After a comment I made on his blog, Stephen Waddington, a candidate in the CIPR Council Elections, asked why is it that academics are so poorly reported or referenced by the UK PR industry? He notes that this is not the case in places such as Sweden and the US, for example?
Could it be that PR academics are wilting flowers? Is it that they follow rather than lead PR practice? Does this mean limited research that is none contentious? Is it the case that such milk and water teaching and research reflects mostly recent (and largely American) history and is thus of so little consequence to the industry or are the reasons more profound?
Perhaps we should look inside the universities for its response. This is an era of rapidly changing platforms and channels for communication. Can the universities (and the PR industry) cope with the consequences? The hard science which explores the human brain to aid psychologist identify human drivers would seem to be beyond current teaching and hardly figures in PR courses or research. Computerised part of speech analysis which reveals semantically the values attaching to organisations and brands is becoming very advanced and yet PR academics seem to know so little about it. Access to technologies, that driver of human evolution, is changing the very nature of organisational structures and is better explored by other disciplines despite the obvious significance to PR practice. There are many other such issues facing all communications research. Have such changes pushed real PR beyond the limited wit of academia.
Maybe there is another reason. It is possible that the PR industry has been ripped off by academic administrators? The contribution undergraduate PR degree courses have made to Universities is huge. A real milch cow. Easy money. Cheap to run degree courses. Just under 200 PR students in one university contribute £600,000 from their own pockets every year. This means that diverted government contribution is funding other activities. This university is spending a fortune (£3.2 million) on teaching jobbing trades such as journalism, publishing, radio and TV. Perhaps we await an academic who dares blow such a whistle?
Could it be that academia is truly frightened by the effort and (by historical standards very, very high) cost of the grants and sponsorship it needs to fund and execute ground breaking research for one of the key disciplines of modern management, namely Public Relations?
There could be a further conspiracy founded on the discipline taught in the universities being so threatening to the other institutions they dare not acknowledge the contribution? The PR trade association that publishes a guide that does not acknowledge its academic underpinning; the consultancy feeling more comfortable to provide safe haven for an ex FT journalist than a trained practitioner and the bank that employs a communications expert (even when provided with the evidence - PDF) is incapable of insisting that a breakdown in relationship and trust would lead to the collapse of the financial sector. These university taught practitioners are jolly dangerous folk!
Why, Stephen asked, is it that academics are so poorly reported or referenced by the UK PR industry?
As part insider and part outsider, I think it is all these things and a few more. But the question still stands and perhaps, as universities re-examine their role, this is time for a proper and properly informed debate.
This is an important discussion, so here are some instant thoughts:
ReplyDeleteThe PR industry should indeed do better. Here are two simple and practical steps: the CIPR should support a sectoral group for PR education (NB the education and skills group does not do this). And PR Week should devote a regular page to education and training, including reviews of new books (as you would find in any professional journal).
But PR academics also need to try harder to understand and respond to the changes in the industry. Here's a case of a professor talking about E-PR. In 2010. http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2010/11/online-public-relations-the-adoption-process-and-innovation-challenge-a-greek-example/
Final thought: PR courses at university are not the cash cows you suggest. These would be marketing, business studies and possibly journalism - depending on the faculty structure. PR degree courses are under threat (as you well know) because they haven't necessarily reached the size or maturity of these other, easier to teach, disciplines.
Back to your point about academics needing understanding in the industry.
As far as I can see, have spent a decade in the leadership of various PR agencies, UK PR academics make little or know attempt to reach our seriously to PR practitioners, other than their own alumni and, perhaps, the PRCA and CIPR. Graduates from UK PR programmes are not well prepared in core skills and, while it's fascinating for students to be given the overview of ethics, integration and communication strategy, UK PR programmes just don't put enough effort into producing people who can hit the ground running - who can write press releases and pitch in stories. There are excellent graduates about, but they are often people whose practical skills are build more through their own efforts than through their degree. Fundamentally, UK academics view PR as a discipline when - for us - it is a profession.
ReplyDeleteDear David - Not only do you not understand university economics but you succeed in missing many of the positive relationships between academics and practitioners. You're just perpetuating the out-of-date image that the CIPR candidate was pushing forward.
ReplyDelete1) UG degrees are not 'milch cows'. The costing of courses is incredibly tight and after 2012 will be even more difficult. But there are a lot of committed staff who make it work. You imply that we are somehow cheating our students and that's offensive.
2) There are many, many positive relationships between university PR courses and practitioners. For example, all our 60+ 3rd year students do a long (40-50 week)paid placement in the PR sector; we have a lot of guest lectures; there's a great relationship (in our area) with the regional CIPR who couldn't be more helpful. All these happen because practitioners and academics work together.
3) More research is being commissioned from BU's PR academics from the UK and the US. We done work with Ketchum Pleon and the Institute for PR recently.
4) At BU, industry (Ketchum, PRCA, Journal of Comm Mgmt) supported the 1st International History of Public Relations Conference. Edelman supported the important diversity in PR conference organised by Dr Lee Edwards of Manchester Business School earlier in the year.
4) Our graduates are getting real PR jobs in major consultancies, government, corporates and not-for-profits. The roll call of jobs at last week's graduation ceremony was amazing.
Of course, we'd like more funding from industry and support for research but the picture is much more positive and constructive than you portray.
My question was flippant recognising your frustration David in your comment on my blog. But I don’t think it is without foundation.
ReplyDeleteTo Richard's point, the PR industry is experiencing change unlike ever before. The inflexion point created by digital could not be more apparent. The industry could grow into a £10bn to £100 billion industry or it could wither from its current position.
At a very practical level the UK PR industry needs help with issues such as planning and measurement via initiatives such as AMEC and the CIPR social media panel and measurement group.
In the US, academics (working with industry) are helping lead the way forward on research topics ranging from network theory to sentiment analysis and from the impact of psychology on PR to semantic language modelling. Are similar project being undertaken in the UK?
How are our academic institutions modernising their courses in respond to media fragmentation and digital PR? To be fair I’m aware of some excellent teaching at Leeds and Sunderland.
Tom – I haven’t engaged with Bournemouth but would welcome the opportunity.
There can be no doubt that academics in the UK are under reported. That may be the fault of our trade media or it may result from academics not engaging with the media. If it’s the latter, please step forward, and voice your opinions exactly as you have done here.
Duncan – I do think that graduates are better trained to “hit the ground running” particularly as a result of the efforts that universities have made to engage with industry through initiatives such as work placements.
Final point: if this is an issue of investment let’s have that debate and see if there are ways to improve the situation.