This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
[log in to unmask] For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************
We Have Rights Too:
Examining the Existence of Professional Prejudice
and Discrimination Against Public Relations
Donald K. Wright, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication
1000 University Commons
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36688-0002
Tel: 251-380-0850
Fax: 251-380-0510
[log in to unmask]
A paper
Submitted for consideration by the
Public Relations Division of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
March 2004
We Have Rights Too:
Examining the Existence of Professional Prejudice
and Discrimination Against Public Relations
About 25 years ago, a relatively young public relations educator presented
a research paper on public relations ethics at a mid-year conference of
what was then the Association for Education in Journalism (AEJ). Since this
presentation came at the end of a five-paper program segment that did not
include any formal critique, a question and answer segment followed
immediately.
The first question was asked by a very senior and extremely well-known
journalism professor who took the opportunity to criticize "anyone who
would even consider using the words public relations and ethics in the same
paragraph." This news-editorial icon insisted public relations ethics was
an oxymoron and then ranted and raved for several minutes and concluded by
asking the author if the next research project he might work on would be
"ethics in the mafia." This journalism professor has made many
contributions to higher education, he's basically a good egalitarian
person, but he strongly believes public relations is a bad thing and at
that AEJ mid-year meeting, he arbitrarily used faulty and inflexible
generalizations to criticize it.
People like this journalism professor are not alone. They exist virtually
everywhere journalism and public relations are taught. Even though public
relations education has matured significantly during the past half century,
and even though public relations majors clearly outnumber news-editorial
majors at most of the nation's journalism schools, professional prejudice
and discrimination against public relations run rampant today on university
campuses throughout the United States.
Ironically, educators throughout journalism, mass communication,
speech-communication, business and virtually every other academic area that
serves as academic homes for public relations education units, have taken
great strides to eliminate all sorts of prejudice in their teaching,
research and every-day lives. All kinds of prejudice and discrimination are
noticeably frowned upon within virtually every academic unit of these
disciplines anywhere in the nation today. Accrediting agencies such as the
Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
(ACEJMC) have established firm rules and guidelines prohibiting even the
most peripheral and subliminal forms of prejudice based upon gender, race,
religion, national origin and, most recently, sexual orientation (Aarons,
2004). However, university administrators and journalism educators appear
to look the other way when narrow-minded, Neanderthal-like news-editorial
and broadcasting faculty members unleash unfounded, generalized, flagrant,
negative and discriminatory comments upon public relations and those who
teach or study this discipline. This professional prejudice and
discrimination ranges from the subtle and obscure to the much more
observable and obvious. While virtually every person teaching today in an
academic unit that houses a public relations program would be appalled if
they heard one of their colleagues use discriminatory terminology to
describe minorities, women, members of a religion, homosexuals, etc., most
of these same faculty members would not get the slightest bit upset if they
heard that same colleague use derogatory terms, such as "flack," to portray
public relations people.
Although some public relations people strongly object to being called
"flacks," few have voiced objections as strongly as outspoken females,
minorities, members of certain religions, homosexuals and others have about
being called by derisive slang terms. Just as some females object to being
called "girls" rather than "women," some public relations people believe
the initials "PR" represent "a slang term that carries a somewhat
denigrating connotation" (Wilcox, et al., 2002, p. 13).
This paper examines the existence of professional prejudice and
discrimination against public relations, and specifically against public
relations education, in the US. Findings are based upon results of a
web-based survey of 342 public relations educators and follow-up e-mail and
telephone interviews with some of these subjects.
What is Professional Prejudice?
The concept of professional prejudice has been discussed in the scholarly
literature for several centuries. Originally the province of academic
fields such as medicine and religion, it also has branched off to encompass
areas such as social work, economics and statistics. Meyer (1995) says
physicians have been prejudging each other for centuries and called for
"exposure, discussion, and reflection" in order to get various issues out
into the open where they could be addressed with greater understanding and
tolerance. In the United Kingdom, the Hypnosis Act of 1952 initiated
concerns about professional prejudice and discrimination against the
British Psychological Society members by the Royal College of
Psychiatrists. Similar prejudices have been claimed to exist in other areas
of medicine, particularly as they relate to medical doctors and
chiropractors. Havranek (1993) says prejudice is very much alive in
medicine lately, particularly as it applies to genital cosmetic and other
sex-related surgery methods.
Johnson (1993), Bohlin (1992) and Sailer (1999) have pointed out a number
of divinity-related aspects of professional prejudice, concerned with
related to Darwin's theory of evolution. Koons and Ashner (1994) examined
certain aspects of discrimination and prejudice directed at atheists by
Christians. Mattison (2003) says the social work occupation and those who
practice it frequently face discrimination and prejudice. There even is
evidence of professional prejudice and discrimination in statistics as
explained in a recent Statistics Denmark (2003) paper.
