Does accreditation really matter in public relations practice? How age and experience compare to accreditation

Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Does accreditation really matter in public relations practice? How age and experience compare to accreditation Bey-Ling Sha ∗ School of Journalism & Media Studies, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-4561, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 July 2010 Received in revised form 14 November 2010 Accepted 29 November 2010 Keywords: Accreditation APR Professionalism Universal Accreditation Board Professional competencies Public relations work categories

a b s t r a c t Many scholars and practitioners have suggested accreditation as one way to enhance the professionalism of public relations practice. But, others have questioned whether accreditation really makes a difference and whether experience is a sufficient substitute for accreditation. This study found that, although accredited practitioners were significantly older and had significantly more years of experience compared to their non-accredited counterparts, differences between the groups with respect to seven work categories and five professional competencies remained even when age and years of experience were controlled. The affected work categories were account/client management, strategic planning, public relations program planning, project management, stakeholder relations, issues management, and crisis management. The affected professional competencies were the four-step strategic planning process; ethics and legal issues; communication theory; business literacy; and advanced communication skills. In short, this study refutes the argument that age and professional experience are sufficient substitutes for accreditation in public relations. In fact, they are not. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

For decades, scholars and practitioners alike have argued about ways to enhance the professionalism and prestige of public relations. One suggestion is that professional certification would enhance professionalism in public relations (Bernays, 1980; Brody, 1984, 1992; Broom, 2009; Hainsworth, 1993).

1. Professional accreditation In the United States, the Public Relations Society of America began its accreditation program in 1964 (www.praccreditation.org). In the 1970s, McKee, Nayman, et al. (1975) found that public relations was becoming more of a profession, aided by PRSA’s accreditation program and code of ethics, greater numbers of university programs in the subject, an increasing body of knowledge in the practice, and the self-assessment of practitioners themselves as being “professionals.” By the early 1980s, the PRSA Task Force on the Stature and Role of Public Relations had concluded that the two best ways to elevate the public relations function were licensing of practitioners and accreditation of practitioners (Report and Recommendations, 1981). This recommendation was echoed by Lesly (1981). In the late 1980s, PRSA’s Future of Public Relations Committee articulated a seven-step plan to enhance professionalism in public relations; steps 3–5 were preaccreditation training, accreditation, and accreditation maintenance (Jackson, 1988).

∗ Tel.: +1 619 594 0641. E-mail address: [email protected] 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.004

