Content-Type: text/html

Public Relations Journals
Running head: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS JOURNALS









A Content Analysis of the Journal of Public Relations Research
 and Public Relations Review, 1989-2001





Tina B. Carroll
Doctoral Student
University of Miami
School of Communication
P.O. Box 248127
Coral Gables, FL 33124-2105
Phone: (305) 284-4981
Fax: (305)-284-5226
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D1514904%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_13209179%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>


Paper submitted for consideration to the Public Relations Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention, Miami Beach, Florida,
April 1, 2002.
 Abstract
This study analyzed 498 articles in the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review from 1989 to 2001 to investigate the status of published public relations research. Variables that were examined included author characteristics, methodological procedures, and research topics. Results indicate that nearly half (49%) of the articles discussed or tested a theory and 48% of the articles had at least one female author. While quantitative research has not increased in public relations journals, the use of statistics has grown in sophistication. Differences between the two journals, in such areas as authorship and sampling techniques, were also found.
 A Content Analysis of the Journal of
Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review, 1989-2001
The growth of the public relations profession has been astonishing over the past decade in the United States, and has led to an increase of practitioners and academicians, as well as an influx of students into journalism and communication departments (Commission on Public Relations Education, 1999). According to an annual survey, there were 17,000 students enrolled in public relations programs in the United States (Ross & Johnson, 2002). According to the Commission on Public Relations Education (1999), membership in professional and academic societies has "spiraled upward" (p. 1). From 2000 to 2001, membership in the Public Relations Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) increased by 100 members from the previous year to 560 members, and is now the third largest division of the association (Freitag, 2001). Despite this increase in the number of individuals entering the field of public relations, one oft-mentioned criticism has been
the lack of adequate research skills that practitioners, students, and academicians possess.
One Silver Anvil judge[1] noted that research is the area needing the most improvement in most professional public relations campaigns, and many of the submissions need to revisit what constitutes a successful public relations program (Austin & Pinkleton, 2001). This criticism has also been heard in academic circles as well. Members of a Public Relations Body of Knowledge Board, who compile significant public relations research, agree that public relations needs more fully developed lines of research, as well as independent reviews of literature. The Board (1990) comments that some academicians are "likely to be uneasy that the classification of research within the body of knowledge shows how few well-developed streams of research and publication have been produced in public relations" (p. 17).  Broom, Cox, Krueger, and Liebler (1989) contend how researchers in both academic and professional settings have been critical of public relations research, and that there is a gap between
the needs of the practitioner and theory-based research findings in journals.
One way to assess the development and contributions, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a discipline, is to review the state of published research. Journals are one source that can provide historical methods documenting a field's evolution (Tomasello, 2001). Van Leuven (1990) states, "For at least 20 years practitioners and educators have called for a definitive assessment of the literature that is distinctive to the field of public relations" (p. 17). Notably absent from most of the prior research conducted in this area is the new academic public relations research journal, Journal of Public Relations Research. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the past and current volumes of public relations journals to analyze trends in authorship, methodological and statistical procedures, and topical areas in two public relations journals from 1989 to 2001 to assess the current state of research in public relations.
Literature Review and Research Questions
Few content analyses have been conducted investigating methodological procedures of articles and publications in the discipline of public relations. Some content analyses have investigated both practitioner and academic publications, primarily Public Relations Journal and Public Relations Review. However, the Public Relations Journal is a trade publication that is not peer or blind reviewed and follows a magazine style format. In addition, some of the practitioner-oriented publications, including the Public Relations Journal, are no longer in existence. Even though few journals have been analyzed in public relations, other areas in mass and human communication have conducted content analyses of academic publications, including such issues as authorship, research methods, as well as topical areas (e.g., Dolan, & Lawrence, 1996; Dupagne, Potter,  & Cooper, 1993; Riffe, & Freitag, 1997).