Although journalists and broadcasters frequently are accused of prejudice,
complaints usually concern discrimination in the way news stories are
covered. A thorough check of the public relations body of knowledge
revealed little previous research examining the professional prejudice and
discrimination journalists and other communication practitioners hold and
articulate against public relations.
Prejudice and Discrimination
Most scholars turn to Harvard psychologist Gordon Allport for the classic
definition of prejudice. He says, "Prejudice is an antipathy based on
faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may
be directed toward a group or an individual of that group" (Allport, 1954).
"Antipathy" is a key word in this definition and Webster's Dictionary
(1979) defines it as "aversion," "dislike," "distaste," or "negative
feeling." O'Connor (2003) says "prejudice" focuses on a negative or hostile
attitude toward a person or a group, while "discrimination" refers to an
unfavorable action or behavior. Essentially, prejudice is a thought or an
attitude while discrimination represents how such thoughts or attitudes are
expressed or communicated.
The scholarly and popular literature both are filled with volumes
addressing prejudice and discrimination. A small sampling of these works
include Friedan's (1994) writings about feminine scholarship and gender
discrimination, Penner's (1973) work on racism and the Klu-Klux-Klan,
Vernon's (1993) thoughts about religious prejudice, the works of Lewis
(1998) on racial discrimination, and the writings of Eisinger and Billiet
(1999) about religious and ethnic prejudice. Although some delineate
differences between prejudice and discrimination, Allport (1954) reported a
.80 (or 80 percent) correlation between the two.
If you trace scholarship about prejudice and discrimination back far
enough you reach earlier era's of civilization when, essentially, any sort
of stranger presented a potential threat to a community. These people were
prejudiced and discriminated against. Most ancient villages were made up of
people who were from the same families or tribes and all strangers were not
only viewed with suspicion but also were viewed with hostility and were
rarely respected. These early forms of prejudice and discrimination are
still carried out in many facets of society today.
Prejudice, Discrimination and Public Relations
The literature of public relations is extremely vague when it comes to
references about the stark reality that many journalists don't really like
public relations people. Most of the major textbooks in the public
relations field focus mainly upon building and maintaining interaction with
journalists, and spend minimal time explaining that relationships between
journalists and public relations practitioners often are adversarial
(Cutlip, Center & Broom, 2000; Newson, VanSlyke Turk & Kruckeberg, 2000;
Wilcox, Ault, Agee & Cameron, 2002; and Seitel, 2000). Although Seitel
(2000) admits, "The relationship between journalists and public relations
people has never been an easy one" (p. 248), he also claims, "that neither
journalists nor public relations people hold the strongly negative views
that may once have been common" (p. 248). Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000)
mention what they call, "The adversarial – even hostile – feelings that
exist between practitioners and journalists" (p. 323).
White and Russell (2004) studied jokes, stories and cartoons about public
relations in popular publications and found many of these relied on
exaggerations about stereotypes of public relations practice such as lying,
hype, spin and cover-up. Spicer's (1993) thematic analysis found
"journalists hold a negative, often antagonistic, attitude toward the
public relations field" (p. 47). Miller's (1999) research of the mass media
revealed many misconceptions about and stereotypes of public relations, and
also said many news media professionals hold negative attitudes towards
public relations and the people who practice it. Aronoff (1975) found many
journalists believe public relations people lack credibility, while Ryan
and Martinson (1994) reported many journalists think public relations
practitioners mislead reporters and withhold information from them. They
also pointed out that hostility against public relations is, "firmly
embedded in journalistic culture, and that the antagonism influences the
mass communication process" (p. 139). Other research suggests that even
when journalists say they respect public relations practitioners with whom
they work, they question their credibility (Brody, 1984; Jeffers, 1977).
Kopenhaver (1985) found 74 percent of the print journalists she surveyed
disagreed with the statement, "public relations is a profession equal in
status to journalism" (p. 40). Wright (2004) has addressed the lack of
respect public relations education receives from news-editorial faculty and
administrators.
Research Questions
Three research questions were addressed in an attempt to measure the
thoughts and opinions of public relations educators about professional
prejudice and discrimination against public relations:
(RQ1) Are some people prejudiced against public relations?
(RQ2) Are some deans, directors or department chairs prejudiced against
public relations?
(RQ3) Does professional prejudice and discrimination against public
relations exist among print journalists, broadcasters, journalism faculty,
broadcasting faculty, communication faculty, mass communication faculty,
speech-communication faculty, business school faculty, and faculty from
other academic areas?
METHOD
For purposes of this study, professional prejudice was defined as any
negative or hostile feelings or attitudes expressed toward the academic
discipline or occupational group of public relations. It also included any
unfavorable actions, behaviors, outcomes or treatment of the field of
public relations, those who teach public relations or those who practice
public relations. Discrimination was defined as treating a person or an
occupational group unfairly over another because any kind of prejudice
against a particular occupational group. Professional prejudice and
discrimination were considered to exist regardless if subjects related
extremely blatant or very subtle examples of them, or something in between.
