1

Ruler, B. van, Verčič, D., Bütschi, G, & Flodin, B. (2000).

The European Body of Knowledge on Public Relations / Communication management: The Report of the Delphi Research Project 2000.

Ghent/Ljubljana: European Association for Public Relations Education and Research.

2

1. The Delphi study

1.1. The EBOK project

At its annual General Assembly in Brussels on 31st October 1998, the European Association for Public Relations Education and Research (CERP Education and Research) initiated the European Public Relations Body of Knowledge project (EBOK). The European Association recognised that its major responsibility is to enable and encourage the exchange of ideas in public relations across the administrative and linguistic borders in Europe and to produce an overview of public relations knowledge existing in different European countries (and different European languages). It was decided that a compilation of the European Public Relations Body of Knowledge was needed, with the hope of putting it alongside the existing North-American Public Relations Body of Knowledge and creating a Global Public Relations Body of Knowledge.

The purpose of the EBOK project is to codify the existing body of public relations literature in Europe and to enable its fuller use and application which is at present restricted by linguistic, cultural and administrative barriers. It consists of two sub-projects: a bibliography and a Delphi study. The EBOK project is to include all European countries and all European languages. For that reason, it is to be developed primarily in an electronic medium to enable accessibility (via Internet) and have a multi-linguistic character (via different character-coding tables and masks that enable access to the database in all European languages).

The bibliography is to include all public relations publications in all European languages published since 1990, with abstracts and their translations in as many European languages as possible. Its specific purpose is to collect that information and make it available to academics and practitioners - for that reason it is not restrictive about the parameters of the content. Nevertheless, it seemed useful to organise a (virtual) meeting of academics and practitioners from all over Europe to discuss the content of this bibliography. For this reason, a Delphi study was set up, intended to accompany the collection of bibliographical items and to help the task force to organise the literature for its future use.

Alongside to the build-up of the human infrastructure, the EBOK project is developing its technical infrastructure, which is located at the University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland. That university has agreed to host the mainframe computer and to support the project with software development and maintenance. The initial costs for the launch of the project are covered in a partnership between CERP Education and Research, the Swiss Public Relations Institute and the University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland. The project will be sponsored

3

by national organisations and, hopefully, by companies and / or public relations agencies.

The EBOK project is led by a European project team, consisting of Dr.. Dejan Vercic from Slovenia, who acts as the co-ordinator of the team, Dr. Gerhard Buetschi from Switserland, Dr. Bertil Flodin from Sweden and Dr. Betteke van Ruler from the Netherlands. Within the project, Dejan Vercic is responsible for the bibliography, Gerhard Buetschi for the website, Bertil Flodin for the information from all countries via country cards and Betteke van Ruler for the Delphi research project.

The European project team is collaborating with the European Association for Public Relations Education and Research to build up the pan-European network of national co-ordinators for the project, and is seeking other co-operation possibilities.

1.2. The Delphi project

The Delphi method is often used as a research method for assessing future, complex or ambiguous subjects. It is based on the techniques of iterative group interviewing. The group of respondents is typically composed of experts who are capable of clarifying issues descriptively and / or normatively. The quality of the respondents is essential for the quality of the results. The EBOK project team designed three selection criteria:

• as many European countries to be involved as possible • each country to be represented by an academic and a practitioner • the respondents to discuss the topic under investigation, to be well

known for their publications or well known within the European network of the European Association.

The building of the sample of participants began with the established members of the Association. They are primarily academics, but some of them are professional public relations researchers or practitioners interested in public relations education and / or research. If more than one candidate was available from one country, the best candidates were consulted according to their availability. That way an initial network of potential respondents was identified with one per country. The majority of them were academics, teaching public relations. They were then asked first to help us find their colleagues in countries still missing in the sample. All together, between January and March 1999, 25 potential participants, from different countries, were identified. That group was labelled "national co-ordinators". They were then asked to nominate a prominent practitioner in their country to become a second respondent.

4

Questionnaires were distributed and collected electronically (via e-mail) and the Pristop Communications server in Ljubljana, Slovenia, where Dejan Vercic works, was used as a central node for the system.

The first round of the EBOK Delphi study was conducted between January and July 1999. As a result of the responses received from the Delphi study itself and the first bibliographical packages sent by national co-ordinators for the project, the project team decided to give the Delphi study a more central role in the whole endeavour than was intended at first, and also to collect particular information from each country in separate country cards. The first questionnaire was an open and rather informal questionnaire, meant to collect as many thoughts as possible, as input for the following rounds. The initial reading of the first Delphi responses revealed a substantial diversity that could not be attributed to the selection of respondents, but seemed to reflect the diverse realities in public relations in Europe. This interpretation was more or less confirmed in the second and third rounds, but had a different slant.

