2c

BS

a

ARRA

KPPCUP

1

itKge

Bt2M(

0d

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

010 Practice Analysis: Professional competencies and workategories in public relations today

ey-Ling Sha ∗

chool of Journalism & Media Studies, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-4561, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 25 June 2010eceived in revised form 25 April 2011ccepted 25 April 2011

eywords:rofessionracticeompetenciesniversal Accreditation Boardrofessionalism

a b s t r a c t

Without question, the profession of public relations has changed greatly over the years,but the practice of that profession has remained unchanged in the last half century. The2010 Practice Analysis conducted by the Universal Accreditation Board as a follow-up toits 2000 study examines professional competencies and work categories in current publicrelations practice. Results indicate that knowledge, skills, and abilities (i.e., professionalcompetencies) for public relations practice in 2010 centered on general business skills,media relations, and theoretical knowledge. The strategic planning process of research,planning, implementation, and evaluation, as well as public relations ethics and legal issues,were connected to both general business skills and media relations. Four groupings of workcategories in 2010 were public relations management, issues management, corporate com-munications, and media relations; each of these work category groupings reflected clearareas of extant public relations scholarship, suggesting that the theory and practice of publicrelations may be closer to each other than is commonly decried.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

In one of the earliest systematic analyses of scholarship on public relations, Pavlik (1987) identified three research areasn this field: (a) basic research conducted to build a body of theoretical knowledge, (b) applied research done to improvehe design and execution of public relations programs, and (c) “introspective” research on the field itself (cf. Broom, Cox,rueger, & Liebler, 1982). Pavlik (1987) further broke down introspective research into “sociological research on roles andender differences in PR practice” (p. 81), examinations of professionalism in the field, and considerations of public relationsducation.

Scholarship on the profession of public relations falls into the category of introspective research (cf. Broom et al., 1982;room, Cox, Krueger, & Liebler, 1989), and much work has been done in these areas, both in the United States and aroundhe world. For example, some recent studies have examined the public relations profession in Australia (de Bussy & Wolf,009), Guatemala (Garcia-Ruano, 2009), India (Gupta, 2007), Malaysia (Abdullah & Threadgold, 2008), Mexico (Molleda &

oreno, 2006), Portugal (Gonc alves, 2009), Russia (Tsetsura, 2010), South Africa (Niemann-Struweg & Meintjes, 2008), Spain

Huertas & Cavia, 2006), and the United Arab Emirates (Kirat, 2006).

∗ Tel.: +1 619 594 0641.E-mail address: bsha@mail.sdsu.edu

363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.04.005

188 B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

1.1. Defining a profession

But, for all the research conducted on the public relations profession, few scholars have taken the time to define whatthey mean by “profession.” According to www.dictionary.com, a “profession” is “a vocation requiring knowledge of somedepartment of learning or science.” Broom (2009) presented five indicators of professional status. A field of practice couldonly be considered a “profession” if it had (1) “specialized educational preparation” for entry into the field, (2) “a body oftheory-based knowledge,” (3) “codes of ethics and standards of performance,” (4) “autonomy in practice and acceptanceof personal responsibility by practitioners,” and (5) community recognition that the field offered “a unique and essentialservice” (p. 120).

Without question, the profession of public relations has changed greatly over the years. In the early days, the majorityof practitioners entering the field had studied or worked in journalism (Broom, 2009); today, the educational preparationof new practitioners has become standardized (The professional bond, 2006). Also, the body of theoretical knowledge hasgrown (Pasadeos, Berger, & Renfro, 2010), and the Code of Ethics of the Public Relations Society of America was updated in2000 (Fitzpatrick, 2002a, 2002b). With these changes, the professional stature of public relations has improved. Yet, whathas not necessarily changed in public relations today is the practice of the profession.

1.2. Defining a practice

A “practice” is defined as being “the exercise or pursuit of a profession or occupation” (www.dictionary.com). Thus, theexecution of public relations efforts involves both competencies possessed by individual practitioners, as well as the variouscategories of work necessary to exercise the occupation of public relations. In textbooks for the profession, both of thesecomponents of public relations practice remain today nearly the same as they were more than half a century ago.