Data were gathered in both quantitative and qualitative ways. The methods
of study included a web-based survey with both open-ended and closed-ended
questions, separate e-mail interviews with selected survey participants,
and, in a few cases, in-depth telephone interviews with other survey
respondents. Quantitative methods were used in an attempt to gauge an
overall idea about the perceptions public relations educators have about
professional prejudice. The qualitative stages were added because of their
usefulness for studying phenomena in situations where little previous
research is available. Broom and Dozier (1990) and Lindlof (1995) have
encouraged similar methodological approaches in situations seeking both
exploration and description. As Johnson (1997) points out, qualitative
approaches in public relations research permit the exploration of
practitioners' assumptions and views from their frames of reference.
The study's sample consisted of members of the Public Relations Division
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and
the Educators Academy of the Public Relations Society of America. Careful
crosschecking eliminated duplications of subjects who belonged to both
sample groups. Subjects were first sent an e-mail message that described
the research project and informed them they soon would receive another
e-mail inviting them to participate in the study. This second e-mail
contained an embedded link interested respondents could click on and be
taken to the survey which resided on a secure, university website. A third
e-mail message, sent five days later, also contained an embedded link and
encouraged those who had not yet responded to consider doing so. All three
e-mails and the survey itself provided information as to how subjects
interested in participating in qualitative portions of the study could
contact the author.
Invitations to participate in the study's survey were extended to 342
potential subjects, but 58 of the e-mail messages were returned as
"undeliverable" creating a sample pool of 284 individuals. Usable responses
were received from 174 subjects resulting in a return rate of 61.3 percent.
Some of the study's qualitative data were received through open-ended
web-survey questions. Other qualitative data were gathered through e-mail
and telephone interviews with selected participants.
Respondents had the following demographic characteristics. There was an
equal division between male and female respondents – 50% were women and 50%
were men. Two-thirds (66.5%) held Ph.D. degrees, 18.4 percent had master's
degrees, 6.2 percent had J.D. or Ed.D. degrees, and 8.9 percent selected
"other" in the degree category. Age distributions were 2.5 percent at 30 or
younger, 14.8 percent between 30 and 39, 24.7 percent between 40 and 49,
39.5% between 50 and 59, and 18.5 percent 60 or older. Reported teaching
experience was 9.9 percent for 20 years or more, 22.2 percent for 15 to 19
years, 32.1 percent for 10 to 14 years, 30.9 percent for five to nine
years, and 4.9 percent for less than five years.
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents were either professors (31.9%) or
associate professors (34.1%) with 23.2 percent being assistant professors,
and 10.8 percent were instructors, lecturers or "other."
RESULTS
RQ1: – The first research question asked public relations educators if
they agreed that "some people are prejudiced against public relations." As
Table 1 indicates, nearly 98 percent of the study's respondents claimed
such professional prejudice exists. No one disagreed while 2.3 percent were
uncertain.
Table 1
Responses to the question, "Do you agree some
people are prejudiced against public relations?"
Strongly Agree 50.6%
Agree 47.1%
Uncertain 2.3%
Disagree -0%-
Strongly Disagree -0%-
Mean: 4.47 St. Dev.: .53
RQ2: – The second research question focused upon whether or not public
relations educators ever have had "a dean, director or department chair who
was prejudiced against public relations." Results, displayed in Table 2,
show more than half (56.6%) of the study's respondents answered in
agreement with 25.3 percent strongly agreeing and 31.3 percent agreeing.
Only one quarter (23.3%) of the respondents disagreed and 18.1 percent
responded by indicating they were uncertain.
Table 2
Responses to the question, "Do you agree you have ever had a dean,
director or department chair who was prejudiced against public relations?"
Strongly Agree 25.3%
Agree 31.3%
Uncertain 18.1%
Disagree 18.1%
Strongly Disagree 7.2%
Mean: 3.52 St. Dev.: 1.27
RQ3: – Responses to the third research question are shown in Table 3 which
indicates the presence of fairly strong feelings of professional prejudice
against public relations from people in a wide range of different
categories. Findings in this section suggest this prejudice is more
pronounced among print journalists and journalism faculty than it is among
other groups of communication educators and practitioners. The strongest
agreement about the existence of such prejudice was with print journalists,
from where 93.1 percent of respondents reported evidence of such prejudice,
and journalism faculty from whom 88.9 percent of the study's respondents
claimed to have witnessed professional prejudice against public relations.
Other areas where this prejudice also appeared to run rampant, in the
opinions of the study's public relations educator subjects, included
broadcasters, 81.5 percent agreement; broadcasting faculty, 68.8%
agreement; mass communication faculty, 59.2 percent agreement; faculty from
academic disciplines other than journalism, broadcasting, mass
communication, business and speech-communication, 61 percent agreement;
business school faculty, 58.8 percent agreement; and speech-communication
faculty, 54.8 percent agreement.
