Professionalization of public relations in Latin America: A longitudinal comparative study

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev

Full Length Article

Professionalization of public relations in Latin America: A longitudinal comparative study Juan Carlos Molledaa, Angeles Morenob, Cristina Navarroc, a b c

⁎

University of Oregon, 217A Allen Hall, Eugene, OR, 97403-1275, United States University Rey Juan Carlos, Camino del Molino s/n, 28943 Fuenlabrada-Madrid, Spain Gulf University for Science and Technology, P.O. Box 7207, Hawally, 32093, Kuwait

AR TI CLE I NF O

AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Professionalization Public relations Latin America Education

This paper assesses the evolution of professionalization of public relations in Latin America and the potential influence of three contextual variables – economic performance, political system, and press freedom- in this process. Over 1400 public relations professionals completed online surveys in 2009 and 2015 (674 and 803 respectively), creating two data data sets for analysis. The study used eight measurement items grouped in two dimensions: institutionalization and specialization. Statistically significant improvements were found for five indicators: formal study of public relations in higher-education institutions, ideological and ethical principles that emphasize societal well-being, associative organizations that unite professionals, availability of a formal scientific knowledge, and a system of employment access and promotion. Results show also the influence of economic performance on the levels of professionalization in Latin America.

1. Introduction The global public relations industry – comprising practitioners, public and independent firms – grew approximately 11%, 7%, and 5% from 2013 to 2015, respectively (Sudhaman, 2016;The Holmes Report/ICCO, 2015). The robustness of the industry has spurred the desire to acquire a greater level of professionalization, understood as the process of attaining an exceptional standard of practice in a profession (Yang & Taylor, 2013; Yang & Taylor, 2014). However, growth in the industry is not guaranteed to remain constant; just as the profession may continue to advance, it could also stagnate or regress. The region is facing socioeconomic and political challenges that influence the development of public relations and require practitioners to seek strategies for positioning themselves inside and outside of their organizations. Latin America, a culturally diverse continent, makes up 64% of the population of the Western Hemisphere but only represents a relatively small part of the world economy (Reyes & Sawyer, 2016). Although the region has achieved considerable success in reducing extreme poverty over the last decade, its still-high levels of income and wealth inequality have stymied sustainable growth and social inclusion. Despite the increasing number and quality of publications on global public relations, there is a recognized need to continue systematically documenting the practice in various parts of the world, especially in underrepresented regions, such as Latin America. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to conceptualize the construct of professionalization and its dynamic nature through a longitudinal comparative study conducted in 2009 and replicated in 2015, and (2) to analyze the impact of political and economic contextual variables on the practice of public relations.

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.C. Molleda), [email protected] (A. Moreno), [email protected] (C. Navarro).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.08.003 Received 2 December 2016; Received in revised form 14 July 2017; Accepted 22 August 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Molleda, J.C., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.08.003

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

2. Literature review 2.1. Public relations in Latin America There are several reasons that explain the lack of research on the practice of public relations in Latin America. On one hand, the authoritarian regimes and dictatorships imposed on the region during much of the twentieth century slowed down the development of a professional public relations field. On the other hand, the diversity of professional and educational contexts, and the weakness of professional organizations hampered the professionalization process (Molleda, Moreno, Navarro, & Stephen, 2016). Moreover, language barriers, a non-existent critical spirit, difficulties in accessing books, and the low level of participation in international associations negatively affect the scientific production (Ferrari, 2011; González, 1999). The history of public relations in Latin America is rather short. Although the beginning of public relations can be traced to 1914 with the creation of a department of public relations at the Sao Paulo Tramway Light and Power Company Limited (Brazil), it can be argued that the profession appeared in the early 1970s, with the fall of the various military governments in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay, Peru, Brazil, and Panama (Mellado & Barría, 2012; Sharpe & Simoes, 1996). Ferreira (1993), however, traces the real advancement in 1960, the date of the first Inter-American Conference on Public Relations (FIARP), founded with the goal of promoting unity and reciprocal collaboration among public and private public relations professional organizations. Brazil, according to this author, was also the first country in the world to regulate the field in 1967, establishing degree requirements for entry into the profession, followed by Panama in 1980 and Peru in 1990. Despite the numerous obstacles in the development of the PR industry, the Latin American School of Public Relations, born in the 1960s, has tried to emancipate from imported models, focusing on the interests of the community and practice of public relations according to their own economic, social and political circumstances (Molleda, 2001). The Latin American School is considered more humanistic and socially oriented, closer to the European orientation, anchored in social and communitarian concerns to serve society. Recent years have seen a greater interest in public relations in Latin America as a result of the improved economic situation in the region, the effects of globalization and the strengthening of media systems in many countries. Numerous articles on the situation of public relations in different Latin American countries have been published during the last years (e.g., Álvarez, Yaguache, & Paladines, 2016; De Brooks, Penaloza, & Waymer, 2009; Mellado & Barría, 2012; Molleda & Moreno, 2006; Molleda & Suárez, 2005; Molleda, Athaydes, & Hirsch, 2003). However, the Latin American Macro-survey of Communication and Public Relations (Molleda, Moreno, Athaydes, & Suárez, 2012) was the first attempt to investigate the trends, the professionalism, and social roles of the profession in the subcontinent through opinions of a representative sample of professionals. Since 2014, the Latin American Communication Monitor (Moreno, Molleda, Athaydes, & Suárez, 2015), linked to similar studies in Europe and Asia, enables the comparison of the practices and challenges faced by Latin American communicators with those faced by their counterparts around the world. The Monitor reveals that Latin American professionals occupy fewer leadership positions and have less professional experience than their peers in Asia and Europe. In addition, the number of communicators working in government-owned, public sector and political organizations is higher, the importance of professional associations much lower, and they are less satisfied with their salary. 2.2. The construct of professionalization As public relations theory and practice has developed at different rates around the world, a broad understanding has been reached about the benefits associated with professionalization, including respect, prestige, and a positive public image (e.g., Abdullah & Threadgold, 2008; Li et al., 2012; Park, 2003). Yet, despite the desirability of professionalization of public relations, the tenants of professionalization have not been widely integrated into the industry (Meintjes & Niemann-Struweg, 2009). A potential hindrance to the adaption of professionalization of public relations could be attributed to a failure to fully comprehend the parameters of the concept. The concepts profession, professionalism and professionalization are often confused and, erroneously, used interchangeably. Sociologists have long attempted to define the term profession, but ultimately have been unsuccessful in clarifying the differences between professions and other occupations and identifying what makes professions distinctive. According to Johansen (2001), professionalism can be conceptualized as an attitudinal predisposition towards focusing on the interpersonal/societal benefit of work rather than the intrapersonal/self-serving. Coombs, Holladay and Signitzer (1994) noted that the professionalism construct is related to the importance practitioners attach to the characteristics of a profession. The construct of professionalization refers to the process – undertaken either by an organization or an entire industry – of attaining a sufficient level of quality and practice representative of excellence in a profession (Caplow, 1954; Yang & Taylor, 2013; Yang & Taylor, 2014). According to Wilensky (1964), in order to reach professional status, occupations need to establish training schools, form professional associations, regulate practice through legal protection, and adopt a formal code of ethics. Nessmann (1995) also identified education, professional associations, and codes of ethics as foundational steps toward professionalization. Wilensky (1964) definition of professionalization has been criticized for failing to account for societal conditions and political challenges and to adequately acknowledge how evolving politics and regulation impact the abilities to educate professionals and establish professional associations (Ritzer & Walczak, 1986). Although there have been numerous attempts to outline the parameters of professionalization in public relations, none have resulted in true consensus among practitioners (e.g., Cameron, Sallot, & Lariscy, 1996; Niemann-Struweg & Meintjies, 2008; Parsons, 2008). Merkelsen (2011) identified two dilemmas in the professionalization process regarding with who benefits from professionalization, and who would find professionalization most desirable. While the first dilemma has found a pragmatic solution (although theoretically unstable), there has been no clear resolution to the second one. Together these two dilemmas contribute to the lack of 2