2

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

At the turn of the century, accreditation in public relations became more broad-based with the formation of the Universal Accreditation Board (UAB) in 1998. The UAB oversees the process by which practitioners may earn the designation Accredited in Public Relations or APR. Although this process is open to any public relations practitioner in the world, candidates for the APR come primarily from the United States. In 2010, UAB participating organizations included the Agricultural Relations Council, Florida Public Relations Association, Maine Public Relations Council, National School Public Relations Association, Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), Religion Communicators Council, Southern Public Relations Federation, Texas Public Relations Association and Asociación de Relacionistas Profesionales de Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico Public Relations Association) (www.praccreditation.org). A separate accreditation process is offered by the International Association of Business Communicators, which grants the Accredited Business Communicator or ABC designation (www.iabc.com/abc). Candidates for the ABC come primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Also, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the largest public relations association in Europe, offers a professional certification called the Chartered Practitioner (www.cipr.co.uk). Other public relations associations around the world likewise may offer their own programs of professional certification, but this manuscript shall discuss only the APR and the ABC because these are the only two programs about which scholarly research has been published in English, as reviewed below. 1.1. APR vs. ABC Brody (1984) noted that, although a credentialing process for public relations practitioners would enhance the stature of the profession, debate remains as to what that process should be. Yet, the processes for earning the APR and the ABC are actually similar. Both involve an application process, a portfolio, a written examination, and an oral examination. For the APR, which was re-engineered in 2003, the application documents the candidate’s current position and qualifications. Candidates also write 16 essays that address their work experience. The essays, along with a portfolio of the candidate’s work samples, are discussed in an oral interview with a panel of accredited peers, called the Readiness Review. Following that process, qualifying candidates may sit for a multiple-choice, computer-based examination administered at a professional testing site (www.praccreditation.org). For the ABC, candidates submit detailed information regarding their current and previous work experiences, as well as a portfolio containing their work samples, as part of the application process. These documents are scored, and qualifying candidates are then permitted to take a 4.5-hour examination that includes both written and oral components (www.iabc.com/abc). Both the APR and the ABC are voluntary certifications that practitioners choose to undertake, which brings us to the question of mandatory certification, or licensing. 1.2. Accreditation vs. licensing According to Broom (2009), accreditation and licensing differ in that the former is a voluntary process conducted by professional associations, whereas the latter is a required process mandated by government. Today, government regulation of public relations, i.e., licensing, exists in Brazil, Nigeria, Panama, and Peru (Molleda & Alhassan, 2005). Research in Nigeria indicated that government regulation of public relations “enhanced the prestige and legitimacy of the profession” (Molleda & Alhassan, 2005, p. 1). Most recently, Puerto Rico has enacted legislation to license public relations practitioners (Cruz, 2008). For his part, Bernays (1977, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1987) argued that public relations could never become a profession without licensing, which carries with it true accountability. Licensing would mandate that practitioners demonstrate specific “requirements of character, education, training and experience” (Bernays, 1979, p. 27) before they would be permitted to practice public relations; only those who meet the qualifications could call themselves “public relations practitioners.” In contrast, while voluntary accreditation demonstrates the qualifications of those who have it, it does not demonstrate the lack of qualifications of those who do not have it. Bernays was not alone in his views. Others have argued that voluntary accreditation is simply not enough to prevent malpractice in public relations and that mandatory licensing is needed to enforce ethical standards and enhance practitioners’ credibility in the field (e.g., Forbes & Paul, 1986). But still others have argued against licensing (e.g., Bailey et al., 1984; Nolte, 1980), for a variety of reasons that will not be discussed here due to space limitations. 1.3. Accreditation vs. non-accreditation Just as the debate about the merits of accreditation vs. licensing is ongoing (e.g., Bailey et al., 1984; Petersen, 1996), the discussion about the merits of accreditation vs. non-accreditation continues today. One fundamental question is whether accreditation in public relations provides any benefits to the practitioners who have it, beyond a sense of personal accomplishment and commitment to the field, such as those touted by testimonials on the websites of both the UAB (www.praccreditation.org) and the IABC (www.iabc.com/abc). Prior research on both PRSA and IABC members found differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners on such variables as years of experience, gender, job titles, employer types, education, and income (Employment Profile, 2000). But, that study did not examine differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners in terms of what

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

3

practitioners actually did on the job, i.e., the categories in which they worked. Neither did the study report on professional competencies employed by public relations practitioners on the job. 1.4. Work categories vs. professional competencies Work categories are groupings of tasks that practitioners do on the job, whereas professional competencies (also called knowledge, skills, and abilities or KSAs) are the qualifications practitioners need to execute those tasks. In 2000, after rigorous qualitative and quantitative research, the UAB compiled a list of 11 common work categories in public relations practice (see Fig. 1), as well as 10 KSAs that comprised those professional competencies deemed most necessary to execute the work categories (see Fig. 2). For details on the development of KSAs tested in the APR process, see www.praccreditation.org. For its part, the IABC likewise lists professional competencies tested in the ABC process (see Fig. 3), although no information was available on the IABC website as to the process by which these KSAs were developed or selected. 2. Professional experience A relationship between professional competency (as measured by accreditation or other means) and professional experience often is assumed, but details of that relationship have not always been clear. In other words, many public relations professionals believe that more years of experience is related to enhanced competency in the practice, but few have offered