The only groups from which subjects reported receiving only a minimal
amount of professional prejudice against public relations were "your
personal friends" and "members of your family." Even here, however, close
to half (46.9%) of the friends and 18.8 percent of the family members were
accused of being prejudiced against public relations.
Table 3
Responses to the question, "Do you agree you have witnessed professional
prejudice and discrimination against public relations from anyone in the
following categories?"
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Mean
St.
Dev.
Print Journalists
58.5%
34.1%
3.7%
3.7%
-0-
4.48
.74
Broadcasters
29.6%
51.9%
12.3%
6.2%
-0-
4.05
.82
Journalism Faculty
50.6%
38.3%
3.7%
7.4%
-0-
4.32
.86
Broadcasting Faculty
17.5%
51.3%
15.0%
15.0%
1.3%
3.69
.98
Communication Faculty
21.3%
37.5%
31.3%
16.3%
3.8%
3.56
1.11
Mass Communication Faculty
22.2%
37.0%
24.7%
14.8%
1.2%
3.64
1.03
Speech-Communication Faculty
26.8%
28.0%
26.8%
17.1%
1.2%
3.62
1.09
Business School Faculty
31.3%
27.5%
28.8%
11.3%
1.3%
3.76
1.06
Faculty from Other Disciplines
19.0%
43.0%
31.6%
6.3%
-0-
3.75
.84
Your Personal Friends
9.9%
37.0%
17.3%
32.1%
3.7%
3.17
1.10
Members of Your Family
3.8%
15.0%
17.5%
38.8%
25.0%
2.34
3.13
Qualitative Results
Qualitative data collection sought ideas regarding what subjects thought
could be done to eradicate professional prejudice against public relations.
Findings revealed respondents thought public relations education might
receive more respect if unit administrators had a better understanding
about public relations, if public relations could become a stand-alone
department at more universities, if public relations education insisted
upon stricter academic entrance standards and requirements, if more could
be done to bring about awareness of the legitimate role public relations
plays in a capitalistic society.
A belief also was expressed suggesting those who teach and practice public
relations need to be ethical at all times. Several respondents
appropriately pointed out most of the professional prejudice shown against
public relations and public relations education is not organized by anyone
and usually takes place in subtle actions at the individual level. As one
subject said, "It's not as though there is any organized effort against
public relations, usually it's just ignorant, negative and sometimes
hostile comments from a journalism professor here and a news reporter there."
What Needs to Happen On Campus?
Responses to the question, "What are the three most significant things
that could happen at your university to help eradicate professional
prejudice and discrimination against public relations?," drew a wide range
of opinions. Many pointed out little will change until public relations
practitioners show greater understanding of, and support for, public
relations education. As one respondent commented, "Even some of the
officers in the leading public relations professional societies do not
support us, so why should other practitioners?" Some suggested it might
make sense to teach faculty members in journalism, broadcasting, other
communication disciplines and business what public relations is and what it
is not. There are concerns that many faculty members outside of public
relations treat the field as a synonym for marketing or publicity. Some of
the comments here bordered on being nasty, such as the one suggesting the
best thing to do would be to "have our news-editorial faculty members put
hemlock in their coffee pot." One respondent said the only way to decrease
blatant prejudice against public relations at her university would be to
provide "brain transplants for most of my print journalism colleagues."
Others suggested taking action such as "Nuke the Journalism Bigots."
Several said the only sure way to improve the situations on their campuses
would be to "replace the dean."
Other answers to this question included:
• "Hire more public relations faculty with Ph.D. degrees because, as
several respondents pointed out, "prejudice against public relations
education will continue until there are more Ph.D.s teaching public
relations and more students with public relations degrees."
• "Create actual majors in public relations. Several suggested too many
public relations degree programs award degrees with other names on them:
journalism, mass communication, communication, etc. There were strong
expressions suggesting public relations needs to be more than a
specialization within another degree – it needs to be a degree of its own."
• "Deans, directors and department chairs need to be very outspoken about
not tolerating professional prejudices in the classroom. We've already
cleaned up many of the other despicable kinds of prejudices – those based
upon race, gender, religion, national origin, etc. – and I do not
understand why we continue to tolerate professional prejudice against
public relations."
• "Despite complaints from students and public relations faculty at my
university, administrators here continue to smile and look the other way."
This kind of prejudice will continue until administrators take the
initiative to stop it."
• "We might be able to curb prejudice against public relations if we
offered our services to help our departments, colleges and universities to
improve public relations throughout our campuses."
• "Sometime we will have to face the reality that there are some very weak
links in the public relations education chain. Public relations education
would be respected more if every school would hire only Ph.D.s with
significant practical experience, and encourages these faculty members to
publish refereed research and make significant service contributions on and
off campus."
• "We must do a better job communicating about the existence of, and the
quality in, the public relations body of knowledge."
• "Spend more time explaining how public relations is advantageous to
society, and debate those who say all we do is serve as a spin doctor
controlled cover-up machine."