1.2.1. Professional competenciesToday, public relations practitioners need “communication skills, knowledge of media and management, problem-solving

abilities, motivation, and intellectual curiosity” (Broom, 2009, p. 48). Other sought-after traits include solid writing skills, anunderstanding of one’s specific business industry, ability to relate to people and deal with stress, and knowledge of currentevents (Broom, 2009, pp. 48–49). Similarly, in earlier days, public relations practitioners needed to demonstrate personality,character, intelligence, education or experience, and administrative ability (Cutlip & Center, 1952, p. 462). Recommendedpersonality traits included a sense of humor and the ability to get along with others; character traits included being “ethical inall kinds of dealings” (p. 468); intelligence requirements included the ability to listen and write well; educational backgroundincluded knowledge of how media worked and how public opinion could be researched; and administrative ability includeda willingness to learn about industry-specific “business” and an understanding of accounting (Cutlip & Center, 1952, pp.468–469).

1.2.2. Work categoriesWork categories are broad groupings of activities or assignments; see Fig. 1. The tenth edition of Effective Public Relations

identified work assignments as being writing and editing, media relations, research, management and administration, coun-seling, special events, speaking, production, training, and contact or liaison work (Broom, 2009, p. 35). In comparison, thefirst edition of this classic textbook defined public relations as including the following activities, among others: preparationof pamphlets, circulars, papers; community work; public speaking; company policy formulation; direct mail; open housesand tours; answering inquiries for information; personal calls and company correspondence; special events and parties; andsales training (Cutlip & Center, 1952).

1.2.3. Processes and definitionsFinally, the four-step strategic planning process used today – research, planning, implementation, and evaluation (Broom,

2009) – remains similar to the process first articulated decades ago: fact-finding, planning, and communicating (Cutlip &Center, 1952). Even the basic definition of public relations has changed only a little in the last six decades:

“Public relations is the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships betweenan organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Broom, 2009, p. 7).

“Organized public relations practice is the continuing effort to effect a harmonious adjustment between an institutionand its publics. . .. [T]his adjustment requires, among other things, a two-way exchange of opinions and informationwhich can result in communion: mutual understanding of mutual interests” (Cutlip & Center, 1952, p. 85).

In short, while the profession of public relations has evolved, the practice – as defined in our textbooks – has remainedrelatively stable. Of course, textbooks are not the only window into the practice of public relations, but – especially with

regard to the early years of the profession – they remain concise compendia of knowledge about the field.

In this manuscript, public relations “practice” includes the work categories in the field, as well as the professional compe-tencies necessary to execute those work categories. In other words, the “practice” is the actual execution of the “profession”of public relations.

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196 189

ACCOUNT/CLIENT MANAGEM ENT - This category focuses on client and custo mer

relationships. Work activities under this category include: establishing client

relationships, coaching and counseling clients, managing expectations, etc.

STRATEGIC PLANN ING - This category focuses on the overall appr oach to public relatio ns

and reputation management. Wo rk activities under this category include: conducting

research, setting goals, engaging custo mers and key stakeholders, developing messages

for specific audiences, branding, etc.

PUBLIC RELATIONS PROG RAM PLANNING - This cate gory focus es on the imple mentation

of the strategic plan. Work activities under this category include: conducting research,

identifying key audiences, producing a detailed PR plan, managing marketing

communications, creating measurements of effectiveness, leveraging inte racti ve ele ments

of the campaign, etc.

PROJECT MANAG EMENT - This category focuse s on project imple mentation & logistics.

Work activities under this category include: creating and managing the budget, assessing

resource allocation needs, planning logistics, managing the tea m, working with vendors,

etc.

MEDIA RELATIONS - Work activities under this category include: identifying audiences,

training organizational spokespersons to work with media, pitching st orie s, writing an d

distributing press releases in traditional and online ways, monitoring media coverage,

coordinating publicity, measuring media engage ment efforts, etc.

SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS - Work activities under this category include: utilizing Web-

based social networks, developing social media strategies for com munications efforts,

producing in-house or client blogs , apprising clients on how to use social media strategies

as delivery channels for communications efforts, SEO, blogger relations, etc.

STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS - Work activities under this categ ory, for each set of

stakeholders, include: developing strategies and key messages, arranging tours and

conferences, forging strategic partnerships, etc.

ISSUES MANAGEMENT - Long-range efforts to anticipate potential proble ms and plan for

crises. Work acti vities under this category include: assessing and developing strategies

around lon g-te rm and bus iness-i mpacting issues , writing crisis manag ement plans,

providing strategic counsel to clients or stakeholders, reso lving con flict s, etc .

Fig. 1. Work categories in public relations.

190 B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

SPECIAL EVENTS, CONFERENCES & MEETINGS - Work activities unde r this category

include: developing themes, promoting products and planning roll-outs, coordinating

logistics and external promotions, etc.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS - Work activities under this category include: sponsoring

community events, developing corporate giving plans, com municating with different

CRISIS MANAGEMENT - This category focuses on reacting to im mediate proble ms such as

workplace violence, po or earnings reports, ind ustrial accidents, etc. Work acti vities u nder

this cate gory includ e: exec uting crisis manage ment plans, coordinating release of

information via traditional and social media, understanding the varied and different crisis

situations that may erupt, training spokespersons, monitoring and analyzing media

coverage of co mpany crises, etc.

INTERNAL RELATIONS & EMPLOYEE COMMUNI CATIONS - This category focuses on

communication with employees, manage ment, members, and other internal audiences.

Work activities under this category include: developing action plans, assessing in-house

communication needs, developing and producin g in-house publications in print and

online, developing Web content, managing organizational change, etc.

audiences, building alliances, community outreach using social media, etc.

Fig. 1. (Continued).

1.3. Examining public relations practice

In 2000, the Universal Accreditation Board (UAB) undertook a landmark study of public relations practice to investigatethe knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) that practitioners should possess in the field, as well as the types of work categoriesin which practitioners were engaged on the job. That investigation involved a qualitative phase to identify competenciesnecessary in public relations, as well as a quantitative phase to determine how public relations work was actually performedin the field. For details on the study and its rigorous execution, see http://www.praccreditation.org/Practice%20Analysis.html.The results of the 2000 Practice Analysis were used to map out the areas to be tested in the Examination for Accreditation inPublic Relations. Unfortunately, results of the study were never shared with a larger audience, neither in the academy, norin the profession.

A decade later, the Universal Accreditation Board sought to determine how the practice of public relations had evolved,as well as how KSAs and work categories looked in the present day. The 2010 UAB Practice Analysis sought to answer thefollowing research questions:

RQ1: How does public relations practice in 2010 compare to the practice in 2000?RQ2: What knowledge, skills and abilities are used in public relations practice today?RQ3: What work categories in public relations are undertaken in the practice today?

In this iteration of the study, the UAB has committed to broad dissemination of the research results, in both academicand trade publications, which is why they are being reported in this peer-reviewed manuscript, as opposed to simply beinguploaded to the UAB website. The Board of Directors of the UAB hopes that this dissemination of the results will not onlyassist scholars in their research on public relations practice, but also encourage practitioners to make program decisionsgrounded in research by modeling this process.

2. Methods

Historical data from the 2000 Practice Analysis was obtained from the website of the Universal Accreditation Board(http://www.praccreditation.org/Practice%20Analysis.html). Unfortunately, only descriptive results from 2000 were avail-

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196 191

Table 1Respondent demographics.

2000 (%) 2010 (%)

GenderMale N/A 28Female N/A 72

RaceWhite N/A 90Non-white N/A 10

Where people workNot-for-profit/nonprofit/associationa 22 22Government/militaryb 10 9Corporate/corporationc 27 24Sole practice/independent practitionerd 16 7Agency/public relations consultancye 20 22Educational institution N/A 10Professional services N/A 4Other N/A 3

Years in the practice16+ 53 478–15 34 296–7 7 74–5 4 81–3 3 9

Accreditation statusEarned APR 43 36Did not pass APR 3 N/AConsidering APR 28 N/ANo interest in APR 26 N/ANot APR N/A 64

Notes: N/A = not available.a Category was “not-for-profit” in 2000, “nonprofit/association” in 2010.b Category was “government” in 2000, “government/military” in 2010.

as

Rpo

2

srmaw

2

twtlfw“

c

c Category was “corporate” in 2000, “corporation” in 2010.d Category was “sole practice” in 2000, “independent practitioner” in 2010.e Category was “agency” in 2000, “public relations consultancy/agency” in 2010. Items may not total 100% due to rounding.

ble, as the original raw data files could not be located. The online report of results from 2000 also did not include tests oftatistical significance for the findings.