Reading the outcomes of this study, one must be aware of the fact that not all participants gave answers to all questions. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the data absolutely accurately. The project team decided not to be concerned about this, because a Delphi study is not meant to find numbers of people for or against but to reveal consensus or reasoned dissensus and a range of arguments on topics. Therefor, the data are expressed simply as numbers rather than percentages.

1.3. Expectations of the EBOK project

In the first round we asked our participants about their expectations of the project. Although a few wrote that they did not know what to expect, most of the participants had very far-reaching expectations:

"Usefulness for theory and practice, widening of perspectives and insights, contribution to the reputation of PR, overview about the status of PR in Europe, to evaluate the potential of PR and the changes in this domain, access of information and information exchange, insight into trends, listing and identification of publications, contacts between scholars, understanding of the state of the art of education and research, how and when to use practical tools, more understanding of one another, identify new strands of literature and research within the European context, development of a research agenda, to share knowledge of sciences and common practice experience, a step to integration and globalisation of knowledge, inspiration for participants to think in a frame of Europe and the Globe, higher interest for permanent education, entrance to academic acceptance, start of a cumulative process".

5

One participant argued that it is also a risk of rationalising and choosing a more positivist perspective; he stated that PR needs a critical perspective too. Another participant stated that we need (also) a series of co-ordinated research studies on mechanisms of PR and not just a BOK. One participant warned about the need to keep the database up to date. Another warned the project team "to get too realistic, because in that case they will frame too much their work".

We also asked who should be the primary beneficiaries of this body of knowledge. We concluded that the EBOK has to fulfil the needs of many groups. Most of the participants argue that an EBOK is good for education and practice, only a few seeing it purely for educational purposes.

2. Summary

2.1. Summary

The initial reading of the first Delphi responses revealed a substantial diversity that could not be attributed to the selection of participants, but seemed to reflect the diverse realities in public relations in Europe. This idea was confirmed in the second and third round.

1. The three key concepts of public relations are "communication", "relationships", "publics". When considered as a separated management function, the essence of public relations is either management of communication or management of relationships. This can be due to definitions of communication or has to be seen as a different concept of the field.

2. The aim of public relations is building mutually beneficial relationships between people, involved in the organisation's conduct and / or building public trust / reputation. The claims on public relations by CEOs are in the view of the participants the opposite: building a good image of the organisation and its conduct and gaining public support for the organisation and its conduct. Obviously, there is a big problem of (at least perceived) different role expectations.

3. The value of public relations is seen either in just analysis of social demands / public opinion, in the professional management of communication, in the improvement of all communication, or in taking care of special parts of all communication. So, there seems to be a wide range of ideas on this subject. Also the ideas on the contribution of public relations to an organisation vary from very specific to very broad ideas.

4. Concerning the parameters of public relations there is almost total consensus that internal communication is part of public relations and that public relations must have influence on the strategy of the

6

organisation. There is a majority for the idea that public relations must have influence on the behaviour of the employees and that a PR professional is responsible for the content of the messages s/he communicates. There is a strong disagreement (fifty fifty) as to whether external communication includes communication with customers (marketing communication), although in the last round a majority was adamant in support of the view that public relations also involved marketing communication.

5. All participants were determined that public relations is a theory-based field. Nevertheless, theory is far from the first item on the list of core knowledge and skills. It was also obvious that only in a very few countries there is a full research program in which public relations (mostly named "communication") is studied at a scientific level. It was shown that the academic core of public relations is not matured at all. Unfortunately, a lucid research agenda could not be found.

6. There are many issues in public relations. Most often mentioned are ethics. There is a more or less ongoing debate on it in almost all countries. The fact that public relations has a bad image and lacks strategic influence was attributed to the lack of academic development and a preponderance of bad practice.

7. The first two rounds revealed all kinds of views on public relations. In the third round a vast majority agreed upon four dimensions of European public relations: managerial, technical, reflective, educational.

8. Many participants stated, that public relations is the name used for the field in an international context, but that they use other names in their own country. Still, it is obvious that in practice "public relations" is rather common, while in academic circles "communication" is most often used. Nevertheless, the majority of the participants like to stick to the concept of public relations, at least in an international context.

2.2. Follow up

This research project is the first insight into the field of public relations in Europe. It developed from a discussion about the content of the bibliography into an in-depth exploration of views on public relations within Europe.

This research project reveals not only a wide diversity of insights into public relations but also an academic field that is still in its infancy. All participants agreed about the lack of strategic influence and a relatively ongoing debate on the ethics of the field, bad practice, demarcation problems and lack of theory. They also hold rather normative, sometimes emotional and, moreover, widely differentiated ideas about the essence of the field and the value of it.