Authorship Characteristics
Faculty, practitioner, and student authors. Pasadeos and Renfro (1992) found that public relations researchers cite each other more than in the past, and academicians are contributing more to scholarly publications. In a follow-up study, Pasadeos, Renfro, and Hanily (1999) analyzed articles in Public Relations Review and the Journal of Public Relations Research for their authorship and affiliation characteristics. In 1992, the authors found that the number of academic authors increased from 54% in 1975 to 1979 to 89% in 1985 to 1989. In 1999, the trend continued with 95% of the articles being written by academicians and 5% written by practitioners. However, the authors of the article do not differentiate between student and faculty authors.
There appears to be a major gap between publications aimed at practitioners and those aimed at academicians in public relations. Broom et al. (1989) compared articles published in the Public Relations Journal (practitioner-oriented) with those in the Public Relations Review (academic-oriented).  They found that articles in Public Relations Journal focused on public relations processes found in community and media relations programs, while articles in Public Relations Review emphasized professionalism in public relations. The Commission for Education in Public Relations (1999) suggests more collaborative research projects between practitioners and academicians in public relations will not only advance the practitioner-educator relationship, but also expand the current body of knowledge.
Gender. Gender issues are an important element in content analyses of journals, including such considerations as the perception of women in journal articles, and research productivity of women. Grunig contends when women "crash" the glass ceiling of promotion and tenure in a university, it can be largely attributed to their research productivity (1989, p. 48). Therefore, research is the most important of the three traditional criteria for success in academia, which also include teaching and service. Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper (1993) found that women's scholarship is increasing, and there are gender variations based on the categories of research.
Adams and Bodle (1995) analyzed membership trends and convention presentations of women in the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) since journal articles are typically first submitted to conventions, and may indicate what will eventually be published in academic journals. In the Public Relations Division, female-authored convention papers increased from 24% in 1987 to 43% in 1993. Adams and Bodle concluded that scholarship by women was indeed increasing. In public relations, where women outnumber men both in the profession, and as public relations majors within colleges and universities, it is necessary to evaluate whether these percentages continue to increase.
Methodological Procedures
Theory. The ability in academia to conduct theoretically grounded research is an important element related to tenure and promotion (Neff, Walker, Smith, & Creedon, 1999). In an article detailing "tomorrow's research agenda," Van Leuven (1990) discusses the need for social science theory to explain relationships between an organization and its publics in public relations. To date, no public relations studies have investigated the presence or absence of theories or models in public relations journals, even though some scholars have written articles discussing the need for theoretical based research. Research that tests theory is important especially to a relatively new academic field such as public relations, which is trying to establish its own theories, and has long searched for a unifying theory and set of definitions (Leeper & Leeper, 2001).
In other journals, Cooper, Potter, and Dupagne (1994) reported that among eight communication journals less than one in 10 studies tested a theory overall. Riffe and Freitag (1997) examined variables in Journalism Quarterly articles for their "theoretical linkage", depending upon presence of an explicit theoretical framework, hypotheses of research questions, use of an additional research method, or inclusion of extra-media data.
Research methods. In a content analysis of Public Relations Review from 1975 to 1993, Morton and Lin (1995) investigated types of research (quantitative vs. qualitative), citations of the articles, including how often the articles were cited in other journals, and the authors' university affiliations. They found that 60% of the articles were qualitative and 40% were quantitative. However, they did not focus on methodological procedures, such as data-gathering methods and sampling.
Gaudino and Steele (1988) analyzed Public Relations Review and found that while more empirical research methods were being used, case studies were not giving way to other research methods (cited in Van Leuven, 1990). Moffett and Dominick (1987) analyzed the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media for methodological differences in the articles across two time periods: 1970 to 1976 and 1977 to 1985. Survey was the most popular method in both time frames, followed by experiment and content analysis.
Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper (1993) found that secondary research was the most frequently employed data-gathering technique in eight leading communication journals from 1965 to 1989. Survey was the second most used, followed by content analysis. Contrary to Morton and Lin (1995), Cooper, Potter, and Dupagne (1994) found that qualitative research did not increase in importance from 1965 to 1989.
Sampling techniques. Few studies have analyzed sampling techniques in journals. In their content analysis of content analyses in Journalism Quarterly, Riffe and Freitag (1997) found that few studies used random sample or census data. Rather, more than 90% used either purposive or convenience samples. Without probabilistic sampling, researchers are unable to generalize their sample results to the population.
Statistics. Morton and Lin (1995) found no significant difference in the type of statistics used between uncited and cited articles. Interestingly, a greater proportion of quantitative articles using inferential statistics were cited compared to articles using only descriptive statistics. Moffett and Dominick (1987) reported that statistics used by the Journal of Broadcasting researchers were growing in importance and sophistication.
 Katzer and Sodt (1973) investigated statistical testing in communication research and determined that when analyzing certain statistics, a researcher should at minimum be required to report certain items. The most troublesome finding was the lack of information reported in the studies, in which a replication could not be undertaken. For example, an ANOVA should include sources of variation, sum of squares, degrees of freedom, mean squares, and F statistics. Also, for a chi-square test, both expected and observed frequencies should be noted, as well as whether a Yates correction was used.
Topics
Other scholars have conduced in-depth investigations of specific topics in public relations. Bourland (1993) investigated conflict in firm-client relations in Public Relations Journal articles from 1980 to 1989 and found that more than two-thirds of the articles came from the last half of the decade studied. In a content analysis of international coverage in the Public Relations Journal, Public Relations Quarterly, and Public Relations Review from 1985 to 1995, Solodovnikova (1997) found a significant increase in the number and length of international public relations articles during these last six years. She also investigated specific public relations topics within the international articles. "Public relations in other countries", "general discussion" and "case study" were the most popular topics in the articles over the years studied.
Broom, Cox, Krueger, and Liebler (1989) analyzed the topics of 274 articles in the Public Relations Journal and Public Relations Review and offered three conclusions:
1.      The commentaries and research published in the Review are not responsive to the interests of practicing professionals in implementing programs.
2.      Both publications do not provide enough help to students, teachers, practitioners, and managers in understanding and using research in public relations.
3.      The Review offers little cross-situational, theory-building research that adds to the systematic body of knowledge.
However, they analyzed articles from 1975 to 1982 in the respective journals, and much has changed since then. In a more recent analysis of topics, Morton and Lin (1995) identified four major categories of public relations and fourteen subcategories. Articles dealing with professionalism were published more in each five-year period, followed by management and technical topics.
Considering the addition and changes to public relations literature, it is increasingly important to investigate the past 10 years of public relations journals in two public relations journals: Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review. Based on the foregoing literature, this study will examine the following questions:
RQ1: What are the author characteristics, such as gender and whether the author(s) is student, professor, or professional, most frequently found in the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review?
RQ2: What methodological procedures, such as presence of theory, data-gathering procedures, sampling methods, research methods, and statistical analyses, are most frequently employed in the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review?
RQ3: What topical areas have been researched most frequently in the Journal of
Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review?
 Methodology
Data Collection
The unit of analysis was the research article. Since the Journal of Public Relations Research has been in existence since 1989, the population of research articles in the Journal of Public Relations Research (including the three annuals of 1989 to 1991), and Public Relations Review from 1989 to 2001, were analyzed.  However, one issue (Winter 1991) in Public Relations Review was excluded because it was a special issue journal devoted to a practitioner that included articles previously published from the 1970s . All the public relations articles (N = 498) in the journals were used in this study, excluding such categories as book reviews, lectures, commentaries, bibliographies, introductions, and editor's notes.