For 2010, an online survey was conducted from March 29 to April 15 with 9950 randomly selected members of the Publicelations Society of America (PRSA). The response rate was 16.4% (n = 1634). Data analysis excluded retired public relationsractitioners and public relations educators. The total sample size of active public relations practitioners was 1500 (91.8%f the respondents), or a response rate of 15.1%.

.1. Respondent characteristics

The practice analysis in both 2000 and 2010 collected demographic information from survey respondents. A comparativeummary of respondent characteristics is presented in Table 1, which includes only percentages because the numbers ofespondents differed across the two surveys. In some cases, direct comparisons could not be made, due to the limited infor-ation available on respondent characteristics from 2000. The 2010 survey also collected demographic information on race,

ge, education level, and salary. Detailed analysis of the results of the 2010 Practice Analysis by respondent characteristicsill be presented in separate manuscripts, due to space limitations.

.2. Instrumentation

The 2010 Practice Analysis included questions regarding the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) tested on the Examina-ion for Accreditation in Public Relations, as well as questions regarding various public relations work categories. Respondentsere asked the extent to which they engaged in the various KSAs and work categories, with responses measured on a Likert-

ype scale, with 1 = none, 2 = a little, 3 = some, and 4 = a great deal. The question regarding KSAs asked about frequency in theast week, whereas the question regarding work categories asked about frequency in the past year. This discrepancy in time-rames was due to the Universal Accreditation Board’s desire to replicate the instrument used in the 2000 Practice Analysis,

hich examined work categories performed “in the past year.” The only adjustment made for 2010 was the addition of a

social media” work category, given the advances in new media tools in the last decade.To minimize the possible effects of item non-response and patterned answer selection, the lists of KSAs and work

ategories were set to appear randomly, for each new respondent, within their respective sections on the survey instrument.

192 B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

Table 2Time spent on work categories in the past year.

Work Category 2000 (%) 2010 (%)

Account/Client ManagementSome 20 21A great deal 47 38

Strategic PlanningSome 31 31A great deal 58 54

PR Program PlanningSome 31 30A great deal 57 54

Project ManagementSome 26 26A great deal 60 58

Media RelationsSome 28 24A great deal 50 61

Social Media Relationsa

Some N/A 31A great deal N/A 43

Stakeholder Relationsb

Some 34 33A great deal 20 31

Issues ManagementSome 32 33A great deal 23 29

Crisis ManagementSome 27 34A great deal 18 16

Internal Relations & Employee CommunicationSome 31 29A great deal 34 36

Special Events, Conferences, MeetingsSome 34 35A great deal 32 32

Community RelationsSome 31 33A great deal 29 33

Notes: N/A = not applicable.a This was new work category for 2010.b Work category in 2000 was labeled “relations with special audiences.”

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Public relations practice in 2010

The first research question compared public relations practice in 2010 to the practice in 2000. To answer this question,Table 2 compares respondents in 2000 and in 2010 who indicated that they engaged in the various work categories either“some” or “a great deal.” Only percentages are presented in Table 2 because the numbers of respondents differed acrossthe two surveys, making the Ns irrelevant. Also because the raw data files from 2000 were lost, no tests could be run todetermine whether the differences presented in Table 2 are statistically significant.