ACCOUNT/CLIENT MANAGEMENT - This category focuses on client and customer relationships. Work activities under this category include: establishing client relationships, coaching and counseling clients, managing expectations, etc. STRATEGIC PLANNING - This cate gory focuses on the overall approach to public relations and reputation management. Wo rk activities under this category include: conducting research, setting goals, engaging customers and key stakeholders, developing messages for specific audiences, branding, etc. PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAM PLANNING - This category focuses on the implementation 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 interactive elements of the campaign, etc. PROJECT MANAGEMENT - This category focuses on project implementation & logistics. Work activities under this category include: creating and managing the budget, assessing resource allocation needs, planning logistics, managing the team, working with vendors, etc. MEDIA RELATIONS - Work activities under this category include: identifying audiences, training organizational spokespersons to work with media, pitching stories, writing and distributing press releases in traditional and online ways, monitoring media coverage, coordinating publicity, measuring media engagement efforts, etc. Fig. 1. Work categories in public relations, developed by the Universal Accreditation Board.

4

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

SOCIAL MEDIA RELATIONS - Work activities und er this category include: utilizing Webbased social networks, developing social media strategies for communications 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. (NOTE: This category was added for the present study and did not come from the 2000 UAB Practice Analysis). STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS - Work activities under this category, 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 problems and plan for crises. Work activities under this category include: assessing and developing strategies around long-term and business-impacting issues, writing crisis management plans, providing strategic counsel to clients or stakeholders, resolving conflicts, etc. CRISIS MANAGEMENT - This category focuses on reacting to immediate problems such as workplace violence, poor earnings reports, industrial accidents, etc. Work activities under this category include: executing crisis management 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 company crises, etc.

INTERNAL RELATIONS & EMPLOYEE COMMUNI CATIONS - This ca tegory focuses on communication with employees, management, members, and other internal audiences. Work activities under this category include: developing action plans, assessing in-house communication needs, developing and producing in-house publications in print and online, developing Web content, managing organizational change, etc. SPECIAL EVENTS, CONFERENCES & MEETINGS - Work activities under 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, communicating with different audiences, building alliances, community outreach using social media, etc. Fig. 1. (Continued).

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

5

RESEARCHING, PLANNING, IMPLEMENTING & EVALUATING PROGRAMS – Includes analytical skills, audience identification and communication, evaluation of programs, financial management, planning ability, applied research, basic research, stakeholder management, strategic thinking, and methodology. ETHICS AND LAW – Includes et hical behavior, integrity, and knowledge of legal issues. COMMUNICATION MODELS AND THEORIES – Includes communication models and understanding of barriers to communication. BUSINESS LITERACY – Includes business literacy, environmental scanning, industry knowledge, knowledge of current organizational issues, knowledge of business technology and trends, understanding of all levels of management, and usage of organization’s resources. MANAGEMENT SKILLS & ISSUES – Includes diversity, decision-making abilities, leadership skills, looking beyond prejudices/mind-set, organizational skills, problem-solving skills, sensitivity to cultural concerns, and team building. CRISIS COMMUNICATION MANAGEME NT – Includes understanding of different phases of a crisis and risk management capabilities MEDIA RELATIONS – Includes media relations, ne ws sensibility, understanding of media, and understanding of distribution systems. USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EFFICIENTLY – Includes information management, knowledge of distribution channels, and technology literacy. HISTORY OF AND CURRE NT ISSUES IN PUBLIC RELATI ONS – Includes knowledge of the field of public relations. ADVANCED COMMUNICAT ION SKILLS – Includes consensus-building, consulting skills, and negotiating skills. Note: Information retrieved from www.praccreditation.org. For this study, the survey instrument listed only the overall KSA, as presented in this figure in ALL CAPS. Fig. 2. Professional competencies tested in the UAB’s APR process.

evidence (beyond the anecdotal) to support this view. The Universal Accreditation Board formerly required candidates to have a minimum of five years of experience in public relations before they could begin the accreditation process. However, in 2003, that requirement was removed, although the minimum experience level of five years remains strongly recommended (www.pracreditation.org). With respect to the value of experience, Likely (2008) argued that professional experience alone is insufficient for practitioners to advance to senior levels in public relations. Instead, Likely (2008) maintained, rather than relying on professional