• "Our only hope is to hire a new Dean because our current one hates public
relations, but doesn't object to the huge profits our college generates
because we have so many public relations majors."
• "We need to improve and upgrade the amount of scholarly research that
goes on within public relations education. Universities would respect us
more if we functioned more like a real academic discipline instead of as a
trade school."
• "Provide business school faculty with more information about what public
relations is and does."
• "Public relations needs to have more input into and interaction with
journalism and broadcasting programs and sequences to ensure public
relations majors aren't being brain-washed when they take courses in those
areas."
• "We should give serious consideration to raising the entry standards for
university-based public relations degree programs. Some aspects of my
university don't appreciate public relations because we always seem to be
admitting into our program those who flunked out of business, pre-med, the
hard sciences, nursing, and other fields."
• "Figure out some way to force news-editorial faculty at my university to
desist from their jibes about the lack of ethics in public relations, and
also prevent them from making untruthful comments filled with stereotypes
about our public relations students."
• "We should take the high road because we're doing nothing wrong. No need
to get down into the gutter with those who are prejudiced against us."
• "Try and convince journalists, and journalism educators, that an ethical
code based upon advocacy is not unethical."
• "Let's remember this is not organized prejudice. Oh sure it's bad and it
needs to stop, but we're just talking about a professor here, a reporter
there, some nut who manages a website somewhere, and that kind of thing."
• "We need to try and stop news-editorial and broadcasting faculty from
telling our students that public relations ethics is an oxymoron."
• "Insist that financial and other resources be based more upon the current
number of majors than upon historic tradition. We have four times more
public relations majors than print here but in terms of faculty lines
news-editorial outrank us three to one."
• "Part of me wants to suggest we need to be careful here because telling
journalists, news-ed faculty, broadcasters, etc., that they can't openly
discriminate against public relations might inhibit their freedom of speech
and/or their academic freedom. We must remember, however, many rules and
regulations prevent total freedom – of speech or academic freedom – in
saying what we believe today in terms of women, minorities, persons of
various sexual preferences, etc., so I don't see what the difference would
be if we included public relations on the list. I support the strong
position ACEJMC has taken in telling us we can't discriminate against those
groups and I believe the time has come to include public relations and
public relations education on the list of things we can no longer
discriminate against."
• "Create a coalition of educators focused on eradicating professional
prejudice rather than in-fighting."
• Show the public relations industry that what educators do makes a
difference for the industry."
• "Public relations educators need to begin building better bridges with
other academic programs, especially those in business and the social
sciences. Establishing better relationships with local, regional and
national professional public relations communities also would make great
sense."
• "We need to gain a better understanding of other departments in our
college (communication) and across the university, and be able to
articulate how public relations is able to enrich these other academic
areas – both theoretically and practically. We also need to understand ways
in which these other fields can enrich us."
What Needs to Happen Off Campus?
Subjects also were asked, "What are the three most significant things that
could happen off campus (at the local, regional, national or international
levels) to help eradicate professional prejudice and discrimination against
public relations?" Respondents suggested many different possibilities with
a number of subjects addressing the reality few understand what public
relations is, and it might help if universities and/or professional
societies put programs in place to correct this situation. Other
recommendations included a number suggesting the field needs to be upgraded
through licensing and/or stronger and more enforceable codes of ethics. In
their answers to this question, a few respondents echoed earlier
recommendations about the importance of having the professional community
support public relations education. Several pointed out this does not
always happen.
Other answers to this question included:
• "The professional community needs to support public relations education
and research, otherwise the discrimination will continue for another 50 years."
• "A good place to start would be making certain we 'outlaw' the word
'flack' in much the same way similar words with negative connotations have
been 'outlawed' in terms of women, minorities, members of certain
religions, etc."
• "It really would help if the professional communities in public relations
provided financial support to public relations education and research
similar to the kinds of support received from journalists, advertisers,
broadcasters, etc."
• "One huge problem is most people do not understand what public relations
is. Practitioners need to be seen as advocates for products, services,
organizations and/or people. As such they can do much to influence
perception and advance worthy causes; help sell good products and put the
spotlight on important services."
• "I think we should insist people call our business 'public relations' and
not just 'PR.' We also need to object whenever public relations is blamed
for certain problems it had nothing to do with. For example, some blamed
the Watergate burglaries on public relations when the real culprits were
crooked politicians."
• "Although I'm not sure how to accomplish this, it really would help if we
could eliminate from public relations practice those who are not
appropriately prepared and who continue to cast what we do in a negative
light."
• "Part of this problem would dissipate if public relations practitioners
used more research at the beginning of their campaigns and evaluation at
the end of them. Much of the criticism I hear about public relations is
directed at fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants publicists, some of whom, quite
frankly, deserve to be criticized."
• "It might help if the PRSA accreditation process were better known and
better used."
