2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

Professionals, however, offered several constructive criticisms of the deontological
models of public relations, which may serve to enhance the applicability of ethics models to the
profession. For example, some individuals said that the deontological models lacked a final
evaluation component for practitioners to use when assessing the ethics of a complete public
relations campaign or initiative. Furthermore, individuals described the difficulty of applying
universal, consistent or duty-based ethics to such a wide spectrum of clients, business realms, or
crises. Interview respondents did, however, champion the maintenance of individuals’ dignity
and respect, adherence to professional duties such as honesty, and the promotion of decision
making autonomy.
The professional criticism of deontological models, matched with the positive evaluation
and implementation of some deontological philosophies can serve to advance the deontological
theory of ethical issues management and its models. Future professional models could include a
final ethical evaluation component and better assist practitioners to apply more consistent,
deontological tenets to the often difficult, situational decisions they make in the field.
Limitations and Future Considerations
There were some limitations to this study pertaining to sample and time in the field.
Although a snowball sampling method helped recruit participants, future studies necessitate a
larger sample in order to gain an even greater sense of data saturation. The majority of study
participants identified as independent or agency public relations practitioners. Perhaps maximum
variation of representation from corporate or not-for-profit realms and additional geographic
locations would flesh out any additional perspectives that exist, but were not voiced by the eight
participants. Maximum variation would also work to prevent discussion of interview questions
between snowballed participants who may know each other. Time in the field was also limited to
one academic semester. More time to conduct the study would have assisted the researcher to
interview additional participants.
This study exposes several paths for future research regarding public relations ethics.
Results suggest the need to further research how practitioners make ethical decisions and what
tools, models, individuals, and philosophies can empower, guide and educate them throughout
their careers. Practitioner responses expose individuals’ diverse deontological, utilitarian and
self-interest approaches to public relations. Future research must understand why practitioners
abide by alternative ethical decision making models or choose to make decisions based only on
personal values or needs.
Scholarship must also examine why practitioners fail to discuss or utilize other
components of deontological decision making, such as forms of the Categorical Imperative,
intention or morally good will, individual autonomy and two-way symmetrical communication.
Public relations practitioners work in unique situations where they often lack autonomy or twoway
communication capabilities, but must make critical or ethical decisions. Future research
must continue to evaluate practitioners’ multiple levels of autonomy and prescribe methods of
gaining autonomy, maintaining ethics within the scope of their work roles, or practicing
autonomy outside of the workforce. Then, we may better understand how individuals can learn
to apply more consistent, rational, and duty-based ethical philosophies to public relations
decisions through use of a deontological model.
Practitioner’s responses highlight the need for public relations professionals to
understand and integrate practical and deontological duty-based ethics models. We must expose
the profession to deontological approaches of public relations ethics through increased education,
103