There are several reasons why the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review were chosen. First, the journals deal specifically with public relations and have been in existence for at least ten years. Second, both journals are peer and blind reviewed. This standard decreases the possible bias by editors and the board who may set the content or agenda of the journals, as well as subject the articles to more rigorous standards. Also neglected from previous research is the Journal of Public Relations Research, which is currently the second academic research journal in existence in public relations. A brief description of each journal follows.
Journal of Public Relations Research. In 1989, the Public Relations Division in the AEJMC published a Public Relations Research Annual, which included articles addressing and utilizing research topics. After three years, the division decided to convert the Annual to a quarterly publication, the Journal of Public Relations Research. The acceptance rate of the journal is 28% and the circulation size is about 500 (Dyer & Venzke, 1999). The journal examines research that builds public relations theory, organizational practices, and scholarly criticisms of public relations to help develop ethics, history, and a philosophy of public relations.  The journal emphasizes scholarly research, which is useful to both the practitioner and the academician (Grunig & Grunig, 1992).
Public Relations Review. Public Relations Review began in 1975 and is devoted to articles examining public relations in depth (Elsevier Science, 2002). The quarterly journal (not including the annual bibliography) includes articles written by academicians and professionals relating to topics in the field of public relations, but also includes subtopics such as organizational communication, public opinion, marketing, and management. The focus is generally based on empirical research with an acceptance rate of 33% and a circulation size of about 2000 (Dyer & Venzke, 1999).
Operational Definitions
Author characteristics. Each article was coded for three author characteristics: number of authors, gender, and status. An article was coded as a female based on the name, author description, or reputation. The same criteria were used to determine the status of the author (faculty, practitioner, or student). If an author was part-time faculty but worked full time as a practitioner, the individual was coded as a practitioner.
Methodological procedures. Each article was coded for five methodological variables (procedures): presence of theory, data-gathering procedure, research method, sampling procedure, and statistical analysis. An article was coded as theory/model if it discussed a theory or a model (e.g., Grunig's four models of public relations) in at least one paragraph. So this variable included two categories: theory-based and non-theory based. The general data-gathering variable included four categories: none, qualitative, quantitative, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative. An article coded as none includes literature reviews, commentaries, and discussions. A qualitative article included research methods as focus groups, interviews, field observation, historical, as well as some case studies and content analyses.
Each article was coded for the research methods which included 12 categories: none, survey/questionnaire, focus group, experiment, field observation, in-depth interview, content analysis, case study, secondary analysis, historical, other, and a combination of methods.   Sampling method was coded depending on the definition used by the author. This is important because in some cases an author said their sample was random when it was not. If the sampling method was not explicit, it was coded based on the description. The 10 categories include none, convenience/volunteer, purposive, quota, simple random, systematic random, stratified, cluster, other, not known. Sample size was also coded.
Each article was coded for the three highest levels of statistics. Following Wimmer and Haynes as well as Moffett and Dominick, statistical analyses include any form of numerical analysis. Univariate statistics included means, standard deviations, percentages and frequencies.  Bivariate statistical tests included chi-square, z-score, t-test, analysis of variance, and correlation. Multivariate statistics include regression, log-linear, factor analysis, cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, discriminant analysis, and path analysis. If an article reported more than one statistic, the percentage/frequency category was eliminated. If combinations of statistical tests were used, they were coded as: combinations of bivariate, combinations of multivariate, and combinations of bivariate and multivariate.
Topical areas. Public relations topics were coded using 16 categories (see Table 6) based on a modified version of Morton and Lin's (1995) 14 public relations topical categories. This study collapsed several of their categories, developed new ones, and  resulted in a listing of 16 topics.
Intercoder Reliability
A subsample of the coding (15%) was randomly selected and recoded by a trained, independent graduate student coder. Cohen's Kappa (1960), which accounts for agreement by chance, was used to compute the intercoder reliability figures for nominal-level data: discussion/test of theory, .79; data-gathering procedure, .92; research method, .93; type of sample, .89; public relations topics, .89; statistical analysis, .87. Holsti's percentage of agreement formula (1969) was used for the ratio-level variables: number of authors, .99; number of female authors, .99; number of student authors, 1.0; number of practitioner authors, .99; sample size, .96.
Results
Author Characteristics
