2012 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Van Der Pool, L. (2003). PR firms catering to do-gooder clients. Adweek Eastern Edition, 44(28), 12. Waters, R. D. (2009). Measuring stewardship in public relations: A test exploring impact on the fundraising relationship. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 113-119. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.012. Table 1: Distribution of Practitioners Across Employer Types Employer Type Frequency Percent Corporation 324 23.5 Educational institution 133 9.7 Government or military 126 9.2 Independent practitioner 100 7.3 Nonprofit or association 298 21.6 Professional services 49 3.6 Public relations consultancy or agency 307 22.3 Other 40 2.9 Total 1,377 100.0 Table 2: Distribution Across Employer Types by Gender Employer Type Male % (N) Female % (N) Total % (N) Corporation 28.0% (90) 27.0% (234) 27.3% (324) Educational institution 9.3% (30) 11.9% (103) 11.2% (133) Government or military 13.4% (43) 9.6% (83) 10.6% (126) Nonprofit or association 19.6% (63) 27.1% (235) 25.1% (298) Public relations consultancy or agency 29.8% (96) 24.4% (211) 25.8% (307) Total 100.0% (322) 100.0% (866) 100.0% (1188) Notes: Pearson Chi-square = 12.67; df = 4; p < .05 Table 3: Distribution Across Employer Types by Education Level Employer Type Associate‘s & Bachelor‘s Master‘s & Total % (N) Below % (N) Degree % (N) Above % (N) Corporation 18.2% (4) 26.8% (201) 28.6% (118) 27.3% (323) Educational institution 4.5% (1) 9.9% (74) 14.1% (58) 11.2% (133) Government or military 22.7% (5) 8.3% (62) 14.1% (58) 10.6% (125) Nonprofit or association 13.6% (3) 27.4% (205) 21.6% (89) 25.1% (297) Public relations consultancy or 40.9% (9) 27.6% (207) 21.6% (89) 25.8% (305) agency Total 100.0% (22) 100.0% (749) 100.0% (412) 100.0% (1183) Notes: Pearson Chi-square = 28.10; df = 8; p < .001 82
Table 4: Distribution Across Employer Types by Accreditation Status Employer Type Accredited % (N) Not Accredited % Total % (N) (N) Corporation 28.3% (114) 26.8% (210) 27.3% (324) Educational institution 11.4% (46) 11.1% (87) 11.2% (133) Government or military 9.9% (40) 11.0% (86) 10.6% (126) Nonprofit or association 19.1% (77) 28.2% (221) 25.1% (298) Public relations consultancy or 31.3% (126) 23.1% (181) 25.8% (307) agency Total 100.0% (403) 100.0% (785) 100.0% (1188) Notes: Pearson Chi-square = 16.15; df = 4; p < .01 Table 5: Comparison Across Employer Types by Age Employer Type Mean Age in Years SD N Corporation 41.8 11.1 311 Educational institution 44.3 11.2 130 Government or military 44.6 10.4 124 Nonprofit or association 41.6 11.5 287 Public relations consultancy or agency 42.0 12.8 303 Total 42.4 11.6 1,155 Notes: F = 2.59; p < .05. Scheffe test yielded no significant differences between specific employer types by age. Table 6: Comparison Across Employer Types by Years of Professional Experience Employer Type Mean Experience in Years SD N Corporation 15.7 9.7 324 Educational institution 15.8 9.6 133 Government or military 15.7 9.5 126 Nonprofit or association 14.6* 9.3 298 Public relations consultancy or agency 17.2* 11.4 307 Total 15.8 10.1 1,188 Notes: F = 2.65; p < .05. *Scheffe mean difference = -2.64; SE = .82; p < .05. 83
Page 1 and 2:
2 0 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S S A N
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Research Papers A
Page 5 and 6:
RESEARCH PAPERS 5
Page 7 and 8:
campus public relations agency. Wor
Page 9 and 10:
involves researchers reviewing the
Page 11 and 12:
showed generalizibility. Therefore,
Page 13 and 14:
References Allen, M. J. (2004). Ass
Page 15 and 16:
Table 2 Small sample of the evoluti
Page 17 and 18:
Table 4 Instrument Refinement Data
Page 19 and 20:
Table 5 Instrument Refinement Data
Page 21 and 22:
Appendix Firm‟s Logo Client Satis
Page 23 and 24:
This section addresses how you feel
Page 25 and 26:
Communication Tools/Tactics Created
Page 27 and 28:
Communication Skills of the Student
Page 29 and 30:
Additional Comments This section al
Page 31 and 32: Hope for the Future: Millennial PR
Page 33 and 34: difference with their work, and the
Page 35 and 36: with participants lacking discretio
Page 37 and 38: advise on the best strategy, not to
Page 39 and 40: opportunities.‖ She also added th
Page 41 and 42: answering all of these questions th
Page 43 and 44: 2011). The lack of control some Mil
Page 45 and 46: References Berger, B. K., & Reber,
Page 47 and 48: Looking Back, Looking Forward: A Th
