'I thought it would be more glamorous': preconceptions

9 downloads 16642 Views 93KB Size Report
School of Communication, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-3002, USA ... In conclusion, the public relations profession is doing a lax job of ... Center, and Broom, placed more emphasis on the relationship aspect of the field: ..... Everyone tries to claim public relations as what they are doing but they call it something.
Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

‘I thought it would be more glamorous’: preconceptions and misconceptions among students in the public relations principles course Shannon A. Bowen∗ School of Communication, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-3002, USA Received 20 May 2002; received in revised form 18 August 2002; accepted 15 October 2002

Abstract Do public relations majors and students attracted to the major know what the discipline involves? This research addresses their preconceptions as they begin their study and the misconceptions to which they ascribe. Students often enter the basic course unaware of a management focus, shocked by the level of strategic decision making required of practitioners, and surprised by the amount of research knowledge and activity necessary in the field. Data were collected at two universities over a two-year period. Two separate phases of qualitative questionnaires of students in four principles courses were conducted, and three focus groups with these students gave additional explanation. In conclusion, the public relations profession is doing a lax job of communicating its core responsibilities and activities to new and potential university majors. © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction What, exactly, is public relations? Grunig and Hunt defined ‘public relations’ as “the management of communication between an organization and its publics.”1 Others, such as Cutlip, Center, and Broom, placed more emphasis on the relationship aspect of the field: “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends.”2 However, these definitions of the discipline as a management function do not extend beyond the boundaries of our field. ∗

Tel.: +1-713-743-3728; fax: +1-713-743-2876. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Bowen).

0363-8111/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(03)00012-2

200

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

Negative connotations of the field persist among those outside the discipline3 or among journalists.4 Ideological confusion among publicity, marketing, advertising, integrated marketing communication, and propaganda, has further degraded understanding of the function and purposes of public relations. This confusion impacts students who are attracted to the major as well as those who disregard the major in favor of others, such as business or public affairs. This topic is worthy of study because the future of the public relations profession is eventually affected by the type and quality of students the discipline attracts. 2. Conceptualization Public relations is a promising major for students because it affords ample career opportunities across many industries. An annual study, published in 2000, found the number of college students majoring in public relations or advertising reached an all-time high of 40,717, an enrollment that represents a 2.8% increase over the previous year.5 Nicholson found that the number of college graduates in public relations and advertising attained a record-high of 12,439, up 3.1% from the past year. Although these numbers represent growth in public relations, overall perceptions of the field and its practitioners remain negative. Students enroll in the principles course generally holding several misconceptions, but how do they arrive at these ideas? 2.1. Persistent negative perceptions Members of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) 6 special committee on terminology found that public relations practitioners are using several new titles (e.g., corporate communications, investor relations, and corporate affairs) in efforts to separate themselves from negative connotations surrounding the term “public relations.” The PRSA contingent argued: “The babble of terms applied to what is generally referred to as ‘public relations’ is a threat to the advancement of the field and the stature of the people in it . . . the field itself is confused and unable to define its role.”7 Spicer8 found that journalists maintain a negative attitude toward public relations and its practitioners. Researching the term and the context in which it was used in the print media, he9 analyzed 84 examples containing the term “public relations” or “PR.” His analysis revealed seven different themes—distraction, disaster, challenge, hype, merely, war, or as schmooze. He argued the most distressing aspect of the results was the consistent use of the term to suggest manipulation of the truth to a dubious end. Researchers10 who studied perceptions of public relations among journalists found a persistent, antagonistic relationship between the two fields. Furthermore, in a survey of newspaper editors, Kopenhaver found that 74% did not agree with the statement that “public relations is a profession equal in status to journalism.”11 2.2. Ideological tenets of the major In a survey of 258 practitioners, Stacks et al.12 compared practitioner impressions of public relations education. The researchers found that practitioner’s top-ranked hiring criteria