6

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

Goal-setting

General management skills

Audience/constituent research

Written communication

Writing communication plans

Managing employee communication programs

Budgeting and cost control

Media relations

Oral presentation

Communication ethics

Project management

Problem-solving and consulting skills

Time management

Organizational culture and politics

Measuring effectiveness

Investor/shareholder communication

Writing proposals for communication

Technology

programs Note: Information retrieved from www.iabc.com/abc/prospective/faq. Fig. 3. Professional competencies tested in the IABC’s ABC process.

experience alone, practitioners should also seek a graduate degree in public relations or another communication-related field. However, his article did not mention professional certification, concentrating instead on formal academic qualifications. Published, scholarly research on the value of professional experience has been limited. Dozier and Broom (1995) found that practitioners with more years of professional experience were more likely to enact the managerial role, as opposed to the technician role, although their study did not examine the relationship of accreditation to these other variables. Years of professional experience also has been correlated with greater levels of efficiency in public relations writing (i.e., less time spent thereon), but not with lower or greater amounts of actual writing done (Napoli & Taylor, 1999). In a more nuanced study of the “experience” of senior public relations practitioners, Berger, Reber, and Heyman (2005) found that diversity of professional experience, not merely the accumulation of years of experience, was an important contributor to achieving success in public relations. The importance of diversity of professional experience as one path to success in public relations was also reported in Heyman (2005) and in Berger and Heyman (2005). In contrast, when Berger et al. (2005) asked leading practitioners about factors that contributed to professional success, no one mentioned accreditation or professional certification, although “experience” was ranked fifth, behind communication skills, proactive nature, relationships and networking, and interpersonal skills (p. 13). Similarly, when they asked how public relations students could prepare for success, participants emphasized technical skills, but accreditation was not mentioned in these open-ended interviews with 97 practitioners (Berger et al., 2005). 3. Hypotheses In short, the extant public relations literature on accreditation and experience may be summarized thus: many authors believe that accreditation, properly done, will be a measurement of professional competency and also a validation of professional experience; however, these articles usually rely more on conviction than on data. With respect to actual data, the limited scholarly works on years of professional experience have not examined accreditation as a corresponding variable. Thus, given the literature reviewed above regarding the debated value of accreditation, as well as the lack of extant scholarship on how accreditation compares to professional experience, this study offers the following hypotheses to test the claims of accreditation proponents that age and experience are insufficient substitutes for accreditation: H1a.

Accredited practitioners engage more frequently in all work categories than do their non-accredited counterparts.

H1b. Higher work category engagement levels among APRs compared to non-APRs remain even when age and years of experience are controlled. H2a. Accredited practitioners use more frequently all the knowledge, skills and abilities than do their non-accredited counterparts. H2b. Higher KSA usage levels among APRs compared to non-APRs remain even when age and years of experience are controlled.

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

7

Table 1 Age and experience by APR status.

Age (in years)a Experience (in years)b

APR

Non-APR

48.6 (SD = 10.2; n = 486) 22.1 (SD = 9.63; n = 493)

40.1 (SD = 11.7; n = 856) 13.2 (SD = 9.08; n = 884)

Notes: a t = 13.43, df = 1340; p < .001. b t = 17.03, df = 1375; p < .001.