From 1989 to 2001, 498 articles were published in Public Relations Review (n = 340) and Journal of Public Relations Research (n = 158). Of the number of authors in the articles, 308 (62%) had only one author, 124 (25%) had two authors, while the remaining 66 (13%) had three or more authors (see Table 1). There was a difference between the journals regarding the number of authors. The Journal of Public Relations Research had more authors per article (M = 1.78, SD = 1.07) than Public Relations Review (M = 1.46, SD = .72).
Female authorship. Of the total number of authors (N = 779), 48% were females. While 260 (52%) of the articles did not have any female authors, 178 (36%) of the articles were single-author females (see Table 1). The remaining 60 articles were authored by two or more females. Differences were found between the two journals regarding the number of female authors, in which Journal of Public Relations Research (M = .77, SD = .84) had more than Public Relations Review (M = .55, SD = .70). There is also an increase in the means between 1989 to 1995 (M = .55, SD = .73) and 1996 to 2001 (M = .69, SD = .78) regarding female authorship.
Author status. An overwhelming majority of articles (n = 477) had at least one faculty author (96%). Of the total number of authors (N = 779), 88% were faculty, 8% were professionals or practitioners, and 4% were students (see Table 1). Of the 498 articles, 96% had at least one faculty author, and 12% had at least one practitioner author. Differences were found regarding faculty authors, in which more faculty authors were published in Journal of Public Relations Research (M = 1.62, SD = .92) than Public Relations Review (M = 1.26, SD = .66).
Methodological Procedures
Theory. Almost half (49%) the articles (n = 242) discussed or tested a theory or model in at least one paragraph of the literature review or article. In most of the cases when a theory or model was mentioned, it included Grunig's four models of public relations or Broom-Dozier's practitioner roles. There were some differences between the two journals and whether an article included a discussion/test of theory. Theories were discussed twice as much in the Journal of Public Relations Research (74%) compared to Public Relations Review (37%).
Data-gathering. Almost half (46%) of the articles were literature reviews and essays. Of the data-gathering techniques, 35% used a quantitative approach, while 12% of the articles employed a qualitative approach. Only 6.2% of the articles used both qualitative and quantitative measurement (see Table 2). The Journal of Public Relations Research used more qualitative (20%) and quantitative (43%) approaches to research compared to Public Relations Review (8% and 31%, respectively). Public Relations Review (56%) included more reviews and essays than Journal of Public Relations Research (25%).
        Research method. Of the respondents (49%) who used a qualitative or quantitative approach, 26% used a survey method. The next most frequently used method was a content analysis (17%), followed by an interview (7%), and then a case study (6%) or experiment (6%) (see Table 3). Several studies (7%) used a combination of methods, which could be qualitative or quantitative or both. There was no difference in the research method across the two journals.
Sample type and size. Seventy-nine respondents conducted a census or population. Of the 189 articles that employed a sampling method, the most frequent method used was convenience/volunteer (25%), with simple random sampling following close behind (23%). Comparing nonprobability sampling to probability sampling, 40% used nonprobability sampling techniques and 43% used probability sampling techniques (see Table 4). It should be noted that 32 articles did not report or describe any sampling procedure. The Journal of Public Relations Research (17%) had more convenience/volunteer samples than Public Relations Review (6%). The number of respondents in a sample ranged from 1 to 4245. Thirty-five percent of the respondents reported less than 100 participants and the average sample size was 270.
Statistical analysis. Of the total number of articles, 290 (58%) did not use any type of statistical analysis. Of the articles that included statistics, 24% used only percentages and frequencies. On the other hand, 22% used a combination of multivariate and bivariate statistics, and 19% used a combination of bivariate statistics. Correlations (9%) and ANOVAs (6%) were also used as stand-alone statistics more so than other statistical methods. Six articles used discriminant analysis, either alone or with other statistics, and seven articles also used path analysis (see Table 5). This is important considering previous literature in public relations has not reported the use of these types of statistics. The Journal of Public Relations Research (57%) used more statistical analyses than Public Relations Review (35%).
Public Relations Topics
        The most frequently discussed topic involved theories and models. This topic included  research whose primary focus was testing a model or applying a theory (13%). International public relations (12%) was the second most frequently discussed topic, and education was next (9%). Topics receiving the least attention were media relations (3%), internal (employee) communication (3%), public affairs (2%), and integrated marketing communication (1%) (see Table 6).