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

201

included writing skills, ability to communicate publicly, interpersonal skills, and practical experience. Respondents reported hiring challenges that included poor writing skills and a lack of understanding of business practices. Stacks et al.13 argued that although educators and practitioners agreed in general about how educational assessment should be conducted, there were significant differences in the agreement. Educators were more likely to favor evaluation as a measure of specific outcomes, whereas practitioners were found to heavily favor portfolio assessment. Despite this divergence, the researchers concluded that educators and practitioners agreed on essential skills, knowledge, and concepts that should be and are taught in public relations programs. Although both scholarship and practice agreed on the main criteria necessary for the major, this article argues that neither has done an adequate job of communicating that information to majors and potential majors. As a discipline, we are attracting students who know little about the function of public relations, hold preconceptions that are based on stereotypes, and lack knowledge of the intellectual requirements necessary for success in the major’s foundation courses. Sorto14 found the primary reason students identified for pursuing this career was that they liked working with people. Other reasons for choosing it included corporate image building, social opportunities, writing, and the growth of the public relations industry. One surprising result of the study was that many students believed it was a new discipline.15 The report of the Commission on Public Relations Education16 identified curriculum content for the undergraduate major. The topics proscribed included: theory, history, and principles of the field; ethics and law; research and measurement; planning and management; writing and production; tactical implementation; an internship; and, supporting coursework.17 However, that consensus has yet to reach outside the boundaries of the discipline to potential majors, new majors, and students in other disciplines who are well-equipped to excel in public relations. Researchers have also argued for the academic inclusion of management, research, and theory in the public relations major. Van Leuven18 explicated four “core competencies” for majors: (a) ethics, (b) visual and interactive communication, (c) management, and (d) campaigns. He19 argued that these conceptual areas should be incorporated into the major: relationship building and two-way communication processes, integrated marketing communication, communication technologies and organizational communication, and management literature emphasizing decision-making skills, strategic planning, leadership, and management theory. Practitioners argued that majors should acquire management skills as students rather than waiting to acquire them on the job.20 Turk confirmed: “. . . practitioners and managers think students would be better prepared for work in their organizations if they learned more while they are still students about the business aspects of these organizations and about the non-communication aspects of their future public relations careers.”21 Turk endorsed the idea that management should be included as a primary aspect of the major. She maintained that preparing students for entry-level jobs was no longer a sufficient mission for educators and confirmed that programs must prepare students for “lifetime careers that almost certainly will offer the likelihood or opportunity of managerial involvement in addition to the practice of technical skills.”22 Although the need for participation in management is an argument that pervades the pedagogy of public relations, it is uncertain if the discussion has been translated into widespread

202

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

curricular change.23 Therefore, the preconceptions many majors hold of public relations as an exclusively technical function could be perpetuated at static programs where the management function is not embraced. Baskin averred: The harsh reality is that many students have graduated as public relations majors with the majority of their course work not well designed to prepare them for the business and organizational world in which they are seeking jobs. While they may have received the training in writing and other areas of communications needed to accomplish the technical function, they lack the understanding of the managerial, organizational and environmental context in which their skills must be productively applied.24

Sparks and Conwell25 conducted a survey to assess teaching methods and understand which approaches were preferred. The results showed that group projects supporting case studies were the preferred method among educators for teaching public relations practice. Lecture was the preferred format for lower level classes, and group or individual case studies scored the highest for teaching the practice to upper level students. These findings are relevant to the pedagogy and the recommendations of this research because management is often best taught through case study. In business schools, the case study is a common approach to teaching among both undergraduate and Master’s level courses. Therefore, given public relations emphasis on management, a case-based approach is both preferred and efficacious. Miller and Kernisky26 determined that it is imperative for potential majors to understand what characteristics are inherent in the field. Understanding these characteristics would clarify many ambiguities and explain practitioners’ responsibilities before students enter the discipline. This article illustrates that adequate communication about what is involved in the major is not taking place, and reinforces why common preconceptions and misconceptions are problematic. 3. Methodology During many semesters of teaching “principles of public relations,” the researcher noticed the preconception among students that only technical skills would be studied in the basic course, leading to this exploration. Also intriguing were the sources of misconceptions, and the extent to which attitudes had changed after a semester of study. How had students defined the field coming into the major? What were the activities students thought comprised public the work—before and after the principles course? Had new majors made an informed decision in their choice of a public relations major? This research was conducted over a two-year period at two large public universities in the US that offered majors in public relations. Each program existed within a school of communication that also offered majors in journalism, broadcasting, rhetoric, or advertising. All participants in this study were enrolled in the principles course, a junior-level course that served as a prerequisite to other public relations courses at both universities. At both schools the course was limited to “majors only” but business majors and others were admitted as space allowed. Therefore, the responses were predominately from public relations majors, but included the comments of a few marketing, management, journalism, or communication majors as noted. Normally, this was the first course students studied in the public major after completing core courses in communication theory.