7

It is obvious that the societies within Europe differ according to a number of historical, political, cultural and other dimensions, that the relations between people, organisations and the state differ considerably, that the degree of the penetration of marketing philosophy into public relations differs considerably, that different actors have different expectations, that practitioners want to promote and make impact and create profitable relationships, that researchers want to understand and perhaps explain, that students want to be given a good grounding and need to be equipped to do a job, and that others, such as authorities, want to prevent misuse. The Delphi study revealed many of these issues. However, this method also has many shortcomings and the project team is sure that, despite best efforts, misunderstandings and poor communication occurred many times with the participants. Nevertheless, this Delphi study can serve as a first step in a longer debate on the subject of what we initially - without restriction - used to call public relations, but we now might call it "the subject known internationally as public relations".

In order to overcome the problems we found in the Delphi discussion and the country cards, those involved in the subject need to consider its development. This research project shows that in order to achieve this, a lot has to be done in the following aspects:

• development of theoretical approaches • development of methods • establishing clarity about education • establishing clarity about the parameters • establishing clarity about expectations of clients • discussion about realistic value • discussion about the naming of the field

We would like to state that we, as the project team, do not aim to present a unified concept, but that we consider it very important to highlight empirical concepts in order to be able to discuss and challenge them.

3. The definition in use

3.1. The definition of public relations used by the participants (round 1)

In the first round we asked which definition the participants use. The majority of the participants said it is something "between" entities, which has to do with "communication" and/or "relationships" in order to build "sound relations", "reputation", "public trust/social consensus". For a small minority of the participants, public relations is a one-way activity, either a promotional one in order to clarify organisational goals, or a monitoring one in order to analyse attitudes and policies. For one of the participants

8

public relations should not be defined. Nevertheless, almost all participants stated that it is a separated management function / something to be managed.

3.2. Focus on the definition of public relations (round 2)

In the second round we also asked participants to choose one of five given focuses, in order to describe public relations to make it understandable for ourselves and others and make it researchable.

For 9 participants the focus should be on public relations as a specialised, professional domain; for 8 of them the focus should be on public relations as an area with certain phenomena; for 5 the focus should be on an organisational philosophy, for 2 it is just a scientific, research field; and for 1 the focus should be a tool of every manager. No one wanted to add another focus.

3.3. Key concepts of public relations (round 2)

Also in the second round, we asked the participants to decide which key concepts - found in the given definitions in the first round - should definitely be part of a definition of public relations. The given items get the following accumulated scores:

Interesting to see is that for the majority of our participants, public relations does not relate to all stakeholders or merely to society or environment, but to publics, which were in the questionnaire determined as groups which constitute themselves because of interests in the organisation?s issues. If we try to form a sentence of the key concepts, mentioned by 2/3 of the participants, than we get the following one:

PR is the [maintenance of] relationships [with] publics [by] communication [in order to] establish mutual understanding.

This is a very common, Anglo-American grounded, definition of public relations, found in many textbooks and delivered by many national associations. Clearly, the majority of the participating European public relations specialists hold a very common and very much debated definition of public relations.

9

3.4. The essence of public relations (round 2)

In the second round we brought this item also back with a closed question whether public relations is all about managing communication, managing relationships, all about communicating about the organisation into society, or something other besides. The participants grouped themselves as follows:

Managing communication (8) Managing relationships (11) Man. Comm and Rel (3) Com into society (2) Other (5)

Something other:

• Understanding and managing legitimate social relationships of the organisation

• A special social activity, dealing with the relations between an organisation and the public/its publics, in order to discuss in public social norms and values relevant to the organisation, make the organisation reflect these norms and values in its decision processes, and finally communicate to the public that the organisation?s behaviour is legitimate, thus ensuring the organisation public trust/legitimacy

• PR is not about managing but about communication • PR is not only managing communication by relationships in order to

obtain trust from the publics and to monitor their trust and the consequences it has for the organisation, but also the management of information about what is going on inside and outside organisations, with the goal of anticipating future situations or to solve already established problems in a proper and the least harmful way to the organisation

• PR is concerned within trying to manage important relationships, so as to influence the behaviour of parties within those relationships; concern is ultimately with behaviour and trying to influence it

10

4. The contribution of public relations

4.1. The aim of public relations (round 2)

In the second round we asked about the aim of public relations. The participants could choose the items, found in the first round, and could add other items:

• building mutually beneficial relationships between people, involved in the organisation?s conduct: chosen 11 times

• building public trust / reputation: chosen 10 times • informing society: chosen 1 time • adjusting the corporate image and its identity: chosen 1 time • changing the attitude of target groups: chosen 1 time • building a good image of the organisation and its conduct: not

chosen • gaining public support for the organisation and its conduct: not

chosen

Added:

• to make the organisation deserve and gain public trust / legitimacy: one time

• to achieve mutual understanding: one time • building advantageous relationships with stakeholders for an

organisation: one time • there is no single aim

4.2. What CEOS think of public relations (round 2)

We also asked what clients/CEOS want mostly from public relations. This question prompted a differing picture of the same items:

• building a good image of the organisation and its conduct: chosen 9 times

• gaining public support for the organisation and its conduct: chosen 6 times

• changing the attitude of target groups: chosen 3 times • building public trust / reputation: chosen 2 times • informing society: chosen 1 time • adjust the corporate image and its identity: chosen 1 time

(explained as: promote their image and identity)

11

• building mutually beneficial relationships between people, involved in the organisation?s conduct: not chosen

Added:

• solving their communication problems and helping them manage their main issues

• unfortunately, it is most about making profits • action plans when something went wrong with regard to a relevant

stakeholder group (strike, boycott) • sell products or services • support for the achievement of organisational objectives • I would not like to make any generalisation here

According to all these answers, there is obviously a big problem in Europe regarding differing role definitions amongst public relations experts and the public relations clients, at least in the perceptions of the experts.

4.3. The value of public relations (round 2)

Taking the view that communication is an important item within public relations, we set out to know what makes public relations worthwhile, since everybody within and around organisations communicates, tries to do that competently and tries to keep their important relationships as open as possible. Analysing all answers to this open question, we found four approaches:

• Analysis: public relations analyses social demands / public opinion / society's norms

• Managing: public relations is responsible for the professional management of communication / finds cost efficient models of communication / systematic and professional ways of communicating / doing the communication

• Education: public relations improves all communication • Specialisation: public relations is responsible for the special parts of

all communication, eg. press relations, relations with important publics, communication with non commercial publics

12

4.4. When public relations is valued (round 2)

According to the first round, for a lot of participants public relations is about improving relationships with important stakeholders better, maintaining mutual understanding and building consensus. Therefore in the second round we asked if it is correct that public relations contributes only when an organisation has problems.

Almost all participants claimed that public relations is not only about sorting out problems but also or most of all, preventing them: "e;good PR can prevent many problems"e;, "e;besides 'defensive' we also have 'offensive' responsibilities"e;, those organisations only use the techniques of PR"e;.

4.5. The contribution of PR to an organisation (round 2)

Because of the vague picture of public relations we asked the participants to give their opinion on the question - what is the most important reason why an organisation should practice public relations. We found three dimensions in the answers.

One-way claims Relational claims Very broad Claims To obtain sound information 2x To maintain good relations 7x For soc-economic development 4x Involving the publics 1x To win public trust 3x For socially Responsible business 3x To analyse public perceptions 1x To gain a good reputation 2x For survival 1x To gain public support 1x To connect with surrounding 1x Who else is taking care of everything 1x

Obviously, the claims vary from very specific to very broad.

13

5. The parameters of public relations

5.1. The relationship of PR with (other) management disciplines (round 1)

About the relationship to (other) management disciplines almost all participants state, above all, that PR is a management discipline itself, separated from other management disciplines, such as finance, personnel etc. Some of them gave the following remarks:

• normatively PR should be head of all communication management, including marketing, but this is seldom the case

• it is a management discipline, directly linked to strategy and planning

• it is a separate management discipline, but also a tool for all managers

Analysing the deliberations of the participants, given in the first round on the question of the relationship with (other) management disciplines, we found the following dimensions:

• it is a philosophy of strategic management, not being market oriented but society oriented / it is a special way of managing

• it is the devising/management of all the information and communication processes regarding the organisation in order to gain mutual understanding or public trust

• it is the art of engineering public support for the organisation as a whole (a one-way promotional activity which has to be managed)

• it is the art of maintaining good relations between an organisation and its publics (a two-way activity which has to be managed)

• a tool of marketing • public relations is the manager of all management

Clearly, being a management discipline can mean anything, from a tool of marketing via planned activity to leading organisational philosophy. Therefore, we brought this item back in the second round. Because some participants were very definite about what it is not (e.g. a promotional activity / a tool of marketing), we added these things in the next round.

14

5.2. What public relations is all about (round 2)

In the second round we brought the options from the first round back and asked the participants to rank the items.

Highest Rank Item Lowest

Rank

15 A professional management function that initiates or maintains relationships between an organisation and its publics 0

6 The communication activities by which an organisation can create and maintain long term relationships with its stakeholders 1

5 A management function to gain public trust and social consensus about the goals of the organisation 0

2 A philosophy of strategic management not being market oriented but society oriented 1 1 A tool of marketing to gain a favourable basis for relationships with stakeholders 15 0 A promotional activity to clarify certain goals or conduct of an organisation / individual 3 0 A promotional activity to gain public support for the corporate body as a whole 1 0 An informational activity to keep the internal and external society informed 5

Obviously there is almost total agreement for the view that public relations is not a tool of marketing or a one-way persuasion or information activity. The essence of public relations is above all a two way street that is managed to keep (quality) relationships or to gain trust, which are views that are not very far from each other.