The Journal of Public Relations Research (6%, and 24%, respectively) included more topics concerning internal communication, and theories and models than Public Relations Review (1%, and 8%, respectively). On the other hand, Public Relations Review (15%, and 13%, respectively) included more topics concerning international public relations and education than the Journal of Public Relations Research (5% and 0%, respectively).
 Discussion and Conclusions
This study provides interesting insights into the last 12 years of published public relations research found in the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Review. As noted earlier, investigating the content of journals is important to document a field's evolution, as well as determine any new trends or differences in the type of research conducted.
Analyzing authorship characteristics enables us to determine who is contributing to the scholarly research in a field. In public relations, there is still little collaboration between faculty and practitioner authors. Consistent with the Pasadeos et al. (1999) study of the Journal of Public Relations Research and Public Relations Research from 1990 to 1995, this study found that 88% of the authors were faculty, 8% were practitioners, and 4% were students.
Other important findings concern female authorship in the two journals. Adams and Bodle (1993) concluded women's scholarship was increasing, with 43% of convention papers at AEJMC in 1993 authored by females. Of the 498 articles, 48% of the articles had at least one female author with Journal of Public Relations Research having more female authors than Public Relations Review. Also, there was a difference in the means from 1989 to 1995 and 1996 to 2001 indicating that the number of female authors publishing research in the public relations journals may be increasing. Considering the disparity of the number of practitioners and even students in public relations, scholarship by women, especially by practitioners, needs to be investigated further.
Perhaps the most prominent and surprising finding of this study is the emphasis of theory in scholarly public relations journals. Nearly half (49%) of the articles contained some discussion or testing of a theory. It should be noted that since most theories were discussed in the Journal of Public Relations Research, more authors publishing in the Public Relations Review should explore the use of theories in their research. In addition, the most popular research topic primarily dealt with a theory or a model in a public relations context.
Is there a paradigm shift toward more quantitative research? The answer is no. While Morton and Lin (1995) found that 40% of the articles were quantitative and 60% were qualitative, this study found 35% of all articles employed quantitative research, 12% were qualitative, and only 7% used a triangulation of methods. Considering the importance of using a variety of methods, it is disconcerting that so few researchers use triangulation in their research in order to achieve a better understanding of phenomena.
Sampling techniques were also addressed to determine the methods used to select the samples that are most representative of the population under study. Random sampling is important because it enables researchers to generalize their sample results to the population. Similar to the Riffe and Freitag (1997) study, the majority of studies employed a convenience/volunteer sample selection. Even though volunteers or participants of a convenience sample are helpful in collecting exploratory information, some critics have argued they have no external validity and may produce unrepresentative results (e.g., Potter, Cooper, & Dupagne, 1993; Wimmer & Dominick, 2000). Future quantitative studies must stress the importance of using probability sampling methods. An even more surprising finding is that 32 articles did not report or describe how they selected their sample for their study.
On a more positive note, the use of statistics in published public relations research is growing in sophistication. Of the research articles that used statistics, 24% used only  percentages and frequencies. Combinations of multivariate and bivariate (22%) were used almost as frequently, as well as combinations of bivariate statistics (19%). This indicates public relations researchers may be better equipped to use inferential statistics, including other statistical procedures.
More research in the future needs to investigate public relations topics to determine possible strengths and weaknesses in the research. Even though Solodovnikova (1997) contends a slow growth in the research concerning international public relations, this topic was the second most frequently addressed topic. Some topics that need to be addressed more include internal communication (n = 13), especially since many researchers argue employees are the most important public to an organization.
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the state of public relations research in two journals from 1989 to 2001. Future research should include analyses of not only these academic publications, but also books, convention papers, and trade publications. In addition, future research should analyze public relations research in other communication journals, as well as business journals. Overall, what the profession should gain from this paper is a better understanding of our research practices so we can identify our strengths and weaknesses, as well as our future directions for research.