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

consensus in scholarship pertaining to the professionalization of public relations. Furthermore, issues of professional legitimacy continue to be recycled as a “part of the field's self-reflective institutionalization” (Christensen & Langer, 2009, p. 129). Previous research found that age and experience has a significant positive correlation with different factors of professionalization, such as ethical behavior, accreditation or certification and membership in public relations associations (Idid & Arandas, 2016; Sha, 2011). Amidst the numerous proposed frameworks, four primary indicators of professionalization are most concurrently used to define the profession of public relations: standardized education and continued training, the development of ethics codes, an encompassing professional association, and a structured accreditation process (Cutlip, Center, & Broom, 1994; Cameron, Sallot, & Weaver-Lariscy, 1996; Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Meyer & Leonard, 2014; Niemann-Struweg & Meintjies, 2008; Parsons, 2008; Sha, 2011). The PRSA Professional Bond Report (Commission on Public Relations Education, 2006) also identified a fundamental sense of responsibility, increasing global activities, and working toward the bettering of our civil societies as additional factors of professionalization. Even if the study of professionalization has declined in popularity recently, it continues to be important in the analysis of newly emerging occupations seeking status and recognition for the importance of the work (Evetts, 2014). This study uses the construct of levels of professionalism in public relations as a sector of the labor market, instead of the professional orientation of practitioner. Lamme and Russell (2010) believe that public relations has not only enjoyed an accumulated set of standards to guide its modern practice, but has also experienced various levels of development in different parts of the world. Until public relations achieve professional status, neither society nor their clients will accord them the degree of respect and confidence that they give as a matter of course to members of other well established professional bodies (Meintjies & Niemann-Struweg, 2009). The need to understand the levels of professionalism is important to recognize not only the development but also the globalization of the profession. Our research operationalized the steps to professionalization into eight categories: 1. Education plays a significant role the professionalization process by contributing to the legitimization of social acceptance, and helping to define public relations expertise and the scope of its operation (Pieczka & L’Etang, 2006, p. 276). The standardization of education is among the most commonly referenced indicators of professionalization of public relations (Meyer & Leonard, 2014 Nessmann, 1995; Yang & Taylor, 2013). Having a central curriculum unifies the knowledge of the profession across institutions and ensures that the best practices of public relations are being introduced to all practitioners. Furthermore, Macnamara (2006) asserts that public relations will only achieve prestige and recognition if practitioners commit to a dedicated and continuous program of high level and self-directed learning. 2. Having a binding code of ethics is of great importance to the profession as an indicator of professionalization (Fawkes, 2012; Fitzpatrick & Bronstein, 2006; Grunig, 2000; Meyer & Leonard, 2014; Yang & Taylor, 2013). A code of ethics provides an element of consistency to the profession, as the measure encourages practitioners and organizations to regulate their decision-making and practice based on a shared standard of procedure (Taylor & Yang, 2013). 3. The formation of a governing professional association is another indicator of professionalization (Grunig, 2000; Nessmann, 1995; Yang & Taylor, 2013; Yang & Taylor, 2014). Associations are the creators of common values and exert impact through shaping the language of contracts and codes of ethics, monitoring the accountability of states and business, mobilizing resources for problemsolving, and framing public discourse in a manner that encourages social movements and change (Yang & Taylor, 2014). 4. Critical observers have argued that a formal body of knowledge is a necessity for members of an established profession to share. The term professionalization is often used in the public relations field to refer to practices that are based on the scientific research and the construction of theories that emanate from studies that have been undertaken in universities (Meintjes & Niemann-Struweg, 2009). Formal knowledge is not part of everyday knowledge and is intimately associated with the rise of modern science and the application of the scientific method to technical and social problems (Friedson, 1988). According to Botan and Taylor (2004), “over the last 20 years public relations has evolved into a major area of applied communication based in research of significant quantity and quality […], it is a theoretically grounded and research based area that has the potential to unify a variety of applied communication areas” (p. 659). 5. Knowledge and techniques for special status in the marketplace is another key indicator of professionalization of public relations. Professionalization as a collective project that aims market control, needs a specific body of knowledge, including techniques and skills (Larson & Larson, 1979). According to Freidson (1988), “the social division of labor constituting the interlinked system of specialized activities in a society, represents diverse bodies of specialized knowledge manifested through those activities” (p.3). This knowledge is linked to central values and needs of the social system and offers status and distinctiveness to the profession. Van Ruler (2005) noted, “at a scholarly level, expert knowledge and a pre-defined body of knowledge and skills are seen as the means to become professional. Besides, it is obvious that a pre-defined body of knowledge and skills are seen as necessary” (p.167). 6. Having specialized work inside an organization supports the claim of expertise through work that gains social recognition and collective prestige for the organization (Larson & Larson, 1979). Historically, professions begin with the recognition by people that they are doing something that is not covered by other professions and where they then self-organize in order to control the supply of specialized or expert labor, both to guarantee a quality of service and to enhance the status of the professional him- or herself (Morris, Crawford, Hodgson, Shepherd, & Thomas, 2006). Although the range of public relations activity is wide, the work demands two primary components: various communication techniques and ability to advise management to achieve organizational goals (Johansen, 2001). 7. Professionalization of public relations requires practices that are differentiated from other related fields. Public relations theory is rooted in different disciplinary fields, like mass communication, interpersonal/speech communication, (social) psychology, 3