Nevertheless, drawing on prior research experience, one might suggest that the data as presented in Table 2 regard-ing differences between respondents in 2000 and in 2010 are likely to be significant for the following work categories:account/client management, media relations, stakeholder relations, issues management, and community relations. The per-centage of respondents engaging in account/client management declined in the last decade from 67% to 59%. This findingis not necessarily attributable to only 22.3% of survey participants in 2010 indicating that they work in an agency setting.As shown in Table 1, the comparable figure for 2000 was 20%. In a related comparison, 85% of the respondents who workedin an agency setting in 2000 engaged in account/client management “a great deal,” and 12% did so “some.” In 2010, thesefigures were 48.3% and 14.7%, respectively.

In contrast to the decrease in work frequency for account/client management, the percentage of respondents engagingin the remaining four work categories either “a great deal” or “some” increased. For media relations, the figure rose from78% in 2000 to 85% in 2010. This increase cannot be attributable strictly to the advent of new media tools in the last decade,

because the 2010 survey instrument had a separate work category for social media. Rather, the increase may be traced togreater numbers of media outlets and a 24/7 news media cycle, which in 2010 necessitated even more round-the-clockmedia relations work than in 2000. Alternatively, it is simply possible that more media relations specialists participated inthe 2010 Practice Analysis, compared to the 2000 survey.

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196 193

Table 3Knowledge, skills & abilities.

None A little Some A great deal

Research, planning, implementation andevaluation of PR programs (n = 1418)

30 226 454 7082.1% 15.9% 32.0% 49.9%

PR ethics & legal issues (n = 1414) 126 525 503 2608.9% 37.1% 35.6% 18.4%

Application of communication models andtheories to PR work projects (n = 1411)

261 506 438 20618.5% 35.9% 31.0% 14.6%

Incorporation of business literacy skills into PRduties (n = 1410)

86 260 484 5806.1% 18.4% 34.3% 41.1%

Management skills & issues (n = 1419) 25 132 300 9621.8% 9.3% 21.1% 67.8%

Crisis communication management (n = 1416) 194 518 480 22413.7% 36.6% 33.9% 15.8%

Media relations (n = 1418) 55 183 385 7953.9% 12.9% 27.2% 56.1%

Use of information technology & new mediachannels (n = 1414)

11 111 408 884.8% 7.9% 28.9% 62.5%

Application of historical knowledge of the field ofPR to work projects (n = 1414)

595 482 230 10742.1% 34.1% 16.3% 7.6%

Use of advanced communication skills (n = 1413) 73 241 441 6585.2% 17.1% 31.2% 46.6%

Table 4Factor analysis of KSAs.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Research, planning, implementation and evaluation of PR programs .41 .40 a

PR ethics & legal issues .40 .42 a

Application of communication models and theories to PR work projects a a .75Incorporation of business literacy skills into PR duties .65 a a

Management skills & issues .77 a a

Crisis communication management a .55 a

Media relations a .82 a

Use of information technology & new media channels a .54 a

Application of historical knowledge of the field of PR to work projects a a .82Use of advanced communication skills .77 a a

N

d6c

3

tietoei

fvfs

iss

otes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a Factor loading <.40, dropped for presentation clarity.

For stakeholder relations, 54% of respondents in 2000 indicated that they performed this work either some or a greateal, compared to 64% in 2010. For issues management, the figure went from 55% to 62%, and for community relations, from0% to 66%. These increases suggest that public relations practice in the last decade has matured to take more seriously theoncerns of stakeholders and community members, as well as to engage more often in issues management.

.2. Knowledge, skills and abilities

The second research question asked what knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) are used in public relations practiceoday. The KSAs investigated in this study were developed from qualitative research conducted in 2000 and subsequentlyncorporated into the re-engineered Examination for Accreditation. For 2010, the practice analysis sought to examine thextent to which practitioners used each KSA in a typical week; the results are reported in Table 3. In frequency order, theop KSAs were use of information technology and new media channels (conducted by 91.4% of respondents either somer a great deal); management skills and issues (88.9%); media relations (83.3%); research, planning, implementation andvaluation of PR programs (81.9%); use of advanced communication skills (77.8%); and incorporation of business literacynto PR duties (75.4%).