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

203

Data were generated from students enrolled in four principles courses, two at each university. The qualitative questionnaire was used in a two-phased manner. In phase one, the instruments were distributed to the course members on the first day of class before the syllabus was distributed, to keep the definition of public relations on the syllabus from biasing the responses. Ninety-five usable phase one questionnaires were completed. In phase two, the same students completed the same instrument for a second time at the end of the semester. Phase two instruments showed if they had digested the course content and measured the extent of changed attitudes and understanding of public relations. Sixty-four usable phase two questionnaires were returned, for a total of 159 completed instruments. In both phases, students participated anonymously. Participants were compensated with extra credit added to the “class participation” portion of their grade. Responses were placed by the students into a box and shuffled; participants signed a sheet verifying their participation for extra credit. The students were thanked and debriefed on the purpose of the research and its preliminary findings. Three focus groups were conducted outside of class with these students, who participated for extra credit. Two groups had 11 participants each, while one group had 12. A semi-structured interview guide27 was used; each group was asked the same questions, although time spent pursuing emerging ideas differed among the three groups.28 The participants were audio taped with their consent,29 and a graduate assistant transcribed the focus group audio tapes. Qualitative questionnaire data were independently coded: first by an assistant and secondly by the researcher. Intercoder reliability was established by discussion of disparate items and by arrival at a mutually agreed upon categorization. Analyses of the questionnaires and focus groups were conducted through methods discussed by Denzin and Lincoln, Lincoln and Guba, Lindlof, Wolcott, Morgan, and Miles and Huberman.30 Further illustrations of the qualitative research process as applied to public relations31 were used as exemplar material. 4. Findings Findings from both the qualitative questionnaires and the focus groups yielded four areas of common preconceptions and misconceptions among new or potential majors: negative perceptions of the field, lack of management knowledge, lack of understanding about relationships, and lack of knowledge about research. 4.1. Negative perceptions of the field I don’t have the same feelings for it [public relations] now, I thought it would be more glamorous.

Focus group participant, public relations major Most new majors believed that public relations involved little other than media relations and special event planning. Although these tasks are a small and useful part of the larger discipline, students held the misconception that these activities comprised the majority of the work. They were unaware of strategic management, relationship building, and research that should come before the implementation of tactics. This view contributed to the misconception that public relations was “an easy major” lacking in both theory and substance.

204

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

A typical preconception was that the paramount factor for success in public relations was “being good with people.” Cutlip et al.,32 who studied the most frequent activities of public relations work, stated that this stereotype was common and misled people into holding a constricted view of the field. For example, when asked what the students thought public relations was before taking the principles course, one focus group participant majoring in public relations stated: “I thought it would be more fun, just working with people, but I found it to be much more stressful.” Another offered, “I thought it was mainly special events and party planning.” One student considered changing majors: “I don’t like it anymore. I thought it would be more planning events, taking out clients, and social aspects.” Participants in this study were unaware of the managerial role of the practitioner, and of the writing ability required for both technicians and managers. A response typifying this misperception was given by a focus group member who said, “I did not realize the journalism aspect in PR, it’s not just if you are a good people person, there are big writing responsibilities.” Or the statement of this student: “I wasn’t aware of all the writing that’s involved—I didn’t think it would be part of the job.” Many participants thought public relations was an enjoyable career, but one that offered no academic or professional challenge. For instance, one communication major participating in a focus group argued: I only took this class because I needed an elective in communication—I thought it would be fun, but it is too hard with confusing models and all of this stuff to memorize. Nobody expects public relations to be a hard class!

A final theme emerged among the general negative preconceptions. A majority (69 of 95, or 73%) in phase one included negative terms in their definitions, as in this participant’s comment: “PR is the art of selling a profile or image to gain approval or acceptance of that image.” Approximately half the students in phase one used the terms “spin” or “image” in describing the function of public relations. Marketing and advertising majors were particularly prone to using the word “image” when describing the function or activities of public relations, as in this example: “PR creates and protects the image of a company” (fifth year senior, marketing major, phase one). Another student wrote, “The function of PR is to put a positive spin on all things involving the company” (senior political science major, phase one). Marketing and advertising majors were also predisposed to defining public relations as a part of their own field, as in the statement “PR does what advertising does but with no money” (fifth year senior, media/advertising major) or “Public relations tries to open markets” (senior marketing major, phase one). When students were asked how they acquired their impressions of the field, most identified the mass media as the source of these messages. One participant explained, “Media can make public relations seem dirty, like it’s just networking, connections, they mainly focus on the negative parts.” Another said, “The news media, TV, newspapers, movies, all of them make public relations look evil.” Another participant commented, “It’s only in the media when something goes wrong, you do not hear about the successes in public relations.” These statements confirmed the literature reviewed earlier in this article regarding mass media’s negative representations. These misperceptions pervaded the ideas of the students in this study, including those who had already chosen public relations as a major and those considering doing so, as well as those in communication or business taking the principles of public relations course for minor or elective credit.