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

economics, sociology, and in different schools of thought (Ihlen & van Ruler, 2007). Hundhausen shaped in 1974 the contours of the academic discipline of public relations, trying to separate it from neighboring disciplines such as sociology, psychology, mass communication, and advertising and marketing. Since them, the emergence of distinctions between the fields is a story of interprofessional tensions (Bourne, 2015). In an increasingly globalized world where distinctions are often blurred, public relations practitioners and researches are still struggling to protect its professional project from the threats of marketing and journalism. 8. A system of access and employment promotion is another key indicator of professionalization. Standardization and formalization of selection, retention, and career development procedures have improved the professionalization process, avoiding nepotism and clientelism (Evetts, 2014). Increased transparency also results in more emphasis on career choices, rather than the sponsorship of the privileged few. However, and despite PRSA recommendations (Sha, 2011), associations and researchers differ on whether accreditation and licensing are adequate process to qualify as a fully recognized profession (Bernays, 1993; Meyer & Leonard, 2014; Sha, 2011) and debate remains as to what that process should be. Licensing would mandate that practitioners demonstrate specific requirements (Bernays, 1979) before they would be permitted to practice public relations, enhancing the legitimacy and prestige of the profession. Molleda et al. (2010)Molleda, Moreno, Athaydes and Suárez (2010), identified three dimensions to classify the factors of professionalization: institutionalization, specialization and market-driven. Items grouped in the institutionalization dimension are related to education, ethical principles, knowledge and techniques for special status in the market place, associative organizations, and a formal body of knowledge. The specialization dimension includes differentiated practices from other related fields, system of access and employment promotion, and specialized work inside organizations. Market-driven items are related with how public relations perform in an environment where professionals have control over supply and demand, over the cost of services and wages, and where they have enough power to influence decision-making affecting them. 2.3. Contextual variables Professionalization is a process that is dynamic in nature; standards of practice often depend on political, historical, economic, geographical, demographic, cultural, and environmental conditions – such as economic performance and democracy (Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001, 2006; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2003; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2009). Furthermore, the general evolution of professions is affected by local and global developments that, in turn, affect the outlook, activities, and working conditions of professionals (Niemann-Struweg & Meintjes, 2008). Public relations scholars have commonly used an environmental approach to define contextual variables that affect the development of professionals and the profession (Botan, 1992; Culbertson & Jeffers, 1992; Culbertson, 1996; Culbertson, Jeffers, Stone, & Terrell, 1993; Verčič & Grunig, 1996). The approach is referred to as contextualized research (Taylor, 2001). Yang and Taylor (2013) investigated the professionalization of public relations in the global context, and found that the level of professionalization of public relations is related to the political and economic processes in a nation. Verčič et al. (1996) identified five contextual variables that influence general principles of excellence in public relations: politicaleconomic system, culture, extent of activism, level of development, and media system. Sriramesh and Verčič (2003) further defined those contextual variables and collapsed them into three factors: country infrastructure, societal culture, and media environment. The general contention of most scholars is that political pluralism, media accessibility, along with the level of development provides a fertile ground for more sophisticated forms of public relations. Available evidence suggests that in countries with political systems that do not value pubic opinion, public relations tend to be propagandistic. In fact, strategic public relations flourishes in pluralistic societies and democratization spurs the growth of the industry. In the same way, a lack of economic development, and factors such as poverty, illiteracy of adequate infrastructures influences a public relations practitioner’s ability to conduct information campaigns (Sriramesh & Verčič, 2002). This study draws upon Sriramesh and Verčič’s (2003) framework to focus exclusively on the economic, political, and media variables, and their impact on the levels of professionalization of public relations. The aim of this research is to investigate a) the evolution of professionalization of public relations in Latin America; and b) the potential impact of contextual variables on the levels of professionalization. The paper focuses on several hypotheses derived from a literature review and previous studies:

• H1a. The eight indicators of professionalization have improved since 2009. • H1b. The evaluation of education programs in the professionalization of public relations will vary by the education level of the professionals. • H1c. The evaluation of the importance of trade associations in the professionalization of public relations will vary by the professionals’ membership in such associations. • H1d. Age is positively related to the assessment of professionalization. • H2 Professionals in countries with high economic performance will report higher levels of professionalization of public relations. • H3. Professionals in countries with political systems categorized as democracies will have higher levels of professionalization of public relations than other political systems (such as autocracies). • H4. Professionals in countries with media environments categorized as free will report higher levels of professionalization of public relations than other media environments (e.g., partly free or not free).