To determine how the 10 KSAs were related to each other on the job, a factor analysis was conducted, resulting in threeactors identifying clusters of inter-related KSAs. The first factor had an Eigenvalue of 2.88 and explained 28.82% of theariance in the sample; the second factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.27 and explained 12.71% of the variance; and the thirdactor had an Eigenvalue of 1.08 and explained 10.84% of the variance. Factor loadings lower than .40 were dropped, per thetandard set forth in Nunnally (1967).

As indicated in Table 4, the first factor was comprised of KSAs related to general business skills: management skills andssues (which included diversity considerations, decision-making abilities, leadership, organizational skills, and problem-olving skills); use of advanced communication skills (which included consensus-building, consulting skills, and negotiatingkills); and incorporation of business literacy skills into PR duties. The four-step PR strategic planning process (research,

194 B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

Table 5Work categories.

None A little Some A great deal

Account/Client Management (n = 1373) 303 263 281 52622.1% 19.2% 20.5% 38.3%

Strategic Planning (n = 1373) 19 188 427 7391.4% 13.7% 31.1% 53.8%

PR Program Planning (n = 1376) 34 188 410 7442.5% 13.7% 29.8% 54.1%

Project Management (n = 1374) 45 175 356 7983.3% 12.7% 25.9% 58.1%

Media Relations (n = 1372) 57 159 324 8324.2% 11.6% 23.6% 60.6%

Social Media Relations (n = 1374) 79 276 432 5875.7% 20.1% 31.4% 42.7%

Stakeholder Relations (n = 1372) 173 325 450 42412.6% 23.7% 32.8% 30.9%

Issues Management (n = 1374) 156 360 457 40111.4% 26.2% 33.3% 29.2%

Crisis Management (n = 1373) 203 495 462 21314.8% 36.1% 33.6% 15.5%

Internal Relations & EmployeeCommunications (n = 1373)

149 324 402 49810.9% 23.6% 29.3% 36.3%

Special Events, Conferences, Meetings 126 320 484 442

(n = 1372) 9.2% 23.3% 35.3% 32.2%

Community Relations (n = 1379) 150 315 453 46110.9% 22.8% 32.8% 33.4%

planning, implementation, evaluation) also loaded onto this factor. Public relations ethics and legal issues had a secondaryloading on this first factor.

The second factor was dominated by media relations, as indicated in Table 4. Crisis communication management andthe use of information technology and new media channels also loaded onto this factor, which makes sense given howorganizations usually use media relations and new media technologies to address crises. Public relations ethics and legalissues had its highest loading on this factor, and the four-step strategic planning process had a high secondary loading.

The third factor could be termed “theoretical knowledge,” being comprised of the application of historical knowledge ofthe field of public relations, as well as the application of communication models and theories, to work projects.

3.3. Work categories

The third research question asked what work categories in public relations are undertaken in the practice today. Toanswer this question, the 2010 Practice Analysis asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they had engaged inspecific work categories in the past year. In frequency order, as indicated in Table 5, the top work categories were strategicplanning (engaged in by 84.9% of respondents either some or great deal); media relations (84.2%); public relations programplanning (83.9%); project management (84.0%); and social media relations (74.1%). Each work category summarized a list ofwork activities; see Fig. 1 for details.

To determine how the 12 work categories were related to each other, a factor analysis was conducted, resulting in fourfactors identifying groupings of these activities. The first factor had an Eigenvalue of 2.98 and explained 24.83% of the variancein the sample; the second factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.46 and explained 12.14% of the variance; the third factor had anEigenvalue of 1.35 and explained 11.28% of the variance; and the fourth factor had an Eigenvalue of 1.21 and explained10.06% of the variance. Again, factor loadings lower than .40 were dropped.

As indicated in Table 6, the first factor was comprised of work categories related to managerial activities: public relationsprogram planning, strategic planning, client and account management, and project management. This grouping of activitiescould be termed “public relations management,” and its existence supports the body of knowledge in public relations thathas identified managerial aspects of the practice (e.g., Dozier & Broom, 1995; Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995; Grunig, Grunig,& Dozier, 2002). Public relations management, which comprises public relations roles and excellence in public relations, hasbeen and remains today a dominant category of scholarship in our field (Pasadeos et al., 2010). This grouping also reflectsthe notion of public relations being a managerial function (cf. Broom, 2009; Cutlip & Center, 1952).