 References
Adams, E. E., & Bodle, J. V. (1995). Research presented at conventions: How well are
        women doing? Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 50(2), 14-23.
Austin E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2001). Strategic public relations management.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bourland, P. G. (1993). The nature of conflict in firm-client relations: a content
        analysis of Public Relations Journal, 1980-1989. Public Relations Review, 19,
        385-398.
Chambers, T. (1998). Who's on first? Studying the scholarly community of media
        economics. The Journal of Media Economics, 11(1), 1-12.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
Commission on Public Relations Education. (1999). Public relations education
for the 21st century: A port of entry. New York: Author.
Cooper, R., Potter, W. J., & Dupagne, M. (1994). A status report on methods used in
        mass communication research. Journalism Educator, 48(4), 54-62
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1994). Effective public relations.
 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dolan, E. M., & Lawrence, F. C. (1996). A decade in perspective 1985-1994: A
content analysis of the Journal of Consumer Affairs [Electronic Version].
Consumer Interests Annual, 42, 223-225.
Dominick, J. R. (1996). Citation analysis of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media: Another perspective. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40,
427-438.
Dupagne, M., Potter, W. J., & Cooper, R. (1993). A content analysis of women's
published mass communication research, 1965-1989. Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 70, 815-823.
Dyer, C. S., & Venzke, D. (Eds.). (1999). Iowa guide: Scholarly journals in mass
communication and related fields. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elsevier Science. (2002). Public Relations Review. Retrieved Feb. 4, 2002:
 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/03638111.
Freitag, A. (2001). Membership 560. Public Relations Update: AEJMC Public
Relations Division Membership Newsletter, 36(4). Retrieved Feb. 4, 2002 from:
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~aejmcpr/2001fallnewsletter.htm#story8
Gower, K. K. (2001). Rediscovering women in public relations: women in the Public
 Relations Journal, 1945-1972. Journalism History, 27(1), 14-21.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (Eds.) (1992). An annual becomes a quarterly. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 4, 1-2.
Grunig, L. A. (1988). A research agenda for women in public relations. Public Relations
        Review, 14(3), 48-58.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Katzer, J., & Sodt, J. (1973). An analysis of the use of statistical testing in
communication research. Journal of Communication, 23, 251-265.
Leeper, R. V., & Lepper, K. A. (2001). Public relations as "practice:" applying the theory
        of Alasdair MacIntyre. Public Relations Review, 27, 461-474.
Moffett, E. A., & Dominick, J. R. (1987). Statistical analysis in the Journal of
Broadcasting, 1970-1985. Feedback, 28(2), 13-20.
Morton, L. P., & Lin, L.Y. (1995). Content and citation analysis of Public Relations
Review [Electronic Version]. Public Relations Review, 21, 337-350.
Neff, B. D., Walker, G., Smith, M. F., & Creedon, P. J. (1999). Outcomes desired by
        practitioners and academics, Public Relations Review, 25, 29-44.
Newsletter Clearinghouse. (2002). Retrieved from
 http://www.newsletter-  clearinghse.com/intro.htm
Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R. B., & Hanily, M. L. (1999). Influential authors and works of
public relations scholarly literature: A network of recent research. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 11(1), 29-52.
Public Relations Society of America. (2002). Silver anvil resource center. Retrieved
February 12, 2002, from http://www.silveranvil.org/
Riffe, D., & Freitag, A. (1997). A content analysis of content analyses: Twenty-
five years of Journalism Quarterly. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 74, 873-882.
Ross, B. I., & Johnson, K. F. (2002). Where should I go to study advertising and public
Relations? Advertising Education Publication. Retrieved March 31, 2002, from
http://www.mcom.ttu.edu/wsig.
Solodovnikova, T. I., (1997). A content analysis of the extent of international coverage in
three American public relations publications. Master's thesis, Oklahoma State
University.
Tomasello, T. K. (2001). The status of internet-based research in five leading
communication journals, 1994-1999. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 78, 659-674.
 Van Leuven, J. K. (1990). Body of knowledge: tomorrow's research agenda. Public
Relations Review, 16(2), 17-25.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An introduction (6th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Table 1
Means of Authorship Characteristics in the Journal of Public Relations Research
 and Public Relations Review (1989-2001)
Year
Total authors
Female authors
Faculty authors
Student authors
Practitioner authors
1989
1.38
.34
1.31
.00
.09
1990
1.38
.32
1.05
.05
.27
1991
1.61
.52
1.45
.03
.10
1992
1.44
.53
1.36
.00
.13
1993
1.33
.54
1.18
.05
.10
1994
1.74
.76
1.50
.03
.21
1995
1.90
.87
1.47
.27
.20
1996
1.71
.82
1.56
.09
.09
1997
1.67
.79
1.39
.06
.15
1998
1.67
.69
1.55
.05
.07
1999
1.73
.71
1.49
.04
.18
2000
1.43
.59
1.33
.04
.06
2001
1.47
.60
1.28
.09
.09
Yearly average
1.56
.62
1.38
.06
.13
N
498
238
476
21
61