4. Methods To examine the relationships among work categories and KSAs on the one hand and accreditation status, age, and experience on the other, an online survey of 9950 randomly selected PRSA members was conducted in spring 2010 as part of the Universal Accreditation Board’s Practice Analysis. The response rate was 15.1%. 4.1. Instrumentation Respondents were asked about the frequency with which they engaged in 12 work categories and used 10 professional competencies (knowledge, skills, and abilities; KSAs). See Figs. 1 and 2 for exact wordings of these items. Replicating the UAB’s 2000 Practice Analysis, questions regarding KSAs pertained to the last week, whereas items about work categories examined the last year. Answer options in each grouping were randomized to reduce the effects of item non-response and patterned responses. Responses initially were coded with 1 = “none,” 2 = “a little,” 3 = “some,” and 4 = “a great deal.” Later, responses were recoded such that “none” was dropped from analysis, 1 = “a little,” 2 = “some,” and 3 = “a great deal,” which permitted more rigorous statistical analysis. Accreditation status was a binary yes/no question. 4.2. Statistical analysis Pearson correlation was used to examine how age and experience related to each other. Independent samples t-tests were used to examine differences in age and experience by accreditation status. Frequencies for use of work categories and professional competencies were calculated using mean scores. Then, comparisons of means between accredited and nonaccredited practitioners were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Finally, to control for the influence of age and years of experience on differences between APRs and non-APRs in the work categories and KSAs, an analysis of covariance was conducted (ANCOVA). For both ANOVAs and ANCOVAs, one-tailed tests of significance were used because the hypotheses predicted that APRs would score higher than would non-APRs across all work categories and KSAs. All tests for significance were set at p = .05. 5. Results and discussion Findings from this study indicated that APRs and non-APRs differed significantly in their execution of seven out of 12 work categories and in their use of seven out of 10 professional competencies. Furthermore, although APRs in the study were significantly older and had significantly more years of experience compared to their non-APR counterparts (see Table 1), differences between the groups with respect to seven work categories and five KSAs remained even when age and years of experience were controlled. Interestingly, although age and experience were highly correlated (r = .81, p < .001), their effects on the dependent variables were by no means uniform. 5.1. Work categories The first hypothesis posited that accredited practitioners would engage more frequently in all work categories compared to their non-accredited practitioners. This hypothesis was partially supported. As summarized in Table 2, results indicated that significant differences between APRs and non-APRs existed on seven of the 12 work categories: account/client management, strategic planning, public relations program planning, project management, stakeholder relations, issues management, and crisis management. Three additional work categories (media relations, social media relations, and special events, conferences, and meetings) yielded significant differences between APRs and non-APRs, but not in the hypothesized direction; since one-tailed significance tests were used, these three otherwise significant results were rejected. Interestingly, these three work categories – compared to the first seven work categories – appear to be more entry-level or technician-oriented, i.e., activities that execute decisions made by others (cf. Dozier & Broom, 1995). Thus, it may not be surprising that non-accredited practitioners engaged in these work categories with greater frequency than did their accredited peers. Work categories in which

8

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

Table 2 Frequency of engagement in work categories by accreditation status. Work category

APRMean

Non-APRMean

df

F

Sig.

Account/client management Strategic planning Public relations program planning Project management Stakeholder relations Issues management Crisis management

2.37 2.54 2.58 2.55 2.22 2.20 1.88

2.17 2.33 2.32 2.42 2.00 1.94 1.69

1, 1064 1, 1348 1, 1335 1, 1322 1, 1194 1, 1212 1, 1164

15.20 25.95 43.04 10.73 23.47 31.89 17.12

p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

Note: Significance determined by one-tailed tests.

Table 3 Frequency of engagement in work categories by accreditation status, controlled for age and experience. Work category

Account/client management Strategic planning Public relations program planning Project management Stakeholder relations Issues management Crisis management

Adjusted means APR

Non-APR

df

F

Sig.

2.35 2.61 2.66 2.57 2.21 2.18 1.89

2.23 2.48 2.45 2.49 2.09 2.05 1.75

1, 942 1, 942 1, 942 1, 942 1, 878 1, 878 1, 878

4.78 7.45 20.49 3.19 4.50 4.68 6.82

p < .05 p < .01 p < .001 p < .05 p < .05 p < .05 p < .01

Notes: Means as presented are adjusted for covariates. Significance determined by one-tailed tests.

there were no significant differences by accreditation status were community relations and internal relations/employee communications. Of course, one could make the argument that the differences presented above between accredited and non-accredited practitioners are more likely attributable to differences in age or years of experience, as opposed to accreditation status. But, analysis of covariance indicated that – for all seven work categories – significant differences between APRs and non-APRs remained even when age and years of experience in public relations were both controlled. These differences are presented in Table 3. In short, these results indicated that, even though accredited practitioners on the whole are older and have more years’ experience in public relations compared to non-accredited practitioners, these demographic differences cannot be said to account for differences in the frequency of executing these seven work categories. Put another way, accreditation status does make a significant difference in the extent to which practitioners engage in specific work categories in public relations, even when the effects of age and experience are controlled. If one wished to separate out the effects of age and experience, compared to accreditation, the analysis of covariance also offers this information. For account/client management, differences between APRs and non-APRs could be attributed not only to accreditation status, but also to age (F = 6.71; p < .01) and to experience (F = 14.88; p < .001). For both strategic planning and public relations program planning, neither age nor experience accounted for the significant differences between APRs and non-APRs; accreditation status was the sole significant covariate in these two work categories. For project management, besides accreditation status, both age and experience affected differences between APRs and non-APRs, with F = 4.47, p < .05 and F = 13.51, p < .001, respectively. For stakeholder relations, age affected differences between APRs and non-APRs (F = 4.79, p < .05), as did accreditation status, but years of experience had no significant effects on this work category. In contrast, age had no significant effects on differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners’ engagement with issues management and crisis management. But, for both of those work categories, experience (like accreditation status) had significant effects, with F = 15.34, p < .001 for issues management and F = 4.09, p < .05 for crisis management. As detailed above, age and experience had differing levels of impact on differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners in their engagement with seven public relations work categories; this was true even though age and years of experience were highly correlated overall. But, the most critical finding remains: For all seven work categories, as presented in Table 3, accreditation status had significant main effects on differences between APRs and non-APRs, even when age and years of experience were controlled. 5.2. Professional competencies The second hypothesis posited that accredited practitioners would use more frequently all the knowledge, skills, and abilities compared to their non-accredited practitioners. This hypothesis was partially supported. As summarized in Table 4, results indicated that significant differences between APRs and non-APRs existed on seven of the 10 professional competen-

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

9

Table 4 Frequency of use of professional competencies by accreditation status. KSA

APRMean

Non-APRMean

df

F

Sig.

Research, planning, implementation, and evaluation Ethics and legal issues Communication theory Business literacy Management skills Crisis communication management Advanced communication skills

2.50 1.92 1.84 2.40 2.71 1.87 2.48

2.27 1.74 1.68 2.16 2.54 1.70 2.22

1, 1342 1, 1244 1, 1109 1, 1280 1, 1349 1, 1188 1, 1296

29.65 18.47 12.18 32.97 20.28 15.71 36.36

p < .001 p < .001 p < .01 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

Note: Significance determined by one-tailed tests. Table 5 Frequency of use of professional competencies by accreditation status, controlled for age and experience. KSA

Research, planning, implementation, and evaluation Ethics and legal issues Communication theory Business literacy Advanced communication skills

Adjusted means APR

Non-APR

2.57 1.95 1.84 2.41 2.53

2.37 1.79 1.74 2.22 2.40

df

F

Sig.

1, 945 1, 945 1, 945 1, 945 1, 636

16.16 8.82 3.27 12.45 4.90

p < .001 p < .01 p < .05 p < .001 p < .05

Notes: Means as presented are adjusted for covariates. Significance determined by one-tailed tests.