• "Point out the good things public relations has done. For example, the
role public relations played in getting Americans behind the cause of the
war in World War I and World War II."
• "We always say this but rarely do it. The reality of the situation is
public relations education needs more public relations."
• "Things would improve if we could remove the 'bad apples' who currently
function as public relations practitioners."
• "We need to be more self-critical as a field. We should be able to deal
with some of these criticisms because some prejudices might have a grain of
truth in them. Let's work hard at discovering and breaking open those
grains of truth. We are only as strong as our weakest link – so if there
are problems out there that we're creating we need to fix them before we
can command the respect of others."
• "We need to strongly demonstrate that very democratic organizations
practice public relations, not just corporations. We need to show how
Mother Theresa, Gandhi and Martin Luther King practiced public relations."
• "It would help greatly if we did a better job separating simple publicity
and promotion from real public relations."
• "Upgrade the practice and weed out the unqualified practitioners."
Additional Findings
The study's findings clearly showed strong evidence suggesting that public
relations educators agree a considerable amount of professional prejudice
exists against public relations. Even though frequency tables reported
earlier were important in the study's attempts to answer the research
questions, additional research concerns involved whether or not results
would differ interms of various demographic characteristics.
Consequently, statistical tests were performed in an attempt to discover if
these attitudes and beliefs represented a cross-section of the feelings of
public relations educators, or if these thoughts were more prevalent in
certain demographic groups. T-tests were conducted to determine if men and
women felt differently about this issue while analysis of variance (ANOVA)
measures were used to check for differences and similarities based upon the
highest academic degree held by respondents, the number of years each had
been employed in public relations education, the number of faculty members
teaching public relations courses at each university, the number of public
relations majors, and the teaching load (i.e., number of classes taught
each year) of respondents.
Although results showed a number of mean differences, only a few of them
held up to tests of statistical significance. Those respondents who held
Ph.D. degrees were more likely to agree that professional prejudice and
discrimination exists against public relations than those who did not
possess doctorates (p=.001). Also, those with ten or more years experience
in public relations education were significantly more likely than other
respondents to agree they have had a dean, director or department chair who
was prejudiced against public relations (p=.023).
Other results from this analysis found men were slightly more likely than
women to agree that professional prejudice existed against public relations
and that prejudice and discrimination against public relations was shown by
deans, directors and department heads. Also, older public relations
educators were somewhat more likely than their younger colleagues to agree
this sort of prejudice and discrimination existed. Virtually no differences
were noted during analyses based upon the number of public relations
faculty members at a university, the number of public relations majors or
the teaching load (i.e., number of classes taught) of the surveyed public
relations educators.
DISCUSSION
This study surveyed a large number of public relations educators in an
attempt to examine attitudes and opinions about the existence of
professional prejudice and discrimination in public relations and public
relations education. Although the concept of professional prejudice has
been prevalent in the scholarly literature of other academic fields, it
appears this might be the first empirical research examining professional
prejudice and discrimination in public relations education. Using a
web-based survey and follow-up interviews, this study of members of the
Public Relations Division of the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication and the Educators Academy of the Public Relations
Society of America found substantial evidence suggesting such prejudice and
discrimination exists. Nearly 98 percent of the study's respondents agreed
some people are prejudiced against public relations. More than half (56.6%)
of the public relations educator respondents said they have had a dean,
director or department chair who was prejudiced against public relations.
Results also suggest this prejudice is more pronounced among print
journalists and journalism faculty than it is among other groups of
communication educators and practitioners.
Qualitative data collection produced findings suggesting public relations
might face less professional prejudice and discrimination if more people
understood what public relations is and what it does. Respondents also
recommended the field of public relations might be perceived better if it
could be upgraded through licensing and/or stronger and more enforceable
codes of ethics. In this same regard, some said public relations educators
need to publish more substantial research and make greater contributions to
practitioner professional development programs before some of the
professional prejudice and discrimination will disperse.
Interviews also asked subjects for suggestions that could eradicate
professional prejudice and discrimination against public relations
education. Findings suggested few changes are likely until public relations
practitioners show greater understanding of and support for public
relations education. While public relations educators appear to be
extremely grateful for the support they receive from some practitioners,
they also are frustrated about the reality that an unusually large
percentage of practitioners appear to doubt the need for and effectiveness
of public relations education.
Findings clearly suggest many mass communication professionals – especially
journalists and journalism educators – do not like public relations or the
people who practice and/or teach it. Results found evidence of many
situations where these critics used exaggerations about stereotypes of
public relations practice such as lying, hype, spin and cover up to
ridicule public relations practice and public relations education.
Respondents who had Ph.D. degrees were more likely to believe that
professional prejudice and discrimination exists against public relations
than those who do not have doctorates. Those with ten or more years
experience in public relations education were significantly more likely
than other respondents to agree they have had a dean, director or
department chair who was prejudiced against public relations. Men were
slightly more likely than women to agree that professional prejudice exists
against public relations and to believe that deans, directors and
department heads have showed prejudice and discrimination against public
relations. Older public relations educators were somewhat more likely than
their younger colleagues to agree this sort of professional prejudice and
discrimination presents itself.
