions to explore. It is especially valuable in a field such as public
relations to generate questions that explore issues of importance within
the realms of both the academy and practice. Next steps in research might
include a broader survey to further explore the typologies identified here
as well as to look for others. Another Q study of public relations
students would be valuable to determine if the definitional typologies
differ dramatically between seasoned educators and practitioners and
inexperienced beginners in the field. One thing remains certain, while
this study explores new issues in defining public relations, the work
toward a short list of commonly accepted definitions needs to continue –
acknowledging that the practice of public relations is too complex to be
boxed in by any single definition.
Works Cited
Barbosa, Jolio C., et al. (1998). Statistical Methodology: Vii.
Q-Methodology, a Structural Analytic Approach to Medical Subjectivity,
Academic Emergency Medicine 5(12), 1032-40.
Berkowitz, D. & I. Hristodoulakis (1999). Practitioner roles, public
relations education, and professional socialization: An exploratory study,
Journal of Public Relations Research, 11 (1), 91-103.
Brown, Steven R. (1993). A Primer on Q-Methodology, Operant
Subjectivity.16, 91-138.
Cropp, Fritz, and J. David Pincus (2001). The mystery of public relations:
Unraveling its past, unmasking its future. In Robert Heath (ed.), Handbook
of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 189-203.
Cutlip, Scott M., Allen H. Center and Glen L. Broom (1994). Effective
Public Relations, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fiur, M. (1988). Public relations faces the 21st century. In R. E.
Hiebert (Ed.), Precision Public Relations, New York: Longman, 337-356.
Gordon, Joye C. (1997). Interpreting definitions of public relations: Self
assessment and a symbolic interactionism-based alternative, Public
Relations Review 23(1), 57-66.
Harlow, Rex F. (1977). Public relations definitions through the years,
Public Relations Review, 3(1), 49-63..
Harlow, Rex F. (1976). Building a public relations definition, Public
Relations Review 2 (4), 34-42.
Heath, R. L. (1991). Public relations research and education: Agendas for
the 1990s, Public Relations Review, 17 (2), 185-194.
McKeown, Bruce, and Dan Thomas (1988). Q Methodology. Quantitative
applications in the social sciences. Ed. Sage. Vol. 66. London: Sage
University Paper.
Midgley, Bryan D., and Edward K. Morris (2002). Subjectivity and
Behaviorism: Skinner, Kantor and Stephenson, Operant Subjectivity 25(3/4),
127-38.
Sallot, L. M., G. T. Cameron and R.A. Weaver Lariscy (1998). Pluralistic
Ignorance and Professional Standards: Underestimating Professionalism of
Our Peers in Public Relations, Public Relations Review, 24 (1), 1-19.
Seitel, Fraser P. (2000). The practice of public relations, 7th ed., Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 4-7.
Stacks, D. W., C. Botan, & J. VanSlyke Turk (1999). Perceptions of public
relations education, Public Relations Review, 25 (1), 9-28.
Stephen, Timothy D (1985). Q-Methodology in Communication Science: An
Introduction. Communication Quarterly 33(3), 193-208.
Stephenson, William (1967). The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Weiner, Richard (1996). Webster's new world dictionary of media and
communications (rev. ed.), New York: Macmillan.
Wilcox, D. L., P. H. Ault, W. K. Agee and G. T. Cameron (2000). Public
Relations: Strategies and Tactics, 6th ed., New York: Longman, 5-7.
|