5.3. The reasons that public relations is not clearly definable (round 2)

The first round suggested that public relations does not exist as a separated area, but that it is included in the field of integrated communication / communication management, although it was not quite clear what was meant by these concepts. In the second round we asked whether this is a matter of the maturity or the evolution of public relations itself.

Immaturity Evolution Both Just words No problem

10 13 1 1 1

Regarding this question, we find almost total separation between the participants. For some it is evolution, mostly because of bad connotation of the word "public relations" or because of the broadening into integration of all communication of the organisation, which has to be managed, and which is broader than public relations was (see also 4.4). For others public relations still has to mature and is therefore encroached upon by other disciplines.

15

5.4. The parameters of public relations (round 2)

In order to define the parameters of public relations we added five questions into the questionnaire of the second round. The answers were as follows:

Question Yes No Depends

Must internal communication be part of public relations? 28 0 0 Should a PR professional have influence upon the strategy of the organisation as a whole? 26 1 1 Should a PR professional have influence upon the behaviour of the employees? 20 6 3 Should a PR professional be responsible for the content of the messages he communicates? 17 7 4 Must marketing communication be part of public relations? 13 13 2

We may conclude that according to the participants, it is impossible to do public relations without influencing the strategy of the organisation and without the responsibility for internal communication. Whether the influence on the behaviour of all employees belongs to public relations or not, is not clear for everyone; the same counts for responsibility for the content of the messages. There is a strong disagreement as to whether or not external communication includes communication with customers (which is marketing communication). Therefore, we brought this item back in the third round.

5.5. Public relations and marketing communication (round 3)

Because of the fact that the inclusion of marketing communication within public relations separated the participants we asked them in the third round to comment on three questions on inclusion or exclusion: Should marketing communication be part of public relations and is public relations aimed at commercial publics as well? Or should marketing and public relations only co-operate in this matter? Or should they be separated according to commercial and non-commercial functions within the organisation?

This question elicited long answers from many participants. For six participants it was very clear that public relations is also aimed at commercial publics. Most of the others refused to commit themselves and stated that "it all depends". The overall outcome of the discussion is that for most of the participants public relations can also be aimed at commercial publics and that public relations also does "marketing communication things". However, public relations and marketing are two functions that need to be kept separated but have to co-operate.

16

5.6. Public relations and persuasion (round 3)

Part of the refusal to commit on the inclusion of marketing communication has to do with the concept of persuasion, which was also included in the comments the participants gave in earlier rounds. We therefore asked in the third round how we should consider persuasion in the case of public relations. The question was: "Public relations is clearly not to be equated with propaganda, although persuasive strategies are used. Could you please give the borderlines between a persuasive effort on the one hand and propaganda on the other hand or do you want to reject any persuasive effort as part of public relations?"

No persuasion allowed

As little persuasion aspossible

All persuasion is o.k.

Persuasion allowed on limited grounds

0 2 1 18

The limiting grounds have three dimensions:

• for some persuasion is only allowed when facts / arguments are used and not imagery or emotions

• for some persuasion is only allowed when it is used in the public debate or in a "negotiation connection"

• for some persuasion is only allowed when more sides are taken into consideration

5.7. Public relations and organisational behaviour (round 3)

The last question we proposed on the borders of public relations was the question of the influence on organisational behaviour. This item was mentioned in the first round by several participants as the most important task of public relations and was also part of the borderline discussion in the second round. We asked the participants: "Should influence on organisational behaviour be part of public relations? Should public relations and personnel departments only co-operate in this matter? Or should they be separated according to external communication, which is the responsibility of public relations, and internal communication, which is the responsibility of personnel department? Or should only the aspects of internal information be part of public relations and should the attitude and behaviour oriented aspects be part of the personnel department?"

For 15 participants it remains clear that public relations should have influence on organisational behaviour. For all others public relations should co-operate with the personnel department in this matter. No one

17

argumented regarding the implementation of this co-operation; at least no one chose one of the given options or rejected any of them.

6. The tools of public relations

6.1. Pr as a theory or practice based field (round 1)

All participants were very determined about the fact that public relations should be a theory-based field. "PR needs general theories and middle range theories which are testable", one participant stated. "YES, YES, YES again. We have to standardise the theories and orientate the practitioners in the field of different Pr theories", stated another. These statements do not correspond very well with the low attention to theory in daily practice, as many participants stated, and they do not correspond very well with the knowledge and skills the participants judge as necessary for PR practice.