Page 49 and 50: Internet and Web would help democra
Page 51 and 52: In 2010, Smith (2010b) used Twitter
Page 53 and 54: ecently reported implications of Wi
Page 55 and 56: Internet, as well as the role of cu
Page 57 and 58: In 2011, Freberg, Graham, McGaughey
Page 59 and 60: Conclusion Figure 1 on the followin
Page 61 and 62: How can new media be used to increa
Page 63 and 64: DiStaso, M.W. (2012). Measuring pub
Page 65 and 66: Johnson, M.A. (1997). Public relati
Page 67 and 68: McKeown, C.A., & Plowman, K.D. (199
Page 69 and 70: Sweetser, K.D. (2007). Blog bias: R
Page 71 and 72: Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2010). Rela
Page 73 and 74: effective public relations practiti
Page 75 and 76: Additionally, many public relations
Page 77 and 78: evidence has suggested that public
Page 79 and 80: As indicated in the literature revi
Page 81: This study shows several areas in w
Page 85 and 86: Table 7: Frequency of Engagement in
Page 87 and 88: Table 8: Frequency of Use of KSAs b
Page 89 and 90: In the context of the public relati
Page 91 and 92: Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed
Page 93 and 94: identified as educators, and who sk
Page 95 and 96: practitioners were confronted with
Page 97 and 98: Organizational factors are importan
Page 99 and 100: extend one‘s social capital; in c
Page 101 and 102: Duhachek, A. (2005). Coping: A mult
Page 103 and 104: 5. Instrumental Support I tried to
Page 105 and 106: Table 2 Hierarchical Regressions Pr
Page 107 and 108: elations effects are generally long
Page 109 and 110: includes the effects of distributed
Page 111 and 112: [INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE] The Gra
Page 113 and 114: David, P., Kline, S., & Dai, Y. (20
Page 115 and 116: Table 2 Augmented Dickey-Fuller uni
Page 117 and 118: Table 6 The result of the Toda and
Page 119 and 120: Communication Excellence and Public
Page 121 and 122: organize and integrate a group of p
Page 123 and 124: agencies in the southwestern United
Page 125 and 126: One participant expressed her perce
Page 127 and 128: Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Gru
Page 129 and 130: programs, [...] and the delineation
Page 131 and 132: Freidson, 2001; Krause, 1996). Moll
Page 133 and 134:
and larger public relations departm
Page 135 and 136:
Table 1 Professionalism Dimensions:
Page 137 and 138:
Estimation for the initial measurem
Page 139 and 140:
Figure 3: Coefficients are unstanda
Page 141 and 142:
Bowen, S.A. (2007). Ethics and publ
Page 143 and 144:
Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the
Page 145 and 146:
Weis, D., & Schank, M.J. (1997). To
Page 147 and 148:
environments: inclusive and transfo
Page 149 and 150:
Purpose How do PRSSA faculty advise
Page 151 and 152:
Findings The descriptive data indic
Page 153 and 154:
advisers were ethical values and or
Page 155 and 156:
The recognition for long-term facul
Page 157 and 158:
PEDAGOGICAL POSTERS 157
Page 159 and 160:
Professional Development Assignment
Page 161 and 162:
shadow a professional opened my eye
Page 163 and 164:
Building Student Networking Skills:
Page 165 and 166:
incentive for demonstrating great i
Page 167 and 168:
Populating the E- Portfolio: Reflec
Page 169 and 170:
Table 1: Management, Message Design
Page 171 and 172:
Students were assigned 25 minute bl
Page 173 and 174:
Some basic Google Analytics reports
Page 175 and 176:
4. Some keywords generate more clic
Page 177 and 178:
Do this Click on “Content,” the
Page 179 and 180:
Preparing Backgrounders and Proposa
Page 181 and 182:
going out to eat. But what does tha
Page 183 and 184:
Teaching and Mentoring Through Soci
Page 185 and 186:
prevalent in journalism students wh
Page 187 and 188:
normalization was utilized as the r
Page 189 and 190:
But what about the students in grou
Page 191 and 192:
“How a Graduate Practicum Class H
Page 193 and 194:
O How did the client feel about the
Page 195 and 196:
students practice skills and educat
Page 197 and 198:
References Bagglione, S. (2006) Rol
Page 199 and 200:
etween client preferences, practice
Page 201 and 202:
References Austin, L.L., & Toth, E.
Page 203 and 204:
webinars that will be used in one o
Page 205 and 206:
Assessing the State of Public Relat
Page 207 and 208:
adequately prepares students for la
Page 209 and 210:
eviewed articles; the other two may
Page 211:
The remaining points possible were
show all

2012 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?