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

205

Another source of negative information was interpersonal communication, particularly from influentials around the students. For instance, one focus group participant said, “Some adults tell me that public relations is a bad major, that it is sugar-coating something bad.” The perceptions of others about the public relations major caused concern for some majors. One explained, “Before this class, I worried that people thought it was an unethical major, that PR is just sugar-coating, manipulation . . . I thought people would think I’m in a bad major.” Another student explained, “People describe PR in so many different ways that I feel there is not really a clear understanding of the field. Too many people have different definitions and it gets misrepresented.” A public relations major in a focus group echoed this sentiment when he contended: Everyone tries to claim public relations as what they are doing but they call it something different and it’s confusing. My marketing professor teaches us that it was marketing that saved Johnson and Johnson in the Tylenol crisis, not anything to do with PR. We got in this huge argument over it in class.

The confusion these students expressed was the crux of the identity problem explored in the literature review section of this research. PRSA’s special commission on terminology and other researchers33 have grappled with this issue to no clear resolution. The purpose and definition of the discipline remains factionalized among different approaches, such as rhetoric,34 persuasion,35 strategic management,36 and integrated marketing communication.37 The specialties within the field further add to the confusion, resulting in a morass of definitions and terminology that this research confirms is intimidating to those outside of or new to the discipline. 4.2. Lack of management knowledge I never realized there was so much management involved in PR.

Focus group participant, public relations major The reliance on the strategic management process for planning programs was a surprise to most new and potential majors. Students in the principles course studied public relations roles, the management function, and spent about a week on each of the strategic planning steps (research, strategic action planning, communication, evaluation). As shown in Table 1, before these topics were raised, only 6% of the students mentioned “management” or the equivalent in their definitions. At the end of the semester, in phase two, that number had increased to Table 1 Qualitative questionnaire summary: defining public relations and the responsibilities or activities of practitioners Item

Phase one

Phase two

Total participants (n = 159) Good understanding of public relations Mediocre understanding of public relations Poor understanding of public relations Knowledge of management function Lack of knowledge of management function

95 7 (7.4%) 19 (20.0%) 69 (72.6%) 6 (6.3%) 89 (93.7%)

64 19 (29.7%) 27 (42.2%) 18 (28.1%) 45 (70.3%) 19 (29.7%)

206

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

70%. However, many participants said they were surprised that public relations even involved management. One major said, “I thought we would learn to do press releases, press packets, and media relations, and it turned out to be much more management and research.” A student in another focus group mirrored the sentiment: “I thought public relations only dealt with press agentry, was more hands on . . . like creating bulletins, press releases, and making people happy.” Another participant summed up the comments of many: “There’s so much more research, management, the whole business side of it than I thought.” A theme emerged in both the written comments and focus group data that students were surprised by the amount of responsibility held in strategic decision making. Many students welcomed the study of management and the systematic process of managing public relations, including the implied responsibility in decision making, believing that it offered opportunities for advancement in business that they had not realized before taking the principles course. One focus group participant explained, “I feel better about PR now, it certainly feels like it is a more difficult and challenging field than I thought, but it offers advancement and more responsibility.” Another participant said, “There’s much more responsibility and stress, but there’s a wide variety of directions to go in the PR career, it’s not just image building.” One student commented, “I’m excited that it offers more of a challenge, more responsibility, that I can be managing people and making big, important decisions.” Others believed that the emphasis on management made it too stressful, engaging a higher level of responsibility and decision making than they had planned for their careers. One student argued, “This is more stressful than I thought it would be, and has more responsibilities involved.” Another student stated, “PR is just too business oriented for me and now I realize it was the wrong choice.” One student maintained, “I’m disappointed . . . I know now that there is all this research and planning, I wanted to stay away from all that office work and now the field sounds more boring.” Another participant reported similar feelings after taking the principles course: “Before this class I didn’t know, wasn’t sure on it [public relations]. But I didn’t like it after the class, it isn’t what I thought it was.” When the participants were probed on where they formed these ideas, one expounded: “On TV, the PR person is always pretty, well-dressed, usually a female, in front of everyone, in the spotlight . . . it seems really glamorous and exciting.” A junior marketing major wrote, “the PR person is always in front of the camera doing ‘spin’ activities and communicating with the media” (phase one). The majority of phase one responses mentioned spokesperson appearances as part of the daily work of a practitioner. By contrast, phase two contained a majority of statements which said that a practitioner does research, environmental scanning, planning, writing, negotiating with publics, or meeting with the dominant coalition on a daily basis rather than enacting a spokesperson role. Students were also unaware of the specialties within public relations that included management, because most of them had regarded the field as media relations or publicity. Several students in phase two or the focus groups pointed out the diverse nature of the discipline and wrote or told of plans to go into financial public relations, medical public relations, non-profit public relations, issues management, internal public relations, or crisis management. One participant explained, “This career offers many different industries—corporate, non-profit, etc. It confirmed my choice of major, I feel positive.” Another exclaimed, “You can do more things throughout the field, I never realized you can take on so many roles!” One public relations

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

207

major stated, “It’s so much more exciting and the different aspects of PR learned in the class makes it a more full major.” 4.3. Lack of understanding about relationships Public relations is the manipulation of the press in regards to a certain person, place, or event.