cies: four-step strategic planning process; ethics and legal issues; communication theory; business literacy; management skills; crisis communication; and advanced communication skills. Media relations also yielded significant differences between APRs and non-APRs, but not in the hypothesized direction, so the results were deemed non-significant since the one-tailed test was employed. There were no significant differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners in the frequency of their use of information technology or public relations history. Although analysis of variance yielded differences between APRs and non-APRs for seven KSAs, analysis of covariance indicated that differences in only five of these professional competencies remained after the effects of age and experience were partialed out. In short, once age and experience were controlled, the five KSAs that still yielded significant differences between APRs and non-APRs were the four-step strategic planning process; ethics and legal issues; communication theory; business literacy; and advanced communication skills. These results are summarized in Table 5. On the other hand, accreditation status did not have main effects for management skills and crisis communication management. For both of these KSAs, differences between APRs and non-APRs were more attributable to years of experience than to accreditation status. For crisis communication management, experience was the only significant covariate, with F = 6.08 and p < .01; neither age nor APR status significantly accounted for the difference between accredited and nonaccredited practitioners’ use of this professional competency. For management skills, the difference between APRs and non-APRs was attributable to both experience (F = 21.36, p < .001) and age (F = 6.23, p < .01), but not to accreditation status. For the five KSAs where significant differences between APRs and non-APRs remained after controlling for age and experience, ANCOVA results also indicated the influence of these two covariates. For research, planning, implementation, and evaluation, both age and experience – along with APR status – contributed to the differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners, with F = 7.72, p < .01 for age and F = 9.70, p < .01 for experience. For ethics and legal issues, age was significant (F = 4.06, p < .05) in the differences between APRs and non-APRs, whereas years of experience was not significant. In contrast, age was not a significant covariate for differences between accredited and non-accredited practitioners on the KSAs of communication theory, business literacy, and advanced communication skills, whereas experience was. Thus, in addition to the main effects of accreditation status on these three professional competencies, differences between APRs and non-APRs could also be attributed to experience, with F = 6.01, p < .01 for communication theory; F = 4.51, p < .05 for business literacy; and F = 14.08, p < .001 for advanced communication skills. Despite the variations in the influence of age and experience on professional competencies, the bottom line is that, even when these influences are controlled, accreditation status had main effects on differences between APRs and non-APRs on five KSAs. 6. Limitations As with any social scientific research, this study’s main limitation was its reliance on self-assessments by respondents. In other words, an individual respondent’s perspective that he or she used a particular KSA “a great deal” is not the same as having a researcher define “a great deal” to be a particular number of hours per week, then asking respondents how many hours each week they used that KSA.