Table 2

Data-Gathering Procedures

Journal of Public Relations Research
Public Relations
Review
Both journals
Both journals
N
None
25.9%
55.6%
46.2%
230
Quantitative
43.0%
31.8%
35.3%
176
Qualitative
20.3%
8.5%
12.3%
63
Qualitative & quantitative
10.8%
4.1%
6.2%
31
N
158
340
498
498


Table 3

Research Methods
Journal of Public Relations Research
Public Relations
Review
Both journals
Both journals
N
Lit. reviews/essays
25.9%
55.6%
46.2%
230
Survey
34.2%
22.4%
26.1%
130
Focus group
.6%
.3%
.4%
2
Experiment
7.6%
1.2%
3.2%
16
Field observation
0.0%
.6%
.4%
2
In-depth interview
5.1%
3.5%
4.0%
20
Content analysis
5.1%
10.9%
9.0%
45
Case study
8.2%
.9%
3.2%
16
Secondary analysis
0.0%
.9%
.6%
3
Historical
1.3%
.9%
1.0%
5
Triangulation of methods
10.7%
2.7%
1.8%
29
Other
1.2%
.3%
.6%
3
N
158
340
498
498


Table 4

Sampling Methods

Journal of Public Relations Research
Public Relations
Review
Both journals
Both journals
N
None
43.7%
70.6%
62.0%
310
Purposive
5.7%
5.0%
5.2%
26
Quota
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
Convenience/volunteer
17.7%
5.9%
9.6%
48
Simple random
10.8%
7.9%
8.8%
44
Systematic random
7.6%
5.3%
6.0%
30
Stratified
2.5%
1.2%
1.6%
8
Other
.6%
0%
.2%
1
Not known
11.4%
4.1%
6.4%
32
N
158
340
498
498


Table 5

Statistical Analysis
Journal of Public Relations Research
Public Relations
Review
 Both journals
Both journals
N
None
43.7%
65.0%
58.2%
290
Percentage/frequency
9.5%
10.3%
10.0%
50
Chi square
.6%
2.4%
1.8%
9
Z-score
.6%
.0%
.2%
1
T-test
.6%
1.2%
1.0%
5
Analysis of variance
3.1%
2.4%
2.6%
13
Correlation
5.1%
3.2%
3.8%
19
Regression
1.3%
.3%
.6%
3
Factor analysis
1.3%
1.8%
1.6%
8
Cluster analysis
1.3%
.6%
.8%
4
Other multivariate
1.9%
.0%
.6%
3
Discriminant analysis
0%
.6%
.4%
2
Path analysis
.6%
0%
.2%
1
Combination of bivariate
statistics
10.7%
6.9%
7.6%
40
Combination of multivariate statistics
2.4%
.3%
1.0%
5
Combination of bivariate and multivariate
16.5%
5.1%
9%
45
N
158
340
498
498


Table 6

Public Relations Topics

Journal of Public Relations
 Research
Public Relations
Review
Both journals
Both journals
N
Publicity
3.2%
5.6%
4.8%
24
Media relations
2.5%
2.6%
2.6%
13
Crisis management
5.7%
8.5%
7.6%
38
Corporate reputation
7.6%
6.2%
6.6%
33
Research, evaluation, and measurement
10.8%
5.9%
7.4%
37
Audiences/external publics
7.6%
4.7%
5.6%
28
Internal/employee communication
5.7%
1.2%
2.6%
13
Theories and models
24.1%
8.2%
13.3%
66
International
5.1%
14.7%
11.6%
58
Public affairs
.6%
2.1%
1.6%
8
Women and minorities
9.5%
1.5%
4.0%
20
Professionalism, law, and ethics
4.4%
10.6%
8.6%
43
Education
0.0%
13.2%
9.0%
45
History
2.5%
7.6%
6.0%
30
Marketing functions
0.0%
2.1%
1.4%
7
Other
10.8%
5.3%
7.0%
35
N
158
340
498
498
 Endnotes
[1]  The Silver Anvil Award is the Public Relations Society of America's most prestigious award that recognizes programs and campaigns incorporating sound research, planning, execution, and evaluation. Recipients must meet the highest standards of performance in the profession (Public Relations Society of America, 2002).