The second factor was comprised primarily of crisis management and issues management, with stakeholder relations alsoloading onto this factor. The relationships among these three activities are logical in that crisis management is usually theoutcome of poor issues management. Furthermore, both issues and crises are defined as such only in relation to organizational

stakeholders, as articulated in prior research (e.g., Kim, Ni, & Sha, 2008). This grouping of activities could be labeled “issuesmanagement,” as the components of this second factor all reflect work related to environmental scanning and control, suchas identifying stakeholders and issues, and managing both issues and crises that potentially threaten organizations. Again,this grouping of work categories is reflective of a body of research on crisis and issues management (e.g., Coombs, 1998;

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196 195

Table 6Factor analysis of work categories.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Account/Client Management .67 a a a

Strategic Planning .72 a a a

PR Program Planning .74 a a a

Project Management .60 a .44 a

Media Relations a a a .81Social Media Relations a a a .59Stakeholder Relations a .52 a a

Issues Management a .80 a a

Crisis Management a .82 a a

Internal Relations & Employee Communications a a .60 a

Special Events, Conferences, Meetings a a .74 a

Community Relations a a .55 a

N

Hi

ngrtWo

rtPtro2b2

4

Tsarr

nrd

gpm

R

A

BB

otes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a Factor loading <.40, dropped for presentation clarity.

eath, 2002; Jaques, 2009; Lauzen, 1997; Okura, Dozier, Sha, & Hofstetter, 2009). A recent analysis of scholarship networksn public relations for 2000–2005 identified issues management as an on-going research category (Pasadeos et al., 2010).

The third factor was comprised of special events, conferences, and meetings; internal relations and employee commu-ications; and community relations. Project management had a secondary loading on this factor. A logical label for thisrouping might be “corporate communications,” as the work categories all involve tasks traditionally handled under thisubric (e.g., Broom, 2009). Furthermore, some recent scholarship on employee communications has investigated the extento which these internal stakeholders feel a sense of community within their employing organizations (e.g., Stein, 2006;

hite, Vanc, & Stafford, 2010). This scholarship suggests that, perhaps, the concept of “community” is evolving to focus notnly on an organization’s external constituents, but also on its internal stakeholders.

Finally, the last factor was dominated by media relations, with social media relations also loading onto this factor. Thisesult was particularly interesting because recent developments in new media tools have led some practitioners to claimhat social media require a completely new set of approaches to public relations practice (e.g., Paine, 2009). The 2010ractice Analysis shows otherwise, indicating that social media relations are merely a variation on activities associated withraditional media relations. Thus, this fourth grouping of public relations work categories could simply be labeled “mediaelations,” which remains as a core function of public relations. This area of the practice is related to public relations researchn media effects, primarily agenda-setting and agenda-building (e.g., Kiousis, Popescu, & Mitrook, 2007; Kiousis & Shields,008; Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2010). Some recent scholarship in this area also includes social media, either as an agenda-uilding tool (e.g., Lariscy, Avery, Sweetser, & Howes, 2009) or as another organizational communication tool (e.g., Kelleher,008).

. Summary

The 2010 Practice Analysis examined professional competencies and work categories in public relations practice today.hree groupings of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) for public relations practice in 2010 centered on general businesskills, media relations, and theoretical knowledge. The strategic planning process of research, planning, implementation,nd evaluation, as well as public relations ethics and legal issues, were connected to both general business skills and mediaelations. These KSA groupings reflect the professional competencies necessary for practitioners, as described in publicelations textbooks both recent and two-generations old.

Four groupings of work categories in 2010 were public relations management, issues management, corporate commu-ications, and media relations. Furthermore, each of these work category groupings reflected clear areas of extant publicelations scholarship, suggesting that the theory and practice of public relations may be closer to each other than is commonlyecried.

In summary, the results of the 2010 Practice Analysis suggest that professional competencies (i.e., KSAs) and work cate-ories articulated and studied in 2000 remain relevant to public relations practice today, even as the context in which thatractice occurs (i.e., the profession of public relations) continues to evolve. Future scholarship should not only continue toonitor public relations practice in the United States, but also compare it to the practice in other countries.

eferences

bdullah, Z., & Threadgold, T. (2008). Towards the professionalisation of public relations in Malaysia: Perception management and strategy development.

Public Relations Review, 34(3), 285–287.

room, G. M. (2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.room, G. M., Cox, M. S., Krueger, E. A., & Liebler, C. M. (1982, July). The gap between professional and research agendas: A content analysis of Public Relations

Journal and Public Relations Review. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism Annual Convention,Athens, Ohio.

196 B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 187– 196

Broom, G. M., Cox, M. S., Krueger, E. A., & Liebler, C. M. (1989). The gap between professional and research agendas in public relations journals. PublicRelations Research Annual, 1, 141–154.

Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public RelationsResearch, 10(3), 177–191.

Cutlip, S. M., & Center, A. H. (1952). Effective public relations: Pathways to public favor. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.de Bussy, N. M., & Wolf, K. (2009). The state of Australian public relations: Professionalisation and paradox. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 376–381.Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3–26.Dozier, D. M., Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2002a). Evolving standards in public relations: A historical examination of PRSA’s Codes of Ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(2),

89–110.Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2002b). From enforcement to education: The development of PRSA’s Member Code of Ethics 2000. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 17(2),

111–135.Garcia-Ruano, K. J. (2009, May), Public relations in Guatemala: A testimony of the genesis, development, and challenges of a growing profession. Paper presented

to the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.Gonc alves, G. M. P. (2009). Public relations in Portugal: An analysis of the profession through the undergraduate curriculum. Public Relations Review, 35(3),

328–330.Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Gupta, S. (2007). Professionalism in Indian public relations and corporate communications: An empirical analysis. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 306–312.Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(4), 209–215.Huertas, A, & Cavia, J. F. (2006). Centre and periphery: Two speeds for the implementation of public relations in Spain. Public Relations Review, 32(2),

110–117.Jaques, T. (2009). Issue management as a post-crisis discipline: Identifying and responding to issue impacts beyond the crisis. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(1),

35–44.Kelleher, T. (2008). Organizational contingencies, organizational blogs and public relations practitioner stance toward publics. Public Relations Review, 34(3),

300–302.Kim, J.-N., Ni, L., & Sha, B.-L. (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations

research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 751–768.Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage,

public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147–165.Kiousis, S, & Shields, A. (2008). Intercandidate agenda-setting in presidential elections: Issue and attribute agendas in the 2004 campaign. Public Relations

Review, 34(4), 325–330.Kirat, M. (2006). Public relations in the United Arab Emirates: The emergence of a profession. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 254–260.Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). An examination of the role of online social media in journalists’ source mix. Public Relations

Review, 35(3), 314–316.Lauzen, M. M. (1997). Understanding the relation between public relations and issues management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 65–82.Molleda, J.-C., & Moreno, Á. (2006). Transitional socioeconomic and political environments of public relations in Mexico. Public Relations Review, 32(2),

104–109.Niemann-Struweg, I., & Meintjes, C. (2008). The professionalism debate in South African public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 224–229.Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Okura, M., Dozier, D. M., Sha, B.-L., & Hofstetter, C. R. (2009). Use of scanning research in decision making: An examination of the environmental imperative

and power-control perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 51–70.Paine, K. D. (2009). New school of thought. Communication World, 26(6), 20–24.Pasadeos, Y., Berger, B., & Renfro, R. B. (2010). Public relations as a maturing discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research,

22(2), 136–158.Pavlik, J. V. (1987). Public relations: What research tells us. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Stein, A. (2006). Employee communications and community: An exploratory study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(3), 249–264.Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2010). A new look at agenda-setting effects: Comparing the predictive power of overall political news consumption and specific

news media consumption across different media channels and media types. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 271–292.

The professional bond: Public relations education for the 21st century. (2006). Report of the Commission on Public Relations Education. Retrieved from

www.commpred.org on March 27, 2010.Tsetsura, K. (2010). How female practitioners in Moscow view their profession: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 78–80.White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal communication, information satisfaction, and sense of community: The effect of personal influence. Journal

of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 65–84.