2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America
2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America
2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Pr<strong>of</strong>essionals, however, <strong>of</strong>fered several constructive criticisms <strong>of</strong> the deontological<br />
models <strong>of</strong> public relations, which may serve to enhance the applicability <strong>of</strong> ethics models to the<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ession. For example, some individuals said that the deontological models lacked a final<br />
evaluation component for practitioners to use when assessing the ethics <strong>of</strong> a complete public<br />
relations campaign or initiative. Furthermore, individuals described the difficulty <strong>of</strong> applying<br />
universal, consistent or duty-based ethics to such a wide spectrum <strong>of</strong> clients, business realms, or<br />
crises. Interview respondents did, however, champion the maintenance <strong>of</strong> individuals’ dignity<br />
and respect, adherence to pr<strong>of</strong>essional duties such as honesty, and the promotion <strong>of</strong> decision<br />
making autonomy.<br />
The pr<strong>of</strong>essional criticism <strong>of</strong> deontological models, matched with the positive evaluation<br />
and implementation <strong>of</strong> some deontological philosophies can serve to advance the deontological<br />
theory <strong>of</strong> ethical issues management and its models. Future pr<strong>of</strong>essional models could include a<br />
final ethical evaluation component and better assist practitioners to apply more consistent,<br />
deontological tenets to the <strong>of</strong>ten difficult, situational decisions they make in the field.<br />
Limitations and Future Considerations<br />
There were some limitations to this study pertaining to sample and time in the field.<br />
Although a snowball sampling method helped recruit participants, future studies necessitate a<br />
larger sample in order to gain an even greater sense <strong>of</strong> data saturation. The majority <strong>of</strong> study<br />
participants identified as independent or agency public relations practitioners. Perhaps maximum<br />
variation <strong>of</strong> representation from corporate or not-for-pr<strong>of</strong>it realms and additional geographic<br />
locations would flesh out any additional perspectives that exist, but were not voiced by the eight<br />
participants. Maximum variation would also work to prevent discussion <strong>of</strong> interview questions<br />
between snowballed participants who may know each other. Time in the field was also limited to<br />
one academic semester. More time to conduct the study would have assisted the researcher to<br />
interview additional participants.<br />
This study exposes several paths for future research regarding public relations ethics.<br />
Results suggest the need to further research how practitioners make ethical decisions and what<br />
tools, models, individuals, and philosophies can empower, guide and educate them throughout<br />
their careers. Practitioner responses expose individuals’ diverse deontological, utilitarian and<br />
self-interest approaches to public relations. Future research must understand why practitioners<br />
abide by alternative ethical decision making models or choose to make decisions based only on<br />
personal values or needs.<br />
Scholarship must also examine why practitioners fail to discuss or utilize other<br />
components <strong>of</strong> deontological decision making, such as forms <strong>of</strong> the Categorical Imperative,<br />
intention or morally good will, individual autonomy and two-way symmetrical communication.<br />
<strong>Public</strong> relations practitioners work in unique situations where they <strong>of</strong>ten lack autonomy or twoway<br />
communication capabilities, but must make critical or ethical decisions. Future research<br />
must continue to evaluate practitioners’ multiple levels <strong>of</strong> autonomy and prescribe methods <strong>of</strong><br />
gaining autonomy, maintaining ethics within the scope <strong>of</strong> their work roles, or practicing<br />
autonomy outside <strong>of</strong> the workforce. Then, we may better understand how individuals can learn<br />
to apply more consistent, rational, and duty-based ethical philosophies to public relations<br />
decisions through use <strong>of</strong> a deontological model.<br />
Practitioner’s responses highlight the need for public relations pr<strong>of</strong>essionals to<br />
understand and integrate practical and deontological duty-based ethics models. We must expose<br />
the pr<strong>of</strong>ession to deontological approaches <strong>of</strong> public relations ethics through increased education,<br />
103