4

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

3. Method 3.1. Overview of methods from 2009 and 2015. survey population, sampling frame, and method This study combines data taken from two surveys conducted in 2009 and 2015. From October through November 2009, data were gathered using a four-wave online survey designed in Qualtrics. Assistance in the data collection came from a developed network of colleagues and a database of international public relations professionals from trade associations. Invitations to participate in the study were sent to 2290 practitioners in 19 countries. In response, 1150 persons started the survey, while 674 completed the questionnaire. Of the 19 countries invited to participate in the study, 10 countries (N = 612) met the minimum number of observations required by the researchers: Argentina (N = 59), Brazil (N = 102), Chile (N = 38), Colombia (N = 104), Costa Rica (N = 67), Guatemala (N = 39), Mexico (N = 80), Panama (N = 23), Peru (N = 33), and Venezuela (N = 67). The mean age of participants in the 2009 survey was 38 years old (SD = 11.14). The respondents were 61% female and 39% male. The fields in public relations from which participants of the study represented included: private sector (36%), agencies and consultancies (26%), government (24%), nonprofit sector (7%), and independent practitioners (7%). The mean number of years of experience in the public relations profession was 12 years (SD = 9). More than one third of participants had earned an undergraduate degree and 13% had further obtained a graduate degree. More than half of the participants occupied the highest position possible in the public relations or communication unit of their organizations. Nearly 50% of participants had been members of professional associations, and 31% have held leadership positions in those associations. The 2015 study draws on data from the Latin American Communication Monitor (LCM), a survey conducted by a research partnership of 11 universities in North, Central and South America and Spain (in cooperation with professional associations in the region). The questionnaire was based on hypotheses derived from previous research and was subject to a pretest that included 23 professionals in four Latin American countries. Public relations professionals responding to the survey used Molleda et al.’s (2010) index of professionalization, on a five-point Likert scale, to assess levels of professionalization. This study used the eight indicators that obtained the strongest loadings in the 2009 research study (see items in Table 2). The data used for the study was gathered using an online survey designed in Qualtrics. The questionnaire was active from October 2014 to February of 2015, and was available in both Spanish and Portuguese. Data collection was done through a developed network of colleagues, in addition to the updated 2009 database of international public relations professionals from participating trade associations. Invitations to participate in the study were sent to approximately 20,000 practitioners in 19 countries. A total of 1774 individuals started the survey, while 821 completed the questionnaire. Responses from participants that could not be clearly identified as part of the population were deleted from the data set. This strict selection of respondents set this study apart from other works that were based on snowball sampling or included students, academics, and people outside of the focused profession or region. The final evaluation is then based on the completed responses of 803 public relations professionals. Of the 19 countries invited to participate in the study, nine (N = 749) met the minimum number of observations required by the researchers: Argentina (N = 118), Brazil (N = 201), Chile (N = 67), Colombia (N = 139), Costa Rica (N = 36), Mexico (N = 68), Peru (N = 36), Dominican Republic (N = 47), and Venezuela (N = 31). Participants were drawn from all levels of seniority: 29.8% reporting a position of communication manager or as CEO of a communication consultancy, 28.4% responsible for a single communication discipline or as unit leaders, and 41.8% listing their role as team members or consultants. Nearly 67% of respondents were female, the mean age of all participants was 40 years old (SD = 11.66), and the mean years of working experience was 14.83 (SD = 11.06). Sixty-two percent of participants work in the communication department of their organizations. In total, 28% reported working for an agency, consultant firm, or as a freelance practitioner. Impressively, 99% of respondents have an academic degree, and half of which also hold a graduate degree (7.5% holds a doctorate). The ability to take a representative sample of public relations practitioners is limited by the lack of exact population data. Moreover, trend studies have problems when comparing the results of two different samples, but are valuable in describing long-term changes in a population (Wimmer & Dominick, 2013). In fact, the data quality and number of respondents suggest the LCM data Table 2 Indicators of Professionalization of Public Relations in Latin America. Public Relations and Communication Management …

2009

…are studied formally in institutions of higher education that grant degrees or diplomas. …are based on an ideology and ethical principles that explicitly implies a commitment to the good of society. …are based on a formal body of knowledge (academic, scientist). …have associative organizations that bring together the professionals for their benefit. …possess knowledge and techniques that give professionals a special status in the labor market. …are practices that are differentiated from other related fields such as marketing, advertising, and journalism. …are recognized as a specialized work inside the organizations. …have a system of access and employment promotion in which prevail more skills and professional knowledge that nepotism (cronyism or personal influence). Cronbach’s Alpha (scale reliability)

5

2015

N

M

S.D.

N

M

S.D.