A key point about this study's findings is that not all of the
professional prejudice and discrimination public relations educators say
exists falls into the blatant or obnoxious categories. Most of this
prejudice isn't organized and usually is much more restrained than it is
obvious. Much of the professional prejudice and discrimination this study
found to exist against public relations and public relations education
appears to be similar to subtle forms of prejudice frequently used against
those of a certain gender, race, religion, national origin or sexual
preference.
The issue of one's right to freedom of speech and academic freedom
surfaced several times during the qualitative portions of data gathering.
On one hand, subjects suggested people should have the right to criticize
public relations and public relations people. However, at the same time
respondents pointed out society has formed a number of political
correctness rules and regulations that protect certain groups from such
criticism. Many of this study's respondents were adamant in their opinions
that these same rules and regulations that apply to other forms of
prejudice also should apply to professional prejudice.
Although results certainly revealed evidence suggesting some of this
prejudice was unquestionably unashamed and deliberate, findings also
revealed that a large amount of this prejudice and discrimination fell into
much more restrained and subtle categories. For example, several subjects
drew similarities between subtle kinds of prejudice frequently shown
against women, minorities, religious groups, etc., and some of the
professional prejudice and discrimination public relations educators object
to. One interview subject made mention of a discussion with senior-level,
print journalism faculty at a major university where several made snide
remarks when it was suggested this particular public relations educator
should be scheduled to teach mass communication ethics. The public
relations educator, a woman, likened the remarks to those that might have
been made years ago when suggesting a woman or a minority might do
something. She said, "While we've certainly cleaned up that sort of
discrimination against women and minorities on most college campuses, it's
apparent you can still make derogatory comments about public relations and
get away with it."
In another instance an interview subject explained that although he
thought a considerable amount of prejudice and discrimination are directed
towards public relations and public relations education, he though much of
this was the result of ignorance. "When a male calls a thirty-something
female a 'girl' instead of a 'woman' he probably doesn't intend on
offending her," the subject explained. He continued, "I think when
journalism educators call public relations people 'flacks' most do not
realize they are being offensive. Perhaps we need to do a better job of
explaining that we're offended when people call us 'flacks' just like most
adult women are offended when they're called 'girls.'"
Several interviews provided ample evidence that many journalism,
broadcasting and mass communication educators do not understand most public
relations educators advocate telling the truth and adhering to codes of
ethical behavior in public relations.
SUMMARY
This study of a large sample of public relations educators (n=342)
examined attitudes and opinions about the existence of professional
prejudice and discrimination in public relations and public relations
education. A web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used in the
survey of members of the Public Relations Division of the AEJMC and the
Educators Academy of PRSA. Results found substantial evidence suggesting
such prejudice and discrimination exists. Nearly 98 percent of the study's
respondents agreed some people are prejudiced against public relations.
More than half (56.6%) of the public relations educator respondents said
they have had a dean, director or department chair who was prejudiced
against public relations, and many of these administrators evidently have
made use of exaggerations and stereotypes about public relations while
criticizing it.
Results also suggest this prejudice is more pronounced among print
journalists and journalism faculty than it is among other groups of
communication educators and practitioners. Findings indicate some of the
professional prejudice and discrimination shown against public relations
and public relations education falls in blatant and obnoxious categories,
but most of it is much more restrained and subtle. Results also suggest
many journalism, broadcasting and public relations faculty members do not
understand most public relations educators advocate telling the truth and
adhering to codes of ethical behavior in public relations.
EPILOGUE
The author had just finished the final draft of this paper when a former
colleague telephoned. Now a news-editorial faculty member at a major
journalism school – one not noted for teaching public relations – the
colleague discussed the business of the phone call, but later, in parting,
asked the author, "so what's up with you?" The author told the journalism
friend about this paper and even read a few selected paragraphs from the
introduction and summary sections.
It's an understatement to say the news-editorial faculty member laughed out
loud. He used words such as "stupid" and "ridiculous" in criticizing the
paper and the idea of it. The journalist asked, "What's this world coming
to?" He added, "ACEJMC now tells us we can't use even the slightest jokes
to make fun of women, minorities and now even homosexuals. What's coming
next? If people accept the ideas you're advocating in that paper we won't
even be able to make jokes about public relations anymore."
He concluded by saying, "AEJMC should be shut down if a paper like this is
accepted for the Toronto conference."
Hopefully, the Research Committee of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
will think otherwise.
REFERENCES
Aarons, R. (2004). Sexual Orientation Added to Accrediting Curriculum
Standard. AEJMC News
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press.
Arnoff, C. (1975). Credibility of public relations for journalists. Public
Relations Review, 1(2) 45-56.
