I believe that our profession is still young enough to have periodic doubts about who we are and what value we bring. These panic attacks are exacerbated by the stubbornness of many leaders outside the practice to demand quantifiable results from every activity, and of leaders inside the practice who cling to the concept that ours is 99% art and shouldn’t be held accountable.

With a theoretical foundation drawn largely from other disciplines, competing professional associations (in the U.S.) and disagreement over what constitutes professionalism, we lack the independent authority of our fellow support units in law and finance. We can’t even agree on what is ethical and not ethical (a problem laid bare in social media.)

We are continuing to debate matters that should long be settled, such as whether the news media relations activity we undertake has a discernible impact on our business. Businesses find it altogether too easy to cut communications staff during downturns, particularly in internal communication. Everyone wants an effective measurement capability, but few seem to want to pay for it.

We are marching toward status as true professionals, but we have a ways to go.

I am totally surprised to learn that there even was an MBA in Public Relations so long ago. Although you think the PR curriculum was pitiful, and you were exposed to little or no theory–if you think of it, there probably wasn’t any PR theory around at that time! They did the best they could.

With an interest in Strategic Communication Management, I found myself hampered very much by a lack of theory when I started teaching in 1996. So there was no choice but to turn to the Strategic Management literature and start developing theory myself. It has been a lot of fun, though. To say nothing of the intellectual challenge (in that I heartily concur with Sean).

I wish more practitioners could be as privileged as I was to be exposed to the value of theory. I know they would find it exciting too. If there is one thing I have become convinced of during the last 13 years of teaching, it is that every single person has the desire to learn in order to improve themselves.

What does come to mind though, is that you are giving me undue credit with regards to the Digital Management software. My contribution has been small in comparison to what Gerhard Butschi has done to ‘demistify and reduce to simple bytes’ the art of public relations (as Toni put it on PRC — see http://www.prconversations.com/?p=606#comment-91310) and to ‘marry theory and practice’, as I would like to put it.

I have cheered from the sideline, my main contribution having been conceptual and making sure that everything that is in the software, is based on ‘best practice’ theories. The real ‘applied theorist’ is Gerhard. Not only does he have deep knowledge of theory (as well as practice), but he has also designed the PR processes and systems, and turned it into software.

I repeat the invitation that Don Bates made on PRC re the software. If anybody is interested in having a peek, please let him know.

Some background, which will explain my perspective: I have an MBA in Public Relations. I got it back in 1971 when we studied more about the history and practice of PR, and little or nothing about theory. In hindsight, the PR curriculum at that grad school was pitiful. I really learned on the job and I was fortunate to have some outstanding teachers/mentors at work.

My background is strictly agency-side. I’ve worked with some larger clients with internal PR or Corporate Relations or Communications Departments, usually where the top PR person had a direct report to the CEO of the company. But still, I was on the outside — an agency resource.

I must admit, I’m not conversant with the various PR theories mentioned above. I have over time had to deal with various methods of measuring what we do, with mixed results.

I do think the state of PR education, from my outside perspective, is still not what it should be. We continue to have new graduates entering (or trying to enter) the workforce with inadequate writing or journalistic skills and limited ability to think creatively or intuitively.

Again, I say this with very little knowledge of current theories, but I believe, after nearly 40 years in PR, a lot of what we do is based on:
* ability to understand needs of our target audiences
* knowledge/understanding channels to communicate with those targets and understanding how those channels operate
* experience or access to experience, in order to know what may or may not work
* COMMON SENSE, so you can use all of the above and blend it into something that will have a good shot at working in each unique situation you encounter.

If there’s theory that gives you all of that, bring it on. I welcome it.

Simply read the chapter, read her book, read the Digital Management work.

You are encouraged to review and become familiar with the Baldridge award criteria and you may learn just a bit more about practical PR and measurable results. Many who develop theory will leave out (or selectively omit) key factors that ultimately neutralize the model.

In the end: Gee, after spinning your wheels, a review committee is going to cut funding because it ain’t working, or the one driving the program might face the facts and thus, ”hmm, I really thought it would work.”