What do public relations educators think about standards in their field? What do they think their educator peers think about standards in public relations? And what do educators think practitioners in the field think? This study seeks to answer these questions by using a coorientation approach in a national survey of public relations educators. It is based on the view that both educators and practitioners in public relations must look inward and define standards of specific performance - and, borrowing from social projection theory, that professionals in the field must come to consensus on these standards - to ultimately achieve and maintain professionalism in the field. Professional standards Criteria for classification of an activity as professional are remarkably similar across numerous disciplines and are found in both trade (Australia,1993; Bovet, 1994; Fenton,1977; Marston,1968; McKee, Nayman, & Lattimore,1975; Ranney,1977; St. Helen, 1992; Warner, 1993) and academic writing (Gitter & Jaspers,1982; Judd, 1989; RentnerB Ryan,1986; Wright 1978, 1981). Professional criteria include requirements for: (a) a well-defined body of scholarly knowledge; (b) completion of some standardized and prescribed course of study; (c) examination and certification by a state; (d) oversight by a state agency which has disciplinary powers over practitioners' behaviors; (e) membership in organizations; and (f) development of technical skills (Nelson, 1994; Wylie, 1994). Other criteria include intellectualism, and existence of an ethical code, a self-governing body, and an orientation on public service over self-interests (like profits) (Wright, 1981). Prescriptions for professionalism in public relations in the trade and research literature take more of a topical focus, arguing for or against licensing (Baxter, 1986; Bernays, 1983, 1992, 1993; Forbes, 1986; Lesly,1986), accreditation and education (Hainsworth, 1993; Wylie, 1994), ethics and social responsibility (Bivins, 1992; Judd, 1989; Ryan,1986; Sharpe,1986; Cameron, Sallot, & Weaver-Lariscy,1996). Drawing on this literature and 200 hours of interviews with 60 practitioners, Cameron, Sallot, and Weaver-Lariscy (1996) developed a battery of 24 attributes of professionalism in public relations and the 45 items that operationalize behavior. Using this instrument, the authors have conducted national surveys in the United States of public relations practitioners and educators. Practitioners self-reported that ethical guidelines, accreditation and writing/editing skills enjoy well established standards. Licensing, location of public relations on the organizational chart and inclusion of public relations in the dominant coalition were viewed as most lacking in a standard of performance (Cameron, Sallot, & WeaverLariscy, 1996). Focusing on justice and equity issues in the 1996 data set, WeaverLariscy, Sallot, and Cameron (1996) argued that men see more justice and equity in the system than women experience, precluding women from viewing just and equitable standards in the field. Employing coorientational analysis (Chaffee & McLeod, 1968; Kim, 1986), Sallot, Cameron, and Weaver-Lariscy (1998) found that public relations professionals across the nation tend to underestimate the current state of standards in the field. This state of pluralistic ignorance (Glynn, Ostman, & McDonald, 1995) was partly attributed to the third-person effect (Davison, 1983). While some research have investigated educators' views on news values and journalistic behaviors in public relations (see, for example, Habermann, Kopenhaver, & Martinson, 1988), only one previous study examined public relations educators' views on standards per se. Sallot, Cameron, and Weaver-Lariscy (1997) surveyed 127 educators across the U.S. with their battery of 24 standards items. …
Read more