Senior journalism major, phase two Student majors or those enrolled in the principles class had little or no prior knowledge of relationship maintenance, communication facilitation, problem solving and conflict resolution, or symmetrical communication. Most of the participants thought of public relations simply as publicity or media relations in a one-way flow of communication from the organization to publics. One focus group participant, a major, admitted, “I never thought of it as a two-way process, I thought it was only one-way communication.” The process of discovering truth through mutual dialogue seemed to be an alien concept to many students who enrolled in the class to learn “spin-doctoring.” The two-way relationships maintained with publics were a crucial portion of the discipline that had gone unnoticed by potential majors and those who worked closely with practitioners in related fields. Many participants in phase one listed “the media” as the only public with which public relations communicated, other than the mass public as mentioned in “presenting a certain image to the public” (junior communication major, phase one). Students did not know before selecting public relations as their major that practitioners communicated with all the diverse strategic publics surrounding an organization, as well as internal publics inside the boundary of a company. One student explained, “I didn’t know we would be responsible for internal aspects, like preparing speeches for the CEO, I thought it was all external.” Another public relations major stated, “Before this class, I had in mind it was mostly advertising and marketing, not internal relations. Counseling to the organization and the internal responsibilities never entered my mind.” The more visible function of media relations was all many students knew about the field, such as the student who said, “I did not think about internal aspects at all, just the media relations, the external things.” Majors and potential majors were unaware that listening to the concerns of publics, understanding their positions and attitudes, and addressing those issues were integral parts of the practice. A major said, “I thought public relations was mainly creating an image and not as much listening to people.” However, students were happy to learn of the responsibility for maintaining relationships with publics and seemed to grasp the vital role those relationships played in organizational survival, as well as the responsibility it brings to the function. A public relations senior wrote in phase two of the study: Well, now I understand that PR has to manage good relationships by using research, research, research, and getting background knowledge. It’s not putting on a happy face and giving the public what they want to hear. You can be responsible for educating the organization and its publics.

One junior public relations major wrote in phase two, “Listening to fellow employees, management, and the publics is a major part of public relations.” Another junior major wrote in phase two, “Public relations tries to create mutually beneficial relationships between an organization

208

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

and its publics, preferably through two-way symmetrical communication and compromise on both sides.” Although a majority of the students understood the concepts of symmetrical communication and relationship maintenance by phase two of this study, there were still a number who were critical of the approach and appeared to maintain their stereotypes of the discipline. For instance, one junior public relations major wrote, “It [public relations] tries to protect the image of an organization.” Another public relations junior wrote, “PR is the manipulation and presentation of the truth,” and one senior advertising major wrote, “PR tries to make the company look as good as possible.” Many responses stated a belief that public relations does not openly discuss damaging or potentially problematic issues with publics. Majors and students in the principles course did not expect to involve theory and models. These students were more familiar with a “seat-of-the-pants” approach rather than an approach based on social science and communication scholarship and theory. A focus group participant said, “I did not realize there were many theoretical models.” Another explained, “A lot of this is new in this class . . . Knowledge of PR history, management, and theories.” One major confirmed, “ I didn’t realize the theories that went along with PR and didn’t expect to cover the theoretical models.” The basic failure to represent the discipline as a professional field with a codified body of knowledge, including original research and theory, is a serious deficiency. This fault might undermine the future of public relations by failing to draw more academic or theoretically minded students. Not a single participant in phase one of the study mentioned ethical responsibilities, a significant finding in itself. Before academic study of public relations, there appeared to be no cognizance that public relations must often act as the ethical conscience of an organization. The negative perceptions discussed above seemed to be uncountered by the industry, and the unfortunate but common misconception of “public relations’ ethics as an oxymoron” remained prevalent among the participants in this research. Some students were delighted to learn that the discipline offered codes of ethics, means of ethical analysis, and afforded the opportunity to counsel the dominant coalition on ethical issues. One focus group participant commented, “I did not know the ethical aspects and how much responsibility PR plays in ethics.” A public relations senior wrote in phase two that one of the main responsibilities of public relations was “never forget to be ethical and honest.” However, attention to ethical analysis, counsel, and issues was extremely low even among phase two participants and among focus group members. Only a few responses in phase two even mentioned ethics or honesty. 4.4. Lack of knowledge about research I did not have any idea of the research part and the models, this is not what I expected.

Focus group participant, public relations major A majority of students entered the principles course not knowing that research comprised a large portion of the field both academically and professionally. They were surprised to learn that managers spent a significant portion of time each day conducting formal or informal research, and many students were intimidated by the quantitative data often involved in the research

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

209

process. For instance, “I didn’t know research and statistics were part of it or I might not have taken this course,” a sentiment that was echoed by a hand full of others students in phase two of the study. One participant said, “I was not aware of researching, environmental scanning, and having the knowledge within the industry to do that.” One major explained her view that research and creativity were mutually exclusive: “I thought it would be more creative work, and emphasize creativity, not math. I don’t know where to go with it now, I didn’t realize there was research involved.” Many students acknowledged the difficulty of learning the research material, but believe it added value to the major and profession. A major in a focus group explained, “Well, I never thought it would be so much research . . . made me think of it in a more scientific way, not just [liberal] arts.” A majority of the phase two responses mentioned research as a significant part of the function. A major commented in a focus group: I understand now why all of the research is important, but I had no idea it was a big part of PR. There is so much to it . . . but I am glad that I took the first step and I have some idea of what it’s all about. You have to, if you want to get into management.

Students also pointed out the important role that research played in enhancing the credibility of the function within an organization. Many were aware of the pressure they would encounter from senior management to show “bottom-line results” and they saw conducting formative and evaluative research as one way of illustrating their efficacy. Another student confirmed, “It makes you feel more legitimate . . . it’s not just speaking to the public, it is research, planning, and management.” The fact that most of these students, a majority of whom were majors, were not aware of the research component of the discipline, was a disturbing finding. Perhaps if research knowledge were emphasized both academically and professionally, the major would attract more analytically minded students. More awareness of the research function could prevent those with an aversion to statistics or data analysis from majoring in the field, making room in classes for students who are more suited to this aspect of the discipline. Public relations targets specific messages to specific publics, but it seem we have failed to do that for our own major. It is possible that making majors and potential majors aware of the discipline’s research focus could result in graduates who have basic research knowledge and are, therefore, more sought after by employers.

5. Limitations and future study This exploratory, qualitative study provides a beginning in understanding the misperceptions of those who study public relations. However, this study lacks a theoretical base. Qualitative methodology was employed to explore the perceptions of principles of public relations students, and with the knowledge generated here scholars can begin to apply appropriate theoretical frameworks. The qualitative methods of focus groups and open-ended questionnaires were particularly suited to this highly exploratory study. Hon stated, “This path . . . results in detailed catalogs of participants’ own words, which then are used as data from which theory begins to be created.”38 Now that the four basic misconceptions of public relations among

210

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

students have been identified, researchers can use those categories in compatible theoretical approaches. Jablin’s39 anticipatory socialization theory provides a fruitful starting point for a theoretical explanation to the findings in this study through its explanation of the encounter and metamorphosis phases of organizational assimilation. A limitation of this study is that it was generated from data garnered in what could be seen as an ideal principles course. The course was taught by a scholar holding a doctorate in public relations rather than a similar field, as is all too common in today’s understaffed universities. The course was highly centered around the CEPR40 guidelines, including theory and management, rather than technical skill. It is unknown how representative or typical this principles course is of other principles classes being taught across the nation. One recommendation for future study would be a content analysis of principles course syllabi across the nation to compare their content. It can be hypothesized that many principles courses might still focus on technical skills rather than theory, particularly those housed in journalism programs. Therefore, caution should be exercised when seeking to apply these findings to other samples.

6. Conclusions The amount of change between phase one and phase two in the study indicated that although the students enrolled in the principles of public relations course held basic preconceptions about the discipline and the responsibilities of a public relations practitioner, they overcame the majority of those misconceptions by the end of the semester. However, these findings showed a clear lack of accurate knowledge and information among even those who had chosen to major in public relations. Public relations needs to make its close ties with business management and the strategic management process known to majors and potential majors. Public relations needs to compete directly with schools of business—particularly marketing and management programs—for the students suited for a career in our discipline. We also need to compete with journalism programs for strong writers and seek out students in business writing courses. Those with an affinity for public affairs would also be well suited to a public relations major and career. Finally, we should seek out the analytically oriented students found in quantitative research methods courses in sociology and psychology departments. We are not seeking to “steal” majors from these disciplines, but to identify those who have the potential to end up in public relations after college and give them the academic training necessary to excel in that career. Grunig and Hunt41 observed that a large number of those working in public relations end up in the profession inadvertently. It is time for the public relations discipline to stop relying on fate and to assertively recruit the students who will likely succeed in our major and profession. As this research illustrates, a failing of public relations is that we have not made those outside our boundaries aware of what responsibilities and functions the discipline involves. This insular behavior allows the negative representations found in the mass media to be accepted without question, and the infamous ethical lapses of some firms add to the perception that public relations is manipulation. The public relations industry should be proactive and vocal in defining the field, including ethical standards, responsibility in decision making, counseling the dominant coalition, and the management function.

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

211

Academically, public relations does not define itself within the university as a major that includes management, research and analysis, strategic decision making, ethical counsel, and a wide range of functions outside of publicity. The stereotype of public relations as “hacks, flacks, and spin doctors”42 seems to be perpetuated on the campuses of the very institutions that fund the program. Academic departments housing public relations majors and the scholars teaching public relations should be proactive in educating students, administrators, and the campus community about the vast and diverse responsibilities included in the field. For example, a “fact sheet” for potential majors could explain the emphases in the coursework. Are the misperceptions of the field affecting the discipline’s future? This research found that students do not accurately know what they are deciding when they enroll in a public relations course or select it as their major. A logical conclusion from that finding is that we should be targeting our communication more effectively toward those university students who would excel in the discipline. Most students who participated in this study were surprised at the occupational versatility of the field,43 the management responsibilities,44 the relationship maintenance function,45 and the research component. However, they saw that these discoveries were positive, promised a larger span of industry choices, held career advancement possibilities, and had the potential for high-level decision making authority. A public relations major in a focus group explained: I feel a lot better about the major now . . . if you do your job well and do it honestly, you can move up in the PR field. There are a wide variety of employment opportunities and advancement, and you can move up as far as you will work to go.

Students believed they were learning valuable information that was part of a larger body of credible, scholarly knowledge. Participants recognized that their intellectual growth as a result of learning the heretofore unrecognized elements of the practice increased their knowledge and was worth the effort. One major commented, “I still feel positive about it, but I feel much more knowledgeable.” Another offered, “I do not regret the decision to major in it, now I know there are so many levels, more room for growth, now I’m more knowledgeable about it.” Although some students felt negatively after the principles course due to the research, writing, or higher-than-expected level of responsibility, these were individuals who would have probably left the profession when faced with the daily realities of public relations work. Most of the majors in this study felt challenged and motivated by the discoveries of new functions and responsibilities in the principles course. One major confirmed, “I am happy to see it is not just a line function . . . that you can counsel the CEO, manage research and crises, come up with plans to deal with any possible issue. The advancement opportunities are huge.” These factors make public relations a promising major, and if the discipline were to make known our ideological areas of inclusion we would benefit by attracting more students well-suited to the major, in addition to countering many of the commonly held negative misconceptions of the field. Acknowledgments Thanks are due to Douglas J. Rentz, the graduate assistant who assisted in data collection and analysis. I would also like to thank all of the students who participated in this study for their comments.

212

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

References [1] James E. Grunig, Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1984, p. 6. [2] Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, Glen M. Broom, Effective Public Relations, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000, p. 6. [3] William P. Ehling, Public relations education and professionalism, in: James E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992, pp. 439–464; James E. Grunig, Teaching public relations in the future, Public Relations Review 15 (1) (1989), pp. 12–24; Laurie J. Wilson, Strategic Program Planning for Effective Public Relations Campaigns, 3rd ed., Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, IA, 2000, p. 1. [4] Christopher Spicer, Images of PR in the print media, Journal of Public Relations Research 5 (1) (1993), pp. 47–61. [5] J. Nicholson, Advertising and PR enrollments set record, Editor & Publisher 45 (2000, February 21). [6] Public Relations Society of America, Report of Special Committee on Terminology, Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Public Relations Society of America, New Orleans, April 1987. [7] Ibid, p. 1. [8] Christopher Spicer, op. cit., pp. 47–61. [9] Ibid, pp. 47–61. [10] Craig E. Aronoff, Credibility of public relations for journalists, Public Relations Review 1 (1975), pp. 45–56; Carolyn G. Cline, The image of public relations in mass communication texts, Public Relations Review 8 (1982), pp. 63–72; David Pincus, T. Rimer, Robert E. Rayfield, Fritz Cropp, Newspaper editors’ perceptions of public relations: how business, news and sports editors differ, Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, August 1991; Michael Ryan, David L. Martinson, Journalists and public relations practitioners: why the antagonism? Journalism Quarterly 62 (1988), pp. 131–140. [11] Lillian L. Kopenhaver, Aligning values of practitioners and journalists, Public Relations Review 11 (1985), pp. 34–42. [12] Don W. Stacks, Carl Botan, J. VanSlyke Turk, Perceptions of public relations education, Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 9–29. [13] Ibid, pp. 9–29. [14] Kevin Sorto, What some students expect from a career in PR/communications, Communication World 7 (1990), pp. 30–32. [15] Ibid, p. 31. [16] Commission on Public Relations Education, A Port of Entry: Public Relations Education for the 21st Century, 1999, pp. 19–23. [17] Ibid, pp. 21–22. [18] James Van Leuven, Four new competencies for majors, Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 77–86. [19] Ibid, pp. 77–86. [20] Katherine N. Kinnick, Glen T. Cameron, Teaching public relations management: the current state of the art, Public Relations Review 20 (1) (1994), pp. 69–84. [21] Judy VanSlyke Turk, Management skills need to be taught in public relations, Public Relations Review (Spring, 1989), pp. 51–89. [22] Ibid, p. 38. [23] Katherine N. Kinnick, Glen T. Cameron, op. cit., pp. 69–84. [24] Otis W. Baskin, Business schools and the study of public relations, Public Relations Review (Spring, 1989), pp. 25–37. [25] S.D. Sparks, P. Conwell, Teaching public relations—does practice or theory prepare practitioners? Public Relations Quarterly 43 (1998), pp. 41–45. [26] Dan P. Miller, Debra A. Kernisky, Opportunity realized: undergraduate education within departments of communication, Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 87–101.