6.2. Knowledge and skills needed in PR practice (round 1)

According to the participants, practitioners need all kinds of knowledge and skills. They need general knowledge on organisational sciences, political science, psychology, sociology, advertising, economics, ethics, law, marketing, management, arts, culture, history. They also need specialist knowledge of public relations strategy, processes, techniques, and all kind of specialities, such as media relations, sponsorship, lobbying, employee/internal relations, investor relations, crisis public relations, political public relations, community, private and public relations in agencies, etc. Also skills are mentioned, eg. media production, listening, languages, counselling. Some participants mentioned that the personal character of a professional needs to be nurtured. Listed qualities are: agility, creativity, emotional self-control, imagination, and loyalty.

In it interesting to note what participants rank first in their list. These items could be considered to be the key knowledge and skills for the practice. 11 Participants chose skills as their first item, ten chose knowledge items and two personal characteristics. The skills vary again but can be listed as listening and writing on the one hand and management skills on the other hand. Knowledge is concerned with the communication process, the organisation of communication and public relations itself. Personal characteristics are intelligence and objectivity. It is obvious that, although theory is highly appreciated by the participants, it is not the top of everybody's list. Therefore, we brought this item back in the next round.

18

6.3. Most important tools of PR (round 2)

In the second round we asked participants to choose the most important tools of public relations, according to all kinds of tools mentioned in the first round. If we select those items that are rated most highly by the participants, the following top 5 can be found:

1. networking with stakeholders 2. communication skills 3. dialogue 4. information 5. sensitivity to trends

The conclusion may be that a good PR professional is a good networker, having good communication skills, knowing how and when to choose between one way information and two way dialogue, and being sensitive to trends.

Rated by only very few participants were protocol and representation. These tools are definitely not key part of the profession, according to these participants. Not in the top 5, but rated relatively often are: persuasion, negotiation, creation of a picture/imagery and framing messages.

6.4. Essential knowledge (round 2)

Another question regarding the subject of knowledge and skills was what the most essential knowledge is. We confronted the participants with a list of items, found in the first round. Analysing the answers we found two essentials in this respect: how communication (as a process) works and how to keep relationships open. How to manage your boss/client is the most often rejected item in this respect.

6.5. Criteria to be successful (round 2)

Also in round 2 we asked what a PR officer must be able to do in order to succeed in this business in the future. All kinds of answers were given. Interpretation of the most common answers leads to the following: A PR officer must above all understand the possibilities of his/her own role and function and must work on his/her ability to implement all these possibilities. This is a rather vague answer upon which it would be difficult to build theories and develop practice.

19

6.6. PR as a separated research field (round 1 and country cards)

After the first round it was obvious that public relations is not very often a separate research field, if ever. It is studied under the umbrella of journalism, marketing, management, arts, literature, media, communication sciences, mediation or foreign trade. The country cards gave a fuller profile of the research of public relations. It is obvious that only in avery few countries is there a real research programme in which public relations (often named communication) is studied at a scientific level. It is obvious that the theory base of public relations is not at all well developed.

Public relations as a field is taught at universities all over Europe. It seems that it is accepted in the basic undergraduate education and at some places also up to the Master's level, but it is rather rare to find PhD programmes in public relations at the universities and it is certainly not accepted as an academic discipline in its own right in Europe.

6.7. The PR research agenda (round 3)

The fact that all participants stated that public relations must be a theory-based field and that it is not a field that is commonly studied at a scientific level, made us ask, in the third round, whether the participants have the feeling that public relations is being researched and theorised about in the right areas or whether they see gaps or distortions in the research agenda. The answers make clear that there is much to do, but they do not make clear what should be done first or most of all. Some participants say that they do not know enough about current research to answer the question, but most argue that there is a need for more "reflexive" theory, or "normative" theory, or "theory about best practices" or "persuasion theories". Some even state that everything is that much in its infancy, that it is impossible to choose what should be done first. A research agenda could not be found, not even in a preliminary format.

7. Hot issues in the field

7.1. The issues on public relations (round 1)

In the first round we asked what the current issues on public relations are in each country. Some of the participants mentioned that there is not really a debate at all, but most of them mentioned certain issues. The following items were mentioned once as being discussed in different countries: brand public relations, certification, country image, credibility of top management, crisis public relations, dialogue oriented public relations,

20

difference between public relations and marketing, environmental public relations, European affairs, evaluation, financial public relations, integrated communication, internationalisation, legitimisation of the profession, lobbying, manipulation, mergers, new (information and communication) technologies, political and government (local and national) public relations, social responsibility, strategic public relations.

