Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

out of which twenty-three replies were from
academics and twenty-five were practitioners.
The response rate was thus calculated as 37.5
per cent.
PR academics from Europe and America
were approached to contribute to the study.
The academics approached are all actively
engaged in interdisciplinary research in public
relations. Practitioners chosen had a known
interest in research and/or education in public
relations and held senior positions in the
organizations they represented/worked for.
They work in consultancy or in-house and
have a combined experience in a range of
backgrounds, including corporate and financial
public relations and political communication.
Participants were chosen from the
various committees of the IPR, including the
Training and Professional Development
Committee, or they were selected from international
organizations such as Confédération
Européene des Relations Publiques (CERP).
Speakers at the IPR National Conference 2000
were invited to participate, as were the judges
of the PR Week Awards 2000.
Despite being based on only one questionnaire,
this brief survey provides a comprehensive
overview of the changes in the PR
environment and profession over recent years.
Respondents provided a large pool of information
crucial to our perceptions of the theory
and practice of public relations in an evolving
and dynamic world. As the educator–practitioner
divide is fairly equal (48:52, from a
total of forty-eight respondents), data gathered
has been decisive in giving access into
the differences in opinion, which will be discussed
throughout this report.
The main concern for some academics was
the agenda setting of research priorities.
Questions were raised over who determined
the new research proposals and the validity of
the new list of research subjects. According
to one academic, the previous list has not
been researched fully and successfully, otherwise
huge progress in the field of public relations
would have been made. Another
academic expressed how there are too many
research topics already and the present lack
of resources means that it is impossible to do
justice to the topics up for research. Overall,
the academic view is for research in public
relations to focus on PR practice, and in subjects
which are relevant to practitioners.
Some practitioners, although recognizing
the need for public relations to be theorydriven,
were wary about scholastic research
into public relations, as such activity runs the
risk of reducing PR problems into pedantic
arguments, an exercise which has no place
in the real business environment as public
relations is essentially a practical management
function rather than a set of academic
conceits. In the words of a practitioner, ‘My
standard stance on these pseudo-scientific
research studies is to decline to participate in
order to ensure that no one can suggest that
it was anything more than an academic exercise
or that it involved people of some experience
and expertise who actually practised
public relations at management level.’ Clearly
the long-standing debate over the disparity
between practitioner and educator competencies
in public relations still forms a bone of
contention. However, recent work by Stacks
et al. (1998) 3 is aimed at dispelling these
myths. Similarly, Moloney et al. (1999)
have researched into the effectiveness of PR
degrees and the occupational destination of
PR graduates.
The results showed a need for better understanding
of the current research milieu in both
industry and academia. To follow is a list of the
research interests of respondents. The numer-
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors