The scholarship of public relations history: A report card

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF PUBLIC RELATIONS HISTORY: A REPORT CARD

Keynote address to IHPRC 2013 June 24, 2013Professor Tom Watson, Bournemouth University

Our motto?

“Historians are dangerous and capable of upsetting everything”

Nikita Khrushchev, 1956

Bon mots

“History should always be studied in the morning, before anything else can happen”

Peppermint Patty (Peanuts)

Why history?

“We cannot fully understand the features of the present unless we see them in motion, positioned in trajectories which link our world with that of our forebears. Without historical perspective, we may fail to notice continuities which persist, even in our world of headlong change,” (Tosh, 2008, p.141).

Agenda• PR history’s “state of play”• Analysis from IHPRC, JCOM 2008 and PRR papers•Historiography and scholarship• Future directions?

Key points•Move from Great Men and Grunig’s four “models”• Time for a less corporatist approach • “Reimagine” PR history• Proto-PR and “Public Relations”• Alternative directions in historiography

Output• 2008-9: 11 articles#• 2008-13: 7 articles*• 2010: 33 papers (+2 keynotes)• 2011: 29 papers (+1 keynote)• 2012: 33 papers (+1 keynote)• 2013: 36 papers (+1 keynote)

• TOTAL: 150 papers/articles & 5 keynotes

• 2010-2013: 252 abstracts (131 papers presented)

# Papers from JCOM special edition*Papers published in PRR, 2008-2013

PRR does not include IHPRC-linked research

Analysis by IHPRC themes

1. History and Events 522. Professional & Practice 383. National Histories 264. Historiography 155. Theories of Public Relations 126. Proto-PR 7

150

By classification (Tosh 2009 & Watson)1. Analytic: 672. Descriptive: 573. Critical: 26

150

Where next - 1

Other voices“US scholars have always tended to assume that activities referred to as PR have been invented by Americans and exported elsewhere”

L’Etang 2008, p.328

“Public relations is an occupation, some would say a profession, of uniquely US origin.”

Newsom 1984, p.30

Germany and Austria

Where next - 2Away from Grunigian models• “Western hegemonic public relations”• “The classic myth of origins” McKie & Munshi 2007, p. 123

• Not appropriate for cultures “with different paths of historical evolution” L’Etang 2008, p.319

Proto-PR and Public Relations• Before 1870, it is Proto-PR: not “seen as strategically

planned activity in medieval times and … did not use the framing of language and best practice accumulated now” Watson 2008, p.20

Historiographic directions“Lamme & Miller (2010): “Removing the Spin: New Theory of Public Relations History”• Bentele (2009, 2010, 2012): Functional-Integrative Stratification model• McKie & Xifra (2012): Challenge existing historiography; postmodern analyses

Lamme & Russell (2010)• “… time to remove the spin from public relations history” (p. 356)• Embrace the Embarrassing• Be historians, not promoters or censors of public relations’ history

Bentele (2010)

Two directions in 45 years of PR historiography:

1. Fact-and-Event Oriented Type (FEOT) – Facts in historical order; focuses on personalities and their activities

2. Model-and-Theory Oriented Type (MTOT) – Give social explanation for developments; uses models/theories to reflect conceptual basis

Bentele model (2009)Strata Period

#5 Public relations as a developing social system: 20th Century

# 7 Growth of PR research & science; internet, professionalisation, globalisation: 1995 –#6 Boom of professional field and professionalisation: 1985 - 1995#5 Consolidation of professional field: 1958 - 1985#4 New beginning and upturn: 1945 - 1958#3 Press relations and propaganda in the Nazi regime: 1933 – 1945#2 Consolidation and growth: 1918 - 1933

#4 Emerging occupational field: 19th century # 1 Emergence of the field: mid-19th century to 1918

# 3 Communication of organisations: End of Middle Ages, Modern Age

Pre-history of public relations

#2 Public communication: Antiquity, Middle Ages Pre-history of public relations

#1 Interpersonal communication: History of

mankind Pre-history of public relations

McKie & Xifra (2012)• Go beyond professional limits and occupational barriers; take globalisation and environmental impact into account• Research products of history; e.g. “invention of tradition”, nationalism campaigns• “Bottom up” research for the undocumented perspectives• History is “increasingly liquid and is being refashioned and retheorised”

Let’s get dangerous• PR historiography ‘comfortable’ for too long• Needs a more analytical, critical stance• Move from corporatist emphasis• “Reimagine” PR history from activist view• Build oral histories of unconsidered and ignored voices (e.g. Somerville et al)• Show PR’s strengths, failings, impacts

Let’s cooperate• Increase cooperation between PR historians• Map the archives available for researchers• Comparative studies; track international PR across cultures• Get greater leverage for bids to research bodies and industry associations

Conclusion• Push the boundaries; Away from Anglo-American focus• Separate proto-PR from ‘public relations’• Avoid Grunigian analysis• Seek “other” voices• Take a critical stance; “Reimagine” the history of PR• Be more dangerous• Cooperate across borders