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

213

[27] Thomas R. Lindlof, Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995; Catherine Marshall, Gretchen B. Rossman, Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995. [28] James P. Spradley, The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1979. [29] Barbara H. Stanley, Joan E. Sieber, Gary B. Melton, Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1996. [30] Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994; Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000; Yvonna S. Lincoln, Egon G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1985; Thomas R. Lindlof, op. cit; Harry F. Wolcott, Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994; David L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1993; Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994. [31] John M. Blamphin, Applications of the Focus Group Methodology for Public Relations Research: A Delphi Exploration of Professional Opinions, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 1990; Larissa A. Grunig, Using focus group research in public relations, Public Relations Review 16 (2) (1990), pp. 36–49; Larissa A. Grunig, Matching public relations research to the problem: conducting a special focus group, Journal of Public Relations Research 4 (1) (1992), pp. 21–44; Linda C. Hon, Toward a feminist theory of public relations, Journal of Public Relations Research 7 (1) (1995), pp. 27–88. [32] Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 37. [33] William P. Ehling, op. cit., pp. 439–464; James E. Grunig, Communication, public relations, and effective organizations: an overview of the book, in: James E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992, pp. 1–30. [34] Robert L. Heath, Rhetorical enactment theory: another piece in the paradigm shift, Paper Presented at the Meeting of the National Communication Association, New York, November 1998; Elizabeth L. Toth, Robert L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992. [35] R. Edgett, Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations, Journal of Public Relations Research 14 (1) (2002), pp. 1–26; Gerald R. Miller, Persuasion and public relations: two “Ps” in a pod, in: Carl H. Botan, Vincent Hazleton Jr. (Eds.), Public Relations Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989, pp. 45–66. [36] Glen M. Broom, David M. Dozier, Using Research in Public Relations: Applications to Program Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990; David M. Dozier, Larissa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1995; James E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992. [37] Clarke L. Caywood (Ed.), Handbook of Strategic Public Relations and Integrated Communications, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997; Don E. Schultz, The inevitability of integrated communications, Journal of Business Research 37 (3) (1996), pp. 139–146; Don E. Schultz, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, Robert F. Lauterborn, Integrated Marketing Communications: Pulling it Together and Making it Work, NTC Books, Lincolnwood, IL, 1994. [38] Linda C. Hon, Toward a Feminist Theory of Public Relations, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, 1992, p. 24. [39] Frederic M. Jablin, Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit, in: Frederic M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam, Karlene H. Roberts, Lyman W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1987, pp. 679–740; Frederic M. Jablin, Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit, in: Frederic M. Jablin, Linda L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001, pp. 732–818. [40] Commission on Public Relations Education, op. cit., p. 21. [41] James E. Grunig, Todd Hunt, op. cit., p. 6.

214

S.A. Bowen / Public Relations Review 29 (2003) 199–214

[42] Edward J. Downes, Hacks, flacks, and spin doctors meet the media: an examination of the congressional press secretary as a (potential) public relations professional, Journal of Public Relations Research 10 (4) (1998), pp. 263–286. [43] Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, Glen M. Broom, op. cit., p. 35. [44] Larissa A. Grunig, James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002; James E. Grunig, Lairssa A. Grunig, Public relations in strategic management and strategic management of public relations: theory and research from the IABC excellence project, Journalism Studies 1 (2000), pp. 303–321. [45] John A. Ledingham, Stephen D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000; Y.H. Huang, OPRA: a cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization–public relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research 13 (2001), pp. 61–90; Linda C. Hon, James E. Grunig, Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations, Institute for Public Relations, 1999.