668 666 667 666 659 665 669 664

3.89 3.44 3.19 3.23 3.31 3.21 3.18 3.04

1.129 1.136 1.074 1.227 1.038 1.198 1.075 1.197

803 803 803 803 803 803 803 803

4.25 3.63 3.53 3.39 3.37 3.27 3.19 2.86

0.994 1.101 1.128 1.247 1.061 1.243 1.130 1.164

0.694

0.847

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

provide a strong basis from which to analyze patterns in responses to public relations practice across the continent. 3.2. Instrumentation This study used measurement items of professionalization that were developed from Freidson (1983) Freidson’s (1983), Freidson’s (2001) and Krause’s (1996) original works and through Molleda et al. (2010) additional conceptualization. In a similar study, Molleda et al. (2012) identified three factors of professionalization: institutionalization, market-driven values, and specialization. With the aim of parsimoniously assessing the professionalization levels of public relations for the 2015 study, eight of the 16 items with the strongest loadings from Molleda et al.’s (2012) research were selected and tested (see selected items in Table 2). Items from the market-driven values factor − such as control over supply, demand of service and control over fees and salaries, and independent arbitration system − were not included in this study due to very low ratings from participants in the 2009 survey. 3.3. Scale reduction For the 2015 study, the professionalization scale was subjected to principal axis factoring (PAF) with an Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization rotation to explore the pattern of responses among the multiple items included in the index. This scale reduction procedure was also utilized by Molleda et al. (2012). The Direct Oblimin rather than the Varimax rotation was selected because there is a significant correlation between the factors; the intent is to reproduce the actual results rather than force an independence that did not exist in the data. The scree plot method indicated that the two-factor solution for professionalization was a reasonable interpretation of the data. The factor solution of professionalization highlights two main dimensions of the construct. The first factor for the eight professionalization items is labeled Institutionalization. The means for these items varied from 3.37 to 4.25 on a five-point scale. Overall this factor has higher mean scores. The two items with the strongest loadings (> .70) were “studied formally in institutions of higher education that grant degrees or diplomas” and “based on an ideology and ethical principles that explicitly implies a commitment to the good of society.” The second factor is labeled Specialization. The two items with the strongest loadings (> .70) were “recognized as a specialized work inside the organizations” and “system of access to employment and job promotion in which skills and professional knowledge are considered over nepotism (cronyism or personal influence).” In the two-factor model of professionalization of public relations, the first factor represented 46% (36% in Molleda et al., 2012) of the variance and the second 12%. The factor loadings for the pattern matrix and the means and standard deviations appear in Table 1. 3.4. Statistical tests Three contextual variables were used to analyze levels of professionalization: economic performance, political systems, and press freedom.1 For the economic performance variable, longitudinal data from the International Monetary Fund was used to calculate the average gross domestic product (GDP) based on purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita in the years prior before the two data gathering time periods. After observing country groupings with similar economic performance, participating countries were classified into four levels of average GDP: lowest (< $10 K), median (< $15 K), high (< $20 K), and highest (≥$21 K). For the political systems variable, this study adopted Marshall and Cole’s (2009, 2014) Polity IV data classification of the types of political regimes documented by the Center for Systemic Peace. Political systems were organized into three categories: full democracy, democracy, and autocracy. Lastly, for the freedom of the press variable, Freedom House’s 2009 and 2015 Index of Freedom of the Press were used to classify participating countries in three categories: free, partly free, and not free (Freedom House, 2015). 4. Findings 4.1. Rating of indicators of professionalization and comparison with 2009 data set The three professionalization indicators that received the best evaluations in 2015 were those stating that public relations and communication management1 “are studied formally in institutions of higher education that grant degrees or diplomas” (M = 4.25, SD = 0.994, great level of consensus among participants), “are based on an ideology and ethical principles that explicitly implies a commitment to the good of society” (M = 3.63, SD = 1.101), and “are based on a formal body of knowledge (academic, scientist)” (M = 3.53, SD = 1.128). In contrast, the three indicators on the bottom of the evaluation scale were those saying that public relations practices “are recognized as a specialized work inside the organizations” (M = 2.86, SD = 1.164), “possess knowledge and techniques that give professionals a special status in the labor market” (M = 3.19, SD = 1.130), and “have associative organizations that bring together the professionals for their benefit” (M = 3.27, SD = 1.243). We explored the relationship between age and the two factors of professionalization. Pearson correlation was used and age was found to be significantly associated with both Institutionalization [r (803) = 0.105, p < 0.003, a weak positive relationship] and 1 Public relations and communication management are generally used synonymously in the academia world. Although some scholars would disagree, in this research we use these terms interchangeably.

6

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

Table 1 Professionalization Dimensions: Factor Loadings for Component Matrix with Direct Oblimina. Items

Factors 1

Factor 1: “Institutionalization” Formally studied in higher-education institutions Based on ideology and ethical principles Knowledge and techniques for special status in marketplace Associative professional organizations Formal body of knowledge Factor 2: “Specialization” Differentiated practices from other related fields Specialized work inside organizations System of access and employment promotion % of variance explained Eigenvalue a

2

0.873 0.770 0.455 0.508 0.635

46.1 3.7

0.578 0.780 0.862 12.1 1.0

M

SD

4.25 3.63 3.37 3.39 3.53

0.994 1.101 1.061 1.247 1.128

3.27 3.19 2.86

1.243 1.130 1.164

Rotation converged in nine iterations. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Specialization [r (803) = 0.198, p < 0.000, a weak positive relationship]. Age was a predictor of the assessment of professionalization. In particular, the great majority of indicators were influenced by the age of the participants: ideology and ethical base [r (803) = 0.094, p < 0.008, a weak positive relationship], special status in the marketplace [r (803) = 0.159, p < 0.000, a weak positive relationship], the existence associative organizations [r (803) = 0.103, p < 0.003, a weak positive relationship], differentiated practice [r (803) = 0.083, p < 0.018, a weak positive relationship], formal body of knowledge [r (803) = 0.120, p < 0.001, a weak positive relationship], specialized work in organizations [r (803) = 0.188, p < 0.000, a weak positive relationship], and a system of employment access and promotion [r (803) = 0.148, p < 0.000, a weak positive relationship]. That is, the oldest the participant, the better he/she rated these indicators of professionalization. Hypothesis 1d is supported. Analyzing the situation on a country-by-country basis, Costa Rica (M = 3.91, SD = 1.026), Venezuela (M = 3.74, SD = 0.965) and Peru (M = 3.63, SD = 0.950) have the highest levels of professionalization in 2015, while Mexico (M = 3.23, SD = 1.177) and Colombia show the worst performance (M = 3.27, SD = 1.126). As in 2015, the 2009 survey of professionals also rated the highest the indicators of formal education and ethical principles for the wellbeing of society. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of the eight indicators for 2009 and 2015. To compare and contrast the two data sets, an independent samples t-test was used. The 2009–2015 comparison of five out of eight indicators of professionalization were statistically significant: studied formally (t (1469) = −6.593, p = 0.000 (2-tailed), d = 0.34), ideology and ethical principles (t (1467) = −3.261, p = 0.001 (2-tailed), d = 0.17), associative organizations (t (1467) = −2.571, p = 0.010 (2-tailed), d = 0.13), formal body of knowledge (t (1468) = −6.000, p = 0.000 (2-tailed), d = 0.31), and access to employment and promotion (t (1465) = 2.973, p = 0.003 (2-tailed), d = 0.15). Cohen’s d was used to calculate the effect size of these differences. Thus, in 2015, participants evaluated better the public relations education in higher-education institutions (medium effect), the ideological and ethical principles in pro of society (small effect), the existence of trade associations (small effect), the formal academic and scientific knowledge (medium effect), and the system of access and employment promotion (small effect). The evaluation of other indicators remained the same between the two time periods. The only indicator of professionalization that decreased in 2015 was the one related to the influence of nepotism in the system of access and employment promotion. Hypothesis H1a on the positive evolution of the professionalization of public relations in Latin American is partially supported. Differences by country are also remarkable. Venezuela, Costa Rica and Peru experience the greatest progress in the process of professionalization. On the contrary, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico hardly underwent significant changes. Hypothesis 1b stated that professionals’ evaluation of education programs varies by their own level of education. One-way ANOVA was used to test the association. Results indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between the education level of the participants and ratings of the professionalization indicator: public relations is formally studied in institutions of higher education (df = 3/358, f = 3.11, p = 0.026). Moreover, in 2009, participants with three-year college degrees reported significantly higher ratings of the formal education status of public relations compared to participants with higher levels of education; professionals with bachelors and graduate degrees reported the next highest ratings, respectively. The 2015 data did not support the same hypothesized relationship. In conclusion, the mixed findings result in hypothesis four being partially supported. Hypothesis 1c predicted that professionals’ evaluation of the importance of trade associations vary according to their membership in such associations. Independent samples -test was employed to test the association and results of the 2009 data did not support the stated relationship. However, results of the 2015 data indicated a significant relationship between participants’ membership in public relations or communication management associations and their evaluation of the legitimacy of such trade associations in their countries (t (801) = 6.373, p = 0.000 (2-tailed), d = 0.46, medium effect size). In specific, professionals who are members of a public relations or communication management association rated significantly higher the item describing the legitimacy of those trade groups that represent the profession and professionals in their countries. Therefore, hypothesis 1c was partially supported.