Issues that are mentioned more than once:

• ethics • evaluation of public relations • professionalisation - education • the position of public relations in organisations • the problem of a well informed society • demarcation of the profession • international co-operation / knowledge exchange • specialised functions of PR

7.2. The ethics (round 2)

Because the issue of ethics was mentioned frequently, we brought this item back in the second round with the remark that some participants had mailed us that there is a discussion on "ethics" in public relations in their country, and that we wondered whether that a similar debate is occurring elsewhere, and if so why and how, and if not, why not. The answers were as follows:

YES NO NOW and THEN 21 2 6

Some stated that it is not an ongoing debate, but now and then it is provoked by what is observed as the unethical conduct of a practitioner or consultancy. For all participants this is an important item, which needs to be discussed within the profession, especially while business ethics becomes more and more important.

21

7.3. The lack of strategic influence (round 2)

In the first round almost every participant had referred to the bad image of public relations and the lack of strategic influence by public relations. We wondered why and brought this item back in the second round. The answers can be categorised as follows:

• it is because of the immaturity of the field 12x • it is because of the preponderance of bad practice (short term

promotion, unethical etc.) 6x • it is because others do not understand the importance of PR 4x • it is the wrong question, because PR has strategic influence 1x • it is because of the use of the wrong terminology, e.g. public

relations 1x

8. The dimensions of European public relations

8.1. European characteristics (round 1)

In the first round we discussed the question whether European public relations has specific characteristics or not. Although most of the participants concluded that essentially public relations, at least in practice, is an American concept and that European practice is very much influenced by the American practice, for most of the participants European public relations differs from American public relations. The answers can be related to:

• European public relations is broader • Is more public oriented rather than business oriented • Is more long-term and less profit oriented • Europe has a different business culture • (Parts of) Europe have a socialist background • Europe has different lobbying practices • European public relations has its roots in Enlightenment.

One participant argues that public relations also differs very much between European countries, which is obviously the case. Several participants state that public relations in Europe is much older than public relations in the USA.

22

8.2. National characteristics (round 1)

In the first round we also asked for national characteristics. The participants could not mention many characteristics. The following came up as typical national characteristics:

• there is no specialisation (which probably counts for many of the countries)

• public relations is very multi-culturally oriented • public relations is not marketing oriented • public relations includes internal communication • public relations is more public information than publicity • there is much intellectualism within the public relations field • it includes organisation behaviour and ethics • it is mostly about relationships • we have a strong tradition of openness • we have a strong tradition of permanent bargaining and negotiation • public relations is very immature in our country

We believe that most of these statements are not national characteristics but are at least European, if not characteristics of the whole industrial world.

8.3. Four dimensions of public relations

The first two rounds revealed all kinds of aspects of public relations. In the last round we categorised them and asked our participants to argue whether the aspects fit their perception and if so, whether these can be seen as the dimensions of European public relations. The categories are: managerial, technical, reflective, educational (see below).

Almost all participants agree with these categorisations. 17 Participants prefer to consider the aspects as dimensions; two participants agree with three of the four dimensions, but have a problem in understanding the third dimension. Four participants prefer totally different dimensions (technical, strategic, organisational and communicative; dimensions based on the values held by practitioners; dimensions on the PR development of the organisation; dimensions based on the concept of power or influence). Some participants stated that the managerial and the technical dimensions and the reflective and the educational ones are two sides of the same coin. For another the managerial one needs to be sub-divided itself. If any, the reflective dimension delivered most deliberations among the participants. But most participants were delighted about this new categorisation of the field. According to the remarks of some participants we offer the following dimensions:

23

Oriented towards internal and external publics:

1. Managerial: a role of public relations with the aim of maintaining relationships / to manage communication processes with publics as a two-way process, in order to gain public trust and / or mutual understanding. This aspect has influence on organisational strategy and can be seen as the main role of public relations in Europe, according to our participants.

2. Technical: a role with the aim to deliver action according to implement managerial plans. This aspects is only concerned with execution. For most of the participants this is the most common aspect of public relations in Europe, but is definitely not the only one.

Oriented towards the (members of the) organisation as a whole:

3. Reflective: a role with the aim to evaluate the developing values and norms of society and adjust those of the organisation to it. This role has influence on organisational values and norms and can be seen as a developing role of public relations in relation to discussion on the socially responsible behaviour of organisations and building a socially legitimate reputation.

4. Educational: a role with the aim to make the organisation communicate competently, in order to respond to societal / commercial demands. This aspect has influence on the daily behaviour of all members of the organisation in relation to their internal and external publics.

8.4. Strategies for the four dimensions (round 3)

We also confronted our participants with another discussion which we found in the first two rounds, related to the way to fulfil the roles of public relations. Several participants puts forward all kinds of strategies, either indirectly or directly. We categorised them into one-sided strategies, e.g. information or persuasion, and two-sided strategies, e.g. dialogue or negotiation, and we related these to the four dimensions. The majority saw these four strategies as interesting strategies at least for the managerial dimension; within the reflective and the educational dimensions, most participants argues, two-sided strategies need priority. For some, these strategies need to be expanded: they prefer to add monitoring, interpretation, action and positive thinking.

