Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation - Towards a new research agenda

Journal of Marketing Communications

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 337-350

  Gregory, Anne ^a   Watson, Tom ^b  

^a LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Measurement; Public relations; Relationships; Research; Return on investment

Indexed keywords

EID: 55249100518     PISSN: 13527266     EISSN: 14664445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13527260701869098     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Baerns, B. 1993. Understanding and development of public relations in Germany, East and West. Proceedings of the 2nd European seminar for teachers, practitioners and researchers. Prague: CERP.
2. _. 2005. Modelling and evaluating public relations measures and campaigns by German professionals - final report. 12th International Public Relations Research Symposium. Bled, Slovenia.
3. Broom, G., and D. Dozier. 1990. Using research in public relations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
4. Chartered Institute of Public Relations. 2005. Measurement and evaluation: Moving the debate forward. http:// www.cipr.co.uk/research (accessed January 10, 2007).
5. Coombs, W.T., and S.J. Holladay. 2006. It's not just PR: Public relations in society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6. Cutlip, S., A. Center, and G. Broom. 1994. Effective public relations. 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
7. Dozier, D. 1990. The innovation of research in public relations practice: Review of a program of studies. Public Relations Research Annual 2: 3-28.
8. _, and W. Ehling. 1992. Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their effects. In Excellence in public relations and communication management, ed. J. Grunig, 617-38. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Fairchild, M. 2002. Evaluation: An opportunity to raise the standing of PR. Journal of Communication Management 6, no. 4: 305-7.
10. Fleisher, C.S., and D. Mahaffy. 1997. A balanced scorecard approach to public relations management assessment. Public Relations Review 23, no. 2: 117-23.
11. Gaunt, R., and D. Wright. 2004. PR Measurement. London: Benchpoint, http://www.benchpoint.com/Download (accessed January 10, 2007).
12. Gregory, A. 2001. Public relations and evaluation: Does the reality match the rhetoric? Journal of Marketing Communication 7, no. 3: 171-89.
13. _, and L. Edwards. 2004. Pattern of PR in Britain's 'most admired' companies. Leeds: Leeds Business School for Eloqui Public Relations.
14. _, L. Morgan, and D. Kelly. 2005. Patterns of PR in Britain's 'most admired' companies and public sector organizations. Leeds: Leeds Business School for Eloqui Public Relations.
15. _, and J. White. 2008. Introducing the Chartered Institute of Public Relations' initiative. In Public relations metrics, ed. B. van Ruler, A. Tkalac-Vercic, and D. Vercic, 307-17. New York: Routledge.
16. Grunig, J., and T. Hunt. 1984. Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17. Grunig, J.E. 2002. Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. http://www.instituteforpr.com/relationships. phtml?article_id=2002_relationships_org_public (accessed January 10, 2007).
18. Hibbert, Z., and P. Simmons. 2006. War reporting and Australian defence public relations, an exchange, PRism. http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/ evaluation.html (accessed January 20, 2007).
19. Hon, L., and J. Grunig. 1999. Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.com (accessed January 10, 2007).
20. Hyman, H., and P. Sheatsley. 1947. Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly 11: 412-23.
21. Iacono, E. 2005. The quest for ROI: The value and proof of ROI differs from company to company. PR Week (US edition) 8, no. 11: 14.
22. Institute of Public Relations & Communication Directors' Forum. 2004. Best practice in the measurement and reporting of public relations and ROI. http://www.cipr.org.uk (accessed January 15, 2007).
23. Jo, S., L.C. Hon, and B.R. Brunner. 2004. Organization-public relationships: Measurement validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication Management 9, no. 1: 14-27.
24. Judd, L.R. 1990. Importance and use of formal research and evaluation. Public Relations Review 16, no. 4: 17-28.
25. Kaplan, R., and D. Norton. 1996. The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
26. Ledingham, J.A., and S.D. Bruning. 2000. Relationship building: A relational approach to public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Likely, F., D. Rockland, and M. Weiner. 2006. Perspectives on ROI of media relations publicity efforts. http://www.instituteforpr.org/files/uploads/ 2006_ROI_LRW.pdf (accessed January 20, 2007).
28. Lindenmann, W. 1993. An 'effectiveness yardstick' to measure public relations success. Public Relations Quarterly 38: 7-10.
29. Macnamara, J. 1992. Evaluation: The Achilles' heel of the PR profession. International Public Relations (IPRA) Review 15, no. 2: 17-31.
30. McCoy, M. 2005. Evaluating public relations' effects: Implications from mass communication theory and research. Paper presented at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations academic conference, University of Lincoln, March 21-22.
31. _, and O. Hargie. 2003. Implications of mass communication theory for asymmetric PR evaluation. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 304-16.
32. McGuire, W.J. 1984. Attitudes and attitude change. In Handbook of social psychology, II, 3rd ed., ed. G.G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 233-46. New York, NY: Random House.
33. Noble, P., and T. Watson. 2000. Applying a unified public relations evaluation model in a European context. In Transnational communication in Europe, ed. B. Baerns and J. Raupp, 240-56. Berlin: Vistas.
34. O'Neil, C. 2006. Blogs, mash-ups and wikis - new tools for evaluating event objectives: A case study on the LIFT06 conference in Geneva. PRism. http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/evaluation.html (accessed January 15, 2007).
35. Pavlik, J. 1987. Public relations: What research tells us. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. Pohl, G., and D. Vanderventer. 2001. The workplace, undergraduate education and career preparation. In Handbook of public relations, ed. R.L. Heath, 357-68. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Putt, G., and D.L.R. van der Waldt. 2005. A quantitative matrix model for strategic management of stakeholder/issues relationships. Paper presented at the 12th International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, July 1-3.
38. Radford, G.P., and S.Z. Goldstein. 2002. The role of research methods in corporate communication. Corporate Communications 7, no. 4: 252-6.
39. Simmons, P., and T. Watson. 2005. Public relations evaluation in Australia - practices and attitudes across sectors and employment status. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal no. 2, http://www.deakin.edu.au/ arts/apprj/articles/simmons_30%20Nov%20051.pdf (accessed January 15, 2007).
40. Thurstone, L.L., and E.J. Chave. 1929. The measurement of attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Walker, G. 1994. Communicating public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research 6, no. 3: 141-61.
42. Watson, T. 1994. Public relations evaluation: Nationwide survey of practice in the United Kingdom. Paper presented to the International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, July 1-3.
43. _. 1996. Public relations evaluation: The second nationwide survey of practice in the United Kingdom. Winchester: Hallmark Public Relations.
44. _. 1997. Measuring the success rate: Evaluating the PR process and PR programmes. In Public relations: Principles and practices, ed. P.J. Kitchen, 283-99. Boston: International Thomson Business Press.
45. _. 2005. ROI or evidence-based PR: The language of public relations evaluation. PRism 3, no. 1, http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/fileadmin/Praxis/ Files/Journal_Files/Issue3/Watson.pdf (accessed January 20, 2007).
46. _. 2008. Public relations research priorities: A Delphi study. Journal of Communication Management 12, no. 2: 104-23.
47. _, and P. Simmons. 2004. Public relations evaluation - survey of Australia practitioners. Proceedings of the ANZCA 04 conference, Sydney, Australia, July 7-9. http://conferences.arts.usyd.edu.au/viewabstract.php?id= 96&cf=3 (accessed January 10, 2007).
48. White, J., and J. Blamphin. 1994. Priorities for research into public relations practice in the United Kingdom. London: City University Business School/Rapier Research.
49. Xavier, R., A. Patel, K. Johnston, T. Watson, and P. Simmons. 2005. Using evaluation techniques and performance claims to demonstrate public relations impact: An Australian perspective. Public Relations Review 31, no. 3: 417-24.
50. Zerfass, A. 2005. The corporate communication scorecard: A framework for managing and evaluating communication strategies. Paper presented at the 12th International Public Relations Research Symposium, Bled, Slovenia, July 1-3.