7

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

4.2. The Impact of Contextual Variables Hypothesis H2 stated that professionals in countries with a higher gross domestic product (GDP) will report higher levels of professionalization of public relations in their countries. Analysis of variance was used to assess this relationship on the 2009 and 2015 data sets. The influence of GDP was found to be significant for both dimensions of professionalization: Specialization (df = 2/ 608, f = 3.15, p = 0.043) and Institutionalization in 2009(df = 2/608, f = 25.47, p = 0.000) and Institutionalization in 2015 (df = 3/ 799, f = 15.32, p = 0.000). In further analysis, significant associations were found in four out of eight indicators in 2009: formal education (df = 2/659, f = 16.82, p = 0.000), ideology and ethical foundations (df = 2/657, f = 7.15, p = 0.001), associative trade association (df = 2/ 657, f = 5.29, p = 0.005), and formal body of knowledge (df = 2/659, f = 7.54, p = 0.001). More specifically, significant associations were found in six out of eight indicators in 2015: formal education (df = 3/799, f = 13.42, p = 0.000), ideology and ethical foundations (df = 3/799, f = 13.85, p = 0.000), associative trade association (df = 3/ 799, f = 11.39, p = 0.000), differentiated practices (df = 3/799, f = 5.30, p = 0.001), formal body of knowledge (df = 3/799, f = 10.51, p = 0.000), and system of employment access and promotion (df = 3/799, f = 2.80, p = 0.039). Generally, high or highest economic performance is positively associated with a better evaluation of over 50% of the indicators of professionalization. Therefore, hypothesis H2 was supported by the 2009 and 2015 data, considering that the strongest dimension of the professionalization construct (i.e., Institutionalization) and the great majority of the indicators were impacted by the economic performance of the participating countries. Hypothesis 3 predicted that professionals in countries categorized as democracies (as opposed to autocracies) will report the highest levels of professionalization of public relations in their countries. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the association between political systems and the professionalization factors and indicators. Statistically significant association was found between political systems and the Specialization factor in 2009 (df = 2/610, f = 6.49, p = 0.002) and Institutionalization factor in 2015 (df = 2/800, f = 3.04, p = 0.049). Subsequently, democratic and fully democratic systems are, generally, associated with higher levels of professionalization of the public relations. In 2009, only two indicators were influenced by the political system: formal education (df = 2/661, f = 2.90, p = 0.054) and access to employment and job promotion (df = 2/658, f = 3.09, p = 0.046). In 2015, half of the indicators (four out of eight) of professionalization were influenced by the type of political systems: formal education (df = 2/800, f = 9.03, p = 0.000), ideology and ethical base (df = 2/800, f = 3.44, p = 0.033), special status in the labor market (df = 2/800, f = 4.73, p = 0.009), and specialized work inside organizations (df = 2/800, f = 6.66, p = 0.001). Accordingly, democratic and fully democratic regimes are positively associated with higher levels of 25% and 50% of the indicators and the Specialization and Institutionalization factors of professionalization, in 2009 and 2015 respectively. This hypothesis was partially supported. Hypothesis 4 stated that participants from countries categorized as free press will report the highest levels of professionalization of public relations. The hypothesized relationship between press freedoms and the factors and indicators of professionalization was tested with ANOVA. Press freedom was found to influence the two factors of professionalization in 2015: Institutionalization (df = 2/ 800, f = 11.33, p = 0.000) and Specialization (df = 2/809, f = 5.48, p = 0.004). Only one factor was influenced in 2009 but in the opposite direction of the prediction: Specialization (df = 2/610, f = 4.73, p = 0.009); that is, not free countries reported the highest levels of professionalization, followed by countries categorized as free. In 2009, the association was found to be statistically significant in only one: system of access to employment and job promotion (df = 2/658, f = 6.24, p = 0.002). In 2015, the association was found to be statistically significant in six of eight indicators: formal education (df = 2/800, f = 13.83, p = 0.000), special status in the labor market (df = 2/800, f = 6.07, p = 0.002), associative professional organizations (df = 2/800, f = 7.33, p = 0.001), formal body of knowledge (df = 2/800, f = 8.02, p = 0.000), specialized work inside organizations (df = 2/800, f = 9.32, p = 0.000), system of access to employment and promotion (df = 2/800, f = 3.15, p = 0.043). Consequentially, only in 2015, press freedoms are positively associated with high evaluations of professionalization of public relations and communication management. Therefore, hypothesis three was supported in 2015, since the two professionalization factors and the majority of indicators were impacted by the level of press freedoms. However, the hypothesized relationship was not supported by the 2009 data. In conclusion, the third hypothesis was partially supported. 5. Discussion and Conclusion The findings from this research study have supported the notion that the professionalization of public relations is a dynamic process (Pieczka & L’Etang, 2001; Pieczka & L’Etang, 2006). In 2015, public relations professionals highly evaluated three indicators of professionalization (i.e., formal education, ideology and ethical principles for the good of society, and academic/scientific body of knowledge); however, they were less optimistic with the specialized status of public relations in organizations and the marketplace. Furthermore, respondents were not optimistic about the existence of professional associations that brought professionals together for everyone’s benefit. Those insights are why the Specialization factor was found to only explain 12% of the variance in the professionalization construct. This further demonstrates the continuous struggle of public relations to gain and maintain legitimacy in organizations and society (Merkelsen, 2011). The results indicate that the younger the professional, the more critical they were when rating the statements of professionalization. As the profession moves forward, this may present an added challenge to the legitimation and institutionalization efforts undertaken by public relations advocates and trade groups (including academic institutions). The comparison of the 2009 and 2015 data sets offers further evidence that − according to the professionals’ view − public relations is a profession or occupation in flux. Five out of eight indicators of professionalization saw statistically significant yet small 8