In this debate, we found a new problem and that is that communication means totally different things to our participants. For some communication is only negotiation, for others negotiation is definitely not communication or only communication together with action, for some

24

communication is always persuasion, and therefore persuasion cannot be just a strategy, for still others communication is definitely not persuasion, and persuasion is also not allowed as strategy, etc. We found an almost total confusion of tongues in this respect. This sets the debate concerning the name of the field in a different light and needs to be discussed.

8.5. Sub-division of EBOK (round 3)

Because the given dimensions often have their own theories and methods, we wondered whether we would have to make sub-divisions in the body of knowledge within our project. The overall answer was that it is dangerous to make separate sub-divisions because this might prove to be fatal to the integration of the four dimensions. All of these dimensions are seen as essential part of the practice and need to be integrated. One participant stated that he would not agree with an "apartheid" between these dimensions. Nevertheless, no one argued that we should not consider that these dimensions have their own theories and methods to some extent and several participants actually argued that these are interesting categories for the EBOK.

9. The name of the discipline

9.1. The differences between PR and communication management (round 1)

For some of the participants public relations is the same as communication management or integrated communication. For others public relations is narrower, because it is minus marketing communication, or because they see public relations as mainly externally oriented. For still others public relations is broader than communication management, because it uses more tools than just communication (e.g. action), or because public relations deals with relationships and not only with communication, or because it is aimed at altering perception or behaviours of publics and communication is not. For one participant communication is a tool of PR but efficient communication is not per se good PR, and for another PR is just the profession, communication management is the leadership ability and integrated communication the method.

It is obvious that some dislike the term public relations because of bad connotations, while others dislike the term communication management ("too narrow" or "too broad") or integrated communication ("too organisation oriented term"). The differences are probably to some extent caused by differences in connotations of the concept of communication, but they are also caused by differences in the concept of public relations.

25

It became also obvious that public relations is not a very widely used name for the field.

This first round did not give much clarification to the naming of the field. Therefore, we brought this item back in the last round.

9.2. Keeping public relations or changing the name (round 3)

In the last round we discussed whether the participants think public relations is the right term for the European discipline or another name would be more applicable.

15 Participants chose to keep the concept of public relations, at least to be used in an international setting, arguing that "this is simple", "public relations is only a specialised form of communication", "this is a very precise name", "this is the universally known name", "communication is too narrow". Six participants argue that organisational communication or communication management are more specific terms for this field, from which one participant put forward arguments for reputation management. Nevertheless, many participants stated that in their own country public relations is not the commonly used name, not in practice and especially not within science (see also 8.2).

9.3. The name of the field in each country (round 1)

The commonly used names for this field in the participating countries differ, not only between countries, but also between practice and science.

Practice Science Public relations 11 x Public relations 3x Communication 5 x Communication 8 x Information 1 x Information 0 x Several names 6 x Several names 2 x Not mentioned 3 x Not mentioned 10 x Others, ? Others: mediation / promotion / corporate communication

26

9.4. The naming of the field according to the country card data

When only one name is common, this one seems to be public relations in the practical field and communication in the scientific field.

It is obvious that in most countries more than one term is used. It seems to be rather common to use several terms at the same time and for the same field and with roughly the same meaning. Some countries do use the term "public relations", also within their own language. In UK and Ireland it belongs to the language, of course, but in countries like Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia the English term is introduced into the daily language and used in its original way. In some other countries the term has been directly translated. This seems to be the case in Italy and Portugal. In this case the term is used in an "imported" way. Other countries use terms that are not linguistically related to public relations, but looking at the content, the terms in use seems to be related to the concept of public relations. This is, for instance, the case in The Netherlands with the concept of "voorlichting", in Germany and Austria with the concept of "Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit" and in Denmark with the concept of "virksomheder offentlighed og legitimitet".

It is difficult to find any pattern in the naming of the field. One pattern is perhaps that in the Nordic countries Denmark, Norway and Sweden the term "information" is more commonly used than in other countries. The overall impression is a very confusing mixture of concepts and use of concepts without clear rationales with respect to content. We believe that this matter calls for urgent debate.

The Project Team Amsterdam/Ljubljana/Stockholm/Basel June 2000

27

Appendix Countries represented in the EBOK project by waves of interviewing (as included in this report)

Participants First wave Second wave Country cards Third wave

Austria Austria Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Bulgaria Croatia Croatia Croatia Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Finland Finland Finland Finland Finland France France France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Great Britain Great Britain Great Britain Great Britain Great Britain

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Latvia Latvia Latvia Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands

Norway Norway Norway Norway Norway Poland Poland Poland Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland Ukraine Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Yugoslavia Yugoslavia 25 22 23 20 19