Bohlin, R. G. (1992). Darwin on trial, a review. An essay published by
Probe Ministries International. Accessed at
http://www.probe.org/docs/darwin.html February 7, 2004.
Brody, E.W. (1984). Antipathy exaggerated between journalism and public
relations. Public Relations Review, 10(1), 11-15.
Broom, G.M., & Dozier, D.M. (1990). Using research in public relations:
Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cutlip, S.M.; Center, A.H. & Broom, G.M. (2000). Effective Public
Relations, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Eisinger, B. and Billiet, J. (1999). Christian religion and ethnic
prejudice in cross-national perspective. International Journal of
Comparative Sociology. 40(3), 375-394.
Friedan, B. (1994). The Feminine Mystique. Austin, TX: Dell Publishing.
Havranek, C. (2003, November). The new sex surgeries. Cosmopolitan. (146-148).
Hypnosis Act 1952. Report of the Panel Appointed to Consider the Effects of
Participation in Performances of Stage Hypnosis. Accessed online at
www.soothsayer.co.uk/hypnosis_act.htm, February 9, 2004.
Jeffers, D.W. (1977). Performance expectations as a measure of relative
status of news and pr people. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 299-306.
Johnson, M.A. (1997). Public relations and technology: Practitioner
perspectives. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(3), 213-236.
Johnson, P.E. (1993). Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Koons, R.C. and Asher, N. (1994). The revision of beliefs in a changing
world. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of
Reasoning about Knowledge, Fagin, R. (Ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann,
321-340.
Kopenhaver, L.L. (1985). Aligning values of practitioners and journalists.
Public Relations Review, 11(2), 34-42.
Lewis, B. (1998). The historical roots of racism. American Scholar, 67(1),
17-26.
Lindlof, T.R. (1995). Quantitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mattison, M. (2003). Ethical decision making meets the real world of field
work. The New Social Worker, 10(2), 34-42.
Meyer, D. (1995, September). Professional prejudice. Health Care
Communication Network Journal, 14-15.
Miller, K. S. (1999). Public relations in film and fiction: 1930-1995.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1), 3-28.
Newsom, D.A.; Turk, J.V.; Kruckeberg, D. (2000). This is PR: The Realities
of Public Relations, 7th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
O'Connor, T. (2002). Definitions and overview of prejudice and
discrimination. Unpublished paper. Accessed at
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lec01.htm, February 22, 2004.
Penner, L. (1973). Prejudice and discrimination". Encyclopedia Americana.
Volume 22, p. 545.
Ryan, M. & Martinson, D.L. (1994). Public relations practitioners,
journalists view lying similarly. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 199-211.
Sailer, S. (1999). A miracle happens here: Darwin's enemies on the right.
National Post, November 20, 1999, 18-19.
Seitel, F.P. (2000). The Practice of Public Relations, 8th Ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Spicer, CH. (1993). Images of public relations in the print media. Journal
of Public Relations Research, 5(1), 47-61.
Statistics Denmark. (2003). Cultural obstacles to statistical
story-telling. Paper presented to the Conference of European Statisticians,
Geneva, Switzerland, December.
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA: G.&C. Merriam
Company, 1979.
White, C. and Russell, K.M. (2004). What's so funny about public relations?
An analysis of PR jokes and cartoons. Paper presented to the 7th annual
International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida, March.
Wilcox, D.L.; Ault, P.H.; Agee, W.K. & Cameron, G.T. (2002). Public
Relations: Strategies and Tactics, 7th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Addison-Wesley.
Wright, D.K. (2004). Out on a long limb. An examination of public relations
education and its support from the practice. Paper presented to the 7th
annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, Florida,
March.
Vernon, M.G. (1993). Sociology of Religion. Washington, DC: McGraw-Hill.
We Have Rights Too:
Examining the Existence of Professional Prejudice
and Discrimination Against Public Relations
ABSTRACT
This study of a large sample of public relations educators (n=342) examined
attitudes and opinions about the existence of professional prejudice and
discrimination in public relations and public relations education. A
web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used with a sample selected
from members of the Public Relations Division of the AEJMC and the
Educators Academy of PRSA. Results found substantial evidence suggesting
such prejudice and discrimination exists. Nearly 98 percent of the study's
respondents agreed some people are prejudiced against public relations.
More than half (56.6%) of the public relations educator respondents said
they have had a dean, director or department chair who was prejudiced
against public relations, and many of these administrators evidently have
made use of exaggerations and stereotypes about public relations while
criticizing it.
Results also suggest this prejudice is more pronounced among print
journalists and journalism faculty than it is among other groups of
communication educators and practitioners. Findings indicate some of the
professional prejudice and discrimination shown against public relations
and public relations education falls in blatant and obnoxious categories,
but most of it is much more restrained and subtle. Results also suggest
many journalism, broadcasting and public relations faculty members do not
understand most public relations educators advocate telling the truth and
adhering to codes of ethical behavior in public relations.
|