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

positive changes. Participants’ responses indicated advancements in the formal study of public relations in higher-education institutions, the ideological and ethical principles that emphasize the good or well-being of society, the existence of associative organizations that unite professionals, the availability to a formal body of knowledge, and the access to employment and promotion. Despite the positive changes in the evaluation of professional associations, this assessment is still considered low (three on a fivepoint scale, on average). Public relations associations appear to face difficulties in achieving legitimate representation of the professional communities in most countries. An additional concern lies in the lack of access to employment and the opportunity for promotions based on merits and skills instead of nepotism, cronyism, or personal influence. This may be why young professionals are more critical when evaluating the levels of professionalization of public relations. Evaluations of the other indicators of professionalization remained consistent between the two time periods (i.e., special status in the labor market, specialized work in organizations, and differentiated practices to related communications fields). That particular finding is concerning considering the various emergent communication technologies that practitioners now have at their disposal. The emergent tools in public relations have blurred the line that once clearly distinguished the specializations of strategic communications and the news media. The findings on the influence of three contextual or environmental variables (i.e., economic performance, political systems, and freedom of the press) over the dimensions and indicators of professionalization were also noteworthy. This influence has been conceptualized, predicted, and assessed by a variety of authors (e.g., Botan, 1992; Culbertson, 1996; Culbertson & Jeffers, 1992; Culbertson et al., 1993; Molleda & Moreno, 2008; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2003; Sriramesh & Verčič, 2009; Verčič et al., 1996). Economic performance (i.e., GDP) was found to influence the evaluations of participants on the levels of professionalization of public relations. This was the strongest contextual variables associated with the assessment of professionalization in both data sets. Concisely, participants living and working in countries experiencing high economic performance were more optimistic in assessing public relations professionalization. These findings are similar to the results of studies conducted by Yang and Taylor (2013, 2014). The difference between these studies is that Yang and Taylor (2013, 2014) used objective measures and this research study is based on the evaluations by professionals. The researchers believe that both approaches are valid and useful to understand the variables that are likely to influence the evolution or constraint of public relations and communication management worldwide. The impact of the political system on professionalization was partially supported. There are countries in the region that are not categorized as full democracies that, nonetheless, have rich conditions for public relations professionals and the profession to thrive. This relationship needs further study; a closer look at the governance categories defined and documented by the Polity IV Program of the Center for Systemic Peace may prove to be relevant for further studies. The influence of freedom of the press on the factors and indicators of professionalization was not conclusive. In 2009, Cuban and Venezuelan professionals were the most optimistic in rating indicators of professionalization, despite practicing public relations in countries described as not free in the Index of Freedom of the Press. And in 2015, higher evaluations for 50% of the indicators of professionalization were associated with higher levels of press freedoms. Regardless, the findings from 2009 did not support the hypothesis; a trend of countries regressing in press freedoms was apparent in a number of cases. This seems to point to a significant moderating variable that has yet to be uncovered. Theoretically, freedom of the press may move along a continuum that is influenced by numerous intangible variables; the culmination of those variables then alter a country’s press freedoms despite public relations professional’s outlook on professionalization. 6. Theoretical implications This study offers additional documentation and evidence of the dynamic nature of the professionalization construct in public relations and communication management. The comparative and longitudinal approach used for the analysis of two sets of data is rarely done in public relations scholarship. The stability of a scale designed in 2009 and used again in 2015 is encouraging, which should facilitate future longitudinal research. In addition, there is significant support for the influence of contextual or environmental variables on the status and evolution of public relations. The theoretical implication of such a finding not only informs professionalization of public relations, contextual and environmental variables are applicable to further public relations scholarship globally. 7. Limitations and future research The focus of this study and its analysis only touch a single section of the LCM. Participant fatigue may have negatively impacted data quality. A large sample of professionals was approached, but a much small number initiated and completed the online survey both in 2009 and 2015. This resulted in the lack of representation of some countries in the continent. In the future, greater participation is needed to allow for a more comprehensive comparative analysis. References Abdullah, Z., & Threadgold, T. (2008). Towards the professionalization of public relations in Malaysia: Perception management and strategy development. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 285–287. 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. L. (1993). The future of public relations; Is licensing the answer? Journal of Corporate Public Relations, 3, 8–10. Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661. Botan, C. (1992). International public relations: Critique and reformulation. Public Relations Review, 18, 149–159.

9

Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J.C. Molleda et al.

