Statistics and Research Methodology course

Case 10a: The practices and styles of public relations practitioners Valarie Cowley, University of Gloucestershire Public relations (PR) practitioners are a significant and growing group in the UK. Some of them operate internationally with great sophistication to improve their companies' profiles and stock exchange status. Some peddle sex stories to the tabloid press. Another group in politics, known as 'spin doctors', are hired to make political moves more acceptable. However, in the UK there has very little substantive research into PR practices and styles. This is partly because of the lack of an UK journal dedicated to research in public relations and partly because PR has traditionally been subsumed within the discipline of marketing. Valerie designed a case study that sought to examine the practices and styles of public relations practitioners. However, it was recognised that this group included a wide range of people from the likes of publicity technicians to corporate communications professionals. The first stage of the research project was designed to examine the practices and styles of public relations practitioners through the eyes of those they interact with most frequently - namely journalists. The second stage was designed to gauge public relations practitioners' own assessments of the way they operate. A theoretical basis for this study was established by using the model devised by Grunig and Hunt (1984). This identified a number of public relations styles based on research conducted in the USA: Press agency: little research, main aim to get firm/product mentions in the media, truth not vital. Emphasis on one way communication. Public information: some research, main aim to get media exposure, truth matters. Emphasis on one way communication. Two way asymmetric: founded on research, aim to seek behaviour change, can be manipulative. Two way symmetric: held to be the most ethical, sophisticated and far-reaching in that there is dialogue, negotiation and compromise to try and achieve understanding. This research project, therefore, was exceedingly ambitious in seeking to recognise and verify the existence of such styles and relationships in the context of public relations practices in the UK. It also faced potential barriers of cultural misunderstanding, based as it was, in an unfamiliar area of analysis. Degree level courses in public relations, which have progressed from the practical to the academic, have only been running at UK universities for the past few years. Graduates with knowledge of Grunig and Hunt's and others key theories are only beginning to percolate into a few PR consultancies and in-house departments. The majority of public relations people have only a general degree or CAMS certificate, or are promoted from secretaries and assistants. Grunig and Hunt's model is, however, seminal to judging PR as either a craft, using technicianlevel thinking; or as something one could rightly call a profession. Because the terminology of the study was not familiar to many people it was decided that semistructured interviews would be the best mode of approach in order to overcome these barriers by providing interpretation and clarification as necessary. However, the selection of interview subjects posed equal problems: there were time constraints to this research project; PR practitioners interact with all the media, using slightly different techniques with each; PR consultancies in certain locations such as London practise internationally and at a higher level of sophistication than others; Tunstall's (1972) important work on journalistic practice in the UK indicated there were great differences too in the standards and approach of journalists working for different specialist areas. The decision was taken to concentrate the first part of the research on newspaper journalists and to follow this up with journalists from radio and television. The journalists would be drawn half from national publications in London and half from the regional press; and four different specialisms would be covered, namely general news, women's interest pages, business pages and political journalism. A major factor in this decision was Valerie's background in newspapers as well as in public relations, since it was important that in seeking out subjects, the interviewer could be seen to have a background that was relevant and credible. The choice of specialisms was made for the following reasons. The news section receives the widest variety of PR news releases and personal contacts. The women's pages receive the most concentrated approaches from public relations practitioners in the consumer goods areas. The business pages receive the most sophisticated forms of PR aimed at enhancing credibility, image and stock market standing of major firms. The political journalists receive the most intensive PR pressures of a governmental, party political and general lobby type. The ideal targets to select, however, are rarely the simplest. The journalists who would best be able to illustrate the type and level of PR approaches they received would of necessity be working long anti-social hours; would have very busy and often unpredictable diaries; could frequently be protected by filter-style secretaries; and might possibly self-select because of polarised views about public relations practice. It therefore took approximately eight months to make appointments with 25 journalists who constituted the right spectrum and balance: 25 who agreed to be interviewed out of some 120 contacted overall. However a random element entered the selection, in that if a first phone call to a certain newspaper asking for a named person was unsuccessful, the caller would always ask if a second name from that specialism was there, or, failing that, if any of the journalists from an alternative specialism would be prepared to take the call. If a journalist agreed to help with the study, a confirmatory letter would be sent, and the appointment double-checked. The use of a tape recorder during each interview did not prove an obstacle, since all of the subjects were well used to this interview format themselves and appeared quickly to be able to ignore a very discreet form of this technology. They were also promised anonymity. In a pilot test interview it had been found that a broad approach to the topic What do you consider to be the style of relationship between journalists and public relations officers? worked best, followed by questions on what they perceived the role of public relations practitioners to be. Many answers were reflected back to test understanding and to clarify what the journalists felt to be the most important factors of certain interactive processes between them and public relations practitioners. But the most successful ingredient of all was the critical incident technique: in recounting what they felt to be the best and the worst examples of treatment by public relations practitioners they had experienced, the journalists usually became much more expansive and revealing. These questions were posed at a later stage in the meeting when some rapport had been established, and often acted as a corrective to one or two somewhat guarded initial statements. Both the interviewer and interviewees appreciated the dangers of generalising from the particular. Yet it was easier than Valerie had anticipated to delineate differences between reported approaches of public relations practitioners as press agents, and those who had a more sophisticated and more long-term approach to the building of positive media coverage and relationships. In the majority of cases it was the journalists who volunteered the information about when and how far they had ever felt in the position of being manipulated by public relations practitioners. But those few who had to be asked if they had ever had this experience were not resentful of the inference and appeared to accept the existence of manipulative practice as a recognised by-product of public relations. Question 1. What are the strengths and the weaknesses of the design of this research project? Give reasons for your answer.