This is probably going to be a post I would not have written before getting promoted to full professor. Why? Because of what I have to say about some of the findings and what it means to the future direction of our field.
Did I get your attention?
Good!
I say this because in academia, when you go against the status quo, or current theoretical perspectives or don’t bow down to the professional icons that have developed this theory or perspective versus another – you don’t get cancelled, but opportunities seem to shift away from you and go to others.
However, after reading this latest article that came out from Public Relations Review, I feel I had to say something. Not just as a researcher and member of the PR academic community, but a mentor and advocate for the next generation of professors and scholars entering the field.
This was the article I got inspired to write about my thoughts. I know Tyler and Luke both from conferences at NCA and AEJMC – and they are rising PR scholars and professionals who will make waves in our field. I have to give them props for writing this article because I think it will generate a lot of discussion. So, props to Tyler and Luke for doing this study.
When I saw their article – I immediately checked it out. It was a very detailed mixed-method study. I was not surprised by the results from their first part of their study exploring citations. It was the part of their study that interviewed PR senior scholars.
This is what I found fascinating. Got to insert some Spock here!
Why do I find this particular section fascinating related to the current (and future) state of PR research. Let me tell you why.
The overall focus on having PR theories was prominent. This is what I really am amazed about is the overall focus of having PR theories. Are we in a dialogic theory arc or SCCT arc? Do you believe in Excellence Theory or not? Does it really matter?
When it comes to citations – it has to be explored whether or not these citations are really earned, or they were added because an editor, reviewer, or prominent figure in the field said to cite it. Does this theory have impact beyond context? That’s why I love some of the social psychology theories (TPB and ELM) is because marketing, PR and others can use them and they make sense?
Theories are great, but unless you are able to actually apply them in various circumstances and areas, then they won’t be adopted or respected by practitioners, the industry, or other disciplines.
Other fields do cite our work, but not always the ones that have claimed to have “shaped” our field. Another another point I’d like to make that the article discussed. Why do others outside of PR not cite our work? Because we do not cite their work, or even know they have done it before we have. I remember the first time my Mom (who is in psychology and neuroscience) came to NCA to hear my presentation with my Dad, and one of the panelists did a study on cyberbullying. My Mom was really, really surprised they had *no* research or citations to the work that had been done previously (and been cited and discussed in journals and in the popular press) at all.
However, when it comes to certain areas like crisis communication, social media, and now influencer marketing – yes. More specializations and disciplines have cited and credited work done in PR.
The claim that PR research is siloed. Well, YEAH! I could have told you that! I am glad the research here said that because this is 100 percent true.
The fact that this was mentioned as being a problem is interesting. Now, how did this become an issue for the academic community in PR? We sometimes have to look at the mirror and see what messages, perspectives, etc we are advocating for others to do, especially younger generations of scholars.
I remember getting comments all the time with the fact I was presenting, collaborating, and doing research OUTSIDE of PR. This was never praised, but looked down upon and I got a lot of criticism of this over the years from my doctoral studies to even today. Did I care? No – because I learned very early on the best way to understand a field and get new ideas is to go OUTSIDE of the field. I think that it has helped me over the years.
So, lesson to this point is this: you want to collaborate with PR professionals absolutely, but venture out of your comfort zone. Go to a Psychology conference. Reach out to a marketing colleague. Sit down with a computer engineer. This is where collaboration and new ideas come alive!
Those who were interviewed had their names listed publicly. Usually, you do not see this – but I found this to be helpful and enlightening. I also found it intriguing the current editor of PRR was interviewed. This raised an ethical question for me – if you interview the editor of the journal in which you submitted your work to, does that automatically guarantee a publication? What was the review process like?
If that is the case, I should have kept that in mind when I submitted my last article to the journal that was desk rejected by PRR. By the way – it was a follow up study to their most downloaded article from the journal 10+ years running in the journal. Not to worry, as my friend John Cacioppo (RIP) told me – if one place doesn’t accept your work, submit it elsewhere. That’s what I have done – so it’s PRR’s loss.
So, with that being said, I do have some recommendations and ideas of how we can move forward as a PR academic community.
Looking beyond certain schools of thought. I am not talking about theory, but I am talking about actually programs and universities who have had a lot of pride over the last decades in the PR field.
I am very proud of each of the programs I went to for my education in PR. All have great reputations, but some in the field do not always come to that same conclusion.
I’ve always been a scholar and professional who has always gotten comments like “You are an applied researcher, never theoretical” or “Your work is based on the industry, when it should be from ideas and recommendations that came from other researchers in academia,” or “teaching research is not real PR research” and my favorite “You didn’t go to XYZ (insert prominent PR PhD program), so you are not going to be the next XYZ scholar and leader in the field.”
Academia can be a warm and fuzzy place, right? Right. I am a believer of two things. First, you have to take things with a grain of salt and look at the source. Do you value their opinion? Do you respect what they have to say? If not, then you move on your way.
People can be judgmental and will underestimate you, when they should be curious as to why you may be these ways. Take it from Ted Lasso.
This leads to the second point. I absolutely *love* being underestimated in my potential. I am a former track and field athlete that spent 10+ years competing at the national and international level. Being an athlete means you are constantly tested physically and mentally. You are always underestimated and have seen all of the mental games that could be played.
For me, I love being underestimated because that means I will outwork, outsmart, and creatively strategize ways to exceed expectations more – so the work I am doing is so good that it would be hard to ignore. I absolutely love being able to walk to the beat of my own drum, and own it confidently and proudly. I also know the obstacles I – any many others – face who do not walk or follow in the footsteps of those who came before us. And you know what? I think we have turned out just fine.
In my role as a professor, I’ve made sure to focus on talent and merit for future scholars and emerging leaders. I do not care where they went to school or who they studied under – but rather what they are able to do, what their ideas are, and what I can do to help them brainstorm new ideas and ways to help the field.
So, let’s be more curious and less judgmental of our rising scholars and professors with these different approaches, shall we?
The next PR wave makers are not coming from programs from the past. In order to make change in the field, you can’t keep going to the same place. Brands and organizations are looking for new talent outside of their respecite fields and programs, so academia needs to follow suit. In order to evolve, we have to search, find, and mentor the next wave makers who will shape and grow our field in the future.
It’s important to have diverse perspectives, programs, and scholars represented. I have shared this many times in my own field in teaching and social media / influencer marketing: The best professors and scholars who are really changing the field are not at the programs you may be thinking of. These scholars and rising stars are at smaller or newer programs – working hard to make a name for themselves on their own without the branding of a dominant PR program behind them. They know they have to work extra hard to prove themselves to others, and usually, they exceed expectations and go beyond what is expected.
Case in point, there was a panel with senior scholars and junior scholars at NCA a few years ago, and there was a comment from a senior scholar at the panel: We are the ones who decide who is the future of the field.
I am glad I have a good poker face because my jaw would have hit the floor.
First of all – who made these senior scholars god and decide who will be the future of the field. If that was the case, I know I would have never gotten a chance to prove myself. Second, isn’t this feeding into the whole silo thing that is happening in our field? Shouldn’t we explore new perspectives to diversify our field?
We need to look at merit, talent, and potential across programs and areas to really see who will be the next scholars we will interview and highlight in a future study.
Be the best spokesperson to other disciplines. Unfortunately from my experience, most disciplines feel PR is not as rigorous as others. We are doing great work, so we have to advocate, educate, and collaborate with others. Having transdisciplinary teams is extremely rewarding, and you can learn a lot from the experience.
Let me know what you think about this. Happy to open up to some discussion. We have a ways to go, but I am glad Tyler and Luke did this study to inspire me to write this post.
Have a great day!