Bourne, C. D. (2015). Extending PR’s critical conversations with advertising and marketing. The routledge handbook of critical public relations119. Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Weaver-Lariscy, R. A. (1996). Developing standards of professional performance in public relations. Public Relations Review, 22(1), 43–61. Caplow, T. (1954). Sociology of work. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transparency: consistency, hypocrisy, and corporate change. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.). Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (pp. 129–153). New York: Routledge. Commission on Public Relations Education (2006). The Professional Bond: Public relations education and the practice. Retrieved from http://www.commpred.org/_ uploads/report2-executiveSummary.pdf. Coombs, W. T., Holladay, S., Hasenauer, G., & Signitzer, B. (1994). A comparative analysis of international public relations: Identification and interpretation of similarities and differences between professionalization in Austria, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(1), 23–39. Culbertson, H. M., & Jeffers, D. W. (1992). Social, political, and economic contexts: Key in educating true public relations professionals. Public Relations Review, 18, 53–65. Culbertson, H. M., Jeffers, D. W., Stone, D. B., & Terrell, M. (1993). Social, political, and economic contexts in public relations: Theory and cases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Culbertson, H. M. (1996). Introduction. In H. M. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.). International public relations. A comparative analysis (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Evetts, J. (2014). The concept of professionalism: professional work, professional practice and learning. International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning. Netherlands: Springer29–56. Fawkes, J. (2012). Interpreting ethics: Public relations and strong hermeneutics. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(2), 117–140. Ferrari, M. A. (2011). Historia y trayectoria de las Relaciones Públicas en Brasil. Revista Internacional de Relaciones Públicas, 1(1), 29–68. Ferreira, M. E. S. (1993). Public relations in Latin America. International. Public Relations Review, 16, 4. Ethics in public relations: responsible advocacy. In K. Fitzpatrick, & C. Bronstein (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Freedom House. (2015). Freedom of the press 1989-2015 [Data file]. Available from https://www.freedomhouse.org . Freidson, E. (1983). The theory of professions: state of the art. In R. Dingwall, & O. Lewis (Eds.). The sociology of the profession: Lawyers, doctors and others (pp. 19–37). London: The Macmillan Press. Freidson, E. (1988). Professional powers: A study of the institutionalization of formal knowledge. University of Chicago Press. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. González, J. A. (1999). Dark side of the fractal moon communication studies in Latin America: Challenging destiny and confronting complexity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 16, 227–232. Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration: and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 23–48. Hundhausen Carl (1974). Public relations als eigenständige wissenschaftliche Disziplin. [Public relations as a self-contained academic discipline.] Jahrbuch der Absatz- und Verbrauchsforschung, 20(4), 247–269. [Yearbook of Sales and Consumption Research]. Idid, S. A., & Arandas, M. F. (2016). Professional values, ethics, and professionalism of public relations practitioners. Jurnal Komunikasi Malaysian Journal of Communication, 32, 1. Ihlen, Ø., & van Ruler, B. (2007). How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives. Public Relations Review, 33(3), 243–248. Johansen, P. (2001). Professionalisation, building respectability, and the birth of the Canadian Public Relations Society. Journalism Studies, 2(1), 55–71. Krause, E. A. (1996). Death of the guilds: Professions, states, and the advance of capitalism, to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Larson, M. S., & Larson, M. S. (1979). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis, vol. 233. University of California Press. Li, C., Cropp, F., Sims, W., & Jin, Y. (2012). Perceived professional standards and roles of public relations in China: Through the lens of Chinese public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 704–710. Macnamara, J. (2006). The fork in the road of media and communication theory and practice. Presented at the 4th annual summit on measurement. september 29, 2006, portsmouth. Meintjes, C., & Niemann-Struweg, I. (2009). The role of a professional body in professionalisation: The South African public relations case. PRism, 6, 1–14. Merkelsen, H. (2011). The double-edged sword of legitimacy in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 125–143. Meyer, A. L., & Leonard, A. (2014). Are we there yet? En route to professionalism. Public Relations Review, 40(2), 375–386. Molleda, J. C., & Moreno, A. (2008). Balancing public relations with socioeconomic and political environments in transition: Comparative, contextualized research of Colombia, México and Venezuela. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 10(2), 116–174. Molleda, J. C., Moreno, Á., Athaydes, A., & Suárez, A. M. (2010). Macroencuesta latinoamericana de comunicación y relaciones públicas. Organicom, 7(13), 118–141. Molleda, J. C., Kochhar, S., & Moreno, A. (2012). An intertwined future: Exploring the relationship between the levels of professionalism and social roles of public relations practitioners. In M. W. Distaso (Ed.). Public relations society of America: Educators academy (pp. 128–145). San Francisco: PRSA. Molleda, J. C. (2001). International paradigms: The Latin American school of public relations. Journalism Studies, 2(4), 513–530. Moreno, A., Molleda, J. C., Athaydes, A., & Suárez, A. M. (2015). Latin American Communication Monitor 2015. Excelencia en comunicación estratégica, trabajo en la era digital, social media y profesionalización. Resultados de una encuesta en 18 países. Morris, P. W., Crawford, L., Hodgson, D., Shepherd, M. M., & Thomas, J. (2006). Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession—The case of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 710–721. Nessmann, K. (1995). Public relations in Europe: A comparison with the United States. Public Relations Review, 21(2), 151–160. Niemann-Struweg, I., & Meintjes, C. (2008). The professionalism debate in South African public relations. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 224–229. Park, J. (2003). Discrepancy between Korean government and corporate practitioners regarding professional standards in public relations: A co-orientation approach. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(3), 249–275. Parsons, P. (2008). Ethics in public relations: A guide to best practice (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page. Pieczka, M., & L'Etang, J. (2001). Public relations and the question of professionalism. In R. L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations (pp. 223–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Public relations and the question of professionalism. Public relations: critical debates and contemporary practice. In M. Pieczka, & J. L’Etang (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Reyes, J. A., & Sawyer, W. C. (2016). Latin american economic development. New York: Routledge. The Holmes Report/ICCO (2015). Research: Optimism & attitudes. In The world PR report. Retrieved from http://www.holmesreport.com/ranking-and-data/world-prreport/research/optimism-attitudes. Sha, B. L. (2011). Does accreditation really matter in public relations practice? How age and experience compare to accreditation. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 1–11. Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (2002). International public relations: A framework for future research. Journal of Communication Management, 6(2), 103–117. Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (2003). A theoretical framework for global public relations research and practice Theory, research, and practice. The global public relations handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates1–19. Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (2009). The global public relations handbook: theory, research, and practice (Expended and revised edition). New York: Routledge. Sudhaman, A. (2016). Global pr industry hits $14bn in 2016 as growth slows to 5%. The holmes report. Retrieved from http://www.holmesreport.com/research/article/ global-pr-industry-hits-$14bn-in-2016-as-growth-slows-to-5. Verčič, D., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1996). Global and specific principles of public relations: Evidence from Slovenia. In H. M. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.). International public relations: a comparative analysis (pp. 31–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wilensky, H. (1964). The professionalisation of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 137–158. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research. An introduction. Boston: Cengage learning. Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2013). The relationship between the professionalization of public relations, societal social capital and democracy: Evidence from a crossnational study. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 257–270. Yang, A., & Taylor, M. (2014). A global perspective on public relations professionalism: Mapping the structure of public relations associations’ international networks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(3), 508–529.

10