10

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

In a related vein, this study had the limitation of data being self-reported, which in turn is subject to demand characteristics, meaning that respondents may have given the answer they believed they should. For example, since the KSAs examined in this study came from those tested by the UAB in the APR process, accredited practitioners would know that they should engage in the four-step strategic planning process of research, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Thus, APRs could have indicated greater frequency of using that professional competency, compared to non-APRs who may not necessarily know the importance of that KSA in the eyes of the UAB. There are no easy solutions to these standard problems of self-assessment and self-reporting in survey research. These challenges are inherent to all scholarship using this method, and this study is no exception. But, even if some participants had inaccurate self-assessments or wished to offer what they believed were preferred responses, the sheer number of respondents in this study suggests that the findings presented here possess the internal validity necessary to draw at least preliminary conclusions about the relevance of accreditation in public relations. 7. Summary and directions for research In a nutshell, accreditation matters in public relations practice today, for both professional competencies and public relations work categories. Even after controlling for the influence of age and years of experience in public relations, accreditation status yielded differences between APRs and non-APRs on seven work categories and five KSAs. The affected work categories were account/client management, strategic planning, public relations program planning, project management, stakeholder relations, issues management, and crisis management. The affected professional competencies were the four-step strategic planning process; ethics and legal issues; communication theory; business literacy; and advanced communication skills. One interesting finding that emerged from this study was that, contrary to the direction posited in both hypotheses, three work categories and one professional competency yielded higher mean frequencies for non-APRs than for APRs. Had two-tailed tests of significance been used in this study, these findings would have been significant. Even so, these results bear further study, especially as media relations (as both a work category and KSA), social media relations, and special events, conferences, and meetings all appear, prima facie, to be more reflective of the technician, as opposed to the managerial, role. Future research should include extant measures of public relations roles (cf. Dozier & Broom, 1995) so that direct connections among roles, work categories, and KSAs can be investigated. In closing, this study refutes the argument that age and professional experience are sufficient substitutes for accreditation in public relations. In fact, they are not. Accreditation status yields differences in frequency of engagement in public relations work categories, as well as differences in frequency of usage of professional competencies, even when the influences of age and experience are controlled. With these results, public relations practitioners and leaders in our field can no longer claim that accreditation does not matter. In fact, accreditation does matter for individual practitioners, and thus, accreditation matters for public relations practice. Acknowledgements The author serves on the Universal Accreditation Board, for which these data were collected. The author thanks Dr. David Dozier, San Diego State University, for his mentorship in statistical analysis, particularly with regard to ANCOVAs. References Bailey, J. N., Bernays, E. L., Bitter, J., Bogart, J. S., Budd, J. F., Jr., Campanale, N., et al. (1984). The credentials of public relations: Licensing? Certification? Accreditation? A symposium in print. Public Relations Quarterly, 29(2), 9. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database Berger, B., & Heyman, W. (2005 May). You can’t homogenize success in PR: Top PR executives reveal 10 patterns in success. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, New York. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Berger, B., Reber, B., & Heyman, W. (2005 May). Illuminating the path to success in public relations. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, New York. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. (1977). Four steps towards enhancing the future of public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 22(2), 26. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. L. (1979). The case for licensing and registration for public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 24(3), 26–29. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. (1980). Viewpoint: Gaining professional status for public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 25(2), 20. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. (1983). Viewpoint: The case for licensing PR practitioners. Public Relations Quarterly, 28(1), 32. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. (1986). Viewpoint: Let there be licensing. Public Relations Quarterly, 31(3), 8. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Bernays, E. (1987). Viewpoint: Words subject to change without notice: Let’s legally define public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 32(1), 21. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Brody, E. W. (1984). The credentials of public relations: Licensing? Certification? Accreditation? An overview. Public Relations Quarterly, 29(2), 6–9. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Brody, E. W. (1992). We must act now to redeem PR’s reputation. Public Relations Quarterly, 37(3), 44. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Broom, G. M. (2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cruz, Y.R. (2008, August 11). Un hecho la regulación de los relacionistas: El Departamento de Estado creara una junta para acreditarlos [An act regulating public relations practitioners: The State Department creates a board to license]. El Nueva Dia, Negocios, p. 31. Dozier, D., & Broom, G. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(1), 3–26. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

B.-L. Sha / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 1–11

11

Forbes, & Paul, S. (1986). Why licensing is an opportunity for public relations. Public Relations Review, 12(4), 9–12. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 9051406). Hainsworth, B. E. (1993). Commentary: Professionalism in public relations. Public Relations Review, 19(4), 311–314. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 9051826). Heyman, W. (2005). Mix of personal, professional patterns signal likely success in PR profession. Public Relations Quarterly, 50(3), 45–47. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Jackson, P. (1988). Demonstrating professionalism. The Public Relations Journal, 44(10), 27–32. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 745899). Lesly, P. (1981). The stature and role of public relations. The Public Relations Journal, 37(1), 14. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 1282161). Likely, F. (2008). Experience versus formal qualification. Strategic Communication Management, 12(6), 15. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 1593447341). McKee, B. K., Nayman, O. B., & Lattimore, D. L. (1975). How PR people see themselves. The Public Relations Journal, 31(11), 47. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 1281813). Molleda, J., & Alhassan, A. (2005 May). Professional views on the Nigeria Institute of Public Relations’ law and enforcement. Paper presented to the International Communication Association, New York City. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Napoli, P., & Taylor, M. (1999). Writing activities of public relations practitioners: The relationship between experience and writing tasks. Public Relations Review, 25(3), 369. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Nolte, L. (1980). Let’s forget licensing. Public Relations Quarterly, 25(2), 14. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Petersen, B. (1996). Logic, licensing and public relations. Communication Law & Policy, 1(1), 139. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database. Report and Recommendations: Task Force on Stature and Role of Public Relations. (1981). The Public Relations Journal, 37(3), 21. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 7114695).